1983-01-20

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 18, 1983, consideration of Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; and the motion of Mr. Gray (p. 21886) and the motion of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (p. 21889).
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill C-133 and the concern I have for the pensioners of this country who will be affected by this legislation. In two years, when pensions are supposed to be once more fully indexed, there will be a lower base with which to determine any necessary increases.
1 would also like to draw attention to the petty manner in which this federal Government has implemented its so-called restraint program. This 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent gesture is a gimmick. The federal Government claims that by reducing indexing the pension account will save $100 million. However, the Government neglects to point out that this money in the pension account belongs to contributing public sector workers, not the federal Government. Federal public sector workers are required by law to contribute 6.5 per cent of their salary to a pension account. They pay an additional 1 per cent of their salary to purchase pension indexation for inflation. The federal Government also neglected to point out that it borrows heavily from the pension fund to pay its deficit, so that while the accounts show $14 billion in the pension fund at the end of March, 1981, in fact that money does not exist in that account.
Earlier 1 made the point that, unlike Canada's decreasing working population, pensioners are not able to negotiate increases to their incomes to help them cope with rising prices.
The right of public sector employees to the collective bargaining process is now denied to that group also. Through no fault of their own, as they do not set policy, they are now being penalized for being public sector employees by the actions of an inept Government. Once this Government attacked current public sector employees, the writing was on the wall for public sector pensioners as well. I repeat that my
Party's support for Government restraint should not be misconstrued to mean that there is an agreement to limit the incomes of public sector pensioners.
The principal difference between Bill C-124 and this Bill relates to the actual pension account and whose money it really is. This federal Government is behaving as though the $100 million it proposes that the pension account will save does not rightly belong to the pensioners. The contributions that have been deducted from the pay of public service employees rightfully belongs to those individuals. I might add that pension plans registered under the Canadian Income Tax Act are prohibited by law from reducing either accrued benefits or any right to a supplementary pension in respect of those accrued benefits. This federal Government is now about to take the kind of action vis-a-vis its own pension recipients that has been specifically legislated against in the case of private pension plans.
In the case of the administration of the pension fund, public sector workers have demonstrated not only good faith but trust that the federal Government would administer the pension fund for the benefit of its contributors. Not very many retired civil servants can look forward to the lush pension arrangement the federal Government gave to Michael Pitfield, or to the Liberal example of restraint which was to increase the salary of the Liberal Party President by 140 per cent. The six and five window dressing applies only to pensioners, not Liberal Party friends, as these cases demonstrate.
Credibility is what this Government needs to restore the sort of economic climate that will encourage investment. Bill C-133 sets a poor example for employer and employee relations, particularly when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made a call to smooth differences, to work together and to show a little trust.
The Government states that this action is necessary to reduce inflation. If the federal Government had any faith in its own program, it would find that it would not be necessary to legislate six and five or 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent, as inflation would be at those levels and indexing of pensions would reflect this. It would be ironic if 18 months hence this Government finds itself paying pensions higher than the rate of inflation.
U0)
The fact of the matter is that if the Government had better managed the economy, the capping Bills would not have been necessary. The OECD results that placed Canada twenty-fourth out of 24 countries in fighting inflation demonstrates a
COMMONS DEBATES_________________January 20, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
total lack of control. This is what Canadians can expect from a Prime Minister who thinks that during Christmas they were skiing or in the Caribbean. That should give a few chuckles to seniors or the unemployed. The Prime Minister should not dismiss the Bishops' statements so quickly. He might learn that the grim realities faced at Christmas by the 1.5 million unemployed in this country did not include a Caribbean holiday.
The fast-rising deficit demonstrates how this Government is out of control. Due to the Government's lack of confidence in its own recovery program, it will seek security through the reallocation of $100 million of Public Service pension money, which rightfully belongs to its contributors, to other uses, such as funding the estimated $30 billion deficit that will be imposed on Canadians.
Furthermore, pension money which the federal Government is trying to raid from the employee pension fund is a paltry sum compared to the millions involved in the Petro-Canada takeovers which do not create one new job, the billions of dollars to Dome Petroleum and the $34 million to an undeserving Maislin Transport, as well as the millions of dollars spent on bail-outs that will provide no long-term job opportunities to Canadians.
In closing, I ask the federal Government to demonstrate some faith in its own recovery program. Bill C-133 only contributes to an attitude of suspicion and mistrust.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-133, to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The Government is anxious to terminate debate on this Bill and thereby have pensioners pay for the Government's irresponsible handling of their pension account.
I support my colleague, the Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), in his claim that the Government's move to invoke closure is absolutely reprehensible. Not only is it reprehensible, it is also condemnable.
The Conservative Party has steadfastly supported Public Service pensioners in their fight to defeat a Bill which takes $165 million away from pensioners, a segment which is often least able to defend its rights and protect its standard of living. The Conservative Party is well aware that public employees pay 7.5 per cent of their salary to support their pension plan. The private sector employee contributions seldom exceed 5 per cent and are frequently less.
Benefits paid from the plan to date have been more heavily financed by employees than by their employer. Of $1,360 million paid out between October, 1981 and September, 1982, employees contributed $735 million compared to the Government's $625 million.
The Conservative Government of 1979-80 was able to trim $500 million from the federal Budget without any income penalties to retired civil servants or senior citizens in general. Approximately $445 million would be paid out of benefits this year, according to the Treasury Board, and $420 million will come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, with only $25 million covered by the contributions made by pensioners when they were employed. This is due to the fact that, while the plan
was only implemented in 1979, the benefits are extended to all retired public servants whether or not they contributed to the fund. As time goes on, the drain on the CRF will diminish and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account will pay a larger share of the benefits. The total cost of indexing the pension was approximately 4.5 per cent of the payroll from regular public servants last year. Pensions for the Armed Forces and some other groups are administered separately.
There is a paper figure of $15.5 billion in the Public Service Superannuation Account. The present employees' contribution rate of 1 per cent of salary to the SRBA provides for only a 1.5 per cent inflation rate in the future, according to the Treasury Board.
An actuarial analysis claims that the total surplus of $15.5 billion in the superannuation account is sufficient to meet future benefit payments and the accrued interest on this account, especially if it were invested at a high rate of interest, would be more than adequate to cover the cost of pension indexation. Records show that Public Service employees have contributed more to the pension plan than their employer. I suggest that Government-employer contributions to the PSSA and SRBA be investigated to determine if they have been adequate.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has previously committed the Government to full indexation of Public Service pensions as a right earned during working years. His Ministers previously defended the plan and argued that the Government could not break its contract with public employee pensioners by reducing indexation. I would suggest that the Liberal Government is working in reverse. There are other areas on which the Liberal Government should be focusing its sights. The Government should eliminate waste and mismanagement within the federal Government. By eliminating the waste and mismanagement which is in the billions of dollars, inflation will drop and indexing will look after itself. We will not have to worry about indexing once we get Government spending under control.
To give some examples of waste, we could start by considering the document I have in my hand, copies of which have been widely distributed across Canada. 1 also have in my hand a transcript of the Prime Minister's broadcast to the nation on the economy. There was absolutely no need for this document to be printed. No one is interested at all; it is just an absolute waste of money. In his broadcast, the Prime Minister said: "Of course I am concerned about waste, very concerned; where we find it, we will weed it out''. Those were empty, meaningless words. The man does not mean what he says, and he never has since he took over the country in 1968. We heard these statements starting in 1968, and we are hearing them again in 1983. He does not mean what he is saying; if he did, he would not allow a document like this to be printed and distributed. It would just end up in the trash can.
January 20, 1983

Repeated reference has been made to the Joyal-Davey report on the six and five program. It is the most expensive Liberal householder which has been put out in Canadian history. It is just propaganda and is not required. It is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and is simply not needed. We receive the Auditor General's report every year, but the only difference between last year's and this year's report is that this one is worse than last year's. They never get any better.
The Liberals have been in office since 1968, and they have no intention of eliminating waste, mismanagement and duplication. They have proven that time and time again. One must simply read the Auditor General's document to find that out, because it gets thicker every year, not thinner, and the horror stories mount up.
The Auditor General pointed out that about $16 billion is missing some place. An article in the Ottawa Citizen dated November 2, 1982, stated:
Auditor General Kenneth Dye has again proved that his federal Government is at worst not competent to manage money, and at best reluctant to let us know how they handle it.
This is the understatement of the year.
So what are we doing? We are debating a Bill to cut pensions and retirement benefits. The Government is starting at the wrong end. It is very easy to cut pensions. Anyone can go out and cut pensions. However, why does it not implement the recommendations in the Auditor General's report? I have not heard any Liberals discussing that during the debate.
I have in my hand a research paper which is full of horror stories within the Liberal Government. I would simply like to read a couple of examples for the record. One states:
Spending "cut" by juggling the book. In order to present the illusion of slower spending growth, the Government has changed its accounting system by netting out petroleum taxes against petroleum compensation payments. Thus, through a wave of an accountant's magic wand, spending on a public accounts basis is "cut" by $2.7 billion in the current (1982-83) fiscal year.
That is an example of the type of bookkeeping of the Liberal Government. I guess that in order to account for the $2.7 billion, the Government will reduce old age pensions. The item continues:
Perhaps the next accounting trip of the Government will be to say that "Income taxes are really a public debt tax, and as such interest on the debt does not cost the Government anything". The logic of this is the same as the logic used by the Government in saying that it does not cost anything to subsidize imported oil.
This is another example of juggling the books. I say: Never mind juggling the books; start balancing the books and start spending the money properly. In this respect the federal Government could well look at the Province of Manitoba and how it pays for its indexing. The Roblin Government set up a plan some years ago whereby pension money is invested to cover the indexing of civil servants in Manitoba. All the indexing comes from the investment of their funds, not from taxes or from general revenues. It is one of the best pension plans in Canada and it is unfortunate that the federal Government did not implement a similar plan. There is no question that the federal pension plans could stand some improvement in the way they are handled. The indexing in Manitoba is not a
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
drain on the taxpayers of Manitoba; it is a sound, well-administered pension plan and it is most unfortunate that the Liberal Government did not study this plan. If it had, we would not be in the mess we are in today.
I want to point out at this time that I am voting against this amendment.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some brief comments on the amendment which is before us and the Bill we are dealing with. I do not think it is possible to deal with this Bill without thinking out the implications of four pieces of legislation. I remember well in August, when Bill C-124 was brought forward, the Bill to implement the six and five program, the indecent haste with which the Conservative Party dashed across the floor to embrace the Liberals in their efforts to cut the incomes of civil servants.
How well I remember the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as he rose and said they were prepared to pass the Bill post haste, without debate if necessary. I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying: "It is too little, too late, but it is a step in the right direction". Now we have the hypocrisy.
However, we are now dealing with the fall-out, the consequences of the Tories' inability to see the Liberal duplicity. That is the difficulty we are now facing in this country, the difficulty with which many seniors and all mothers of children are now being faced. I say to the Conservatives that they should be ashamed of themselves.
Let us look at the legislative program. We have before us three Bills. The Bill we are now discussing will limit the entitlement of civil service retirees for the rest of their natural lives. This is not a minor thing; this is a major thrust by the Government. It could not have happened if the Tories had not supported the Government originally; nevertheless now we have it. The Bill ought to be withdrawn. If there was ever a time for this legislation, if it could have been justified-and I say quite bluntly on behalf of myself and my colleagues that we do not believe it was ever justified-but if there was ever a time when it could be said that this kind of measure was appropriate, the time has passed. The mood in the country is now quite different. The sense among those who are most affected is one of outrage. The belief of the majority of Canadian citizens that this is not the kind of legislative action that is necessary has become evident from every single statement by those who support both the Conservatives and Liberals, and it is now becoming a clear violation of what the majority of economists believe is necessary for this country.
I point out that not only did the Catholic Bishops quite justifiably say that a social conscience was desperately needed in dealing with the income capacities and purchasing power of those who were less advantaged than others, for example, seniors, those who are raising families, those who are on extremely low incomes. Not only did they say we needed to take a new look at this legislative program, but Ian Sinclair, the chairman of the six and five committee, has said-and he

January 20, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
is the Government's representative-that at this time, with current economic conditions, we need new direction. We need direction even if it means that there will be a higher deficit in the country. We have to re-focus our attention on income capability and job creation. We have to look at the economy. Six and five applied to Public Service pensioners, any other pensioners or to family incomes is not the answer to creating purchasing power in this country.
We said this at the beginning and we continue to say it: the legislation should be withdrawn. Bills C-133, C-132 and C-131 should be taken back to the drawing board, looked at and scrapped. A new program for stimulation should be brought forward by this Government, one that will increase employment and give people income capacity. That is what this Government should bring forward.
We say to the Government it is not too late. It does not have to go on with this ridiculous proposal it has placed before the House of Commons; there is no reason for it. It is outdated. If it ever had a time, that time has passed.
We ask the Government to reconsider this Bill seriously. If it is not yet satisfied that the program now before us does not have the support of the majority of Canadians, it should send these Bills back to committee. Let the committee travel across the country. Divide it into panels and let the committee hear the views of those most affected. Let it hear them in Vancouver, St. John's, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City and every other community across the country. Let us find out and do what the public wants for a change. I say to the Government, take the Bills out of the Order Paper, put them back in the committee and send the committee out to the people. I am positive as I stand here that the committee would come back and recommend that these pieces of legislation not be proceeded with.
Equally important, there is a serious question about the legality of one of the pieces of legislation now being implemented. I ask the Government to make a reference to a Supreme Court judge and ask for a judgment on it. Let us find out who is right. The Government back room manipulators say it is legal; lawyers on the other side say it is not. Surely in those circumstances the Government ought to recognize its responsibility, take the right course of action and ask for a legal opinion.
Should the Government decide, in its misguided judgment, to proceed with the legislation, for heaven's sake do not make it retroactive. If the Government decides it has to go ahead, for God's sake do not impose it retroactively.
Finally, I say to the Government to make use of the time. To further harass and reduce the income capacity of those at the bottom end of the scale is outrageous. To push ahead with it now is ridiculous. It is inhuman; it will create great hardship. Let us address the real problems in this country. Come forward with some proposals for economic recovery, job creation and other proposals that will put this country back on the road to success.
Do not push ahead with the legislative program now before us. For heaven's sake, stop and think about it, those of you who are here on the Government benches. The Tories have come grudgingly to the view that what they once supported is no longer supportable. I say to the Liberals, for God's sake think of what you are doing. Consider the impact on those who have now retired, whether they be public service retirees or retirees who worked in other parts of the economy.
Consider this. These people are not being denied some income for a year or two; they are being asked to reduce their income for the rest of their lives. For heaven's sake, it is not necessary. It is wrong-headed, economically stupid and defies all logic. It flies in the face of the Government's own advisers' advice. It pays no recognition to what the spiritual leaders of this country are advising. It does not even recognize what the banks' senior administrative officers are now saying ought to be done. Those are your supporters, for heaven's sake. Listen to those senior corporate people, if you cannot listen to us. If the Government thinks that the Tories cannot be trusted because it does not know where they stand, although I agree, I say, listen to them on this occasion and for heaven's sake withdraw the legislation.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-133 knowing full well, as others do, that the Government moved yesterday to close off debate on this very important piece of legislation. It did this knowing full well that many Hon. Members in this House still wish to address the provisions of Bill C-133. It knows there is growing opposition to the measures contained in this Bill across the country, not only from the trade union movement but from a growing number of concerned citizens. In fact, if the Government were to listen at all to the media attention which has been paid to this Bill, not only on the commentary pages but on the editorial pages right across this country, it would recognize that the support it believes it has for this piece of legislation is dissipating very quickly. I believe that is probably why the Government is moving to shut up debate in this House on this very important piece of legislation.
In the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, Members in my Party have been extremely critical of the position which the Conservative Party took in supporting Bill C-124 at the beginning of August, as my colleague from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) just mentioned. I believe we have been absolutely right in levelling that criticism. I know that many Members of the Conservative Party do not like to hear us make that criticism; nonetheless, I believe it to be quite accurate and quite true. In fact, many Members of the Conservative Party have spoken to me since then and said if they had known what the Government was really doing under the six and five program, they would never have voted for that piece of legislation in the first place. And I am quite sure that many of them regret their support of the Government for the six and five program.
January 20, 1983

I have received numerous letters from constituents and from Canadians across the country who will be seriously affected if this piece of legislation is in fact enacted. One gentleman in my own riding, a Mr. Wilson, a retired public servant, has sat down with me on several occasions to express his concern about what is going to happen to his income once this legislation has been passed. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this gentleman is a rather bitter Canadian these days when he considers the kind of service he has given to this country through the Public Service and now the Government is turning around and saying to him: "Look, even though you bought inflation protection through deferred income, even though you bought that inflation protection specifically, we are now going to renege on that and not give you the full inflation protection you thought you had bought".
I have heard many Members of the Government stand up here and try to defend the indefensible which is contained in this piece of legislation. It is typical of this Government, and of that particular Party over there, that it is doing this kind of thing again, breaking the social contract, if not the legal contract that it has with Canadians. It was not so long ago, in 1977, for example, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself said that pensioners were the victims and not the cause of inflation. In a letter to the Public Service Alliance in 1977 he in fact said, and I quote:
Thank you for your telegram of September 27.1 have noted your concern that the indexation of Government pensions be maintained.
In our society, pensions provide a means of sharing risk so that we can retire in reasonable security and dignity, without fear of the future. Protecting pensions from inflation by indexing them to increases in the cost of living should be an integral part of our pension schemes. Indexing does not give pensioners an increasingly larger claim on our economy's production, that is, more money to buy things they could not earlier afford. Rather, indexing merely enables pensioners to maintain, roughly, their same standard of living.
Even a modest rate of inflation destroys, at a devastating rate, the buying power of people on fixed incomes. Pensioners are out of the workforce and cannot bargain or strike for larger incomes. They are not the cause of inflation; they are its victim.
Many other Canadians, as well as myself, have become rather used to this kind of Liberal about-face where they make promises, give assurances, even go on national television to pontificate to Canadians about the need for trust between people in this country, and they then turn around in the most hypocritical fashion and stick it to people such as those on fixed incomes, and pensioners in particular. They would be of more service to Canadians if they were to address the real problems in this country today rather than attack those who are at least able to defend themselves.
In this country today, as the Leader of my Party indicated the other day, the real unemployment rate is in excess of two million people. Unemployment is without question the major problem which Canadians face today. The Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, made reference to this in a recent document which has received wide attention across the country. They said, in part, and I quote:
-greater emphasis should be given to the goal of social responsibility in the current recession. This means that every effort must be made to curtail cutbacks
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
in social services, maintain adequate health care and social security benefits, and above, all, guarantee special assistance for the unemployed, welfare recipients, the working poor and one-industry towns suffering from plant shutdowns.
I totally agree, Mr. Speaker, that is the emphasis and direction this Government should go in. But rather than that, it has chosen to take a swipe at people who are at the low end of the income scale, who are least able to defend themselves, such as senior citizens, retired public servants, Family Allowance recipients, and all the rest.
The Conservative Party is standing up in this House also defending the position which they took last August in supporting the Government in this horrendous piece of legislation. They are standing up now and saying: "We are in favour of restraint, but not really restraint, especially when it could reflect on the electoral chances we may have in the next election". They now see the kind of opposition which has been generated in the country against this offensive piece of legislation. But although the Conservative Members may want to stand up here and make those attempts to convince Canadians that they were not serious when they did that kind of thing, I suggest it is an integral part of the philosophy of that Party to go along with the kinds of initiatives this Government has taken. In fact, at the Tory conference held early in 1981 the Party conducted a questionnaire among the delegates. Then they did something I thought they may have been reluctant to do; they actually issued the results of this questionnaire so that the public could see quite clearly exactly the position they would take if they were ever, unfortunately, elected to form the Government of this country.
For example, 62 per cent of the delegates said quite clearly that they favoured a reduction in Family Allowance outlays, compared with 30 per cent who would leave these unchanged. Asked how they would categorize their economic views, 66 per cent of the delegates described themselves as being either to the right of the average Canadian or much further to the right. As for their social views, 58 per cent put themselves to the far right of the average Canadian.
I hear one of the more right-wing Members of the Conservative Party. He was probably discouraged at the relatively low percentage who said they were as right-wing as he was. He complains about the statement I just made. But the fact is that it is not something I dreamt up, Mr. Speaker. The Tories have said it themselves. Certainly their actions when they were the Government would clearly show to all Canadians that if they were ever elected, they would be as bad as, if not worse than, that crowd over there.
I see my time has run out, Mr. Speaker, so therefore I will end on that happy note.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a few minutes on behalf of Quebec and most emphatically against the bill now under consideration. 1 have every reason to believe that very few Quebec Members have

January 20, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
shown even the slightest sympathy for these pensioners, and in view of the correspondence I have received, especially during the holidays, and also considering the commitment made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few years ago, I believe it is my duty to take the strongest possible stand against the proposal now before the House.
Mr. Speaker, people say that we supported the principle of 6 and 5 policy, and they would also have the public believe that the Progressive Conservative Party has changed its mind. We were aware of the difficult situation they had put the Government in, and we are also aware of the economic disaster for which the Government must take the responsibility. Some time ago, the Prime Minister of Canada made an appeal to the nation, to all organizations and even to the Members of the Opposition, asking them to help him get Canada out of the present recession for which he himself, I feel, is partially responsible. We did want to try once more, and we shall probably regret it, to trust the Prime Minister, and considering our responsibilities as Members of this House, we had a duty to help Canadians get out of this recession as painlessly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, to get back to the information and complaints I received from a number of public servants who live in Quebec, this morning, in the few minutes at my disposal, I want to let those 20,000 retired public servants in Quebec know, and on their behalf I want to say that our party will do everything it can to obstruct this bill, which we feel is entirely unfair and certainly does not live up to the very important promise made by the Prime Minister of Canada in 1968, when he told us that he was going to create a Just Society in this country. I also know that there are now 86,000 federal employees living in Quebec and an additional 45,000 who work for Crown corporations.
I feel that as the only Quebec Member of the Opposition in the House, I have a duty, on behalf of those thousands of Quebecers, to at least ask my Quebec colleagues to show the sympathy and compassion they have been unwilling to show until now.
Furthermore, I think it is very important that the people of Quebec should know about the commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) a few years ago to provide for and support a pension plan that would provide a decent living. In this connection, I would like to recall, as did one of my colleagues here in the House, a letter written by the Prime Minister of Canada to Mr. Power, letting him know what the Prime Minister of Canada's views were on the subject of pensioners. In our society, he said, pensions provide a means of sharing risk so that we can retire in reasonable security and dignity, without fear of the future. Protecting pensions from inflation by indexing them to increases in the cost of living should be an integral part of our pension schemes. Indexing, he said, does not give pensioners an increasingly larger claim on our economy's production, that is, more money to buy things
they could not earlier afford. Rather, indexing merely enables pensioners to maintain, roughly, their same standard of living. Even a modest rate of inflation destroys, at a devastating rate, the buying power of people on fixed incomes. Pensioners are out of the work force and cannot bargain or strike for larger incomes. Indexing does not give pensioners an increasingly larger claim on our economy's production. Rather, indexing merely enables pensioners to maintain, roughly, their same standard of living. Pensioners are out of the work force and cannot bargain or strike for larger incomes. They are not the cause of inflation; they are its victim. We have an obligation to help protect them.
That, Mr. Speaker, was what the Prime Minister of Canada said, probably as part of that solemn promise he had made to create a Just Society. Today, the House is considering legislation that goes directly against the principles we have supported and intend to support once more. I think that in any case it is our duty, as Members of this House, to recall the commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada, and if the attitude taken by the Government today cannot be called a fundamental betrayal of the Prime Minister's commitment, then I wonder what it can be called, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Prime Minister is away on a trip at the present time, and he must be very glad not to have to face the speeches being made here in the House of Commons, and if we were obliged to vote before the Prime Minister gets back, he would probably be equally delighted not to have to betray his own commitment to these pensioners.


Mr. Gauthier:: He came back yesterday!


Roch La Salle: He came back yesterday. In the circumstances, he will have an opportunity to vote and explain how he can betray his commitment to these pensioners. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am launching a special appeal to the Members from Quebec, on behalf of 130,000 public servants, either retired or still working in the public service and living in Quebec. I believe it is my duty to remind those members from my own province that, at the very least, they must support the commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada. It is not the first time that the Prime Minister ignores his commitments, but I do not want to go into that. I shall have other opportunities to show that the Prime Minister has not always kept his promises. How can we possibly hesitate and not be totally honest towards these people deserve all our respect and who have helped us build our society? It is solely on behalf of these thousands of people that I rise today in this House, Mr. Speaker, to ask my colleagues from Quebec to show first some honesty concerning the commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada and then a minimum of sympathy for the needs of pensioners in view of the present economic conditions, and at the same time, of course, to keep the promises made by the government to public servants.

January 20, 1983 _______________________ COMMONS DEBATES________________________________________________
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
I believe that my time has already expired, Mr. Speaker, but I trust that Hon. Members from my province will take this opportunity to reject a bill which 1 find completely unacceptable for all those who will be personally affected. Of course, there will be other speeches and other pressures to be made concerning family allowances, old age security, and especially the piece of legislation known as Bill C-133. 1 believe that we cannot accept the position taken by the Government and its proposals. We were aware that the income of active workers might be restricted in view of the present economic situation, but we would never have thought that the Government would attack the pensioners. If we had been told about this at the start, the Government would never have received the support of my party for its 6 and 5 program. We were misled because this was kept from us, Mr. Speaker! We were not told about it! We are now aware of it and we believe that it is important and vital for us to object to such a measure, and that it is our duty to ask and urge one last time our colleagues from Quebec to do what I am now doing and to promise these public servants that we will fight and vote against this measure because it is discriminatory, unfair and goes against the promise of the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) concerning what was once called a just society and what is now becoming increasingly unjust, as is evidenced once again today.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that my colleagues have understood my message correctly.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) would allow a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 must tell the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that his time has already expired. A question can therefore be allowed only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. The Hon. Member for Joliette spoke for about 10 minutes and I listened very carefully. Is he aware that the motion of his colleague for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has been grouped with that of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and does he support the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, if the Government wants to make a change which could be of some help to the pensioners, we are quite willing to agree. However, I am still convinced that the bill as a whole is a breach of a commitment made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada on behalf of his party. We find this unfortunate and regrettable. Because of this, if some improvement can be made, we will vote in favour
of it, but I am still convinced that this improvement is clearly inadequate.


Mr. Maltais:: Would the Hon. Member agree to a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Once again, there has to be unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to ask his question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Joliette whether it would not be preferable to try capping at 6 and 5 per cent the old age security benefits of people who are entitled to them and use that money to create jobs for younger people about whom the elderly are so concerned. Moreover, I would like to know whether the funds thus saved are used to create jobs for young people. Would older people then not consider the six and five measure more interesting, and I wonder whether the Hon. Member for Joliette would be in favour of that kind of solution?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the way the legislation now stands, it seems to me that the Government could recoup $100 million. If the Government simply needs $100 million, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might cut down by one third on its ministers' and members' junkets. This, I think, would be a way to find the $100 million. Another way of recuperating $100 million would be to sell back the 80,000 acres of farm land at Mirabel. There are other sectors where expenditures could be slashed instead of this money being taken out of the pockets of the elderly and retired people. That is what 1 deplore indeed. Expenditures ought to be cut down in fields where savings could be made without hurting anyone. I fully agree with the Hon. Member that we must direct our efforts towards the creation of jobs for younger people. They do experience an employment crisis, but the fact remains that when this Government came to office 15 years ago we only had 300,000 people out of work whereas their ranks have swollen to nearly 2 million today. I would suggest to my colleagues across the floor that directing questions to the Official Opposition and attempting to hold us responsible for the mess we are in now is not the way to solve the problem, in my opinion. The Government has flopped miserably in the economic sector, to say the least and it is now attacking the elderly and retired people and requiring them to make sacrifices. If the Government wants to help young people get jobs, it could find more appropriate ways to cut down its expenditures.


André Maltais: Perhaps I should ask the Hon. Member for Joliette whether he is aware that the most needy senior citizens are still eligible for the income supplement. The question I want to ask him is this: does the Hon. Member for Joliette agree that those funds be set aside not only for the elderly but for other sectors where the 6 and 5 per cent limit applies,

January 20, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act {No. 2)
provided that the money be used to help young people, does the Hon. Member agree with that principle?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am all in favour of the Government doing its utmost to create jobs for young people. The current situation is that young people account for 40 per cent of the unemployed. They are deeply concerned and they have almost given up any hope for the future. The Government must accept responsibility for that, but it does not have the right to get on the backs of senior citizens and retired people in its attempt to correct a situation for which it is responsible in the first place. Under these circumstances, the six and five policy may be acceptable to those who earn a good income, but I am squarely against attacking needy people who do require essential services. These government policies will affect people who cannot afford any lowering of their standards of living. We should ask those who are better off to accept a wiser redistribution of funds, but 1 still maintain that the Government has made a wrong decision as a result of which it will be singled out as the main culprit for this untenable situation, and that is my answer to the Hon. Member for Manicouagan who does entertain lofty principles. Of course, I agree with him, but, indeed, the Prime Minister of Canada had advocated and defended a commendable principle with respect to retired people, but today he throws that principle overboard in the piece of legislation now being considered. That is why we blame the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It seems to me Hon. Members will have no difficulties with the Chair if they seek the floor to continue exchanging that kind of questions and answers.

Hon. Members have no difficulty with the Chair if the House wishes to persist in giving its unanimous consent to an exchange of questions and answers, but I have to seek unanimous consent every once in a while. Is there unanimous consent for an exchange of questions and answers?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Maltais: My question is this, Mr. Speaker. I suggest the Hon. Member for Joliette is making a commendable attempt to support the 6 and 5 program which is designed to provide money for job creation, but when he talks about justice, is he aware that our senior citizens who are really destitute will be entitled to a fully indexed income supplement? This is not at all inconsistent with the concept of a just society. I wish all pensioners were entitled to a full indexation. In view of the manner in which the Government will apply the 6 and 5 program, however, our senior citizens who are really destitute will be entitled to a fully indexed income supplement. Is the Hon. Member for Joliette aware of that fact?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Hon. Member for Manicouagan that I am indeed quite aware of that fact. We are dealing today with Bill C-133; we will have the opportunity to deal with OAS some other time, but I am shocked to find today that the Prime Minister will not keep the promise he made to public servants and tomorrow, we will have comments to make about the bill to amend the Old Age Security Pension Act.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) accept a question?


André Maltais: Yes.


Walter David Baker: Could he tell me what aspect of Government policy has worked to create employment in Canada? Could he lay his seat on the line and tell me categorically any policies that he sees in the future which will work to create employment in the country? Why is it necessary for him to support some mythical Liberal policy with respect to employment which attacks the least defensible of society, namely, senior citizens and retired public servants who paid for their benefits? Why is the Hon. Member supporting such a breach of contract?
[ Translation]


André Maltais: In short, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the current crisis is worldwide and that it should be borne by all Canadians. both young and old. Moreover, early last fall, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) announced that programs totalling over $1 billion would be implemented to create jobs and start the economy moving again. One cannot give what one does not have, and what really matters is that all Canadians assume their share of the burden in the best interests of Canada.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member not aware of the wasted squandering of public money on the purchases by Petro-Canada of something Petro-Canada did not need in a period of emergency? Is the Hon. Member not aware of that? Does the Hon. Member not have enough imagination to consider that there are other programs which the Government could look to which would provide the capital for the programs that he thinks would work, without attacking senior citizens and retired public servants?


Neil Young: And little kids.


Walter David Baker: Is he satisfied with the morality of the Government from that point of view?


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that first of all, Petro-Canada holds a very bright future for Canadians. Through this Corporation, Canadians can invest in their own natural ressources, and being from a northern riding
January 20, 1983

myself, 1 can say that we are all very proud of the oil exploration being done in this country. I also wish to point out, for the information of the Opposition, that if research is carried out in co-operation with Petro-Canada, this will be a tremendous stimulus for technological development, especially since in my riding, we are facing the situation created by the Iron Ore Company, and lay-offs as well, and if research on iron ore could have been done with other companies, we might not be as badly off as we are now. In the proposals by Petro-Canada, it says that there will be research in the petro-chemical sector, and this means it will be possible to provide truly creative jobs for young people jobs with a future. I hope the opposition parties understand that the present Government and Canadians support job creation in the high technology sector. Whatever our political affiliations may be, Petro-Canada represents an asset for Canadians. The public may think Petro-Canada is expensive, but in fact, it is not costing Canadians a cent. The corporation is financed with revenues from oil, from the gas purchased by people who want to use their cars and from purchases of oil products. It is therefore entirely wrong to say that Petro-Canada is being paid for with the taxpayers' money.
I would like to point out to all opposition parties and the government side as well that if private companies were to make the same effort to carry out research as Petro-Canada is doing and intends to do in the oil sector and oil products, I think Canada's future would be as rosy as that of Petro-Canada itself.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman another question. Has he run across any young persons who are prepared to agree with him that it is morally right to carry out the programs that he says the Government intends which will attack senior citizens?
Has the Hon. Member been lobbied by those people that it is imperative the Government cut old age pensions and pensions which have been bought and paid for? Has he run into anyone so heartless? Is that the reason the Hon. Member agrees with the Government Bill, or has the Hon. Member lost all sense of balance with respect to the matter itself?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Manicouagan-

-may I just remind Hon. Members that I have, 1 think, three times sought unanimous consent for an exchange of questions and replies. There is no difficulty in continuing if it is the mood and the will of the House. Therefore, until I hear some indication that Hon. Members wish to revert to Bill C-133, we will continue in the present direction.


André Maltais: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House that in addition to the young people I met, for the information of the Hon. Member, I also met
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
senior citizens who told me: We are prepared to do our share as Canadians in helping the Canadian economy to recover, so that young people, our grandchildren, will have jobs. I would go even further. Being young myself, I feel that the elderly, our senior citizens in Canada, deserve to get even more than 6, 12 or 30 per cent, because they are the people who built this country. However, there comes a time when there is a limit to what the budget can bear. We must act responsibly, and I certainly do not think that either the Government or the Opposition are out to restrict aid to senior citizens. As I said before, the aim of the Government is to have all Canadians contribute their fair share towards relieving the economic recession, and if anyone asks me whether I have met any young Canadians who were prepared to attack senior citizens, my answer is that I have not, and that the Hon. Member opposite is the one who brought up the word attack. We are merely concerned with distributing benefits fairly and allowing everyone to do his fair share. If we manage to bring down inflation, this will increase the purchasing power of senior citizens and improve their standard of living. That is what the present government is aiming at, and I think this is perfectly clear to Members on both sides of the House.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House I would like to participate in this very lively debate and put a question to the Hon. Member.
1 notice that the Government over the last number of months has put a great deal of stock in listening to the advice of the blue chip community of Canada, seeking the advice of business leaders and particularly the advisory group headed up recently by Mr. Ian Sinclair. We read this morning that Mr. Sinclair and his blue chip group has now looked at the six and five program and has deemed it no longer appropriate.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Sinclair has talked with the leaders of Canada's Government and said that it is now time to divert our attention away from six and five and into job creation.
If the Government has been listening to the blue chip business community up to this point and the blue chip community now advises the Government that it is time to move away from its preoccupation with six and five and into job creation, about which the Hon. Member obviously feels very strongly, is it not time now to show good faith on behalf of the Government, pull out this legislation which will not add a single job- and 1 am simply following the advice of the blue chip community-and strike another committee in an effort not to impose five and six, but to impose job creation programs in Canada?


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to emphasize a basic element of our economic system: if industries are to invest, we must first of all appreciate our currency, and the purpose of our anti-inflationary 6 and 5 program is to

January 20, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
strengthen the Canadian dollar so that industries can invest. I should like to emphasize also, for the information of Efon. members, that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister, who is present today in the House, have set up task forces which, in consultation with representatives of the private sector and the various industries, are seeking very positive ways and means not to create jobs, but to encourage both Canadian and foreign interests to invest in Canada and thus create jobs.
Our meetings with these economic agents have led to the following conclusion: all these economic agents demand as a prerequisite that we wrestle inflation to the ground. Personally, I am eager to fight unemployment. But it is impossible to create jobs when our currency is worthless. It would be like asking a farmer to sow his fields with sterile seeds. Nobody will agree to work for money that is worthless. Money must retain its value, and that is why the government, at the request of economic agents and other groups, decided to fight inflation first and foremost. We are making progress already. The inflation rate is coming down, which shows that the policies of the Government of Canada are working. Then, after inflation has been brought under control, new investments will be made. And if the Hon. Member does not believe in Canada's future, let him consider what is happening in the United States. He should find comfort in the realization that investments have already started again there.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's answer and I just have a follow-up question for him. If he is concerned about the attitude of the investment community about creating long-term jobs, if the blue chip committee which is in place to advise the Government was to recommend the abandonment of the six and five program at this point, if the bankers of Canada who obviously have a sensitivity toward investment in the country were also to advise abandonment of the program at this point, would the Hon. Member admit that it is perhaps time to withdraw the six and five program as it applies to senior citizens of Canada, mothers and children of Canada and to retired Armed Forces, RCMP and civil servants?
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, 1 would point out first of all that the 6 and 5 program is voluntary for Canada as a whole. It is compulsory for the Canadian Government because the salaries and benefits paid by the Government represent approximately 40 per cent of total Government expenditures. This is why the Canadian Government has made it compulsory for the federal Public Service and those who receive benefits under various programs. I believe that the private sector has already given encouraging support to the 6 and 5 program and would have agreed to much harsher measures to reduce the increases in
welfare and old age security benefits as well as Public Service pensions.
We are already protecting our senior citizens and public servants with the 6 and 5 program. If we had listened to the private sector which favoured much more drastic action than the Government, we would perhaps now find ourselves with a situation somewhat similar to that which prevails in Quebec, with rollbacks of 20 per cent and so on. Members of Parliament were against such action and were in favour of the most basic of equity for Canadian citizens and recipients of Government benefits and this is why we have a 6 and 5 program. Moreover, I would like to remind Hon. Members that the 6 and 5 program was viewed as an unacceptable policy at the time of the meeting of federal and provincial Ministers of Finance in Halifax last year and that the 6 and 5 program is now accepted by nearly everyone and that even public servants in various provinces and the federal Government agree with this policy of restrictions because it is much better than the policy of minus 20 per cent applied by certain irresponsible people.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three questions for the Hon. Member as well. He mentioned that he supported Petro-Canada. Does he support the fact that they have spent thousands of dollars to construct an office building in Calgary and that scores of those offices have been empty for several weeks? Would it not have been better to spend that money on senior citizens, old age pensioners and retired civil servants who are unable to defend themselves?
t Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I do not claim the Government is always one hundred percent right, but I would like to examine the case proposed by the Hon. Member before answering. Since I do not know all the details I would rather not reply, but I am prepared to examine them if they are given to me.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to this House that both sides have now been asking questions back and forth for nearly twenty minutes. Granted, it is an important and very interesting debate, but we are now considering an amendment to Bill C-133 and I wish Hon. Members would debate it because the time allowed is limited. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the House could consider the Government legislation and proceed with the reading of the next motion. I do not see anyone rising, so I presume the House will pass on to motion No. 4.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, as a courtesy, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) might allow one more question.
1 wonder if the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) is at all concerned that those opinion-makers in the
January 20, 1983

country are now quite clearly questioning the value of proceeding with this general legislative framework, given the current economic conditions within the country? Has he considered whether there would be general agreement that conditions are quite different today from those which existed in August of 1982 when the Government first introduced its program and that it might be useful for the Government to postpone its headlong dash toward approval of this legislation in order to analyse the economic changes that have taken place, the social effects of those changes and to review the new opinions that are being expressed by many people, including the chairman of the six and five committee, the presidents of a number of the larger financial institutions and the spiritual leaders of the country?
In light of those fairly dramatic shifts, has he considered whether it might not be advisable to draw back and review the over-all situation to determine whether this kind of legislation is necessary and appropriate?

Mir. Mlaltais: Mr. Speaker, if you are putting the question to me, I would say that I think we must maintain the six and five policy until the rate of inflation is down to 1 or 2 per cent.


Mr. Veillette:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is experiencing a minor difficulty.

There are several Hon. Members rising to continue this exchange. One Hon. Member has risen to indicate that he thinks we should perhaps revert to debate on Bill C-133. Nonetheless, the Chair is obliged to recognize Hon. Members who rise on a point of order and I will do so. However, the implication is that there may not be unanimous consent to continue this kind of exchange.


Michel Veillette: Mr. Speaker, 1 simply want to point out to you that the thrust of the debate has shifted completely. The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) had the floor a few minutes ago and we as Members of the Opposition were supposed to direct questions to him, but now it is our colleague the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) who is fielding questions. Mr. Speaker, 1 can see that the Hon. Member for Joliette was afraid to face questions from the Quebec Member. He left his seat after the second one to avoid further questions from a Quebec Member. Being unable to answer, he left the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we are beginning to see the offshoot from the reforms that were instituted. Although the specific reform only calls for a question period of limited duration, ten minutes, after speeches on second and third reading, the thought has opened up that a debate with respect to posing questions at Report Stage is just as relevant sometimes as a
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
debate in terms of set speeches. I am inclined to agree that this is the case.
I think that the give-and-take has been quite healthy so far, just as Statements by Members have indicated that, despite the labels that might be put on some Members of Parliament, some do have a sense of independence and are deeply concerned about issues that are raised by Ministers from time to time.
You will recall that a Liberal Member questioned the statement by the Minister of State responsible for the status of women (Mrs. Erola) on income tax deductions. I think that this is quite a healthy development. 1 would not want to see that abandoned merely because it has taken a new twist this morning.
On the other hand, I can understand that the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is anxious because he has an amendment which he would like to see reached at some point. Incidentally, I support that amendment and I would like to have it reached at some point.
1 would not want to be seen as opposing unanimous consent for the continuation of this healthy exercise. If I were asked for unanimous consent, I would say yes. However, 1 think we have embarked on a new means of debate in the House and I want to commend you, Mr. Speaker, for your understanding of the new feeling in the House in terms of debate in the House. I hope that this precedent is one that will not be forgotten because it extends to the report stage at least the spirit of the changes with respect to the second and third reading. 1 think it is a very healthy exchange indeed and it ought not to be forgotten by Members of the House.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would point out a fact that is confusing at this time. As the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Veillette) said, it was the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who was supposed to reply to questions. He made the speech. He was there to reply to a question and he ran away from the House. After that, the questions were asked of an Hon. Member on our side. I would like to point that out to the Hon. Member, as we would like to have the privilege of asking questions. Now we have the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais), who took questions from anyone, and he has done it in a superb way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: But, on the other hand-

-the Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) got scared and left when we began asking questions which could have been embarrassing. I hope Members opposite will not rush out of the House every time Liberal Members will rise to put questions to them. It is a good example, and thanks to the Opposition this incident did prove-and I am very proud of that- that a young Member such as the Member for Manicouagan

January 20, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
(Mr. Maltais) can answer questions coming from anyone. I hope that one day the Members opposite will remain in their seat so that we on this side can show them how incompetent and vulnerable they are.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can let the point raised by the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Veillette) and the Minister (Mr. Chretien) go unchallenged. The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) did not run away. The Hon. Member for-


Ian Deans: I saw him running.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -Joliette answered all the questions that came to him. Then the questions switched to another Member. The only reason the Hon. Member for Joliette left is that he had an important appointment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: There was no precedent for questions after the ten-minute period. Had there been such a precedent, the Hon. Member would have made arrangements to be here. However, he stayed here and answered every question which was put to him. Let us get the record straight. Another point is that the Hon. Member for Joliette will never be afraid of any question coming to him from a Liberal, never.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order. 1 am really enjoying this little family squabble.


Mr. Darling:: Are you not part of the family?


Ian Deans: However, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we would not have to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Veillette) if the Minister were here.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, it appears that after 14 hours of debate in which 64 Hon. Members spoke, the House, on giving unanimous consent on a number of occasions to discuss other issues of importance beside Bill C-133, may be disposed to give unanimous consent to pass Bill C-133 so that we could then revert to asking these questions.


Ian Deans: No, I can assure you that is not forthcoming.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary had in mind except, perhaps, mischief. However, I repeat I am sorry that what had been a reasonably sane atmosphere in the House of Commons with respect to a good Question Period had to be overcharged, should I put it that way, or tarnished by the efforts of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). We were doing quite well without him. We were having a very intelligent discussion about a very important matter-


Ian Deans: And then the Minister arrived.


Walter David Baker: -until he came along and, in his usual way, he managed to trivialize it and turn it into a partisan row, which it was not intended to be. It was intended
to be a series of questions following a speech, and 1 repeat what I said earlier.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Who spoke last?


Walter David Baker: I will say that the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) has done a good job; I will not argue with that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He has done his very best to defend the indefensible, and that takes skill-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Who spoke last?


Walter David Baker: -because the Government's record is indefensible. He has done his very best with respect to it, but I repeat that no one wants this to go on forever, certainly. However, the precedent has now been established, and I think a very important one, that when issues are raised now, even on report stage, there are questions that come to Hon. Members' minds which, for the purpose of advancing debate, had better be answered, all of them, that the reservation on this precedent in terms of questioning is not, as it is on second and third reading, directed to the Hon. Member who sat down, but that Hon. Members who intervene can also be questioned. This does not take away at all the right of the Chair to deal with the question if it becomes irrelevant, if it does not deal with the proposition. I think the Chair always has that right.
However, the precedent has been established concerning unanimous consent being sought and given when the questions are relevant to the issue. Certainly the issue involving old age pensioners, retired Canadians, and particularly, in this case, public servants, in relation to unemployment and inflation, has been the great issue before committee concerning how they could cope with this situation.


Ian Deans: This is another ten-minute speech.


Walter David Baker: That has been an issue and these questions were relevant.
I want to repeat what 1 said to Your Honour and to commend you, if I may do so, for seeing the importance of debate of a nature which can take place during Report Stage.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier on a question of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I rose 15 minutes ago asking that we go back to discussing Bill C-133. I did not see anyone rising on the motion which was grouped, the motion by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and that of the President of the Treasury
January 20, 1983

Board in the groupings which we were studying here or have been in the last two days. I think, having presented a motion, to amend this Bill, I want to come to that amendment soon. My privileges are being-


Ian Deans: It is the Government that is cutting you off, not us.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -somewhat stretched right now. I think that with the concurrence of the House, and there is a certain amount of reasonableness concerning this matter, since we have carried on for 35 minutes, we could go on with a question period. However, we are stretching the rules a bit too far when we are starting to have a half hour question period after one Hon. Member has spoken. I would ask that either we revert back to the order of business, which concerns Bill C-133, or that we start Question Period right now and continue all afternoon, as far as 1 am concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I must indicate to the Hon. Member that there may be some extension of logic which could result in the possibility that he has the basis for raising a point of privilege, but I think, on the face of it, that if Hon. Members seek, by unanimous consent, to have a discussion of the nature which has just been had, then I do not think the decision of the House reached unanimously constitutes a cause for a point of privilege by some Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has now indicated for the second time that he would like to see debate continue, for the very valid reason that he himself has an amendment.


Ian Deans: Talk to the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: However, I much appreciated the comments made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), particularly as to the new rules and their form. It may be that the mood is now changing toward reverting to Bill C-133. However, I must point out once more, as I did on the last occasion, that the Chair cannot refuse to recognize an Hon. Member who rises on a point of order. That would certainly be a withdrawal of privileges from some Hon. Member who seeks the floor on a point of order. If points of order continue to come, they will have to be recognized as they appear on the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning your ruling. I am just saying to Your Honour that I have not heard any points of order. I have heard questions and exchanges. If someone has a point of order to raise at this time in debate, fine, I agree with Your Honour. However, I fail to see that there has been a valid point of order raised in the last half hour.


Ian Deans: Not even yours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would like to indicate to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier that there were certain points of order raised which I thought were quite in order. However, aside from that fact, I do recognize that Hon. Members use the process of raising points of order to make some comments and enter into debate. What I must explain to
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is that I cannot tell whether a point of order is in fact valid until I have heard the Hon. Member first.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the fact that we actually have had a debate in this House, but I am sorry that it relapsed into the usual discussion about procedure. We almost reached the level of the xerox machine again in the last 15 minutes. However, I do want to return to discussion of the amendment and the Bill before us, Bill C-133.
I am opposing the amendment, as my Party is, because it is too little. To make an amendment in the six and five program, to say 6.5 per cent instead of 6 per cent, is simply not enough. Ten cents a day extra is what this would amount to and that is a ridiculous sum of money. It does not change the nature of the Bill. If Bill C-133 were not passed, retired civil servants would receive the full indexing of the Consumer Price Index, which is over 11 per cent. With Bill C-133, it is reduced 6 per cent. If the amendment is passed it only goes to 6.5 per cent. That is about 5 per cent the people are going to miss, and that is a significant sum. What is worse about it is that this means that the base is lowered, so this taking out of the pockets of retired civil servants will continue year after year. It is not merely a theft in 1983, it is an ongoing theft.
What is wrong with it? A contract is a contract. Civil servants contributed their money to the fund and it is splitting hairs to say that the fund in which, for bureaucratic reasons, indexing money goes is too low. There is another fund; transfers can be made. Those are purely administrative procedures. The point is that civil servants paid their money and were given to believe that they would get fully indexed pensions.
The Government takes very seriously its debt to corporations. It is going to continue the Petroleum Incentives Program grants. Military expenditure is increasing. It would not think of reducing interest on Canada Savings Bonds. The Government respects all kinds of debts it has with companies. It is shameful that the Government will not respect its obligations to its own former employees.
It is unconscionable to break a contract for any reason, but to break it for the six and five program is really pathetic. Six and five is not the answer to our economic problems. We need an industrial strategy which will put people back to work, which will get people working and making contributions. This will build up all kinds of funds for social purposes. Until we address the unemployment program we are not going to have a well-funded economy and we are not going to be able to afford the pensions or the social services we need.
The six and five program goes in the opposite direction. It is going to reduce demand, and that means companies will be laying people off or closing down instead of expanding. That is a popular theory with the lunatic right-wing fringe in the United States, but that is certainly no reason for us to adopt it

January 20, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
here. It has not been successful there, it is misguided, and even if it were a good theory it would still not be a good reason for breaking a contract with our retired civil servants.
Pensions are deferred wages. People have paid for them; they are entitled to get them and get them fully indexed. One of the justifications has been very adequately spelled out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a letter, which I now quote:
In our society, pensions provide a means of sharing risk so that we can retire in reasonable security and dignity, without fear of the future. Protecting pensions from inflation by indexing them to increases in the cost of living should be an integral part of our pension schemes. Indexing does not give pensioners an increasingly larger claim on our economy's production, that is, more money to buy things they could not earlier afford. Rather, indexing merely enables pensioners to maintain, roughly, their same standard of living.
Even a modest rate of inflation destroys, at a devastating rate, the buying power of people on fixed incomes. Pensioners are out of the workforce and cannot bargain or strike for larger incomes. They are not the cause of inflation; they are its victims. We have an obligation to help protect them.
These are not mere pious words of the Prime Minister. They are in fact the law of the land, and a law which is passed saying that we will simply take it back, take away the money which has been promised to these people, is an immoral law.
The Bishops' statement is another good reason to have another look at this. Here we have spiritual leaders in the country pointing out the very great importance of giving the higher priority to the needs of working people over capital. Let me quote:
The needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich. The rights of workers are more important than maximization of profits. The participation of marginalized groups takes precedence over the preservation of a system which excludes them.
That is a very fundamental point and is the kind of analysis which we in my party appreciate very much seeing.
I would like to say something about the hypocrisy of the Conservatives who are supporting us on the principles of Bill C-133, although not on the amendment. They seem to think the amendment is all right. It is rather late for them to be coming into the game and defending retired civil servants, just as it is rather late for them to come into the game on Family Allowances and on the old age pensions. The Tories supported Bill C-124 in the summer. That was the time when the Government could have been stopped. The Bills we have before us now on Family Allowances, old age pensions and retired civil service pensions are simply a logical working out of the programs which were prepared last summer. The Conservatives should not be surprised to see them now, and if they are surprised it is because they were incompetent last summer when the matter was being discussed and did not know what was in front of them.
I oppose the amendment, Mr. Speaker. The only way to improve Bill C-133 is for the Government to withdraw it.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a Bill which symbolized the philosophy of this Government, it is Bill C-133. I believe this Bill will go down in the annals of history as one of the most divisive pieces of short-sighted legislation ever to pass through this House. It represents the obstinate inflexibility of a Government dedicated to the philosophy of
the end justifying the means, the goal being ostensibly reduction in inflation, and the means being the taking away of legitimate pension money from retired public servants. Surely the Government must be aware of the public's distaste for the insensitive way in which this and many other Bills have been shoved down our throats. Perhaps they know that this may be their last chance to dominate public affairs for a good long time and they wish to go out in style and be remembered for their foolhardiness, just as the Kamikaze pilots were in World War II.
Once the Government begins to commit breaches of faith, the public loses confidence in that Government, and believe me, this is happening. Bill C-133 represents the most flagrant breach of trust in recent times. If I were to send in my tax return based on a 10 per cent tax rate, there would be agents of the law at my door demanding the extra money. If a constituent of mine were to receive unemployment cheques to which he was not entitled, the Unemployment Insurance Commission would be on his back soon enough.
Why, then, would the Government turn the tables and hold back money which rightfully belongs to these retired people who contributed to a plan in full expectation that they would receive these funds? There is such a thing as making plans based on future income. These people are going to be more than disappointed; they may be wiped out financially.
The Minister defends himself here by making an amendment changing the indexation to 6.5 per cent in the first year and 5.5 per cent in the second year. He feels that the extra .5 per cent covers the cost of the contributions made by the public servants. This may be so, but even this amendment cannot camouflage the terrible wrong which is being done here. This Government has gone back on its word and is trying to patch an ugly wound with a band-aid.
What is the purpose of attempting to pass this Bill through Parliament? Is it to enhance the image of the Liberal Party and the present Government? It certainly is not doing that. Is it to cure inflation? Inflation is beginning to cure itself. It is happening without the capping of pensions and the limiting of Family Allowances.
Why not just accept the wisdom of public opinion and drop this ridiculous Bill from the books? It would restore some of the confidence lost in recent times.
It was mentioned by one of my colleagues on Monday of this week, and I quote:
Government means sometimes taking hard and harsh measures where it is possible, and in this case the only way it is possible to take these measures is within federal jurisdiction.
I agree fully with taking hard and harsh measures to control inflation, but I disagree with the target of these measures. Spending continues unabated in the bureaucratic counting-houses of this Government while here in the House of Commons the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) is trying to extract the last possible nickel from the usual victims, the
January 20, 1983

middle-aged and the middle-class wage earner. The taxpayer is being taxed as never before, yet our deficit increases by leaps and bounds, by billions and billions of dollars.
This Government spends millions advertising the merits of the colossal, clumsy Canada Post Corporation and translating obscure documents from English to French and back again, yet it wants the pensioners of this country to tighten their belts and cheerily refuse badly needed funds to which they are entitled.
I hear the answer from time to time that we are going to save the Government money. The Parliamentary Secretary said that $18 million is not inconsequential. I agree that $18 million is a lot of money. Elon. Members opposite supported the Government which spent $650 million to buy service stations just two or three months ago. They supported the Government which has provided $1 billion in hidden subsidies to one Crown corporation called PetroCan. Where is the sense of fairness in supporting an expenditure of $1 billion on the one hand, and putting a special 5 per cent tax on retired people to get back $18 million or $80 milion on the other hand? Where is the sense of social justice?
It is with continuing amazement and almost sympathy that I listened to the defences put forth by some of my colleagues in the Liberal Party for this inexcusable piece of legislation. There are Members in that Party, as we are all aware, who squirm in their seats and battle with their consciences as they listen to their very own Party attempting to gloss over the ugly truth of this Bill. They gloss over the ugly truth of this Bill by stating that it is a noble plan of self-sacrifice and voluntary restraint on the part of Canadians. Such nonsense! Or, as my friend says, baloney.
This Bill is a well-planned deception with the simple aim of picking up some ready cash to keep afloat a badly leaking Government. The Liberal Member faced with voting for this Bill is confronted by an interesting dilemma. Voting for it may guarantee joining the UIC line-up next election, but voting against it could mean future political obscurity or permanent backbench warming.
It is interesting that such an important issue is bound to be distorted by political realities. Were the average Liberal Member of Parliament truly free to vote on this Bill, I contend that it would never have passed first reading and what headaches that would have saved.
There are many complex problems facing this House today. There is inflation which will not go away by itself. There is poverty and injustice. There is escalating crime throughout the nation. The citizens are overtaxed and unemployed. Little faith remains in the Government and linguistic and cultural disunity still dishearten us.
The passing of Bill C-133 will not solve these problems. The revenues generated by it are not significant in the big financial picture of this country. Can wasteful spending not be lessened? Can obsolete and high-paying Government jobs be streamlined or eliminated? We need to address these sources of income.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Those are the sort of issues this Government should be looking at and this Parliament should be dealing with.
In conclusion, I feel that I have brought the attention of this House to some of the injustices found in this Bill. We are all aware of the fact that it is a mockery and a breach of faith. When public employees pay 7.5 per cent of their salary to support their pension plan, they should not be treated in this manner. As well, the benefits paid from the plan have been more heavily financed by employees than employers. Therefore, the employees are entitled to a return on their investment. Finally, there is a surplus of $15.5 billion in the Public Service Superannuation Account. Given the public outrage and the obvious unfairness of this legislation, the Government should drop Bill C-133.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, if one tries to find the principle and central idea behind this Bill, to limit the indexation of Public Service pensions, the Bill to put a cap on indexing of old age pensions and the Bill to put a cap of six and five on Family Allowances, one can see that the Government is following the kind of thinking which has been described in a shorthand form in the United States as Reaganomics. The Government's implementation is not quite as tough as Reagonomics, but it is the same kind of thinking which led the American government under President Reagan to bring forward the idea for the first time in 50 years that the role of Government should be drastically reduced as it affects the lives of people.
In the United States they have cut back on medicare, medicaid, hospital insurance, food stamp programs, jobtraining programs and a host of other programs developed in the United States since 1932 with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They succeeded in bringing inflation down very substantially in the U.S.A., but they also succeeded in bringing about the highest rate of unemployment which that country has had since the thirties. They have done this on the backs of the poor and elderly. As so often happens, we in this country have picked up their ideas, and were stupid enough to pick up their ideas even though they have by now proven wrong and not workable.
We have here a proposal of Government to put a limit on the wages and salaries of public servants of six and five at a time when inflation is running much higher than that. The Government is saying to the public servants, and urging those in the private sector to follow suit, so that they must accept a lower standard of living. As well as saying to employees who work for the Government that they must accept a reduction in their standard of living, they are saying to the old age pensioners that retired public servants and those receiving Family Allowance too must accept a decrease in their standard of living. It is a disgraceful situation.
This is just the beginning. I predict that in the next year or two we will see cutbacks in federal and provincial assistance to medicare, hospital care, unemployment insurance and welfare. Those who need help the most will have to bear the brunt of the mistaken economic policies of this Government. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and

January 20, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
the Minister responsible for the status of women have again and again made speeches about how pensioners, women in particular, in large numbers if not a majority, are actually living in poverty. Yet these are precisely the people who as a result of this Bill will have their standard of living lowered even further.
These proposals, Mr. Speaker, these Bills, when passed, will have an adverse and immediate effect, of course, on all the people who are directly affected. But to the extent they reduce the real standard of living of the people I mentioned, the old age pensioners, retired civil servants, Family Allowance recipients, to the extent these programs are implemented, they reduce the purchasing power of millions of Canadians. How stupid can we be? Canadian factories are now working at less than 70 per cent capacity. According to official statistics, we now have over a million and a half people unemployed, if one adds the discouraged people who are not looking for work, and I do not really know what good it would do for somebody unemployed in Sudbury, Ontario, Thompson, Manitoba, Kamloops, British Columbia, or the Gaspe region of Quebec to look for work when there are no jobs available, and to the extent that we reduce the purchasing power of Canadians we guarantee more and more unemployment.
There is not an economic research institution in this country which does not say that unemployment in 1983 is going to be even higher than it was in 1982, whether that institution is to the left of centre like the Canadian policy alternatives, or the C.D. Howe Institute or the Conference Board. I except from the list the Fraser Institute, of course, for obvious reasons. And I am sure that if the Government would permit the people of Canada to know what studies have been done in the Finance Department, the Employment Department or by the Bank of Canada, they would see the estimates on unemployment made by the organizations I have already mentioned confirmed. So what the Government is guaranteeing, Mr. Speaker, is that we will have even more unemployment in 1983, more misery than we have had up to now.
It is typical of Liberal thinking and of the Liberal idea of a "just society" that at the same time as they are asking those in the lower income brackets, the poor and the people in the lower middle class to make the kind of sacrifices which are involved in this kind of legislation, they are increasing the tax concessions and the "goodies" which have always been given to those in the upper income brackets by Liberal and Conservative Governments. There was the spectacle in the last Budget proposed by the former Minister of Finance when he reduced the tax rate for those in the upper income bracket from about 60 per cent to 50 per cent. That example was followed by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). What did he do? In his last Budget he extended a series of tax loopholes which will benefit only the rich and the professionals, less tax on investors' stock profits, rejection of any limit on investment interest expense and deduction, rejection of the need to tighten rules on capital gains and corporate reorganization, and the maintenance of a loophole which enables professionals to defer the taxability of large chunks of their already sizeable
incomes. That is the kind of idea about justice which we have come to expect from Liberal Government-"Stick it to the poor and give more to the rich".
We in the New Democratic Party oppose the six and five program and have done so from the beginning. We pointed out that it would not work, would not really bring down inflation and that it would mean more unemployment. We were alone at that time, but since then we have been joined by many other groups. I am not going to put on the record in any detail the criticism made of Government policies by the Roman Catholic Bishops, but they have said far more eloquently than I can that this kind of thinking, and the kinds of programs the Government has adopted, will hurt the people who need help the most. They have been joined now by that arch-defender of the free enterprise system, Mr. Sinclair, the head of the CPR, a supporter of six and five, who has pointed out that what we need now is not more restraint but a program to put people back to work.
We oppose this Bill, Mr. Speaker. We are going to vote against it as we have from the beginning, unlike our Conservative friends who, having voted for the six and five, are now going to play it both ends against the middle by opposing these Bills, which are a logical extension of what was proposed in the six and five program which they supported.


Mr. Al MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-133, which we have been considering this week, and which the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee studied at length prior to the Christmas recess, has highlighted the importance which Members of all Parties place on retirement benefits. The debate also has brought out the security which retired members of the Public Service, the Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and others, have felt towards the nature of the retirement benefits which they receive.
We have heard much about the relatively low level of benefits now received by these people, and from messages sent to me by my constituents and others, I share the concern that this is the case. Contrary to claims made over the years by certain groups who have depicted retired public servants as citizens living high at the expense of everyone else, the average pension being paid to retired public servants and their survivors, taking into account all of the post-retirement indexing adjustments, is not at a very high level at all. As indicated by a number of Hon. Members, the average pension was $6,900 in December, 1982. The question, therefore, is how much that $6,900 will increase in 1983. 1 am certain most of the recipients are pleased to know that as of the end of this month, January, 1983, the rate will increase.
As 1 said earlier, much has been made in recent years by some critics of the Public Service pension arrangements claiming undue generosity, which is certainly not the case, but very little has been said about the amount of contributions which retired public servants have paid. There are few pension plans in the country which require an employee to pay IVi per cent of his wages towards his retirement pension. Most have
January 20, 1983

contribution rates either lower than that or do not require contributions to be paid at all. Furthermore, although most large companies in Canada have paid ad hoc inflationary adjustments to their retired personnel, few, if any, require employees to make additional contributions to pay for these adjustments. These introductory remarks are made to try to put into perspective the present situation for Public Service pensioners in relation to Bill C-133.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) has moved a motion that recognition of the contributions made by retired public servants for the indexing of their pensions be given. Ele has said that only the portion of indexation benefits which is payable from the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be subject to the six and five restraint program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but I believe we have reached the hour of one o'clock, and it being that time I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

André Maltais: Madam Speaker, I would like to mention an important debate now going on in eastern Quebec concerning the merger of Quebecair and Air Canada. I want to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to take into account, within the context of these negotiations, the matter of rates and the organization of facilities in the area between Sept-Iles and Blanc-Sablon, including the-


Mr. Ellis:: Madam Speaker, there is no translation and I understand enough French to know that my colleague is speaking about a subject in which I am particularly interested. 1 would like to hear his remarks, but there is no translation coming through.


Madam Speaker:: Well, 1 guess we will have to wait. [Translation]
Should the Hon. Member not continue? We shall see whether the interpretation system is working or not.


André Maltais: I want to call the attention of the House to an issue which has great significance for my region and eastern Quebec, namely the merger of Quebecair and Air Canada. I
wish to emphasize the importance of this debate because air transport has always been linked with route equivalence, especially on the North Shore, in the Magdalen Islands and the Gaspe Peninsula. I believe that in the context of the negotiations now under way we should be careful not to negotiate only for routes or administrative matters and be only concerned with routes such as Montreal-Toronto and Mont-real-Florida. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport to pay particular attention to the rates which apply on the Montreal-Sept-Iles routes. Moreover, I would like to point out that a return trip from Blanc-Sablon to Sept-Iles costs $640. I would therefore like the minister to ask Air Canada to be very cautious during the negotiations. On the North Shore, we want Air Canada to have administrative control, the employees of Quebecair to keep their jobs and transport administration to take into account the facilities at the airports of Havre-Saint-Pierre, Cheverie, Natashquan and Blanc-Sablon and we also want something to be done about the local airports. Runways should be built in Baie-Johan-Beetz, Kegaska, Tete-a-la-Baleine and La Romaine. I think that the region of Canada designated as the middle and lower North Shore should be included in the negotiations and if I make these comments, madam Speaker, it is to remind the House that it costs $800 to fly from Montreal to Paris and $400 to go from Montreal to Vancouver. It is therefore abnormal for one region of the country to pay excessive rates and for the residents of such an area to be deprived of transportation. To conclude, I repeat that we want Air Canada to be in control and the minister to take his responsibilities.


COMMUNICATIONS
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, up until now, thankfully, the medium of television has been relatively free of pornographic material due to stringent regulation of public television. Now, however, with the advent of Pay TV, the possibility looms large that our air waves will soon be filled with "Playboy" as well as assorted explicit movies. At a time such as this one would expect the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to stand up and defend the right of Canadians to clean and decent television programming. Instead, as mentioned in The Citizen of January 18, he will not take special action to stop First-Choice Pay TV from producing and showing soft core pornography to national audiences. However, he also states that he hopes many groups will apply pressure on the service by protesting its plans to program and produce skin-flicks.
When questioned in the House on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week on this very subject, the Minister was evasive and

January 20, 1983
non-committal. This attitude is intolerable. He refuses to act in his capacity as Minister and take action, yet he hopes other people will protest. What hope do any protest groups have, if the man with the power to do something about the situation does not care? Unless he takes a stand on this matter, the voices of decency in this country are going to be drowned out and the "sexploiters" will be laughing all the way to the bank.


IMPORTANCE OF ASIAN MARKETS-SUGGESTED FOLLOW-UP TO PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), accompanied by a delegation of senior Canadian businessmen, just completed a visit to the Asian Pacific region, the world's fastest growing region and one which is now planning major capital projects worth billions of dollars in areas such as transportation, energy and communications where Canadian expertise is second to none. Asian markets want North American technology and want to diversify their trade. Canadian success in winning some of these contracts means jobs for Canadians now and in the future.
The prime Minister undertook this visit in response to many requests from Canadian business interests. It is important that the momentum not be lost and that every effort now be made to remind Canadians of the importance of Asian markets, as well as keeping Canadian trade information before our Asian friends.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, because of the higher cost of living in the north and because of the progressive nature of the Canadian income tax system, northerners are effectively taxed at higher rates than southern Canadians. In Australia, Denmark, and the U.S.S.R. a tax zoning system is in effect, designed to encourage people to live in remote areas, but this is not the case in Canada.
In 1980, because of the public outcry over the taxation of certain necessary benefits, the then Minister of Finance was forced to issue a remission order which partially solved the problem, although it was still unfair to many. The announcement by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on December 2 that the remission order will expire and benefits will be taxed under a complex bureaucratic formula, has rekindled public outrage. The tax grab from the pockets of northern employees and industry at a time of acute recession is senseless and bad public policy, and the proposed system will promote the fly in fly out situations instead of building up a
steadfast northern community. We therefore call upon the Minister of Finance to abandon his ill-considered scheme and retain the present remission order until it can be replaced by permanent amendments to the Income Tax Act, resulting in fair and equitable taxation for all northerners.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, yesterday was the last day of the National Occupational Outlook Conference which was studying the job implications of technological change as well as the over-all outlook for jobs in coming decades. Yet despite the fact these issues have profound implications for the labour movement, only two labour representatives were asked to participate. The Deputy Minister of Labour has acknowledged that the human side of technological change has received little attention at policy levels in Ottawa.
Since the human implications of economic planning are precisely the concerns the labour movement wants to address, and since the Canadian population strongly supports the call of the Bishops to put people first in economic planning, I would ask the Minister responsible for labour and the Minister responsible for employment to take immediate steps to improve the climate of labour and Government relations in Canada, and to call on their cabinet colleagues to withdraw the six and five program as a first step towards creating real growth in employment in our country.


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, the steps being taken toward parliamentary reform have been excellent, but we urgently need to realize the full extent of the frustration and misgivings of the Canadian people. They are correct when they conclude that the way we operate our parliamentary system demands an almost slavish subservience to party lines and provides little or no opportunity for a genuine open dialogue and co-operation in a time of crisis such as the world is presently experiencing. 1 suggest that, in order to provide Canadians with new evidence of our integrity, we badly and urgently need to have more free votes in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roland de Corneille: If more Bills could be presented to the House of Commons on a free-vote basis, Members could represent their views and those of their constituents forthrightly. They could listen with more sympathy to the opinions of Members of opposing parties as well as to those of their own. A quality of respect, dialogue, and co-operation might have a
January 20, 1983

chance to take root, and the public would begin to believe that their affairs were being managed on the basis of reason and discussion, rather than on one of reflex and polemics.
Of course there are many issues which involve the basic differences of the three parties, and on such Bills, and on all money Bills, votes of confidence must continue to be employed. But even a few free votes, in my opinion, would do wonders to make the system more responsible to the needs and views of our constituents, and would do wonders to restore faith in the integrity of the democratic process.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, I want to record my objections and those of tourist operators and small-businessmen in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, as well as in most parts of Canada, to the fact that in so many ways they seem to be the chosen targets of the Government. The specific weapon being used this time is the new postal regulations of our postal corporation. Under these regulations, from April 1 onward a surcharge of 5 cents will be charged on all small-business letters which are non-standard in size or do not use the postal code.
Big business is catered to by providing an incentive rate of 24 cents for mailings of 20,000 or more standard identical pieces, and an even lower rate of 21 cents is charged for 1,000 or more items which are presorted to carrier routes. Perhaps Canada Post would also consider a new rate of, say, 17 cents, providing the customer delivers the mail himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: It was explained to us that these new rates are to allow a discount to large mailers who do some of the post offices' work for them, and for enabling their new automatic sorting machinery to be used. Presumably this results in significant cuts in labour costs. This is all very logical, except that it is a bit hard to reconcile with the fact that, according to the best figures I have been able to come up with, since the end of fiscal year 1981 the cost of first-class postage has-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


EMPLOYMENT
Michel Veillette: Madam Speaker, the situation of the young Canadians who are unemployed and untrained is a major concern of all Hon. Members.
Unable to find jobs, many young Canadians have asked to join our Armed Forces, which have the necessary facilities to train them. In fact, their number is so large that it exceeds the Department of National Defence's current requirements. The Canadian Armed Forces would have to accept additional applications by the thousands if they were to provide them all with jobs as well as the professional training they require to find jobs on the labour market today.
For quite some time, Hon. Members on the government side have requested that the programs and facilities of the Armed Forces be made available to a greater number of young unemployed Canadians who are in need of training. We know that the Government is giving serious consideration to their request, and we hope that its decision is forthcoming.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, every Member of the House must be aware that many Canadian pensioners hold Canadian Government Bonds on which interest payments are made, sometimes twice but just as often only once during the year. Also they must be aware that these pensioners are nonetheless required to submit quarterly income tax returns and, in consequence, have to pay tax on revenue before that revenue is actually received. This is an iniquitous injustice and an intolerable burden which many pensioners find difficult to bear.
The principle ought to be established once and for all that no taxes can be collected from individual Canadians until the revenue on which those taxes are levied has been received by those individual Canadians. I suggest that the income tax Bill, Bill C-139, which will soon be before us again, should be amended to embody this principle.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I should like to express my deep concern about the strategies which are currently being developed by the federal Government and some provincial Governments prior to the upcoming First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal rights. We have learned about a leaked Government document which indicates that the Liberal administration intends to "reduce native expectations" and "embroil provincial Governments in the process of discussion".
Such an approach implies that the Government's commitment to an equitable settlement of the aboriginal rights issue is not sincere. This will only strengthen the suspicion of native peoples that the federal Government cannot be trusted.

January 20, 1983
Oral Questions
Constitutional negotiations in the past have led to a feeling of betrayal. If this betrayal of native people by the Liberal Government continues, the willingness of these peoples to work within the system will disappear altogether. Surely the Government would prefer to encourage and not to destroy the faith and trust of the native population.
Some Provinces, including the Province of British Columbia, have hidden agendas to include other items in the March Conference. While it cannot be denied that there are other important issues, in particular the position of the Province of Quebec, these should be made the subject of a separate First Ministers' meeting. To attempt to deal with a variety of issues at this time will result in a treatment that will not solve any issues for Canadians-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who will know that the OECD study of 24 member nations revealed in terms of real growth last year that Canada ranked twenty-fourth out of 24; we ranked dead last. That means our problems are caused right here in Canada. Also the Prime Minister will know that the people who suffer most from those problems are the Canadian unemployed who now number nearly two million, and according to the Conference Board there will be at least another 141,000 Canadians who will lose their jobs this year.
The Government, three or four months ago, introduced the NEED Program which was supposed to create 60,000 jobs. So far, according to the Department of Employment and Immigration, it has created about 4,000 jobs. That is a shamefully inadequate response to a major Canadian crisis.
Will the Prime Minister indicate whether the Government intends to bring in immediately new action to create jobs for Canadians, when that action will be taken, and what form that action will take?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the NEED program which I announced in October and which is being implemented by the Minister of Employment and Immigration involves not just a $500 million grant but also an additional amount of at least $200 million to be provided by the provinces. My colleague has concluded agreements with all of the provinces and that program is now under way. Indeed, each week and each day new projects are being
undertaken. I am positive that we will exceed the 60,000 jobs referred to thanks to the co-operation of the provinces. In addition, Madam Speaker, I remind the Leader of the Official Opposition that several bills are now before this House, especially one dealing with the Income Tax Act which is being delayed. Passing this Bill would encourage Canadian businesses as well as Canadians into giving the economic impetus which we all need. Those bills are before Parliament and I hope that they will be considered as quickly as possible to help the unemployed and all those who would like to stimulate the Canadian economy.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me express my apologies to the House. I could have sworn 1 saw the Prime Minister over there; I could have sworn that he had returned from vacation. I did not know that he was still goofing off and letting the Minister of Finance reply for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOSS OF JOBS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me ask whichever Minister is responding for the Government on economic policy-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me try the Deputy Prime Minister; are you here?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should proceed to his question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister or any transient seat mate he might have, can call to mind that in October the Prime Minister indicated there would be bold new measures brought in by this Government to generate economic growth in the country, and that the House Leader indicated that the Throne Speech was already prepared with these bold new measures in it. Three months have passed since those declarations and thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs. Will the Acting Prime Minister tell us what the Government is waiting for? Why will the Government not act now to bring jobs and hope to Canadians who are losing their jobs by the thousands as this Government sits back and waits?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition treats the question of unemployment in this country with such levity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Jarvis:: Don't blush.
January 20, 1983


Marc Lalonde: The question of unemployment has been addressed by this Government through the addition of over $1 billion of further expenditures in the last few months to the Government's expenditure plans in order to compensate for some of the difficulties being faced by hundreds of thousands of Canadians. The provincial Governments have agreed to cooperate with the federal Government in that regard. What we have seen in the meantime has been systematic dragging of feet and filibustering on the part of the Opposition on numerous Bills that have been before this House to deal with the crisis the country is facing.


Mr. Mitges:: What Bills?


Miss MacDonald:: Name one.


Marc Lalonde: I would urge the Leader of the Opposition to examine the actions of his own Party and the lack of action by his own Party before he starts to throw any rocks.


INQUIRY RESPECTING DATE OF BUDGET PRESENTATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me direct this question also to the only Minister who is awake over there and who has just come back, by the way, from the OECD meeting where he had to defend Canada's performance of being twenty-fourth out of 24 in economic growth; where he had to defend the policies of this Government which alone have dragged this country below the standards of other comparable countries.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister has talked about delay in debate. He knows there is a 300-page tax bill which the Government has introduced for one day's debate only. If he wants to bring it forward, let him bring it forward. We will debate it. If he wants to have a deal on it, delete 15 or 20 of the provisions which will restrict expansion in this country and we will give it very quick passage. Let him do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am really sorry, by I have to remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that he should not be making a speech but rather asking a question.


Mr. Nielsen:: Remind the Cabinet, too.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Government, the Opposition has to take more time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may 1 ask the Minister of Finance on what date he intends to bring in a budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that I was hoping to bring in a budget early in the new year. I indicated also that to me this meant preferably before the beginning of the new fiscal year, that is, before April 1. However, I also indicated that it was very
Oral Questions
important that the House deal with all the legislation resulting from budgets and budgetary measures that go back two years on which the Opposition has been dragging its feet and filibustering.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: The reason the Income Tax Bill has not been considered further, Madam Speaker, is because the Opposition has refused to deal with other urgent Bills having to do with six and five. That is why that Bill has not yet been brought before this House for debate more frequently. We are waiting for the Opposition to deal with the most urgent Bills also-


Erik Nielsen: We didn't see them for two years.


Marc Lalonde: -and the Income Tax Bill will then be brought forward for debate.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER REPORT ON TRIP TO SOUTHEAST ASIA
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The public perception of the Prime Minister's trip to the Pacific Rim is that it enhanced his reputation as an international globe trotter and fun kind of guy, to quote one news report. Since the trip was advertised as a diplomatic trade mission to the fastest growing economic area of the world, what sales report can the Prime Minister make to the nation? What contracts did he sign? What new trade agreements did he negotiate? And what specific commitments did he win abroad that will create jobs here at home?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: He is awake. Does that mean you are going to speak?


Mr. Shields:: Let's hear from the violins now.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Wouldn't you like to have an ovation like that, Joe?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the House for making me so welcome on my return. I want to inform the Hon. Member that I did not sign any trade agreements. It was not my intention to do so. I think that the tour was mainly conceived to make Canadians and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations aware of the vast trading possibilities potential between us. In that sense, I think

January 20, 1983
Oral Questions
it will be up to the House and the public to judge whether the trip will have been worth while.


Walter David Baker: They already have.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They will see that, I suppose, if the private sector and Government relations do improve in the months to come.


DISCUSSIONS WITH JAPANESE OFFICIALS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. 1 would point out that any private sector salesman who returned from an 18-day trip abroad with a blank order book would probably lose his job.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: In Tokyo the Prime Minister promised to sell unlimited quantities of Canadian natural resources to Japan which, in fact, is what Canada is already doing. In return he asked Japan to invest more in Canadian manufacturing in order to create jobs here. Since the former Japanese Ambassador to Canada says that the major obstacles to expanded Japanese investment in Canada are the Government's own policies, specifically, the National Energy Program and the Foreign Investment Review Agency, did the Prime Minister agree to alter these policies in his discussions with Japanese officials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. lady shows that she does not understand much about trade if she suggests that after 18 days anybody in the private sector would come back with a filled order book.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just one entry, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The message which the businessmen whom I met in each one of these countries were conveying to each other, and to myself, was that to break into the market in those countries where the competition is very high from the Economic Community, from the U.S., and from Australia, as a businessman one had to go many times and stay there for years-


Mr. Kempling:: Are you going back next month?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it was not just one trip by businessmen which could be expected to yield a great deal of business. A great deal more persistence and less levity on the part of the Opposition would perhaps lead to deeper trade.


Mr. McDermid:: You must have jet lag.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I do.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister as well. During the Christmas break the Canadian Catholic Bishops produced a cogent analysis of the Canadian economy which the Prime Minister dismissed out of hand. Canadians have received from the Prime Minister since the 1980 election one disaster after another, ranging from the megaproject fiasco up to the two-month flirtation with an industrial strategy, all of which have produced, as the Leader of the Opposition has correctly pointed out, about two million unemployed. In the light of this totally disastrous record, where does the Prime Minister get the nerve to dismiss so readily the Bishops' very fine analysis of the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the NDP must have been misinformed. I did not dismiss, as he says, the Bishops' analysis out of hand-that very fine analysis, as he puts it. I was asked a question in one of the countries where I was travelling about the Bishops, and I felt it was not the right time to discuss in any detail that particular important comment by the Bishops. My comment, which concerned their reflection on the fight against inflation, was that their economics was not all that steady, but I added that that was not the forum in which to discuss this matter.
The Bishops were discussing it amongst themselves. I would be happy to answer any substantive questions about this report that the Hon. Member wants to put because I feel it is more appropriate to do it here in Canada than in some foreign country.


John Edward Broadbent: I too feel it is appropriate to ask questions in a serious nature about that report.


MORAL APPROACH
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, one of the serious concerns of the Bishops was that we should have a moral approach to the problems of the Canadian economy, one that is fair. They used, with care, the phrase "moral disorder" to characterize the Government's program, and specifically said that the Government of Canada was cutting back on pensions and family allowances, putting wage controls on Canadian workers, but at the same time leaving upper Canadian incomes untouched. Such a combination, in their analysis, leads appropriately to the description of a moral disorder.
Will the Prime Minister, for once in this context, act morally and bring forward a program of economic recovery that puts an equal burden on all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is misinformed in his second question too. He knows that the Government is not cutting
January 20, 1983

back on pensions. The Government is simply reducing the rate of escalation of those pensions to 6 per cent and 5 per cent. If we do succeed in bringing inflation down to 6 per cent this year, it will mean that pensioners will be compensated for the rate of inflation.
This is why I think that the Bishops were misinformed when they attacked the six and five program in itself as a misguided attack on the economic evils. We have to bring inflation down. We are succeeding in bringing inflation down, and that will create jobs. This is the point that I was making. This is the only quarrel I have with the economics of the Bishops, and that was my point.
In so far as applying six and five in a rigid fashion across all levels of income receivers is concerned, I want to point out to the Hon. Member that my first proposal in February of last year was indeed to have caps on income which would be graduated according to the size of that income. I did not receive any support, either from the Provinces, from the NDP, or from the Bishops on that.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as everyone who has paid any attention to the Bill being debated before the House now, and during the past few days, knows, the Government has in fact broken a contract which it had with its own employees concerning pensions. 1 repeat that the Government is cutting back on something to which these pensioners were legally entitled.
The Prime Minister has virtually made a political career out of promising Canadians one thing and delivering another. In the 1980 election campaign the Prime Minister promised that he would not fight inflation on the backs of working Canadians. As the Bishops have pointed out, once again he has broken this promise. In light of the very serious moral concern expressed all across Canada about the issue of unemployment in terms of his remarks in the 1980 election about not fighting inflation on the backs of workers, in comparison with what he delivered, was he at that time simply lying to the people of Canada, or has his action since indicated that he simply does not care?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, in his rhetoric, is perhaps being a bit immoral himself. He is quoting the Bishops as having pointed out that I broke an election promise. The Bishops have pointed out no such thing, and the Hon. Member is using-


John Edward Broadbent: I did not say that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member did say that, and if he would stop chewing his gum he would realize it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions MINES AND MINING


LAY-OFFS IN WESTERN COAL INDUSTRY-DISCUSSION OF SALES TO JAPAN
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. During his sojourn to the Far East, the Canadian mining industry continued to deteriorate as a result of more cut-backs and shutdowns being announced in great numbers. Thousands have been laid off in the western Canadian coal industry, including an additional 1,900 workers at B.C. Coal's Balmer Mine, which was announced last week because of a declining demand for coal exports to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries.
What steps did the Prime Minister take in Japan to address this problem? Did he encourage the Japanese to speed the conversion of their electric power utility and cement plants to coal from oil-fired generators? Did he discuss the possibility of a joint Japanese-Canadian coal liquefaction plant in Canada similar to the commercial scale project planned for Australia under a joint agreement between that country and Japan? Just how much new coal did the Prime Minister sell while he was globe-trotting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A great deal, Madam Speaker.


Thomas Edward Siddon: From the Prime Minister's evasive reply, it seems that the only aspects of his Japanese trip which were carefully planned were his secretive sojourns for sightseeing and sunning by the seashore with his son, Sacha.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


FUTURE OF YUKON MINE
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the lead and zinc industries of northern Canada and the iron ore industries of Labrador and Quebec supply much of their production to the Japanese and Pacific Rim countries. The continuing shutdown of the Cyprus-Anvil Mine in Faro, for example, has compelled the mine's former Japanese customers to seek new suppliers in other countries. No doubt their concern, as it is for all Yukoners, is that the Cyprus Mine will remain closed.


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is two long questions. At least the second question should be short. We cannot complain about the length of the answer.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I hope the answer will be at least half as long as the question. When the Prime Minister pledged Canada's "limitless" natural resources to Japan last week, did that include the assurance that the Dome Mine in Faro, Yukon, will be reopened immediately so that hundreds of anxious northerners can be put back to work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker.
Oral Questions FISHERIES

January 20, 1983


REQUEST THAT KIRBY TASK FORCE REPORT BE TABLED
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As the Minister knows, the Kirby Report was forecast last January with the establishment of the Kirby Task Force. The Report was supposed to come down in July, then in September, then November and, most recently, January 17, which has now passed.
In the meantime newspaper reports are quoting parts of the Report, and CBC Radio, last night and this morning, carried more reports on what they say is a leaked document. This is creating great confusion and uncertainty in the Atlantic fishery. Will the Minister immediately table the Kirby Report as originally submitted to the Cabinet Committee which we, of course, know is split? Will he table the Report so Members of Parliament can see it, the fishermen can see it and the industry can see it, in order to stop the confusion because they cannot do any planning at the moment?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I think that what the fishermen of the Atlantic want is not only reports but action. I think it would be futile and a complete misunderstanding of the aspirations of the fishermen to limit ourselves to tabling reports. What they want are policies. I hope that in the very near future I will be able to table the fundamental principles and the major actions that we will take.
I hasten to add that this will be done and the implementation of those policies will be undertaken with close consultation and co-operation of all participants.


LEAKING OF REPORT
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that everyone knows that the Cabinet Committee has not been able to decide on the Kirby Report because it is split over it. There is widespread belief, if not conviction, that the Kirby Report is being deliberately leaked by one faction or another in that Cabinet Committee, either to destroy the credibility of the report or to enhance its arguments in Cabinet. Will the Minister tell us which faction is leaking the Report?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, of course our policy is well known on that matter. We do not deny, we do not confirm, we do not comment on any document which is presented as a leaked document.


Charles Joseph Clark: You do not do anything; you dc not show up.


Pierre De Bané: For me, the leak is non-existent.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns his recent trip to the Far East, particularly to the Philippines. Amnesty International and other human rights groups continue to condemn the practices of illegal detentions, torture, and other violations of human rights by the Marcos regime in the Philippines. Since the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that he did not feel that it was proper to protest against such violations while recently visiting the Philippines, I ask him today, when, in his opinion, is the proper time to protest such violations, and will the Canadian Government make such a protest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would probably find it more productive to protest privately by form of letter to the President or to the Prime Minister-


An Hon. Member:: Did you?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -raising particular cases. If the Hon. Member wants to suggest particular cases that are worthy of being raised, I would be happy to hear from him.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I will be able to give the Prime Minister particular cases, Madam Speaker.


OFFICIAL'S STATEMENT
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, a Canadian Government official on the tour was quoted as saying that Canada "is not prepared to cause unemployment in Sudbury to free a nun in the Philippines". I trust that this is not the Government's position. If not, I ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's position on the relationship between trade and human rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have made it clear to all of the Press Conference, Madam Speaker, that policy in this regard was not established by officials, but, rather, by the Government itself. I would point out to the Hon. Member that the two matters of trade and human rights are not in the same category. They should not be traded off, one against the other. One should be able to pursue trade for its own merit in the ways one can best do it. Insofar as the promotion of human rights is concerned, it should also be done in ways which would be most effective.
January 20, 1983


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister, whichever would like to answer it. This year NATO Forces will be deploying 108 Pershing II missiles in West Germany. This missile is one which can deliver on a target 1,000 kilometres away in six minutes. There is no defence except launch on warning, and the Russians have indicated that that will be their defence.
I would ask the Minister what efforts we are making to persuade the Reagan Government to get down to serious bargaining before deployment, as part of the two-track proposal, in view of the fact that in the last week Eugene Rostow, a hawk, was fired and replaced by a super hawk named Kenneth Adelman, whom many Hon. Members here know. It looks as though there will be no serious effort to sit down and make a deal involving deployment unless that is done.


Jack Wendele Shields: All the doves are in Russia!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member began his question by saying that NATO intended to or would deploy Pershing II in western Europe this year. It would be my deepest wish that that deployment would not take place. That is why the NATO Alliance has offered to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union, in order to ensure that the Pershing II would not be deployed and in order to remove the SS-20. It is therefore the view of the NATO Alliance that, if concrete results are obtained in the allimportant negotiations, it would not be necessary to go ahead with the deployment of either the Cruise or the Pershing II. Therefore, as the Hon. Member knows, the two-track NATO decision which was taken in December, 1979, involves not only the possibility of deployment of new weapon systems, but also the necessity of serious negotiations.
In so far as the Government of Canada is concerned, we will do everything possible to ensure that the negotiations take place in good faith and that every serious proposal will be seriously examined. I can simply assure the Hon. Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that that is the attitude of the Government of Canada, and it is the one which was taken by the NATO Alliance in its last meeting in December.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State of Canada who,
Oral Questions
in his role as Minister advocate for the voluntary sector, will be aware of the long-delayed release last week of Statistics Canada's selected financial statistics on charitable organizations based on a 1980 survey, which shows that the total economic activity of the voluntary sector amounted to $11 billion in 1982, excluding universities and hospitals, or roughly 3 per cent of the country's gross national product. The Minister will also know that the recent proposals of his colleague, the Minister responsible for the status of women, have had a destabilizing effect on the voluntary sector. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what will be the financial implications of the proposed removal of the spousal tax exemption for the voluntary sector and its caring work?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I am perfectly aware of the report made public by Statistics Canada. Here in Ottawa yesterday I met with the national representatives of the coalition of voluntary organizations in Canada. We reassessed the economic impact of the voluntary sector in Canada and agreed on a work schedule which, in the coming months, would enable us to review the legislation and the context within which the Canadian Government cooperates with the voluntary sector.


NECESSITY FOR TASK FORCE
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, the question concerning the stability of the voluntary sector and its important input, as the Minister will know, is vitally important, given the situation in the country today.
On November 10 the Secretary of State told the National Conference on Philanthropy that he would seek Cabinet approval for the creation of a task force to study the financial and legal situation of the voluntary sector. He confirmed that announcement in committee on November 23. In light of the inaction of his two predecessors, the studies which have been ongoing, and the frustration of leaders of the voluntary organizations, will he now indicate to Canada's over three million volunteers what progress he is making in convincing his Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance, of the urgent need for such a task force in order to draw together the reports which are available, including the last report of Statistics Canada?


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, we have made much progress and I would urge the Hon. Member to support my efforts to convince Members opposite to expedite the passage of legislation stemming from the budget so that we might at last have the Speech from the Throne and I would then keep the commitment I made before the Parliamentary Committee.

January 20, 1983
Oral Questions


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He recently had some very extensive discussions with Chrysler of Canada. I would like to ask him if he directly dealt with the subject involving the 1,400 employees at American Motors in Brampton who will be laid off in April, and whether he appealed on their behalf that the Chrysler work be carried out in the Brampton plant.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Madam Speaker, Chrysler indicated there was a possibility that the Brampton plant could be used for the continuation of the production of rear-wheel drive cars such as the New Yorker. I am advised that the Brampton operation has a maximum capacity of about 80,000 units a year. Chrysler expects to produce 125,000 units a year and will therefore also be considering a St. Louis operation, a vacant plant, which could produce up to 150,000 units a year. They indicated a final decision would be made this week or next week.


ROLE OF MINISTER
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the Minister did not exactly answer my question. Did he make an appeal on behalf of the 1,400 workers who are being laid off in April in Brampton from that plant to get the work there or did he just take their word and say, 'That is fine' and just let the jobs go to the Americans?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that we want to retain every single automobile job that we can in this country. We were hoping that we could retain the rear-wheel drive production in Canada, whether it is in Brampton or any other facility. That decision has still not been taken by the Chrysler Corporation.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Both he and his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, have said that the Canadian public, in voting by a majority against Cruise missile testing, was ignorant of all the complexities involved.
If the Minister and his colleague really believe that the Canadian public is ignorant, why did the Minister authorize an Order in Council the day after Parliament rose for the Christmas recess, authorizing the Canadian ambassador to sign a framework weapons testing agreement in Washington? Why did he not bring this agreement forward to the Canadian public and Parliament? Why has the Order in Council not even been made public or gazetted? Why did the Minister decide, if he is so anxious for the Canadian public to be knowledgeable on this matter, that it should know nothing about it, and that the agreement would be signed in Washington and not in Ottawa?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that at no point have I ever stated that the Canadian public was ignorant on the question of the Cruise missile. I do not have that view at all, and I have never expressed that view. What 1 have said was with respect to a specific question that was put in the Gallup Poll, namely, that it was an incomplete question and did not include all the factors that had to be taken into account in reaching a judgment on the Cruise missile. There was no reflection on the knowledge or lack of it on the part of the Canadian public. I hasten to assure the Hon. Member that when the umbrella agreement is signed it will be tabled in the House and all its contents will be made known to the Canadian public, to the Canadian Parliament, and I will be prepared to answer all questions, inside the House or outside the House, with respect to the details of that umbrella agreement.


SITE OF SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, looking at the public opinion poll questions, they are generally what one would call soft. If they had been tougher, if they had said more about the Cruise missile testing than they did, the vote would probably have been 80 per cent opposed rather than 52 per cent.
The Minister still has not answered my question. Why are we signing this agreement in Washington? Why was the Order in Council authorizing that agreement to be signed never gazetted? Why is he persisting in this secrecy? Is he frightened of parliamentary and public scrutiny? Is that the problem?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and
Secretary of State for External Affairs): No, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member is, I think, profoundly misinformed about the gazetting. I understand the fact that an Order in Council had been passed authorizing the signing of the agreement was published in The Canada Gazette, and the fact that the Order in Council had been passed was listed in The Canada Gazette. If 1 am mistaken I will obviously correct myself, but I think probably the Hon. Member will have to do the correcting rather than I.
January 20, 1983


IMMIGRATION
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that some Chinese students living in Canada on student visas are being victimized by so-called secret criminal societies, and in view of the fact that extortion cases are quite common in Toronto's Chinatown, according to information from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Intelligence Squad, will the Minister state what action, if any, his Department will take to advise people in Canada on student visas and who may be potential victims? Will he also advise what action will be taken against landed immigrants or potential landed immigrants who engage in this criminal practice of extortion?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I know the case the Hon. Member refers to is one that has caused some very serious concern in the city of Toronto and other parts of Canada. When we allow people to enter with student visas they are usually advised of their rights during that period of time, and we certainly accept no interference with those rights. They have the full protection that those visas provide to them. However, it is not the direct responsibility of the Canadian Immigration Department to pursue cases where there may be threats of extortion, or other criminal activities. It is really the responsibility of the police forces to look into that. We, of course, co-operate with them in any way we can, but it is not our job to prosecute cases. That really has to be left up to the police.


FISHERIES
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is supplemental to that asked by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am going to the other ocean-from coast to coast and sea to sea.
The Minister will be aware that there are two reports on West Coast fisheries, one prepared by Dr. Pearse and the second prepared by a committee appointed by his predecessor, which I will call the Cruikshank report and for the lack of a better title, "The Rationalization of the Fleet Report". I wonder if the Minister is prepared to table the second report, the Cruikshank report, and to provide a reference to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans so that it and the Pearse Report might be studied side by side?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, 1 would gladly transmit that report to the Hon. Member, but of course it is up to each committee to study whatever it would like to study. I think that as my consultations are going on at the moment with all the participants on the Pacific Coast, the most useful thing would be to
Oral Questions
study the implementation of the policies which will be announced after due consultation with the different participants.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL OF REPORTS TO COMMITTEE
Donald W. Munro: The
Minister's answer suggests that the committees are capable of deciding what they should be studying. That is not my experience with committees in the past, nor is it my understanding of the committee reforms. There must be a reference from this House to a committee, and the Kirby Report must also be referred to the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
I wonder if the Minister is prepared to make sure that all three of these reports are referred to the committee, with the appropriate reference. He always talks about the action. He is going to be acting from coast to coast, from ocean to ocean. His hands are going to be full. The fishermen still want to have their views expressed in Parliament, and I hope he will provide that reference. Will he do so?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I will certainly take under consideration the recommendation put to me, but I would like the Hon. Member to remember that, if we follow his suggestion, it could be a never-ending process. Those reports are the fruit of extensive consultations with the participants. Now that the reports have been tabled, if we have to invite those participants again to appear at committee hearings, when will that end?
I think we have carried out enough consultation. Now is the time to hold final meetings with the different participants. I will be doing that on the Pacific Coast, through my deputy, next week. I will be going there the week after that and afterward I think we will have to make some decisions. Then the Committee could study the implementation of those policies.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Federal officials, either in the Minister's Department or some other Department, have indicated that a priority of the Government is to attempt to establish a domestic helicopter industry in Canada. This is because of the need for it from the point of view of jobs and the fact that sales, not only in Canada but in other countries, would be substantial in the coming years.
The Province of Manitoba has already made a submission to a federal departmental committee which is looking at this whole question. It wants the Government to look very seriously
22044

January 20, 1983
Petitions
at the question of establishing a helicopter industry in the Province of Manitoba. Will the Minister advise whether this is being taken seriously at this time and whether Manitoba will be a front runner for any industry such as a helicopter industry that may be developed in Canada in the very near future?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, over a year ago our officials did a study and discovered that Canada is the second largest user of commercial helicopters in the world. Consequently we have been very active in trying to encourage various helicopter companies from around the world to have a manufacturing plant in this country. Several weeks ago 1 sent a letter to, if I recall, seven manufacturers around the world, giving them a date for a proposal with respect to building a facility in Canada. There have already been a couple of applications by different companies to have a helicopter facility located in more than one province. Finally, Madam Speaker, yes, we do take this project seriously and we hope that we will be able to finalize a very important manufacturing industry some place in Canada during the coming year.


RATIO OF AEROSPACE INDUSTRY IN MANITOBA
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, 1 remind the Minister that Manitoba has traditionally had 8 to 9 per cent of the aerospace industry in terms of production in Canada. That percentage has dropped to approximately 2 to 2.5 per cent at the present time because of the shift to central Canada. In view of what the Minister has just stated, I ask him to keep this in mind. Also, does he anticipate further meetings with Government representatives of the Manitoba Department of Trade and Commerce?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, at least six Provinces have made representations to the Government of Canada to have that potential facility located in them. By and large that decision will be taken by whichever company if one, or maybe more than one, decides to locate in Canada, and not by the Government of Canada.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by the Hon. Members on Wednesday, January 19, 1983, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Government House Leader. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed today under the appropriate Standing Order with the time allocation motion given notice of yesterday?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is extremely well informed.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, is the House Leader aware that there is a growing and mounting opposition to the moves that the Government is proposing, not only in the House of Commons but outside from many, many sectors of the economy? Is the Government House Leader prepared to consider holding off the closing off of debate on Bill C-133 in order to allow the legitimate opposition that is growing to be heard?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, Bill C-133 which my hon. colleague is referring was discussed as part of the debate on the June 28 budget. It was considered at the second reading stage and received the approval in principle of this House. The bill was then referred to a Standing Committee of the House, where after clause-by-clause consideration, it was approved and reported back to the House. We are now at the report stage, on which already more than two days have been spent. That is an extraordinarily long time, considering the circumstances I just mentioned. Pursuant to the provisions governing procedure in the House, I suggested that the Hon. Member negotiate with the Government on a reasonable time frame for completing debate on this legislation. Since his party turned down my proposal, today, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) has no alternative but to move a motion to limit debate to two additional days, which is again quite considerable, in view of all the other obligations Parliament must meet at this time.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I hope that the Conservative Party is as concerned about this as I am. In light of the Minister's statement, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House do now adjourn.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion (Mr. Deans) negatived.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents in the riding of Athabasca. The purpose of the petition, signed by 33 residents of Fort McMurray, is to register their protest against the restriction on Japanese auto imports. The nature of the petition is to request that the Government immediately withdraw this restriction which is unfair to Canadian auto dealers who sell Japanese vehicles, their employees and dependants. This restriction will inevitably force these auto dealers to lay off up to 2,000 employees, while studies show that only a very small number of Canadian auto workers' jobs will be restored.
The petitioners hope that in Madam Speaker's examination of the petition she will find it in order, sense the urgency of their plea, and use the discretionary powers vested in her office to allow discussion and referral of the petition to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs at the earliest possible moment.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 148 and local lodges in the greater Vancouver area. The petition is presented by these employees in light of Air Canada's plan to lay off some 585 machinists without any form of severance benefit and at the same time to extend an early retirement program to senior management employees, some 500 employees, costing $21 million.
The petitioners, as Air Canada workers, indicate in the petition that as their wages are being controlled under the six and five program and that that is for the good of the country, they are told, nonetheless Air Canada is threatening to lay them off and indeed started to do so on January 1. They call that job blackmail. At the same time the machinists claim that the company is offering a $21 million "golden handshake'' deal

January 20, 1983
Time Allocation
to its management personnel and allege that this is downright discrimination.
These machinists ask for the support of all Members of Parliament to ensure that the Government of Canada insists that Air Canada offer to all its employees the same benefits provided for in the Air Canada voluntary separation plan for management.
In presenting this petition, I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), on behalf of these 150 employees, to treat all employees of Air Canada with equity and fairness.



ACT RESPECTING THE EXECUTION OF CLIFFORD ROBERT OLSON


Gordon Edward Taylor: for leave to introduce Bill C-671, an Act respecting the execution of Clifford Robert Olson.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, when the laws of Canada provided for the death penalty for murderers, exceptions were made after the court ordered their execution. Now the laws of Canada do not provide for the death penalty. This Bill will provide an exception to the law and Clifford Robert Olson will be hanged within 90 days after its passage.
The Bill shall operate notwithstanding Section 2 or Sections 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as contained in Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Clifford Robert Olson is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt of murdering 11 young people and, in committing these hideous, cowardly murders, he has forfeited his right to live.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board ) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: In opening debate in support of this motion, I want to submit that Members of the Opposition Parties and all Members have had a broad opportunity to consider the
provisions of this Bill and to present views to Parliament. In fact, members of the public have also had a broad opportunity to let their views be heard. The debate on second reading took up three days of the time of this House, and a review of Hansard indicates that during this stage a total of more than seven hours were spent on debate. Of that time some four hours were used by 12 Members of the Opposition Parties. After the House approved this Bill in principle it was referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on December 9, 1982. Over 23 hours were spent by the Committee questioning witnesses and in detailed study of the Bill. This took 14 sittings of the Committee over a period of nine sitting days. Thirty one witnesses appeared before the Committee and 12 briefs were presented.
The report of the committee which we have been debating this week arises from 520 pages of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee, not counting the actual briefs which were presented. The Committee voted to refer the Bill to this House with its approval.
As Hon. Members know, for three days this week this House has been engaged in debate on the Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on Bill C-133. I do not want to overburden Members of this House with statistical data. However, I would simply like to point out in support of my arguments that there has been ample opportunity for the views of Members of Parliament and the public to be heard on Bill C-133 up to this point in time. On January 17 and 18 alone, in the course of over seven hours of debate, a total of 45 Members were heard, 41 of them would rank themselves with the Opposition Parties, and eight more Opposition Members were heard on this Bill this morning. Thus in debate in this House alone on the provisions of Bill C-133 some 61 Members of the Opposition have spoken. Many more have spoken in committee.
There has been, Mr. Speaker, a full opportunity to study, reflect and to express views on the provisions of what is in reality a very straightforward piece of legislation. Let us remember that the proposal was first announced last June and it has been available for study and comment by Members of Parliament and members of the public all through that time since this proposal was made in last June's budget of last June. As I have said, Bill C-133 is a straightforward Bill. It contains only two short clauses. The explanatory note in the Bill runs to four sentences only. The reason for the Bill can be put into one sentence. The Bill applies the Government six and five restraint program to the indexation of Public Service pensions for a two-ear period.


Mr. Kilgour:: Unfairly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am arguing that further debate on this Bill is not required to enable a decision on it to be made by this House.
The questions surrounding the funding and financing of Public Service pensions are complex indeed, but these funding and financing issues are not the subject of Bill C-133. I have
January 20, 1983

made the point repeatedly that the Bill does not have its origin in fundamental pension policy but rather in the Government's over-all economic stabilization program announced in the budget of June, 1982.


David Kilgour: That is absolute nonsense.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This program began last summer with the application of the six and five limits to the wage increases of employees in the federal public sector for a two-year period. The second step of this program involves the application of the six and five limits to the indexation features of Family Allowances, Old Age Security pensions, personal income tax exemptions and Public Service pensions, again for a two-year period. The effect of the Bill is to limit the increase in indexing of Public Service pensions to 6.5 per cent in the first year and 5.5 per cent in the next year according to the terms of the amendment 1 have offered. Nothing that is presently being paid is being reduced. Nothing that is presently being paid is taken away.


David Kilgour: That is absolute nonsense.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Hon. Members know that this Bill is a part of a program which has as its objective altering inflationary expectations and to provide a basis for economic recovery for reducing inflation and interest rates, and maintaining and creating jobs. The facts are very clear. This program has already had a useful effect if we look at the substantial reductions in inflation and interest rates over recent months.


Walter David Baker: Even before it is enacted?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Members of the Opposition continue to point to amounts of money in the superannuation accounts, and the fact that public servants have made contributions toward the cost of their indexing, which is something that we recognized in our amendment. There is also the fact that support has been given in the past to the concept of indexing of pensions to keep pace with the cost of living. We are also aware of facts like these and others, but 1 would like to say that the references made to huge surpluses are not accurate, and that the sufficiency of employee contributions has been questioned by many and is under review. Also, the Government remains committed to the principle of indexing, and this Bill provides for a return to the present system of indexing after the restraint period.
1 suggest that everything possible has been said on this Bill. It is apparent from the debate so far, particularly from the remarks of Opposition speakers in the most recent stage of debate, that Members opposite have run out of new or cogent arguments and points to be made and they have begun resorting to all manner of irrelevancies simply to prolong report stage and the Bill's ultimate passage.
Let me cite some of the matters that we have heard discussed in recent hours on this debate. We have heard, for example, how the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) had dinner with the Hon. Grant Devine. I suppose if he speaks again he will tell us exactly what was on the menu. But that certainly is not the point of this Bill. We have had a rather questionable review from the Hon. Member for Simcoe
Time Allocation
South (Mr. Stewart) of the federal Government's loan transactions. There was a quote offered by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) from Ultramar Canada's assessment of PetroCan's competitive potential related to its low-cost capital structure.


John Carr Munro: Now read the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) letter.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I could go on citing other examples, Mr. Speaker, but the ones I have given, I think, do show why the motion on allocation of one final day to report stage and one day to third reading is a reasonable measure at this time.
Opposition Members may say that we are doing something contrary to parliamentary tradition. Aside from the fact that the steps we are taking are found in the rules adopted by this Parliament and are there to be used in support of its work. I want to remind the House that the British Parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, has had provisions of this type for many years which it uses on just about every Bill, including the most important. Time allocation is automatic in the British House with respect to almost every Bill that goes there, and there is not more than one or two days allotted to any stage of debate. What we are doing is certainly consistent with parliamentary tradition, especially that found in the British House, the Mother of Parliaments.
It is unfortunate that it has not been possible to negotiate an agreement for ending debate on Bill C-133, but in fact we believe time allotted to date for this Bill has been sufficient to enable a full range of opinions to be expressed about the capping of indexing of Public Service pensions as part of the six and five program.
In moving this motion, I am mindful that in the past pension cheques for superannuates have been sent out from and after the twenty-fifth of the month. In my view, the motion will assist in ensuring that pension cheques for superannuates are sent out in the traditional time period for superannuates.
To conclude, I submit, there has been a reasonable opportunity to debate this Bill and for the views of the public to be heard. A full range of opinion has been expressed on it. We are proposing that, in spite of the time already taken to debate this Bill, two more days be set by the House for debate and that we then go on to make a decision on this Bill so that we may get to other important business awaiting our attention.
Parliament is a place of debate but, even more important, it is a place of decision. It is time for a decision on Bill C-133. I urge the adoption of this motion.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether it is time for decision. The question is whether a decision ought to have been made long ago by the Government of Canada to deny an undertaking and agreement with respect to its own public servants. I must consider this motion in those terms.

January 20, 1983
Time Allocation
Before doing so, I wish to welcome back the New Democratic Party to the House of Commons who moved a motion to adjourn the House. They somehow wanted to convince everyone that they were really fighting this legislation. That was their intention.


Mr. Waddell:: You were fighting for the oil companies.


Walter David Baker: What they forgot is that the ditches and the trenches that they should occupy in terms of this debate are in the House of Commons and not outside boycotting their own motion.


Ian Deans: Now the hypocricy comes out.


Walter David Baker: That is why the New
Democratic Party has become known across this country as the prairie chickens.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That Party fought for 15 days for the oil companies but they are not prepared to fight 15 minutes for pensioners and civil servants.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order and they know it. They should not further boycott and limit the work of this Parliament when we are dealing with a motion that they themselves say ought not to have been brought.


Ian Deans: That is right and we refuse to help them. Tell the senior citizens what you really think of them.


Walter David Baker: There have been approximately 30 speakers at the report stage over two days under the new rules of this House. These are rules which the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) said would shorten speeches. These speeches have been shortened at report stage by being reduced from 20 minutes to 10 minutes.
Why were they shortened? It was to allow Members of all Parties, whether Liberals, New Democrats or Conservatives, to speak on this matter. There still remain issues to be discussed, despite what the Minister says. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, in the face of shortening the period of time in which to speak, the Government has moved to allocate time.
I would be prepared to argue that when a Bill is absolutely necessary to implement a beneficial Government program there is perhaps a place for time allocation. However, can it be argued, with respect to a Bill which is designed to remove a benefit which has been contracted, paid for and relied upon by a large number of retired public servants, Armed Service members and retired members of the RCMP, as well as their widows and children, that it is honest and moral for the Government to move time allocation? That is the issue in this debate.
Let me say what the effect of this Bill is. Without any consultation, without a word to the Public Service, the Government has effectively increased taxation on those retired public servants and the broad public sector which 1 have mentioned by 5 per cent. That is the difference between the 11.5 per cent which public servants were entitled to under their agreement
and understanding over the years and the 6.5 per cent in the first year as set out in this Bill. It is an increase in taxation on a particular segment of society. It will be seen as that; it is that and it is unforgiveable to introduce such a Bill. It is equally and perhaps more unforgiveable to cut back on the right of Members to speak about it.
I want to say to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and Members of the House that this is not the first time that the Government will use this measure during the course of debate on its famous six and five program.


Ian Deans: I could have told you that in August.


Walter David Baker: We will be dealing with Old Age Security. I do not want the NDP to boycott the House during discussion on Old Age Security. I want Members of Parliament and the public to know that the Government will do exactly the same thing with respect to Old Age Security. This will be an additional tax on the senior citizens in the country.
During the period for Members' Statements today, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) made a good statement when he said that Members should have an opportunity to be more independent. This is an opportunity for all Members of the Liberal Party to be more independent because the vote to close off debate in the House is not a vote of confidence. I say to the Liberal Members that they should stand up and vote against this motion. Your Government will not fall at 5.30 p.m. when this vote is taken. The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence should return to the House. I would ask him and every Member to have a conscience and vote against this motion.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would answer the question as to why the Conservative Party would keep the bells ringing for the oil companies but not for the senior citizens, if they are concerned about this legislation. Can he answer that question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think I should remind Hon. Members, particularly since I know that points of order were used earlier today as a mechanism to encourage debate, that it may be appropriate in the circumstances to remind Hon. Members to consider perhaps whether or not they are properly speaking on a point of order before they interrupt another Hon. Member. Of course, the Chair will recognize Hon. Members on a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, as you noticed, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was taking his seat. I was rising on a point of order to determine if he was willing to respond to a question as to why the Conservative Party was willing to let the bells ring in the House for the oil companies but not for the senior citizens of this land.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I said I could answer the question if I have your permission and the permission of the House to do so.

January 20, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I apologize to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I did not realize that the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had decided to take his seat or to answer a question.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the issue during the bell-ringing episode was with respect to this very institution. That is the difference.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You supported the oil companies.


Walter David Baker: The issue on which the NDP supported us, in their good sense, incidentally, concerned the survival of this institution with regard to legislation being brought forward.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton permit another short question? I want to ask, in a very non-partisan way, why the Conservative Party and he himself in particular-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. A point of privilege is being raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). 1 have no choice but to interrupt the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway who is speaking on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that we are into the same quagmire in which we were this morning. We are now getting questions from the NDP, who just came back into the House, addressed to the Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) when he, indeed, had the floor. You did not ask me or anyone else for unanimous consent for questions to be put to the Member for Nepean-Carleton. I refuse to have an ongoing debate on this motion.


Ian Deans: How long can we speak with the Conservatives alongside of you?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Get up and take the floor, Deans, if you want to speak. Wait until I am finished.
I object to this kind of procedure, which is completely wrong, completely frustrates the whole spirit of our new rules, and which will just make the NDP look sillier than it did before.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say on behalf of my colleagues that we in the New Democratic Party will not abuse the rules. We are using these rules to protect the pensioners of Canada. That is what we are doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to spend about one minute discussing the Bill because, as the Minister has indicated, much has already been said about the Bill, but I want to make two quick points. At this point in our history, when so many Canadians, particularly pensioners, are in a state of misery, it is wrong for any Government in this land with a sense of decency to take a
Time Allocation
whack at the pensioners, to reduce their benefits by whatever amount. However, I say that it is doubly wrong, the immorality is compounded, when a Gouvernement takes a group of pensioners who in fact have negotiated a contract, creates a fund to give them special benefits to which they contribute, and then denies that benefit to those pensioners. I repeat, it is compounding the imorality, and that is what the Government is doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Edward Broadbent: In this context, I want to say that the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party could hardly be exceeded in terms of what it is doing today. We have said in this debate that last spring, in June, when the budget came down, the then Minister of Finance made it very clear that anyone supporting the six and five program would also support a reduction in pensions, a whack away at recipients of Family Allowances, and curtail in general incomes of public servants. By moral admonition, the Government hoped, with Conservative support, there would be a curtailment of wage and salary increases of ordinary workers throughout this land. I say to the Conservatives that the Government made it clear last June that the pensioners would be affected. The Conservatives rose in this House in August and voted for the six and five program.


Walter David Baker: We voted against that budget.


John Edward Broadbent: Now, hypocritically, they oppose its clear implication.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the immediate issue which is before the House this afternoon. Our House leader rose because he knows that on Tuesday cheques will be sent out in good faith to men and women who have contributed to pension funds and who are now entitled to an escalation in their pension increase fully equivalent to the increase in the cost of living, to which they are morally and legally entitled at this minute, throughout Canada. Our House leader rose because he is aware that even if we in this House could hold the measure up this afternoon until 6 o'clock or beyond 6 p.m. so that the required two hours of closure debate would not take place, at least the pensions which would go out on Tuesday would reflect some sense of morality and justice because they would be fully indexed. I say with all seriousness that because today the Liberals were supported by the Conservatives, the pensioners will be cheated on Tuesday night. That is the reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Edward Broadbent: In this context, I want to say that all that it would take-


Donald W. Munro: You were not here!

January 20, 1983
Time Allocation


Walter David Baker: You were not even here to vote for your own motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, note the crocodile tears and the astute, well-informed, cogently equipped argumentation of the Hon. Member who has just said that if we had been here and voted with them, if we had come back sooner, then somehow that would have helped the pensioners!


Erik Nielsen: We did your job.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 say to the Conservative Member that even his Party, for once, got all its Members out-


Erik Nielsen: Where were yours?


John Edward Broadbent: -to the vote, and we had ours and had voted with them, he knows very well that the majority on that side of the House would have carried the day, the debate would have been finished by six o'clock, and the pensioners would have been cheated. That is what he knows.


Walter David Baker: Changed your tune, now, Ed. The old 20 per centers.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Conservatives that if they had really been interested, just as a small percentage in terms of their concern, to the same degree as they were with regard to the oil industry at the time they held the House up for days, not hours, then the pensioners would have had some justice on Tuesday night. If they had just stayed, literally, until one minute after 4 o'clock, and come back in for the vote, then the pensioners' cheques would have been at the just level which they had negotiated.
Our Party opposed the six and five program because we said at the outset that that was a bit of cosmetic window-dressing brought forward by the Government of Canada because it knew that all the economic indicators pointed to the fact that wage and salary increases would be going down, anyway. However, it brought it in to try to claim some credit. We saw it for what it was, an unfair slap at ordinary working people, doing nothing about inflation and, most important, doing nothing about the basic necessity at this point in our history of creating more jobs. We said it last August. We have consistently said it in terms of every Bill which has been related to it. The Conservative Party which, 1 regret to say, voted for that Bill last August, has now hypocritically stood up in the House and pretended to oppose the natural outflow from that course of action. The Government was wrong in its economic analysis and in its morality, and has been joined in this injustice by the Conservative Party. We oppose both of them.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the June budget, the then Minister of Finance proposed that a national partnership be undertaken between the Government and the people of this country to begin a serious effort to fight inflation. On page 4 of his budget speech, the Minister made two important statements which I would like to quote so that everyone can be reminded of the importance of this issue. First, the Minister said:
It is within our power, through deliberate and concerted action, to bring down price inflation much more quickly. We can do this by accepting, for the time
being, income increases that are lower than the current rate of inflation. A reduction of income demands will lower cost and price increases. In this way we can stop feeding the spiral of inflation.
Then a little further on in his budget speech the Minister said:
The private sector and the Provinces could not be expected to accept income restraint unless the Government of Canada showed leadership in the conduct of its own affairs. The government has therefore decided to lead the way by implementing the proposed strategy in the federal public sector for a period of two years.
That is the purpose, the whole direction, of this debate. The Government has proposed a national partnership, and we have further proposed that the public be able to judge its behaviour against our own. The public has accepted that partnership and the public approves the six and five program and the efforts that we are making with our own behaviour.


John Horton McDermid: They are asking for a second opinion.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Your Honour will recall that in June we introduced three stages. We said, first, that political people, the governing people, the M.P.s, Senators and their staffs, would have their salaries rolled back from an 11 per cent increase to the 6 per cent level for 1982, and that after that we would go through the normal six and five cycle in 1983-84. Then Deputy Ministers and the heads of Crown corporations were limited to 6 per cent and 5 per cent increases from July 1, 1982.


Mr. Lewis:: How about Campagnolo?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: After that, in an easier fashion, in a phased-in fashion, ordinary public servants were asked to enter the six and five program. That included not only their salaries but their pensions. Then, having set that out, we turned to the public and asked them to accept six and five limitations on pensions, on Family Allowances and on income tax indexing. 1 do not know how I could possibly go to my own parents and say to them that their pensions must be limited to six and five but that the pensions of civil servants need not be limited. We had to have that partnership, we had to have that agreement, before going to the general public. We need to remember, as well, that these six and five increases have brought to us lower prices in the form of administered prices, lower prices through the indirect pressures the Government has applied to industry, and lower wages, through the leadership we have given to ordinary companies and ordinary people.
We need to remember that this program has been brought in by Province after Province, as part of a partnership, right across this country. So we are not talking here only about civil servants. We are talking about a partnership involving all Canadians, and the goal of that partnership is to bring stability and health back to our economy. We are not talking about parliamentary gains. We are not talking about fights between politicians. We are talking about the economic health and price stability for this country, and there has been widespread public acceptance of that.
January 20, 1983

I remind everyone of the fact that when that budget speech was given, inflation was over 11.5 per cent. On a year to year basis, in November it was 9.8 per cent. The bank rate was 16.5 per cent on June 28 and today it is under 10 per cent. The dollar was under 77 cents on June 28, and today it is over 81.5 cents. That is good news at a time when good news is needed. It is as a result of this national partnership and as a result of the efforts of all Canadians who agree that fighting inflation is the key to our future health. The results of this effort show up in the lives of ordinary people. A typical mortgage, a one-year mortgage of $50,000, on June 28 was earning interest of 19.25 per cent. The same mortgage negotiated today is 12 per cent. That is god news and it is the result of the partnership and determination that is building around the six and five program.
Predictably, there are some people who are opposed, and predictably those people would like us to show favours to a special group or to pick out one group of people who need not be included. We cannot affort that in this kind of program. We cannot abandon our half of the partnership. We cannot go to the Canadian people and say that six and five is an acceptable rule for them but not for our employees. We cannot delcare the partnership void once we have asked everybody else to get on board.
That is what the Opposition is asking us to do, to abandon our commitment to the six and five program and to abandon the fight against inflation. In that kind of sentimentality they are urging us to get back from feeding what the Minister calls the inflationary spiral. We cannot do that any longer.
I would finally like to remind Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, that coming from the six and five program there have been savings which have been applied to other Government programs, and those programs today, six months after that budget, are demonstrated successes. We have seen $400 million applied to transportation. We have seen $500 million in the NEED program. We have seen the $3,000 mortgage renewal program and the $3,000 homeowner grant program and we have seen renewals in all these industries because of this kind of stimulation.
When people talk, as the Opposition does, about abandoning the six and five program, they are also talking about abandoning the commitment to those jobs, the stimulants and the renewed investments. I do not think today we should let the debate end without putting into perspective the implications of their attack. They want special status given to special people, after asking every other Canadian to join in. They want, furthermore, an abandonment of the stimulants and spending that has been earned from the six and five program. Those commitments that were set out in the June budget, that were renewed in the October financial statement, stand, and the determination of this Government stands to renew the health of the economy of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich, may I proceed with announcing the questions in the "late show" for this evening?
Time Allocation



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Canadian	National Railways-Committee
recommendation on pension fund inquiry-(b) Pension fund in investment; the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) Communications-Production of pornographic shows for Pay TV; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Communications-Pornographic programming advertized by First Choice Pay TV. (b) Provisions of Broadcasting Act. (c) Request that Broadcasting Act be amended.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray:
That, in relation to Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, this is the most puzzling debate in which I have ever participated. It is an extraordinary debate. I hear a complete fabrication from Hon. Members opposite. 1 hear a Goeb-belesque sort of defining of the word "partnership" without identifying any more partnership than the six and five, but let me first deal with Hon. Members to my extreme left. I was taken by complete suprise when the Leader of the New Democratic Party said, if I recall-and I just could not believe my ears-that if the Progressive Conservative Party had not supported the Government on the motion to adjourn-


An Hon. Member:: You supported the Government.


Donald W. Munro: Were they looking
through the TV backwards, out there in the lobby? I just do not understand. We did not support the Government on that. We supported their motion which they were not here to support, and they say that we supported the Government on this motion. 1 do not understand that sort of reasoning.

January 20, 1983
Time Allocation
The reasoning of the Liberal Party is just as flawed. They talk about partnership. Partnership with whom, the six and five? Is six a partner of five? By the imposition of six and five, which they are seeking in certain areas, are they suggesting that, because of the future application of six and five, they have managed to bring the inflation rate down? They were blaming the United States for causing the inflation rate to rise, and interest rates too, and now they are taking credit for the collapse of the interest rates and the inflation rate. I just do not understand. Goebbelesque is the only way I can describe it-if you repeat something often enough in enough places, to enough people, somebody is bound to believe it. But I suggest in the House there is no one who will believe what we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary just a few minutes ago. It is just incredible. What do they mean by partnership? The Hon. Member talked about those savings which have been accumulated by the imposition of six and five. How can we have savings when we are already $23.9 billion in debt, maybe more than that, maybe $30 billion? Where does one get savings, when one is already in debt, that one does not apply to reduce that debt? The logic that comes from that side of the House and from the other end of the House is fallacious-I guess they learned it at the same school. It is fallacious, it is misleading, it is Geobbelesque and it is dangerous.
1 want to read into the record now the text of a telegram which was sent today by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). It puts in a very succinct form the matter now before us. It reads:
Am deeply disappointed that you have resorted through sheer political expedience to measures that would negate the democratic process in order to implement administrative procedures. Following our meetings last December and earlier this month I had hoped that you would have exerted your influence to honour the Government's commitment as employer and not deny pensioners the full indexation to inflation that they have paid for and which present public servants continue to support with their contributions.
Got the message? It goes on:
-the full indexation to inflation that they have paid for and which present public servants continue to support with their contributions. Bill C-133 is a political measure which the Government mistakenly believes will have popular support because it adversely affects public servants, but by forcing pensioners-
This is the point.
-by forcing pensioners to bear the brunt of this evil law, the Government's strategy will eventually backfire. It is still not too late for you to redress the situation. Withdraw Bill C-133 and restore some of your credibility.
I doubt the Minister could ever restore any of his credibility. We have talked about the number of people being injured by the legislation. I was able to get the number of pensioners in the Public Service and in the Armed Service. I asked for the number in the RCMP. It was not easy to get this information because of the three categories. The RCMP were not able, in the time available, to supply me with the figures I was seeking, but they can be pro rated. It is important to know how many widows are going to be hit by this legislation. In the Public Service and in the Armed Service there are approximately 150,000 pensioners. Of those, approximately 40,000 are
widows. Is the President of the Treasury Board aware that his measure is going to have an impact on widows who rely on this pension for their livelihood?
This is an iniquitous Bill. Commitments were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1977 and by the then President of the Treasury Board, now Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), as late as June 1981 indicating that the Government confirms the concept that pension is part of pay and-

-a viewpoint well supported by the compensation policies which give its full value to the pension plan ... we, the government, have attempted to formalize a policy of matching the total salary compensation of our public servants with that of other Canadian employees. An important aspect of these comparisons consists in giving a value to the pension benefits of federal employees.

That is an extract from a letter written by the then President of the Treasury Board to the National Association of Federal Annuitants. They are deeply distressed.
There is another aspect to this matter that has not been fully underlined but deserves to be underlined. This imposition of a lower index is to be applied to current pensions, despite the 11 per cent inflation. A catch-up will not be made. This brief, which I believe was presented to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates in December of last year, suggests what ought to be done if, as seems likely because of the predominance of the heavy weighting on the Government side. The Government is going to have its way. Once the six and five formula is implemented, appropriate increments should be added so that the base from which the 1985 or 1986 pensions are paid will be restored and there will not be a backtracking from the current expectation. That is a legitimate request. With time running as short as it is, I will reserve any further comments until third reading.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate because, quite frankly, I take issue with the arguments raised by Members of the Opposition Parties. In debates like this, it is not unusual for Opposition Members to rant and rave about this Government's predilection for using closure in the House. They like to create the image of the Government strangling democracy, having its fingers and thumbs firmly around the neck of this House, squeezing as tightly as it can, and perhaps even cackling with enjoyment.
1 know, Mr. Speaker, that you are an astute student of politics. Like everyone else in this House who does any reading on the state or character of legislative politics today in the western world, you know that many Houses of Commons like this are rapidly becoming anachronistic simply because they cannot get the business of the country done quickly enough in a world that is changing with enormous speed.
The Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain recognized this fact long ago. There is not a Bill introduced in the British House of Commons that does not automatically carry closure with it. If you look at the rules of some of the other Houses in
January 20, 1983

the British parliamentary system, you find that they too have gone to some form or another of automatic closure.
1 would argue that the failure of this House for a number of reasons to introduce automatic closure is the major reason why this institution is rapidly becoming less relevant in the important debates that we have today and will face in the future. The irony of that situation is that the people who, publicly or rhetorically, express their love and respect for this House are the very people who object to closure, the one instrument that will save this House from the doom that I and many other people see ahead of us in the near future. 1 cannot understand that. How can we have a gentleman like the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or oder. 1 am trying to digest an extraordinary comment made by the speaker who was just now on his feet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilgour):: 1 do not consider that a point of order. 1 recognize the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly).


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Hon. gentleman's inability to digest the facts-I am not appealing to his stomach, I am trying to appeal to his head-the point 1 was making is that 1 listen very carefully and I respect very much the views of the esteemed Hon. Members of this House such as the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, and it strikes me as being highly ironic that that Hon. Member, and people like him, who love this institution and want to do the very best for it, would be among the very first to stand up in this House to object to the only procedure which, frankly, is going to rescue this institution from the oblivion to which it is so resolutely headed. I do not understand the contradiction between the conviction of his heart and what I hear him say from time to time in the debates in this House.
There are some Members of this House who might say, "Well, 1 can accept the need for closure, time allocation of one sort or another in the deliberations of this House, but the real question is, should there be closure on time allocation placed on this Bill today?" I would respond, Mr. Speaker, by saying, yes, 1 think there should be closure today. 1 know there are Members of the Opposition Parties who say there should not be closure because the argument is not over, and they want to continue the argument through this week or next week or next month, or whatever, until the issue is resolved. 1 would like to make an important distinction which 1 think should be understood in the debates in this House. You do not debate issues until the argument is over. You do not debate an issue in this House until all the facts are in.


Donald W. Munro: Who decides that?


Norman Kelly: I know, as everyone knows, that arguments of this sort produced by Bills as sensitive and as important as this one will never end. You will never get anyone in this House to believe that the argument is over, and because that will never happen I think there has to be a point in the life of a debate
Time Allocation
where the question can be raised and reasonably answered, "Are the facts in?" I believe the answer to that is, yes, the facts are in.
Although I have not participated in this debate until now, l have been following it through Hansard, and 1 find nothing new in the debate over the last few weeks from what I saw in the debate over the first few weeks. I believe that is as good a test as any to see if the facts are in. Is there anyone on the Opposition side, or on this side for that matter, who is raising any new points or introducing any new facts or looking at the issue from a fresh perspective? The answer is, no, there is not.
The Hon. Members opposite are not without imagination. They are not without research staff. I think, frankly, from what I have read in Hansard in the last few days, they have exhausted both. Because of that, I think it is legitimate for this Government to ask for a vote on time allocation today.
The third point 1 would like to make, Mr. Speaker, centres on the whole controversy over income limitations. Should there be income limitations in today's economy? My answer to that is, yes. Several months ago, in a debate in the House, 1 argued that income limitations should be of the strictest kind. I suggested a wage freeze, that no one should get any increases of any sort. That fell on deaf ears in this House and in Cabinet, but I do not think it was without merit. Notwithstanding, whether it is zero per cent, 2 per cent or 6 per cent, the real issue is, should there be income limitation? I believe the answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is, there should be.


Donald W. Munro: Start with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Norman Kelly: A study published a number of years ago, quickly forgotten and immediately buried, indicated that about 60 per cent of the price increases in Canada w'as generated domestically, that is, 40 per cent of the price increases was generated abroad. Given those conditions, and given an inflation rate of 10 per cent, 1 feel it is legitimate for this Government, in those areas of jurisdiction under its control, to place an income ceiling or capping of 6 per cent, because that 6 per cent ceiling reflects the domestic rate of inflation. Frankly, I do not believe anyone in this country, senior citizen, Member of Parliament, or anyone else, should expect an income increase to compensate totally for the increase in inflation. For all of us to expect that is to keep the inflationary spiral going, and the irony of that is that all of us want two things at the same time: we want to break the inflationary spiral and we want to keep up with the price increases. We cannot do both. Mr. Speaker. We can do one or the other, but we cannot do both. If it is important for our short-term and long-term interests to control inflation, then I feel we have to accept the argument and accept the reality that no one in this society should be receiving an income increase in any one year higher than 60 per cent of the inflation rate of that particular year. That is why I do not believe that the 6 per cent increase which we have placed on the pensions of civil servants is either arbitrary or unfair.


David Orlikow: Would the Hon. Member permit a question?

January 20, 1983
Time Allocation


Norman Kelly: I will permit a question at the end. There may be some people in this House, Mr. Speaker, who would accept that argument and their response might be, "Well, 1 can buy that, but I don't like the way you imposed it. You ran roughshod over the rights of civil service pensioners. Why didn't you in some way try to negotiate?" Well, when I was the Parliamentary Secretary I met with many of the people who were negotiating on behalf of the Public Service. And I will tell you right now, they were not interested in negotiating this. They told us point blank that they would not negotiate a surrender of-


Donald W. Munro: Sincerely promised.


Norman Kelly: -benefits for which they worked so hard in years past. What we were told in essence was there were no options. There was no option the Government could follow, no option to explore, no willingness on the other side to sit down and negotiate. They told us beforehand this was an issue which was non-negotiable.
When you get into a situation like that, what do you do? What do you do if you sincerely believe that inflation must be fought, and it must be fought through some kind of income limitation? I do not think there is anyone in this House who can answer the question. Finally, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly), but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, it is with real sadness that I rise to speak to closure motion or time allocation on Bill C-133 because 1 think it really is a tragedy.
1 would like to speak first of all to the comments of the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) because I think he simply missed the point on most of the issue. He argues that closure will save Parliament, and I take issue with that because I believe closure and time allocation destroy this place. The purpose of a Parliament is for debate, and the reason we have debate is so that the media can spread that debate across the country, and ordinary Canadians can interrupt their lives in terms of reading newspapers and articles so as to get some feel for the issue, then give input back to us as Members of Parliament. If we were a small postage-stamp country, perhaps closure after two or three days would be appropriate but certainly it is not in a country as large as Canada when it takes weeks for the news to get across the country in terms of the weekly newspapers, which is basically the newspaper which most people read. We have to keep these debates going. It takes people time to go to their church meetings or their women's institute meetings where these issues are discussed. Then they have to formulate in their minds whether the
Government is acting fairly or unfairly, then get back to us so we can start to reflect their views in the House.
The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) is simply wrong when he says we have to close this thing off quickly. I say to him that the prime reason the Government is into closure is that it is now beginning to get input from Canadians that they genuinely do see the issue. The issue is not whether we have restraint. We all agree there has to be restraint, and that is why we voted for Bill C-124. But we certainly did not agree to the Government breaking contracts. For years civil servants have paid in 7.5 per cent to their pension, whereas most of the payments in private industry were less than 5 per cent. They actually had earmarked an extra 1 per cent, pursuant to an agreement, which would guarantee them indexation. We also know that in the superannuation account there is over $15 billion built up, but now the Government is unilaterally, by closure, taking away the benefits they have paid for. Any decent Government would have at least said, well, we took your money under false pretences; we will give your money back and then you are under six and five. So I say to the Government, give the retired civil servants their money back. They will be glad to take it because there is lots of money in the account.
If the Government would accept, Mr. Speaker, in the parliamentary process, more amendments from the Opposition and even from its own backbenchers, we would not be in this jam today. I know that in all the legislation that I have been involved in in the last three years, not once has the Government accepted amendments from the Opposition, even though Government backbenchers agree that on this issue, this would be a good amendment. What the Government would sometimes do is reject the Opposition amendment and have one of its own Members bring it in with a separate motion, and then accept that. But the Government sees Parliament as just an in-and-out operation. If you go over to the Privy Council Office, Mr. Speaker, and watch how legislation, the budget and everything, is prepared, you will find they have enormous flow charts there. They show how an idea starts, goes through various Departments and officials, and then you will notice up in the far right-hand corner a tiny, tiny little box. That is Parliament. It is just a simple in-and-out operation. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) gives a beautiful speech on this because he has looked into it in great detail. Parliament is irrelevant to the bureaucracy. The reason for that is that Government backbenchers have failed to stand up to Cabinet. They do not seem to understand that it is an issue of executive power versus Parliament. Now, on this Bill we know several Government Members have stood up against it, and that is to their credit. I am looking at the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to deal with the points made by the Leader of the NDP. Recently we have seen them make an enormous attempt to get on the morality bandwagon,
January 20, 1983

backing the Bishops and their fine paper. The implication they are trying to leave with the Canadian people is that "We, the NDP, back the Bishops", therefore everyone else, including the Government, should. But the Bishops are against abortion. What is the NDP stand on abortion? They want abortion on demand.


Ian Deans: What position does the Tory Party take on abortion?


Blaine Allen Thacker: I am talking about the NDP.


Ian Deans: I know you are. What position does the Tory Party take on abortion?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, they get riled when they get to these points they cannot handle.


Ian Deans: Answer the question. What position does the Tory Party take?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did you kick Borowski out, then?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has the floor.


Ian Deans: Well, why doesn't he stick to the Bill?


Blaine Allen Thacker: They are really annoyed about that because they want the Government to accept the Bishops' position on nationalizing industry but not on abortion.


Ian Deans: What about the Conservatives?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Let me tell them what their policy is: save the seals and kill the babies. That is the NDP policy.


Ian Deans: You cannot find out where the Tories are because they do not know.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP stood up today and sanctimonously, with heartfelt words, said: "Why don't you listen to ordinary Canadians? Let us follow them." 1 agree. What is their position on capital punishment? More than 80 per cent of ordinary Canadians want justice on capital punishment.


Ian Deans: What is Joe Clark's position on capital punishment?


Blaine Allen Thacker: We are talking about Party positions. Our Party agrees that individuals can take their own position, but the NDP does not.


Ian Deans: There are 101 positions in the Tory Party, all of them at the feet of the Liberals.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We all have the right to have our own positions. The NDP really see themselves as social engineers; they want to remake mankind in the image of NDP policy. They do not permit dissent.


Mr. Beatty:: They purged Svend Robinson for speaking out. If you have a mind of your own, you get purged.


Ian Deans: You want to get into that one, too?
Time Allocation


Blaine Allen Thacker: The great NDP Party, Mr. Speaker, and more so now the Liberal Party because Liberal backbenchers have failed to honour their commitment to their constituents, are letting the Cabinet get away with murder. So we see in this social engineering type of Government the remaking of mankind. We have a law passed in Parliament, a commitment to go metric, but it will be voluntary. Then the executive Cabinet, because it has to remake mankind, has to impose that law, just as with this Bill before us. My time has expired, Mr. Speaker, thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren).


Henry Perrin Beatty: We want Deans.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is to place a limit on the length of this debate. Since the House has already spent a large amount of time debating Bill C-133. Members are aware of the extensive debate on this Bill. It has stretched over a prolonged period from well before the Christmas recess until today. We have spent, on the various stages of this Bill, a total of some 45 days. More than 70 speakers have now participated in its discussion. In addition, we have had, of course, extensive discussion in committee. There were some 14 meetings of the committee which heard briefs and submissions from a total of 31 witnesses, who contributed to over 500 pages of testimony. In those circumstances I should submit that for what is indeed a fairly simple and straightforward Bill, one with only two readily understandable clauses, we might conclude that ample time has been provided for debate.
If one needed any additional evidence to reach that conclusion, I should suggest that the course of our discussion today would lead anyone to the conclusion that every aspect of this matter has been fully discussed. For example, earlier today we spent some time on Petro-Canada. We heard a number of Members from the other side of the House discuss aspects of PetroCan's capital spending program. It was largely an erroneous discussion but, be that as it may, we also had the matter of abortion introduced. In those circumstances we can conclude that just about everything there is to be said about Bill C-133 has already been said. Therefore, I urge Members to support the orderly termination of this discussion and to get on with the other pressing matters on our agenda.
However, there are two points which I should like to make in passing regarding the substance of the Bill. The Minister introduced a motion which has the effect of raising the pension increase in 1983 to 6.5 per cent from 6 per cent and in 1984 to 5.5 per cent from the earlier 5 per cent. That motion takes into account the underlying circumstances of the Public Service pension scheme. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
January 20, 1983
Time Allocation
Gray) noted that it was because employees contributed toward their indexation since 1970 that he wanted to ensure that none of the amounts set aside by them would fall under the six and five program. In so stating he was indicating that if people had paid for something then it should be delivered. That was the reason for his amendment, to bring into practice the principle he described, that is, to cap only that part of indexing which has not been paid for in advance and in fact is being paid for by the same taxpayers who are being asked to moderate their expectations for a short time. That seems to be an entirely reasonable proposition. I cannot think any fair-minded person could object to it.
The other consideration that I wanted to note during the brief time available is that there has been some discussion by Hon. Members opposite about a contractual obligation. I do not wish to enter into a legal discussion. I would say, however, that there have been changes in the Act in the past on at least two occasions when the fact that it was not really a contract operated to the advantage of public servants. The argument now is that any changes are operating to the disadvantage of retired public servants and public servants generally. The changes in the past have benefited public servants, and on those occasions we did not hear any arguments about contractual obligation.
I have in mind the situation in 1970 when 2 per cent indexing of the Public Service pension plan was introduced. It applied to all those already receiving pensions and had in fact completed their side of the pension agreement by being employees or contributors and who were then, as beneficiaries, receiving the agreed-upon benefits promised while they were employees. The Parliament of that day did not say to these people, "You are not going to be contributors to the index plan, so you will never get the benefits". The Government decided that those pensioners should not be excluded from such an important benefit. On that occasion we certainly did not hear anything about so-called contractual obligations. On the contrary, the changes were welcomed.
The only other point I would make is to recall that, prior to the 1979 election, in the Standing Committee for Miscellaneous Estimates, 1 believe that there was all-Party agreement for the capping of Public Service indexing over a certain amount. I do not have the details, but I believe that that all-Party agreement fell victim, as it were, to the 1979 election and was not proceeded with.


Walter David Baker: It was quite a different concept.


Roy MacLaren: It may have been in many respects a different concept, but the basic principle which that agreement embodied was not, in essence, different from that which we have before us today. Capping of indexing in certain circumstances may well be appropriate. Certainly in my view it is appropriate in our present economic condition which requires a degree of commitment and restraint on the part of all Canadians. I am sure that those who are receiving Public Service pensions will recognize the reasonableness of that proposition.
I recall the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) saying the other evening that, "in other words, the war against inflation will be fought in part by the retired public servants of Canada". That is true. I certainly would be the last to suggest that they would think of playing any other role.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, it is never a pleasure to participate in a closure debate or a motion to close debate, so the traditional introduction to a Parliamentary speech I will not make, with great respect.
I wish to respond directly to some of the comments of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), whose arguments as always sound good but contain within them most remarkable assertions. The Hon. Member's argument was that because a Bill only has two clauses, it does not need as much debate as a Bill with more clauses. The logical conclusion of that argument would be that it would be reasonable for the House to deal with a Bill that has one clause, a clause to abolish Parliament, in one day because it only had one clause. It is a most remarkable assertion that the necessity of debate and the quality and length of debate should be determined by the number of clauses in a Bill. We might refer to that as a typical quantitative argument from people who quantify things rather than deal with the ethics of things.
It is true that this Bill has had a substantial number of speakers. Surely any Bill with the purpose and intent to take away a right, when there is not agreement by both parties, should deserve to have every Member of the House speak on the matter. That seems to be self-evident. As long as I have breath I will refute, every time I hear it, the argument that someone in the House has the capacity to rise and invoke closure on this basis because "somebody else has the capacity to decide that everything there is to say has now been said". That is the most fundamental muzzling of free speech that 1 have ever heard. I am absolutely shocked that the Hon. Member opposite would support it, because I know his track record on these issues.
Let me deal briefly with the contractual obligations which were so gleefully and happily thrown out by the previous Member as existing in this case. His argument was that obviously no contractual obligation exists because in a previous case the contract was amended and they did not object. If I can paraphrase the Hon. Member correctly, in a previous case the benefit was increased and there was no objection; it was therefore not a contract. In fact, what happened in that case is that the two parties to the agreement agreed. What we have here is a clear case where one party to the agreement with the ability to invoke closure in the House of Commons chooses unilaterally to change a contractual agreement without consultation, without agreement. Perhaps the lunacy of the argument of the Government is best indicated by the fact that the Government felt it was necessary, having lauded six and five all across the country, to bring in a motion to amend the 6 per cent and 5 per cent in this case to 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent because, said the Minister as correctly quoted by the
January 20, 1983

previous Member, "Retired public servants are entitled to receive something they have paid for".
One of two things is true. Either there is contractual obligation to pay to retired public servants full indexation because it has in fact been paid for, in which case the Minister should honour his own word, or it has not been paid for. If it has not been paid for, then surely it is the plan itself which should be amended on its own merits, not as part of some nonsense about fighting inflation. The amendment makes that clear. If people have paid for something, then they are entitled to get it.
What the Government is proposing to do to civil servants and to retiring employees of the Canadian public is wrong. It is clearly the reason the Government is using closure. I sense that there is a growing recognition that what it is proposing to do is wrong. It is much easier for the Government to close debate now than to allow time for others to find out about it. But if those retired public servants have paid for something, as the Government and everyone around Ottawa has claimed for years they have, then they are entitled to it. Surely that is a principle of justice that every Canadian understands.
To put the matter in context for those who are not civil servants, if the Government of Canada had sold Canada Savings Bonds, as it did this year with interest at roughly 12.5 per cent and last year as it did with interest at roughly 19.5 per cent, and it felt that it needed to obtain some revenue with which to fight inflation, which is a peculiar concept in itself, it would now say to all Canada Savings Bond holders, notwithstanding the fact that the Government had a contract with them and it agreed to pay a rate of interest, it now deems it in the public interest, to break the contract unilaterally, through closure, in Parliament and to change the rate of interest. That is exactly as I understand what the Government of Canada is doing to its pensioners, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Precisely.


John William Bosley: That, I think, every Canadian would find immoral. That is precisely why Members on this side of the House find the Bill so odious. Equally, when what is being done is odious, it must be even more odious to do it through the most reprehensible parliamentary means available to the Government, that is, allocation of time in order to close off debate on such a matter.
I want to say just one other thing. As I sat in this House today, I was absolutely stunned to discover Members of the New Democratic Party, having moved a motion to adjourn, which is their legitimate parliamentary right, refuse to come in and vote on the matter.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They boycotted their own vote.


John William Bosley: That in itself is an unbelievable procedure. As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, it is unprecedented. It may even have been out of order to vote on a motion when the mover and the seconder were not here. The defence being used by the
Time Allocation
NDP of that decision is itself odious. The argument is being made that it is somehow the same as the ringing of the bells on the energy omnibus bill.


Ian Deans: This is much more important. This is not the protection of oil company profits.


John William Bosley: Members of the NDP have spent the day trying to tell others that they are defending the rights of Parliament. What I found with NDP Members on city council in Toronto is that any end justifies any means, including obviating their obligation to vote in the House of Commons. I find that offensive to the House. To try to link that with the defence of Mother Parliament, which was involved in preventing the House of Commons from dealing with the energy omnibus bill, an offence to the House, I find even more odious.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: I know, and I think Members of this House know, why many Canadians believed in the beginning that there might have been some logic to the original Bill, that is because many Canadians believed that some civil servants have an unfair pension arrangement. I do not know whether they do. I continue to hope that there will, at some time, be a full evaluation on an actuarial basis of the civil servants' plan so that Members of the House will be able to deal with that matter on its merits. On its merits, Mr. Speaker.
What is offensive in this proposal on which closure is being applied is that a principle of ancient justice is being violated. I am not a lawyer, but I had to come to learn the principle in my days on city council. Other Members, including the Hon. Member from Scarborough, will remember, in terms of the municipal plan, that you may not do indirectly what you cannot do directly. That is an ancient principle of justice in law. Some sectors of the public support that argument because they believe the civil service pension plan is unfair. But the Government is not doing it for that reason. The Government is bringing in a Bill which it hopes will be politically popular and, as a consequence, expedient. The Government is riding this Bill over the backs of the civil servants. One can only hope that the civil servants of this nation and the pensioners understand finally that they would be wise to take away from the Government the right to manage their pension funds and get them back under their own control so that they will never have to face this odious treatment again.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate in an attempt to clarify a few points which have been raised more or less haphazardly in the House today. First of all, I would like to point out that the question regarding Standing Order 82 which is being applied at this stage of the debate has no connection with closure nor with the provisions of Standing Order 37. For the information of my hon. colleagues, I would like to point out that when we refer to closure, notice, and time limit on speeches, these are points covered by Standing Order 37. The present debate is

January 20, 1983
Time Allocation
being held pursuant to Standing Order 82, which provides for a procedure to limit debate, and only that.
As far as limiting debate is concerned, during the past few days I have been following the debate in the House quite assiduously, and I was disappointed in not being able to speak to Amendment No. 4 which I myself proposed. It is supposed to come up for debate and will be debated eventually at least I hope so.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I shall be fairly brief. I must say that by limiting debate, the Government may be perfectly right from a management point of view, since I suspect that after hearing fifty-three Members at the report stage and eight or nine Members today, the Government's patience may be wearing a bit thin. As far as I am concerned, I find it regrettable that it should be necessary to intervene in this way in a debate that I consider very important and which for many of us is also a very difficult one. As for me, I see it as my duty to vote against closure on this bill. I think there are report stage amendments that should be considered. I am thinking more specifically of the debate that should be held on the proposal by the Member for Nepean-Carleton (M. Baker). This motion was regrouped with the one put by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and reads as follows, and I quote:
That Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), be amended in Clause 2, by striking out at page 2 the year 1984 and the figure 275.69 opposite the year 1984.
I would have liked to hear what the Members of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party would have to say on the effects of this amendment. As far as I know, none of the members has spoken to the amendment proposed by the Member for Nepean-Carleton, which I imagine has the support of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I would have liked to hear those comments because I must admit I am a little confused. Upon reading this amendment, I get the impression that it is somewhat of a fence-sitter, and 1 would have liked to hear some good arguments that would perhaps make me change my mind. Somehow, the motion favours living in sin for one year but not for two years, and I fail to see how the bill's concept can be said to be valid for one year, namely, 1983, but not for the two years provided for in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I realize that there was no time to debate this question and that limiting the debate will probably prevent us from getting an answer. However, perhaps the Member for Nepean-Carleton or other Members in his party will be able to answer these questions-what the amendment exactly means-and perhaps they will be able to give us further clarification in the course of the debate.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on indexation deals with the risks incurred by workers who expect to spend their retirement years in relative comfort. Of course, there are risks involved in indexation, and the major difficulty which remains unsolved is that society cannot agree on the sharing of these risks. Alternatively, Mr. Speaker, after an understanding is reached on risk sharing, there are sometimes in our society human considerations which make a program hard to implement. Inflation is eroding the revenue of people on fixed income, and we
all agree on the need to protect our retired citizens against that thief, inflation. We should reconsider the options related to those much talked about actuarial deficits, look into the rate of contributions made by both the employer and the employees, and seek ways to change the current investment methods of the pension funds. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we should settle once and for all, as the previous speaker has said, the problem of financing and indexing the basic pensions by consolidating, if possible, the Public Service Superannuation Account and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the argument put forward by many Hon. Members to the effect that Bill C-124 was consequential to Bill C-133. I, for one, strongly reject this argument, for Bill C-133 have absolutely nothing in common with Bill C-124.
Actively employed public servants, through Bill C-124, which restricts increases to their salaries to 6 per cent and 5 per cent, were asked to accept a limitation of 6 per cent and 5 per cent on their 1983 and 1984 standard of living. Conversely, retired public servants are asked to take a cutback on their pensions which were established on the best six consecutive years of their working years. We all know that the average public servant retired some eight years ago and that he is 70 years old. Limiting indexation to 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent in the two coming years will result in a continuing permanent loss of pension income to retired public servants, because the future base on which their indexation will resume, should it happen, will be reduced. God knows that it does not say on the Bill it will happen. I have tried to present an amendment which will make it happen but it was not acceptable to the Chair and had to be withdrawn.


Walter David Baker: Mine too.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Hon. Member tried the same thing and it was also withdrawn. I would like to see some confirmation in the Bill that it will die on December 31 of 1984. I hope to get to amendment No. 4 which proposes to do that and nothing else, to make the Bill die on December 31, 1984, so that public servants will know that the program will end in 1984. There is nothing in the Bill that says it will.
As I have mentioned, limiting indexation at 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent in the two coming years will result in a continuing permanent loss of pension income. Conforming to the Government restraint program should not entail a permanent loss of income due to the erosion of the base. One method of maintaining that base would have been the method proposed by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and myself. Public Service pensioners who are on fixed incomes have told the public of Canada that it is unfair, and I believe it is.
When this program terminates, actively employed public servants will have the opportunity to negotiate and catch up on their salaries, while this is not so for those public servants who
January 20, 1983

are 70 years old and have been living on pensions for the last eight years that are based on the standard of living during the best six years of their working lives. One of my relatives retired in 1969 after 33 years of public service to this country. He retired on a pension which was based on a 1969 standard of living. He is being asked to take a permanent cutback today which is based on his standard of living in 1966.
Public servants who are actively working for us can continue to negotiate for increases in their standard of living in the future. I regret to have taken so much time, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for listening.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not happy to be speaking this afternoon. I had hoped that the Conservatives would have shown some courage and joined with us to stop the Government from passing this legislation. I cannot believe that a political Party, vying for Government as it claims to be doing, would be in a position to put oil company profits ahead of the affairs of pensioners who already have inadequate incomes. I thought back to those bells ringing day after day on behalf of the profits of oil companies, those who make the donations to the Tory Party. They know who is fighting for them.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We were fighting on behalf of the people who were losing their jobs.


Ian Deans: It was 15 days of bell-ringing in support of oil company profits. We could not even get 15 minutes out of them in support of the pensioners of Canada. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if that does not put this into perspective, nothing will.
Here we were with an opportunity to stop this Government dead in its tracks. Here we were with an opportunity to demand that this Government reconsider its legislative program which is normally called six and five. Here we were with a chance to demand that this Government take into account the most recent economic statements being offered by a variety of groups and individuals in the country, many of whom surprised me. We were in a position to demand from the Government that it not proceed with this legislation and that it take into account the views of Ian Sinclair, the views of the Bishops and the bank chairmen and presidents. We were in a position to stop this Government from proceeding with these Bills. Where were the Tories?


Gordon Edward Taylor: In here voting.


Ian Deans: They were lying at the feet of the Liberal Cabinet, as always. They were lying at their feet asking "Can we help you?" They are saying to the Liberals, "Can we come in quickly and help you get the legislation through?"
I say to anyone watching on television that it does not take a genius to see the hypocricy. For days they bled all over their desks. There they were, the champions of the oppressed, fighting to maintain decent income levels for senior citizens.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Was that them?
Time Allocation


Ian Deans: The Tories. Time after time they were standing in their place in righteous indignation demanding the Government withdraw the legislation, demanding the Liberal backbenchers, poor souls that they are, join with them to defeat the legislation. Then we say to them, "Here is the way. We will stop this Government today. We will say to the Government, 'No, according to the rules, Parliament may not sit until the Government is prepared to consider the alternatives that are available to it' ". We say to the Conservatives, if they are sincere about their position and truly stand for the oppressed, let them join us. I say to Your Honour, I was outside the House. They literally ran into the House of Commons to vote with the Government-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You were supposed to be here too.


Ian Deans: -to get the vote over with so the Government could go ahead with Bill C-l 33 and get it passed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: More baloney!


Ian Deans: It is interesting that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who is constantly chattering away, says that this is baloney. As an astute observer, Your Honour would recognize the fact that every single word that I have uttered is absolutely true.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Absolutely wrong.


Ian Deans: Every word.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Wrong.


Ian Deans: I see the Hon. Member for Bow River. This is the same Hon. Member who, together with his Leader, his House leader and all the other Tories, was so eager to pass Bill C-l24: "By God, yes, we will squeeze these civil servants".


Gordon Edward Taylor: But you would not take it.


Ian Deans: The Conservatives said that it would not affect the pensioners.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You would not take a cut in your salary.


Ian Deans: We said to them at the time that it would affect Family Allowances. They did not care. They said, "Oh, no, get it passed passed right away".


Gordon Edward Taylor: You wanted every dollar you could get. You would not take-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has the floor. 1 suggest that we listen to him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I appreciate that intervention, Mr. Speaker. I need your protection from these people.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You sure do. From the people.

January 20, 1983
Time Allocation


Ian Deans: These are not to be trusted.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Oh yeah?


Ian Deans: Your Honour remembers their dashing up and threatening the Speaker not so many months ago. I tremble in my shoes when they rise and castigate me. I will tell Your Honour the one thing I do not do, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe them.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Where were you when property rights were
discussed?


Ian Deans: I do not believe them.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Ask the people.


Ian Deans: The Tories now ask where I was when property rights were discussed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is right. You were right with the Liberals.


Ian Deans: It is interesting, is it not? When oil profits are at stake, there are the Tories.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The people's word, not the oil rights.


Ian Deans: When people's property rights are at stake, there are the Tories.


Gordon Edward Taylor: For the people that work.


Ian Deans: But when people's incomes through pension and Family Allowances are at stake, where are the Tories?


Gordon Edward Taylor: They are in here voting. Where were the NDP?


Ian Deans: They are running in to help the Liberals get this legislation through the House of Commons.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We were in here voting. Where were you?


Ian Deans: I want to make some further remarks but I will not take a long time. It is not necessary.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You have not said anything yet.


Ian Deans: The case was made before. The Conservative Party is now a spent force. We understand that. When the public of Canada views its most recent action, they will see it plummet in the Gallup Poll.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Oh?


Ian Deans: We will see the Conservatives plummet in the Gallup Poll.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are not going up fast.


Ian Deans: Their days are numbered, not by anything we have done, but because of their own actions, and quite justifiably so. One cannot always be on the side of big business and against the common man and expect to get support from the people to whom one is opposed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We are on the side of the people!


Ian Deans: All I can say is that the Tories have historically, and continue to have, that mentality of absolute opposition to people who are impoverished, to people who are in need.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We are on the side of the people!


Ian Deans: That has been shown again today. Your Honour knows that had they stayed out until one minute past four o'clock-


An Hon. Member:: Not 16 days.


Ian Deans: -this would not have been voted on today.


Donald W. Munro: Chicanery.


Ian Deans: The vote would not have been held until Monday. The legislation could not have passed in time for the cheques to go out on Tuesday night.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It could so.


Erik Nielsen: It will not, anyway.


Ian Deans: The senior citizens of this country who receive those benefits would have received full indexing this month. The Tories did not understand, as usual, that but for the sake of a minute or two, they could have stood up on behalf of the people whom they pretended for months they were supporting.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We were in here voting, at least. Where were you?


Ian Deans: We were not here. Does the Hon. Member know why we were not voting?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, I know.


Ian Deans: Do you want to know the real reason? It is because we understood that if we came into the House, the motion would be moved, the vote would be taken, and the Bill would have proceeded, and we did not want that Bill to proceed because we are opposed to it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: And you have accomplished nothing.


Ian Deans: We believed we should do all in our power to hold the Bill up, unlike the Tories who dashed in and helped the Liberals. Now they are back together again. My suggestion to the Liberal House leader is: why does he not extend the bench, make room for them, put them over there beside him, for God's sake?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: They are no Opposition!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You first.


Ian Deans: That is a pitiful group of hypocrites. They are no Opposition. Sit them on the other side where they belong.
January 20, 1983


Gordon Edward Taylor: Look who is calling the kettle black.


Ian Deans: They are constantly on the side of the Government. As I said to Your Honour, I appreciate the chance to set the record straight. I say to the Conservatives: repent, repent.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are crooked enough.


Ian Deans: You have problems ahead.


Gordon Edward Taylor: So have you, brother, so have you.


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


Yvon Pinard: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising to take part in the debate. But first, I do have a short point of order. I would like to designate tomorrow as an opposition day, provided we vote before the end of this day on the motion now being debated. It seems that will be the case, so I wish to confirm to my colleagues that tomorrow will be an opposition day.
Now, I would like to take part in the debate on the motion. I had not intended to until I heard-


Erik Nielsen: Forgive me for interrupting. Would the Government House Leader simply extend this point of order so that we will not have to entertain the process after the vote tonight and tell us what the business of the House will be for next week?


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Yvon Pinard: With regard to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to confirm that, provided we vote tonight on this motion, it looks as though tomorrow will most likely be an Opposition day. On Monday we will be dealing with the report stage of Bill C-133.


Ian Deans: Shame.


Yvon Pinard: On Tuesday we will be dealing with the third reading stage of Bill C-133. Wednesday has been reserved for Private Members' Business and Thursday next will most likely be another Opposition day. All of this is subject to change with reasonable notice to my colleagues, but that will most likely be the business from now until next Thursday.
I have received a request from my hon. colleague, and 1 think he wants me to address it, not to sit on Friday next for obvious reasons. His caucus must go to Winnipeg. Certainly, we on the Government side are willing to extend the usual courtesy of allowing a political Party to attend a democratic convention. Therefore, we are willing not to sit on Friday, January 28, and we will support any House order to that effect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) rising on the same point of order?
Business of the House


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it will require unanimous consent not to sit on Friday next, and I would like to reserve decision overnight in order to discuss the problem which confronts us with my colleagues, concerning whether it is better to have the Tories here or away.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I would be happy to seek advice on the matter and report to the House tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this intervention is not eating into the time of the Government House leader in the debate, but I can assure the Acting House leader for the New Democratic Party that the Government House leader is acting purely within tradition when he accedes to the request I have made of him. May I say to him that should his Party wish, at any time in the future, to proceed to a place outside of Ottawa for the same purposes we are proceeding to Winnipeg, we would be more than pleased to give that Party our consent to its absence for five days or whatever number of days its Members might wish to have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: We, of course, are not likely to want to deprive the Hon. Member for Yukon of our presence here since the Conservatives seem to flounder so when we are not here. However, I do want to remind him that the last convention for the NDP was in Vancouver, and the House sat. We asked, 1 might point out, that it not sit, but it did. It was pointed out to us that it is not a tradition for the House to adjourn for political conventions. In fact I was curious about it when the Liberal convention was held in Ottawa, and they pointed out that the House sat. I can assure the Hon. Member for Yukon that in our normal generous way, and in our normal cooperative way, we will give grave consideration to this matter overnight. I can assure him that whatever decision we come to we will relay it to him as early as we possibly can.


David Kilgour: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood the Acting House leader for the New Democratic Party to say in effect that this House sat on the July 1 weekend two summers ago when his Party was having its biennial meeting. Did I understand him correctly, or did he just tell the House now that the House was sitting on one of the days his Party was meeting? It is my understanding that if it was a Friday that was involved, the House was not sitting on that day, and I think he would wish to clarify his statement to the House on that basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain rising on the same point of order?

January 20, 1983
Time Allocation


Ian Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would not want the Hon. Member to be labouring under any misapprehension or under any misunderstanding. I was here, together with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), during the time the New Democratic Party convention was under way, so I say to him that though he may have a good memory on this, he is lacking somewhat.


ALLOCATION OF TIME TO CONSIDER REPORT AND THIRD READING STAGES OF BILL C-I33
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray:
That, in relation to Bill C-133, an act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Yvon Pinard: So, Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the motion now before the House. I was going to say just now that 1 had not intended to take part in the debate at this time, but after I heard the comments made by my colleague for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I could hardly refrain from rising in the House, because I found his remarks rather discouraging. In my opinion, they do not augur well for future developments in the work of the House. I also think some criticism is in order, if we believe that Parliament should be a place of debate and not a place where we only hear the ringing of bells. In my opinion, the Hon. Member's appeal to all parties to let the bells ring longer in order to waste a day's work of the House and force the Government to delay the effective date of a bill by one day, is an opposition tactic that fails to respect our free and democratic system that is the envy of so many countries throughout the world. I take a dim view of all this because once again, we are just starting an experiment in parliamentary reform, and to be successful, the experiment requires good faith and a minimum of co-operation.
The Hon. Member should realize that as a result of the economic problems facing this country and so many others throughout the world, we have fair-sized amount of legislation to deal with, and the Government's time in the House has become extremely precious. Moreover, with our new parliamentary reform, between now and the end of June the Government will have only three days a week to spend on consideration of legislation. I hope the Hon. Member realizes this, and I am sure the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is also aware of the implications. Practically speaking, between now and the end of June, the Government will have only three days a week in the House, since Wednesdays are for private members' business, and we also have to give the Opposition an average of
one day a week for supply, which means seven between now and March 26, and thirteen between March 26 and June 30, while there will also be an eleven-day Easter recess. There will therefore be on the average one opposition day a week and another day, Wednesday, for private members' business. For all practical purposes, only three days every week will be left to the Government to take care of its legislative program and to meet the pressing needs of the economy.
We are coming to the end of a session which has been extremely full, extremely important, and extremely long and during which many records have been set, but the end of one session implies the beginning of a new session soon after, and consequently a Speech from the Throne and a debate on the Address in reply. During the oral question period today, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stated that a budget would probably be presented during the coming weeks or months. This means a budget speech and a budget debate, as well as other financial bills and budgetary measures in addition to those now before the House. It would therefore be child's play for the Opposition to hinder the Government, and Parliament, from carrying on its business. It is very simple, especially when the Government only has three days a week as a result of a parliamentary reform which we want to benefit the entire population, this institution and particularly every member of Parliament. However, what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is now doing in asking the Official Opposition to let the bells ring and waste one day opposing a bill is not the proper attitude to take under the circumstances or one which can serve as a valid test of this parliamentary reform. It is not very reassuring as to the possibility of making a full use of the parliamentary calendar and then adjourning for Easter and next summer because, in the eyes of the people, the Government will have no other choice but to sit in order to pass those measures which are absolutely essential in view of the datelines provided in our rules and in the budget measures to be announced in the near future. The Hon. Member must be aware of one fact, and I do not want to defend the Progressive Conservative Party, but while it did not play the game as the New Democratic Party wanted it today, it still did not support the bill for which we now want to limit the debate. As a matter of fact, the Progressive Conservatives came to the House and voted in favour of the adjournment motion introduced by the NDP. They therefore wanted the House to adjourn so that we could not proceed, but this was in accordance with the rules since they had to vote on a specific issue. They were free to vote one way or the other, but they came to the House to do so. If it had been their wish, they could also have made a separate agreement with me on the length of the debate under Standing Order 81, formerly Standing Order 75b. I indeed invited the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to agree on a limited debate at this stage since the NDP were not willing to come to such an agreement. If the Progressive Conservatives had been willing to do so, they could have agreed to this proposal. Now I am not certain they
January 20, 1983

do not have second thoughts about it in view of what the NDP Members are trying to do to them.
Perhaps 1 am giving the impression that I defend the position of the Progressive Conservative Members because they showed up in strength for the vote on the motion to adjourn the House and because of their attitude with respect to Standing Order 81 when they refused to agree with us, but I am not always in agreement with their tactics. God knows that more often than not I do not see eye to eye with them, but I do believe that it is a step in the right direction and in keeping with democracy. Parliament is a place where Members speak out against a measure, where they debate, argue and discuss, not a place where they prevent other Members from speaking by keeping the bells ringing or by blocking passage of legislation by delaying tactics which prevent Members on both sides of the House from taking part in the debates. In our democratic system, in a free society such as ours, we have the right to disagree on certain measures, but the way to voice our opposition under our rules and our practices, and in keeping with our traditions and our culture is not to prevent others from speak- ' ing by calling for recorded votes. It is simply by expressing our views in the House, conducting debates in accordance with the rules and accepting the point of view of a government which does hold the majority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being 5.40 p.m., the two hours provided for the debate on the motion now before the House pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 82 have now expired.
Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. The question is on the motion of Mr. Gray.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried. Motion (Mr. Gray) agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport to get their heads together and reply to my question of November 29, 1982.
In June 1982, the Transport Committee passed a motion unanimously calling upon Parliament to provide the Committee with a reference to conduct a full inquiry into the CNR pension fund. I asked the Minister what was the current status of this report and when the House could expect to have it presented. All I received was an evasive and negative answer. I would strongly suggest that these three Ministers and the Chairman of the Transport Committee deal with this question and at the same time deal with the motion as passed by the Transport Committee on June 29, 1982. That motion as passed read:
That this Committee seek in its report to the House on the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for 1980 and 1981, a reference enabling a thorough review of Canadian National pensions, together with the necessary authority to call witnesses, to engage secretarial staff and professional advisers, and to report back no later than December 31, 1982.
It is now time for the three Ministers and the Chairman of *the Transport Committee to stop delaying, stalling and passing the buck. It is now long past the time for these tactics; they are no longer acceptable.
Following presentations by two associations represented by railway pensioners, the Transport Committee of the House of Commons voted unanimously to ask Parliament to allow it to
hold a full-scale inquiry into the pension funds of Canadian National Railways. Mr. R. W. Worraker, Chairman of the National Council of CN Pensioners Associations, stated the following:
They concoct the recipe, bake the cake, give it to us to eat and don't ask us what it tastes like.
Some type of annual increase or indexing is desperately required to ease the plight of railway pensioners who received their pensions prior to 1973. Some of these pensioners are now in their eighties. How much longer can anyone expect them to have to sit around and wait for a decent pension which will enable them to live out their lives above the poverty line? They get the ministerial and bureaucratic runaround from the former president and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian National who is paid $150,000 a year and tells a group of pensioners in their seventies and eighties to find some resource to get a little bit of a pension increase. What a national disgrace this is under the Liberals.
I have in my possession statistics from the Retired Railway Employees Association of Canada which prove that some railway pensioners are receiving as little as $115 a month; $148 a month or even $166 a month. Once again, as I have previously pointed out in motions in the House, railway pensioners have had to put up with the measly increases of $77 over 19 years. This amounts to the grand total of $4 per year or 33 cents a month, resulting in a $265 a month pension rate. A 33 cent increase does not go far against the odds of record inflation rates, such as a 15.2 per cent increase in food costs. We are talking about rail workers who retired prior to 1973.
Even if there have to be changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the three Ministers and the Chairman of the Transport Committee will have to take the necessary steps to make them before it is too late for these pre-1973 railway pensioners to enjoy an above-the-poverty-line style of life.
The Minister of Transport has stated in a letter to me:
Railway pensions are acknowledged by many experts to be amongst the best in the corporate world.
What about the pensioners who went on pension prior to 1973 and have no indexing? Can you honestly say their pensions are among the best pensions in the corporate world?
The pensioners complained that CN continues to shirk its full share of pension funding by deferring its contributions and that pensioners do not have adequate representation on the pension fund's board of trustees. The National President of the CNR Employees' Pension Association said investment income and employee contributions alone exceeded the pensions paid by a total of more than $809 million between 1960 and 1981. With the inclusion of payments by CN, the excess rises to more than $2.5 billion.
Furthermore, of CN's total contributions to the fund between 1960 and 1981 of $1.71 billion, $1.52 billion or 88.9 per cent of the total went to pay interest on the unfunded liability carried on the books of the pension fund, which stood at $1.5 billion at the end of 1981. CN is paying that off with
January 20, 1983

periodic payments of principal and interest, stretching until 2006 for the Canadian plans. The national president is calling those interest payment contributions "misleading and highly improper". The pensioners do not claim CN is doing anything illegal, just that they are getting a raw deal.
What really irks the pensioners is that because the fund builds at a low fixed rate of interest, CN is able to rake in the difference between that rate and what it can gain on the open market by deferring its contributions. When will the Government take the necessary steps to correct this disgraceful situation?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Member appeared to have two concerns when he raised his question in November. The first was to allow the Standing Committee on Transport to conduct an inquiry into CN pensions, and the second was to somehow restrict the CN pension fund from making certain investments he found undesirable. He highlighted these two concerns again this evening. Recognizing that his answer at the time was not complete, the Minister of Transport wrote to the Hon. Member shortly thereafter. I would be pleased to table that letter this evening, Mr. Speaker, although it only exists in one official language.
The letter responded to the Hon. Member's concern in what appears to me to be a very adequate way. The Minister pointed out that it was not only the Transport Committee that had an interest in the question of pensions, expecially since the tabling of the green paper on pension reform, and that any serious comparison of corporate pension plans proved that railway plans were relatively good. But in that spectrum, yes, there will be those receiving only $115 a month as the Hon. Member mentions. This is regrettable.
The Minister also suggested that the Hon. Member consult his colleagues on whether and how they wanted to deal with this matter in the Transport Committee. I do not know if he has done that. 1 was present when this topic was discussed at the steering committee, but 1 should not divulge in the House the discussions of that committee. If he consults with the Transport critic of his Party, I am sure he will find the reasons and the problems facing the Transport Committee in tackling this very difficult problem.
Finally, with respect to the CN Pension Fund investments, the Minister pointed out that CN's obligation toward its pensioners must be respected, regardless of the performance of individual investments. Therefore, the Hon. Member's fears are totally unfounded.


COMMUNICATIONS-PRODUCTION OF PORNOGRAPHIC SHOWS FOR PAY TV
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the CRTC rules require that Pay TV services must run 30 per cent Canadian content during the first three years. The CRTC rules call for a significant involvement by Canadians in artistic control. The intent was obviously to ensure that Canadian
Adjournment Debate
writers, producers and actors have opportunities to work and gain recognition.
We now find that at least one company in Canada, with a New York producer, is producing shows written in the United States. Since these shows are of the kind euphemistically described as adult entertainment, otherwise known as soft core pornography, they have nothing to offer serious Canadian actors and actresses. The situation is that this company is investing millions of dollars in Canadian funds in an American production, produced for Playboy in the United States. Obviously, this must be a very welcome investment from the point of view of Playboy U.S. because it reduces their risks. However, funds for Canadian productions ^re very limited and the loss of capital for our artistic community is serious.
When Pay TV was accepted, it was hoped that it would improve the level, content and variety of Canadian programming. In fact, instead of upgrading, this is likely to downgrade what is available. In view of the very competitive situation between the new Pay TV stations, we can expect other companies to try to outdo the so-called Playboy channel. In fact, this is already happening. Last week, an actress in my constituency found that her agency had no work for her of the kind she would accept, but she could have worked on one of seven of these soft core pornographic films.
Pornographic films, by whatever name one calls them, are inexpensive and quick to produce. If these are to count as Canadian content then the companies are free to buy all their serious programming outside Canada. We will then find that work opportunities will effectively be closed to our own creative writers, producers and actors.
The Canadian content rule has not been revised by the CRTC for the last 12 years. In those 12 years the concept of Canadian content has been diluted by practice. There has been a tendency to allow companies to operate with less than what was required, if they promised to improve. I am in favour of negotiation and operating by agreement rather than heavyhanded regulation. It is clear, however, that this has not worked over 12 years and we are now in need of clear rules. The CRTC held issue hearings on Canadian content. It is time for them to act on those hearings.
I would close by saying that this is not a censorship issue; 1 am not in favour of censorship. We are not talking in this instance about a private citizen who buys a video cassette to view in his own home. The issue as far as I am concerned is the use or misuse of public airways for purposes that are directly in conflict with the expressed purpose of the Broadcasting Act; to strengthen, enrich and safeguard the cultural, political and socio-economic fabric of Canada. In my view the CRTC's duty is clear, and I hope it will exercise it and promptly produce rules of Canadian content, and also enforce those rules with Pay TV companies.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the very

January 20, 1983
Adjournment Debate
important concerns registered by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), I would like to say that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) and, in fact, the Government as a whole are very much concerned about Canadian content rules and regulations, certainly as they apply to the entire broadcasting industry; in this case as they apply to the Canadian Pay TV system. The regulations on this subject should enable Canadians to watch an increasing number of quality Canadian TV programs.
It was the hope and desire of the Government, and certainly of the Minister, when it was first suggested that Pay TV be brought into the country, that the CRTC would look very closely at this very important area. If we can produce quality Canadian programming this will indeed help the entire Canadian production industry as it applies to TV, and also as it applies to films.
There has been a difficulty facing the Canadian program production industry in that it has not had sufficient financial wherewithal to develop a serious and viable industry in this country. It was definitely hoped that Canadian Pay TV would be able to contribute, through its financial resources, to this very important program production industry.
The Hon. Member for Trinity referred to the fact that the CRTC held hearings on Canadian content rules and regulations. It did, indeed, do this in December of 1981. I understand those rules and regulations and the updating of the regulations will soon be forthcoming. Given all that, we also have to look at the fact that our Canadian artists, including writers, producers, actors, actresses and all the technicians, have a great stake in this area. It is certainly the hope of the Government and of the Minister that the CRTC look at this question as it applies to the current controversy regarding Pay TV so that in fact the Canadian production industry will benefit. We do share the concerns of the Hon. Member for Trinity.


COMMUNICATIONS-PORNOGRAPHIC PROGRAMMING ADVERTISED BY FIRST CHOICE PAY TV. (B) PROVISIONS OF BROADCASTING ACT BE AMENDED
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the comments of my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). My remarks are complementary to hers.
I would like to begin by reviewing a few of the events since this question was first raised. The Minister has since spoken with the CRTC and the CRTC has called in First Choice to explain its plans. In the meantime the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has reiterated its support of the Task Force on sex-role stereotyping on the positive portrayal of women in the media. I want to bring to the Minister's attention the recommendations of this Task Force.
Pay TV was not part of the Task Force at the time it was sitting but a recommendation in that report suggests that Pay TV should come under the same guidelines as other forms of broadcasting. It said that while there were no representatives on the Task Force, recognizing that if they are participants in the Canadian broadcasting system-referring to Pay TV- they would come under those same guidelines. They also apply
to educational broadcasting. It was urged that they "recognize the public concern about sex role stereotyping; adopt the applicable programming recommendations set out in this report; exercise sensitivity to, and awareness of, the problem of sex-role stereotyping in the acquisition of programming material or rights" and "ensure that women are adequately represented both on and off air." The report is very clear on that point. It would be absolutely ludicrous if Pay TV did not come under the same guidelines. That is to say if we were to have positive images of women on certain channels and pornographic portrayals of them on other channels. There would be an absolutely ridiculous result. Certainly the work of the Task Force would have been wasted if that was the result.
The public members of that Task Force made some very specific recommendations about pornography. I quote:
To clarify the meaning and intent of the CRTC's initiatives in eliminating abusive comments or pictorial representations of both sexes, the public members recommend:
that the CRTC and all licensees recognize the special problems of pornography and violence against women.
Male dominance and female submissiveness are at the very heart of the stereotypes of men and women. Pornography is the extreme portrayal of dominance and the exploitation of women's sexuality. Pornography, or any portrayal of violence against women, is the ultimate expression of dominance/submissiveness, the objectification and the abuse of women. As such, pornography or the portrayal of violence against women has no place in the broadcast media. And as one mechanism for implementing this, the public members recommend the following specific initiatives-
-that the CRTC amend its television regulations to include, among those
subjects that may not be broadcast, abusive comments or abusive pictorial
representations of either sex.
That was a very specific recommendation from the public members of the Task Force.
When the Minister says he has confidence in the CRTC and the chairman, I hope that confidence will be found to be warranted. Initially the CRTC was not very sensitive about women's issues. It certainly was improved.
The Minister can act on the more long-term problem the First Choice submission has raised. What is needed, and what I am proposing and trying to get all-party support for, is an amendment to the Broadcasting Act to add sex as one of the prohibited grounds of broadcasting. This would be in Section 61B of the Broadcasting Act. Let me point out what protection races and religions now receive, and I quote:
No station or network operator shall broadcast any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation on any race, religion or creed.
The amendment we need to pass would add, "or sex", so that women get the same protection that members of races, religions and creeds get in this country. It is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable that we say it is all right to abuse women on our television screens, although we must be sensitive to issues of race and religion. Women deserve and need very much the same protection other people receive. This gets to the heart of the problem. I would suggest that the First Choice application is contrary to the Broadcasting Act on a number of
January 20, 1983

grounds. It is not a good idea to proceed against them on the ground of obscenity because so many of these cases involve the explicitness of sex, and this is a tangential problem.
What is really objectionable is the portrayal of women in this way. If the programs focus on the abuse of women, that really will be what women object to, is really the heart of the problem.
I cannot stress too much the importance of stopping "First Choice". This is the thin edge of the wedge. We begin with a little bit of titillation, mere portrayal, mere exploit of portrayal and, if Pay T.V. is anything like the film industry, or anything like dirty magazines, they begin with something objectionable but fairly simple and move on to brutality. This is a very serious problem. If "First Choice" is not stopped, we are going to have pornography right across the country, and it will grow and get worse and worse.
I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, for support on this question, to put sex as one of the prohibited grounds, to make Parliament's intentions clear, to improve the climate in which this debate takes place. The women in Canada are very much counting on it.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, there has indeed been a great public outcry and concern registered in recent days regarding Pay TV in Canada. I want to reiterate what I said earlier, that the main intent, of course, in the use of Pay Television is to help the entire Canadian production industry as it relates to television and to broadcasting. Therefore, anything that is used by any of the licensees as far as Pay Television is concerned must be of a quality that will stand competition, not only with its immediate competitors but certainly with the public and private television industry as we know it in the country today, and on an international scale through the use of the satellite broadcasting system, which is here, and in many areas just around the corner. So we have to
Adjournment Debate
be very concerned about program content and the inherent quality of that content. The CRTC does have the authority to regulate program content. We cannot escape that fact. It was given to them by Parliament.
The Minister has already expressed his displeasure with what has taken place in recent days regarding the particular application of "First Choice". He has, as the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has stated, met with Dr. Meisel, the Chairman of the CRTC. Dr. Meisel, in turn, has had his officials meet, and perhaps they are meeting right at this moment, with officials of "First Choice" Pay TV. Following that meeting, we expect that the CRTC will have a public statement to make.
I think we must also not forget the responsibility of the licensee, of the shareholders, and of all connected with the various applications. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, an association made up of independent radio and television broadcasters across the country, has its own code of ethics, and it polices its members. Perhaps a suggestion can be made right at the outset that the pay television industry do likewise; perhaps it should look at the quality of program which it intends to produce. In light of the public outcry and pressure which has come to bear this past week, it in fact should look at what it intends to produce and televise. There is no doubt that if it does not, Government will have to step in and ask that certain stronger regulations and measures to be taken. In the meantime, it is the hope that the industry itself, because of the public concern expressed thus far, will take a second look at what it intends to produce and televise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.33 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, January 21, 1983