1983-02-03

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to carry the motion?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my allotted ten minutes to make a few brief comments on this legislation which will restrict the indexing of basic pensions of senior Canadians.

As Members are well aware, this Bill is only one of a number of measures designed to encourage all Canadians to lower their expectations. Although limited indexation of the basic old age pension for those who do not need the supplement will generate estimated after-tax program savings of $49 million in 1983 and 1984, the purpose of this Bill is not to save money, as I have often explained.
Members opposite, by the way, will notice that that sum of money totalling $49 million is drastically lower than the earlier estimated savings of $84 million, and I am very pleased about that. This is a clear indication that the inflation rate is being brought down in Canada. I say that because the New Democratic Party does not seem to be aware of this fact. In every speech made by NDP Members they continue to quote figures which are now seven months old. This is a very dangerous and misleading practice, and I would just ask them to be honest with Canadians, particularly senior Canadians.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said in Toronto last week, the Consumer Price Index dropped from an annual rate of 11.5 per cent in the second quarter of 1982 to 9.7 per cent in the fourth quarter, which is excellent.


Mr. Lewis:: And we have two million people unemployed.


Monique Bégin: In other words, since the June budget, inflation has advanced at a compound annual rate of 7.2 per cent. That is the goal toward which this measure and other measures are working.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It still does not balance.


Monique Bégin: The Hon. Member opposite is very bitter. He does not seem to be in favour of seniors. He represents thousands of seniors in the City of Victoria. He should know what their best interests are.


Donald W. Munro: It is not that.


Monique Bégin: Is it to let inflation erode their dollar in the long term, or is it to take the bull by the horns and make the effort to fight inflation and keep the full value of the dollar? If he would realize that, he would be in favour of this Bill, as unpleasant as it is to have to implement it.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Minister would permit a question?


Monique Bégin: 1 will finish my speech according to the new rules. The Member is then permitted a ten-minute question period. I hope Members will not interrupt me all the time. I am sure the Hon. Member knows the rules very well.
This means that 1.1 million pensioners with other incomes would receive about $29 less this year and $52 less next year. However, because of the success story of the six and five program, 1 have now estimated that they would lose $18 this year and only $39 next year. I want to make this clear to all Members in order that they understand at long last, and can give the proper and factual information to seniors.


Donald W. Munro: Now tell us about the new estimates of the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy).


David Orlikow: The figures are wrong.


Monique Bégin: This is a much smaller loss than projected because we are winning this fight against inflation.


Donald W. Munro: That has nothing to do with it.


Monique Bégin: It has to do with all Canadians who have believed in six and five and fought inflation. That is what the Member does not seem to understand.

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
The Elon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) said that seniors were losing something like $300. I would like to make it clear that that is total misinformation. I want to repeat that all senior citizens who have no or little income apart from their basic pension will not be affected by this Bill. I also want to say to those seniors who will be affected by this Bill in small amounts that we will not be collecting back any money on the January cheque which was fully indexed. We will not collect back any money.
Hon. Members opposite have attempted to make Canadians believe that these measures are dismantling the improvements that have been made through the decades to the pension system. That is not true. These charges are false. What is worse, they serve only to create unwarranted anxiety among the elderly.
We know the political game played in this Chamber by every Member in the two Opposition Parties, who always accuse us of being terrible villains. That is the game played in the House. But, when those Members go outside and, instead of quoting figures of $18 in total loss for this year and $39 for next year, they quote figures like $300, they are not damaging us, since we were elected by a majority and we will pass this Bill. They are damaging Mrs. X and Mr. Y, who are at home watching on TV and do not know the real figures. They suddenly become nervous about losing $300. That figure is false. This Bill does not do that at all.
I would like to reply to Members who think that we are doing terrible things to the pension system. I say to those Hon. Members and all Canadians that I am very proud that we have kept the social programs the way they are. Last week, we all watched television when President Reagan delivered a State of the Union message in which he outlined a four-part plan to increase growth and reduce deficits. Who is going to pay the bill? He cited what he termed the need to reduce, and I quote, "the dangerous growth rate in government spending". Where did he find the money? He called for a six-month freeze in the cost of living adjustment-that means zero growth-for government-related pension programs. He spoke of cutting back on food stamps and other such social programs. In addition, he proposed asking the elderly to pay more for medicare.
The United States is not alone in doing that to social programs. In West Germany, Chancellor Helmut Kohl has proposed to delay statutory cost of living increases in old age pensions due in January until July, at which time pensioners will also be required to pay health insurance contributions.
I could go on and on giving examples of other measures that have taken place. In France, for example, people will have to pay for medicare.


An Hon. Member:: We are in Canada.


Monique Bégin: Yes, we are in Canada. Hon. Members opposite are not telling the truth to the people, and that is why I have to remind them, and the people, of what other countries have
decided on their social programs. Mr. Speaker, members opposite say to the Canadian people that we are dismantling the social programs. I am proving the contrary to them with facts-they never like to hear facts-and with quotations on things that can be verified about what is happening elsewhere.
We are not dismantling the program in Canada; we are making sure that seniors get the full value of their dollar in their pension. We are doing that by a national campaign of 6 and 5 per cent, which is working. That is why Hon. Members opposite are so furious and the proof of that is in many of their speeches. They ask, "If it is such a success, why do it?" Well, Mr. Speaker, if we do not do it, it will stop being a success. Members do not seem to realize the psychological dimension of the economic cycle.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that social welfare spending is under attack in most countries of the western world. But this country has respected its basic commitments and pensioners will not be subjected to the sorts of draconian measures that the elderly in many other countries are now facing. Bill C-131 safeguards the principles of both universality and indexation.
Despite the laughter from the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to finish my remarks by inviting all Hon. Members to support the bill. The faster we reduce inflation, the sooner all Canadians, especially pensioners, those on fixed incomes, will benefit.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister. She says that this program is working and is not going to hurt pensioners. Using her own figures, the fact is that the cost of living is still increasing by well over 9 per cent while the capping of indexing means that old age pensioners will get an increase of only 6 per cent. If the figures mean anything, that means that the old age pensioners' real income will be reduced by 3 per cent. How can the minister say that they are not suffering?
Let me ask one other question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister also says that we have not cut back on our social security programs, but we see more and more doctors opting out of medicare and hospitalization plans and we see more and more Provinces putting deterrent fees on hospitalization. How can the Minister then say that we are not cutting back on social security?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat emphatically that in Canada the social programs are well maintained and that, through medicare, Canadians have the best health system in the western world-I can say in all the world. I believe that. It is not often that Canadians can say that we are the best, but in this case we have the best. We are not cutting down on payments because all Provinces and the feds are putting more money into medicare this year than last year, and so on and so forth for every coming year. The Hon. Member is really oversimplifying a more complicated problem. It does not have anything to do with cuts.
February 3, 1983

Second, the seniors will not suffer as a result of the cut. I have never said anything like that. When you take money away from people, especially when it is $18 this year and $39 next year, it is a small sacrifice. I have always acknowledged it. 1 do not know what the Hon. Member is referring to. In the last seven months the rate of inflation compounded has dropped to 7.2 per cent. We are only giving 6 per cent. There is a little something missing. I have acknowledged that. I thank seniors for their sacrifice.
[ Translation]


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister. On December 14 last year, the Minister told the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and I quote:
The net savings for 1983 are $32 million and for 1984 $52 million, and this shows that people will not suffer because otherwise we would have had considerable savings.

At the beginning of the Minister's remarks, she leaped at the Opposition and said that we had been using a figure of $84 million, that we were lying to the nation and implied that Members were lying. These are her words of six weeks ago that the Opposition has been using. How does she explain that? Can she answer another question? I would like to know-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair does not want to make a ruling out of my comment at this moment. 1 notice that the previous Member bicycled two questions together. I know, too, that the intention of the Committee was that questions should be short and sharp. I will gladly recognize the Hon. Member for his supplementary. The House may be better served by not bringing in two, three or four questions in one operation.


Monique Bégin: I shall try to answer the Hon. Member very briefly so as to give as many Members as possible a chance to ask questions. The reason for the disparity between the figures quoted by the Hon. Member is that inflation is going down from month to month. When I appeared before the Committee in the first half of December, I gave the figures for that period. Now, almost two months later, I am giving the revised figures which are available to all Members from the Department of Finance and which demonstrate the success of our program. As a result, senior citizens with other sources of income will lose only $18 in 1983 and $39 in 1984 on their indexing.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's attack on the Opposition dishonours her office, as the figures came from her six weeks ago. To accuse us of using seven-month old figures is just not right, when the health and welfare of senior citizens is at stake. I would like to know from the Minister's own lips whether in Cabinet, as these decisions were made, she fought for the senior citizens and the retention of their indexing and
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
lost. Did she fight for them or did she volunteer the senior citizens and their income as the front-line troops in the fight against inflation? The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) got a bigger budget. In all her major portfolios, the Minister of National Health and Welfare took a cut on behalf of the poorer people of this nation, including the pensioners. Did she fight and lose, or did she volunteer these people to make the sacrifice?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to make it clear to the Hon. Member that when I was talking about seven-month-old figures and figures that had not been checked, I was specifically referring to the New Democratic Party which has not been checking its figures in this area. Therefore, the Hon. Member should not feel that he is under attack. Furthermore, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that I am not going to answer his question because proceedings of Cabinet meetings cannot be disclosed.

The Hon. Member is playing a game. It is for Canadians to judge whether I usually do well as their privileged voice in Cabinet. What else can I say? I do not have a clue where the media gets this information. However, the media usually says that I am a winner on my programs. What else can 1 say? My interest is to have the best for seniors. Fighting inflation is the best for seniors.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Is the Minister implying that she is a winner in this case because Cabinet wanted to cut even more?


Monique Bégin: The Hon. Member will not succeed in making me say what happens in Cabinet, that is forbidden. I took an oath of office and I will respect it. Our purpose is to do the best for Canadians and seniors, and we are doing it.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, there are several anomalies which this Bill is bringing about, and they are of some concern to me. We covered my concern about people on private pensions combined with old age pensions who will suffer, the other day. I expect the Minister will be willing to tell us whether they are going to have a rather automatic adjustment to the size of their Guaranteed Income Supplement to bring them up to the standard level which they would be getting if they had no private pension and were getting the Guaranteed Income Supplement, plus the Old Age Security.
I would like to ask the Minister about the Canada Pension Plan. A person is deprived of the Guaranteed Income Supplement if they get a pension under the Canada Pension Plan which puts them over the figure of around $503 or $504 in total. If the Canada Pension Plan puts them over that line and they cannot get the GIS, it means that their old age pension will be limited to 6 per cent. Whereas if they have a slightly smaller Canada Pension Plan pension, they will then get some GIS and they will be able to get their OAS at the rate of

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
inflation which, as you know, would have been an 11.5 per cent raise. How does the Minister plan to get around the position where you are better off with a smaller pension from the Canada Pension Plan than a larger one?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member started out by saying there are several anomalies with this Bill and he indicated what he believes is one of them. I have explained to him privately, and I have to repeat it again today, that the so-called anomaly he has just pointed out has nothing to do with this Bill. It is deeply rooted in the whole system whereby far too many Canadians do not have a private pension, and the purpose of the Green Paper is to start putting on track a dossier with a view to seeing the situation is corrected as soon as possible. But that has nothing to do with this Bill. This Bill continues to function the way the system of public pensions functions. Therefore, the Hon. Member's thesis does not apply here. He is pointing to a problem which has always existed and which we want to correct through the Green Paper.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The Minister did not address the question of the Canada Pension Plan, where it would appear that a person would be better off if their Canada Pension brought them in a couple of dollars under the line where they would start to get the GIS. They will get $2 worth of GIS, and because of that $2 they will be able to get their old age pension indexed at the rate of inflation. That would make quite a considerable difference. A person would be much better off to have the smaller Canada Pension than the larger one.


Monique Bégin: I am sorry the Hon. Member does not want to accept the facts on that so-called anomaly, as well as in the other cases he referred to the other day in the House concerning people with a very small private pension. Nothing has changed with this Bill. This Bill does not affect the situation at all; it is continuing today's philosophy of Government public pensions.
The other things which are wrong in the system by which people have small CPP's, or no private pensions, or have small private pensions, are anomalies which we are addressing through the Green Paper on pensions. This Bill has nothing to do with that. I am sorry to repeat this. I am sure the Hon. Member does not want to play politics on the backs of seniors, but this Bill has nothing to do with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: A speech, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Calgary West in debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There are times, Mr. Speaker, in this House, when we should attempt to use the medium of television and radio to speak to the nation. There are other times when we should try to direct our attention to the Hon. Members of this House, because it is only the Hon. Members of this House who can do something about a tragic wrong which is about to be perpetrated on some Canadians. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is that kind of a day.
At six o'clock this evening, Hon. Members of this House will be forced to stand and vote. The Minister is asking Hon. Members of the Liberal Party to stand in this House and impose a special lifetime tax on every Canadian who is 65 years of age and over. It is a lifetime tax which has an immediate consequence in the year 1983. It is a tax which will grow in size and consequence in every succeeding year. In this time of economic difficulty, with budget deficits running in the order of $24 billion, she is asking a particular sub-group, one which represents the poorest segment of Canadian society, to bear a tax, a minimum 3 per cent special tax which no one else would pay, which would last a lifetime and which would grow.
In this Chamber, at six o'clock this evening, we can put a stop to that. Before my remarks are concluded, I will move a motion which will delay debate and thus leave the current law in place. Anyone on the Liberal side who has a social conscience and supports that motion will be ensuring that this special tax is not imposed on senior citizens, those who are 65 years of age and over.
Why in the name of justice, in the name of humanity, is Party discipline about to prevail on an issue which is so ill-considered and so unnecessary? The Minister told us this morning that she estimates the savings to the federal treasury this year to be $18 million. That amounts to 15 cents per month per taxpayer. If every taxpayer in this country was willing to donate 1 5 cents per month, this piece of legislation would not be necessary.
There have been estimates that this Chamber costs something in the order of half a million dollars a day to operate. We will have taken the time of this Chamber for approximately six days on this piece of legislation. We will have cost the Canadian taxpayers at least $3 million to debate this Bill which is intended to save the Government $18 million and make the lives of every senior citizen who lives at or near an income level of $9,000 a year poorer. The Bill would impose a very special tax on senior citizens who make $750 a month, who must provide themselves with shelter, transportation, recreation, food and medicine. They earn $750 a month, and there are many of them, and they are being asked to absorb a special 3 per cent to 5 per cent tax this year which will be in the order of 4 per cent next year and 5 per cent the year after, because it multiplies in that fashion. I ask, where is the sanity in the Cabinet? Where is the social conscience of Members of Parliament who have been sent here by their constituents?
I have absolutely no doubt that if the Government were to ask every single Canadian taxpayer, ten million people who pay taxes, if they were willing to contribute 15 cents a month more in taxes so that the senior citizens of this country would not have to pay a special tax and the Government would not have to take money out of their pockets, 99.9 per cent of the time the answer would be, "Yes, I will pay the extra 15 cents a month".
February 3, 1983


Donald W. Munro: Except for the Grits.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Why can we not have a Government that thinks about the trade-off? Why can we not have a Government which says that if Canadians are willing to pay 15 cents a month, it can treat our senior citizens better, with dignity, give them an opportunity to eat more nutritious meals and enable them to survive without the fear and threat which this piece of legislation represents?
The Government will tell us that it had to do this to bring down inflation. That argument is not credible. To believe that, in an economy which operates in the order of $300 billion, the sum of $18 million is a significant factor in inflation is nonsense. There is no inflationary reason for this piece of legislation. It is incredible.
Then the Government says: "But we will increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement"; and yes, it will. Every senior citizen who makes less than $750 a month will keep the income he would have received without this Bill. If one makes less than $750 a month, the Government, the Liberal Party, will not take any money away if one is over 65 years of age. However, if one makes $750 a month or $755 or $760, the Government will put a special tax on one's income.
In December we were told in committee that the tax was about 5 per cent. Today the Minister stood up and told us that it is about 3 per cent. It does not even matter if it is three-tenths of 1 per cent, the principle is wrong. People over the age of 65 are the people who created the wealth in this country. They include homesteaders who took down the trees and plowed the fields for the first time. They include miners who dug the first mines and built the first shafts. They include carpenters and plumbers who are busy and have been teaching younger people their skills. This is part of our population to which all of us who are younger owe the most. Without their contribution to this nation, we would not have an economy with the wealth to distribute.
It is simply inconceivable that Hon. Members opposite, like a bunch of sheep, will stand up later this day and impose a special tax on people over 65. It is a logic which says, "Let us identify the poorest segment of the Canadian population and make them pay a tax which no other part of the population must pay". The Government does not say to someone who is 21, 22 or 40 years of age that he or she cannot go out and work double time or work at a little part-time job to augment one's income. However, in the Government's social policy system, it says to the senior citizens: "You have Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. If you make more than $750 a month, we will take part of it away from you in this special fashion. If you go out and earn some more, you must tell us about it and we will take some more public money away from you."
If we had sat down, Mr. Speaker, to design a combination of social programs and legislation which would have a maximum negative impact on a particular part of the population, it would
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
be this legislation. These people are less able to help themselves in an economic sense. The vast majority of them are out of the labour force and are dependent on those assets built up throughout a lifetime of participation in the labour force. As they planned their retirement, one of those assets which they counted on was the fact that they would get an Old Age Security cheque indexed so that it would grow if there was inflation. They had a commitment from the Canadian people, through the Parliament of Canada, that they could prepare their retirement plans in the belief that coming generations would keep that commitment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot stand in this Chamber later this day and break that commitment. It is inhuman and insane, and there are other options.
The option I laid out today, Mr. Speaker, is 15 cents per month from every taxpayer and we do not have to pass this legislation. Canadians would gladly give that 15 cents, I am sure of it. I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) in the House. I have raised the issue of the buying out of public funds of some $650 million worth of service stations. The Government does that, and then turns around in the House of Commons and says we can afford that expenditure but we cannot give $18 million to senior citizens.
I have on my desk a report from Ultramar Canada Limited which concludes that the taxpayers of this country are spending $517 million this year just on the financing for Petro-Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go out in the next federal election and tell the Canadian people, in the best way I am able to and on every platform I can get, that every elected Member of the Liberal Party in this House in the year 1983 stood up and said a subsidy of $517 million to Petro-Canada and the purchase of $650 million worth of service stations is more important and a priority, and therefore we have to cut pensions. We have to impose a tax on senior citizens this year, next year and every other year of their lives. Cut out the bafflegab, cut through the legislation, and that is the nub of it. It is not right, it dishonours this Chamber and it dishonours our commitment and those people and their lifetime of commitment to this nation. And we have six more hours to decide not to do it.
If Members opposite stand in this Chamber at six o'clock tonight and vote for this Bill, then it is done; they have broken that commitment. I say to whoever is listening on the television network: "Regardless whether you are over 65 or under 65, find out who your Member of Parliament is, find out how he votes later this day, and if you do not like it, you can do something about it. You can join a political party that is different from the one that Member represents in this Chamber"-and I suspect in most cases it will be a Liberal-"and you can have power in this nation. You can work as a volunteer to make sure that any Member who does this, whose social conscience is so weak and so ill considered, never has an opportunity to sit in this Chamber again." It takes volunteers and commitment but it can be done, and if people out therein

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
television land are as mad as I am, then it will be a ground-swell which will sweep this Government away and things will change with a new Parliament.
When we come back here we will honour the commitment. Members of this Party will first of all honour the commitment to provide a healthy economy, one that produces wealth so that we can keep our commitment to the senior citizens of this country and those who are not able to take care of themselves.
I implore, Mr. Speaker, I beg Members of the Liberal Party of Canada who sit in this Chamber to support my motion. It does not bring down the Government and cause an election; all it does is stop this legislation so senior citizens in this country will get the pension they are entitled to. It is wrong to impose a special and abusive tax on the poorest segment of the Canadian population. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor: "Bill C-131, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence."
Please, let us do what is right for the senior citizens of this nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lang) rises on a question.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has tried to make the point that the six and five legislation does not have an impact on inflation. In the past five years we in Canada have been experiencing a new phenomenon called an inflationary recession. In a recession there is no increase in total aggregate demand as some Milton Friedman disciples in the Conservative Party might suggest. Clearly there is cost-push inflation.


Donald W. Munro: What is your question?


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Opposition has been suggesting restraint and measures to bring down inflation. What would the Hon. Member suggest we do to deal with cost-push inflation and inflationary expectations?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Stop buying service stations.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I hear someone on our side say "stop buying service stations", and that is a great place to start. This Party voted for six and five in its broadest form. It was too little, too late, and we knew it would not work in all its ramifications, but we voted for it primarily because it cut the salaries of Members of Parliament. The NDP did not want to do that, but we did and we voted for it.


Mr. Keeper:: You deserve to have a salary cut.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: But this particular part of the six and five program involves, in the Minister's own words, a saving of $18 million through the imposition of a special tax. It is absolutely
insane to believe that a saving of $18 million will have any effect on inflation.
I think an economist would tell the Hon. Member that when money is put in the pockets of the poorest segments of society, they do not save it, they spend it. When they spend it, they create jobs. Perhaps we should be cutting money out of the pockets of the savers and putting it in the pockets of the spenders, if we care about 1.5 million unemployed people and if we care about senior citizens and their previous contribution to the country.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member failed to answer my question. Clearly he does not know how to deal with inflationary expectations. He knows that inflationary expectations are the only things at the present time in a recession which keep inflation going. He knows that the six and five program is bringing inflation down, and he does not have any other suggestions.
I will repeat my question and ask the Hon. Member what specific proposals he has to deal with inflationary expectations. It is not the $18 million that is the point, and the Hon. Member knows it; it is to reduce the income and inflationary expectations of people so that we can have economic stabilization for investment and for jobs. The saved money is being put toward job creation. What would he do to reduce inflationary expectations?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, one of our plans was an increase of 18 cents per gallon of gasoline, and we have now have an increase of over $1, which is inflation. I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the total economic plan presented to the Chamber in December, 1979. That economic plan was not read by Liberal Members of Parliament but it was voted against. If we look at that plan, it had several elements. It has been judged as the fairest budget to poor people in the decade of the 1970s. It was a budget to reduce the federal deficit and therefore inflation. At the same time it would have stimulated job creation and provided a stimulus by increasing jobs at the rate of 40,000 per month. That was the total economic plan. I am quite certain the Hon. Member has either not read it or never understood it. But he hurt the nation a great deal when he stood in the Chamber and voted against it. Out there in the public domain is the kind of planning and approach which my Party had and will have when we are the majority in this Chamber after the next federal election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will be pleased to recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) now that he is in his seat.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not want the Hon. Member to mislead the House. It is important when one is speaking to have the factual information. I was not a Member of Parliament at that time and was not able to vote against the budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's
February 3, 1983

West (Mr. Crosbie). Elowever, 1 would have been delighted to do so because it was an inflationary budget which proposed $3 million-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


Peter Joseph Lang: It would have done nothing to reduce inflationary expectations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why and how the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) could rise in the House today and object to the application of the six and five policy to senior citizens and their pensions, when at the time the policy was originally introduced in the House in the form of legislation he and his Party supported it. Did he not realize the implications of that legislation? I know he said that he voted for the six and five legislation because he wanted to vote to lower the salaries of Members of Parliament. If he wanted to do so, I wonder why in the first place he and his Party voted to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Hon. Member why 1 voted to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament and what 1 say in my riding, which is: "If you are happy with the politicians and the jobs they are doing, you are paying them enough; if you are not happy, it may be because there is a problem".
The Hon. Member raised an interesting point. 1 guess it brings into focus one of my contradictions with the New Democratic Party. It is a habit in my Party to read legislation. On the day that we were faced with six and five, we knew and understood that they could not do a thing about pensions, about Family Allowances or about superannuation without bringing forward separate pieces of legislation. Also we knew that we could vote, fight and filibuster. NDP Members stand up and platitudinously say that they do not like it, but the Canadian public should look at the record in committee and in this Chamber. Where are NDP motions which filibuster, delay, try to change or try to make the world better? We see no procedural motions. They do not cause votes to occur. They do not filibuster particularly well. They say one thing but they behave in another fashion.
I am proud of our record of voting for parts of the six and five, including the cutting of the salaries of Members of Parliament, to provide a symbol. Also I am proud of our record of fighting parts of the six and five, one of which is before us today. I urge every Member to fight it. That is the way we approach the real world with real problems-not with great big glorious phrases, but with real solutions.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon. Member for Calgary West why, when the Conservative Party has demonstrated its capacity in the House by virtue of the numbers of Members of Parliament and stopped the legislation which affected the oil industry, it cannot stop
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
legislation which will affect senior citizens from one coast to the other.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, again I will return to the same principle. They should have read the legislation on which the bells rang. The fight was not about the content of the Bills. The fight was about democracy and their previous support for an autocratic Government which treats the Chamber as useless. That bunch on the other side of the Chamber has illegally cut the payments to families in the country without the approval of Parliament, without the approval of the Hon. Member or I or any other Member. They moved arbitrarily. They were prepared to put Parliament in the ashcan with that omnibus Bill. We fought in this Chamber for democracy. If the Hon. Member read the entire omnibus Bill, he would understand it. It is about time it was read, and it is about time he understood it.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). He indicated a principle here. If he believes in that principle, did his Party not understand another principle, the principle of free collective bargaining? Many of the workers affected by Bill C-124 were underpaid. Some of them were single women on very low salaries. He talked about the wages of Members of Parliament, but does he not realize that in Kootenay East-Revelstoke the wages of many railroad workers and workers in the labour class are far below the wages of others, and that by supporting that Bill his Party broke contracts with working women with children who depend upon their salaries? The concept of free collective bargaining was lost by the cutting back of contracts which were signed, sealed and delivered by Government and by companies to their workers.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly getting far afield, but I would be happy to answer the Hon. Member. The Canadian public and Canadian unions should look at our record in committee, at the motions we moved to restore collective bargaining, and at the success we have had. It was not what we wanted, but the Bill was changed to restore more rights, not because of the efforts of the NDP and certainly not because of the efforts of the Hon. Members across the Chamber.
This Party deals with a real world in real ways. We created real change, not as much as we wanted and not as much as we would like. But we created change; the NDP talk about it.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to oppose strongly Bill C-131 because of its impact on senior citizens across the land and also because of the principle it represents; that is the erosion of universal social programs in Canada. This is something which we believe is a basic right of all Canadians.
This is the third time many of my colleagues and I have risen to speak against the Bill. We feel very strongly that no protest can be too great. Although perhaps we in the NDP are few in number, we feel so strongly about this matter that we want to keep the opposition to this Bill going for as long as

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
possible. We appeal to our colleagues on the right to continue this protest. We regret that they did not have the same kind of sympathy for workers, as my colleague just said, in relation to opposing Bill C-124.
I spoke on December 2 about the impact of Bill C-131 on older women. This is of particular concern to me and to my colleagues. The New Democratic Party has been involved in a major task force concerning older women. We have travelled to every Province, to the Yukon and to the Territories. The same story has been told to us over and over again. Older women in Canada not only had very low wages if they worked, but by far the majority of them who now are pensioners received no wages at all because they were home makers. They were the ones who worked hard raising families. They had no pay and now they have no benefits. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) knows this only too well. I have heard her express her concern for this group of Canadians. This Bill is completely contradictory to any concern the Minister once had for older women in particular.
I spoke on December 21 about the impact of this Bill on ordinary people. At that time I tried to get as many figures as 1 could from British Columbia where the cost of living has been excessively high. I took a look at my own riding of Vancouver East. There are many retired people from immigrant families and working class families whose wages were low. There are very many people who have been poor most of their lives; many of them were on welfare and again a great many of these are women.
Today I would like to summarize our concerns once more and appeal to the Government in the last stage to throw out this Bill. I want to appeal to the Liberals in the name of justice. We do not want to treat this matter as our friends to the right are treating it. They are treating it as a humanitarian concern, that we should be good to our old folks. That is patronizing and condescending. This is a matter of basic justice for Canadians.
Pensioners who have worked all their lives should not have to bear the brunt of restraint. They did not cause this country's inflation. Most of them will recognize that the Liberal Government that is bringing this in also is responsible for doing very little to control inflation in Canada. Pensioners are the victims of inflation. They are the ones who go to the grocery store and see the prices rising every month. They cannot buy meat very often for their diets. They are finding it hard to find enough money for fresh vegetables. If they live in rental accommodation, their rents are excessively high. If they are lucky enough to be in senior citizens' residences-and heaven knows, there are not enough of them-they still have to consider escalating costs of telephone, utilities and transportation. Very few of them have money to get out and just be a part of society. Those who have their own homes have been faced with high increases in taxes. There is no extra money in senior citizens' budgets these days except those of the very wealthy.
I appeal to the Government, not only from the basic justice point of view, which the Government owes to elderly Canadians, but also on the basis of need. I am not just talking about those Canadians with the lowest income who qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement; they are far below the poverty level and, of course, the cost of living hits them the hardest. I am talking also about the middle group, some 100,000 Canadian pensioners whose total income for a year is little more than S6,000. They are not eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, but now they are faced with having the cost of living index capped at half what it should be. It is that group which this Bill will affect the most. Surely any Member who knows his or her constituents must have talked to senior citizens. Surely Members have gone to the supermarkets and have watched how the seniors have to scrimp and save, how bare their baskets are as they go through the cash registry with very little. Surely most Members of Parliament know there is a great need for pensioners to have full indexing.
I want to repeat what I said the last time I spoke to the House on this Bill about the Bill's impact on women. This bill is unfair to elderly women who make up over 50 per cent of our old age pensioners. By far the greatest proportion of elderly women live below the poverty level. We have lots of statistics to prove this point. They are poor, and because they are poor, they usually are alone and isolated in rooms, in apartments and sometimes even in their own family home. Few people go to see them and they have no money to get out and be a part of society. They suffer discrimination not only because they are old but also because they are women. Most of them do not have the Canada Pension Plan, nor do they have coverage from private pensions. Those who are married live longer than their husbands. Many of them, if not most of them over the age of 65, are alone and have only one old age pension with which to pay all the costs of living. It is much easier for two people to stretch the pension cheque.
We believe this Bill is particularly unfair to older women. Most older women are in this marginal group, not poor enough in Government terms, to have GIS, but, God knows, in reality they are poor, and they do not have enough income to cover their cost of living.
What are we doing if this Bill passes, which it will because of the Liberal majority? We are telling the older pensioners, most of whom are women, that they do not deserve full indexing, even though it had been promised them in past legislation.
I appeal to the Government to reconsider this Bill in its last stages. It dishonours elderly people: we have heard other Members say that. We are so proud of the older people who have given so much to Canada. We all know families-our own families, friends' families, and so on-who have had members go through two wars and have lost members of their family. All of them have suffered the struggles of life during the depression. They gave up full indexing during the depression. They did not have enough to live on in those days. They cut their costs and they made over old clothes. They struggled
February 3, 1983

to raise families. They should not have to be faced with this situation now they are in their later years.
As we have all said, our senior citizens are the people who have contributed their labour to Canada. They own a share of the resources of this country. They raised families. They contributed leadership. They deserve a full pension with full indexing.
I would like to remind the Government that we oppose this Bill because it does not make financial sense. It takes away close to $400 from senior citizens because their pensions are being reduced, but it will do nothing to create jobs. I think the net saving is about $84 million, a very minimal amount of money when you consider how other expenditures are being allocated in our federal budget, Mr. Speaker. Dome alone was given $500 million. There are many other expenditures which could have been cut that would have created much less hardship for the people who are the victims of inflation and who are now being made the victims of the Government's restraint program.
Finally, we oppose this Bill because we strongly believe, as do many of the groups who presented briefs to the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, that the Bill represents a means of eroding the universality of social programs. In this case, it is old age pensions. We believe this to be the case no matter how strongly the Minister denies it. This is a regressive measure.
We know that the Liberal Cabinet, the Minister of Finance in particular, tried very hard last summer to do away with universal old age pensions and Family Allowances. I would remind those Hon. Members opposite that it was Liberals across the country who protested very strongly against the erosion of universality.
We believe that fully indexed pensions are a right. If indexing is removed, the universal concept of old age pensions is removed. It represents the erosion of a basic social program and right which this Party fought so very hard to introduce. We will fight just as hard to oppose a reduction in indexation. Pensions must be indexed to the real cost of living.
The Conservatives have been very hypocritical if one recalls what they said about reductions to workers' wages. If they feel strongly about this Bill, let them relinquish part of their wages to back up one of their arguments for Bill C-124, for example.
We believe that this Bill represents bad politics. As I have said, Liberal supporters across the country have gone on record as saying that they want universality and fully protected pensions and Family Allowances. We disagree with this Bill in principle, but may I remind Liberal Members that pensioners are voters. We are not opposing this Bill simply to be pragmatic and solicit votes, but let the pragmatic Liberals remember that many voters are pensioners. We will do our best to remind those pensioners in two years, or when the next election comes about, that it was the Liberals who cut back old age pensions. Undoubtedly, the Government will offer something to the
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
pensioners to gain their vote shortly before the election but the pensioners will remember and will be reminded that they cannot be used as symbols in a restraint program or flattered with pre-election goodies.
In the time I have remaining I would like to refer to briefs that were presented by a number of organizations to the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs during its debate on this Bill. Time only permits a brief excerpt from these presentations but it is important to put them on the record. I would urge those who are concerned about this Bill not just to take the word of the NDP but also to consider the views of many credible organizations that have experience in social policies. These groups include pensioners' organizations who are certainly experts on the question of pensions and the needs of the elderly in Canada, as well as groups that represent Canadian women.
I would first like to refer to a brief from the National Council on Welfare dated July, 1982:
Many elderly men and women who live at or just above the poverty line will be hurt by the Government's restraint program. A single pensioner with a total income of as low as $9,200-more than $500 below the poverty line for large urban centres-will sacrifice about $55, just the same as someone living on affluent income.
In other words, those who earn high incomes will receive the same cut in indexing as those with marginal incomes. The brief went on to say that over 100,000 poor and near poor elderly Canadians will suffer.
On December 9, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women said that they-
-condemned the federal Government for limiting the cost of living indexation of Family Allowances and old age pensions. The two Liberal ceilings on indexation Bills do not improve the system but simply try to take advantage of the vulnerability of women and old people. Those most affected by Bill C-131 are the near poor elderly whose income is just a little too high to entitle them to the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women said on December 13:
Women are facing a reduction of 3 per cent to 5 per cent in the real value of Family Allowance and pensions. It is difficult to understand how indexing pensions below the level of need meets the objectives of the green paper on pension reform, which states that elderly Canadians should be guaranteed a minimum level of income. The recent Report of the Auditor General suggests that there may be other means of reducing Government spending.
We know what those means are. They would certainly be a higher restraint priority in the opinion of our Party.
On December 14 the Canadian Labour Council said:
Bill C-131 is extremely unjust because it is a tax that falls solely on people over 65, most of whom are people of modest means. Nothing is being said about tax exemptions for the elderly which actually provide benefits that increase with the taxable income-
The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation felt that there should be full indexing and pensions above the poverty line.
The Canadian Council on Retirees strongly object to restraint programs which force pensioners to give up part of their pension increase and strongly oppose the attack on universality.

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
All of these organizations and many more have said that this Bill is poor, unjust and denies the promises that were made to senior citizens in pension policies that were adopted by the Liberal Government and the House of Commons. Those policies provided that there must be full indexing. This Bill is in conflict with those policies. Senior citizens in Canada today suffer the most from the high cost of living.
Bill C-131 is particularly hard on women pensioners who are very poor. Many of them have lived on one pension for many years and are trying to stretch their earnings to meet the cost of living.
This Bill erodes the whole concept of universality. I would urge the Minister to reflect upon her statements during the last days of debate on this Bill and to try to live up to her reputation, which I am afraid she is losing, of being concerned about elderly Canadians and women. Of course, we will continue to oppose Bill C-131 as long as we can, for all the reasons I have mentioned.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 heard the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) say that the Conservatives were fighting this Bill on some kind of compassionate grounds, as if we had to be nice to the old folks-1 believe those were her words. I want to tell the Hon. Member that 1 am participating in this debate, as so many of my colleagues are, out of a sense of outrage over the injustice that is being perpetrated against senior citizens, not out of any misplaced sense of compassion or something left over from Sunday morning.
I say that the Government is playing with a type of economic yo-yo, using the senior citizens of our country. When the Liberals spin the wheel and want a little bit of political popularity coming into the election, they will promise senior citizens something; but when they spin the wheel again and ask where they can find a few bucks-in this case, a few lousy bucks, given the outrageous expenses of the federal Government and the $23 billion deficit-their first targets are senior citizens, who are vulnerable and defenceless except for the people in the House who stand and fight this type of outrageous legislation from the viewpoint of injustice, not simply compassion.
I want the Hon. Member for Vancouver East to hear me on this matter. I feel just as strongly about the outrage over the problems facing women, especially those over the age of 65. 1 have gone door-to-door through Edmonton South, supposedly one of the better areas of Canada, but where all kinds of senior citizens, particularly women, are living just inside the margin of poverty. That is just an absolute outrage and a scandal. It is also a scandal that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), with whom we are trying to communicate in this debate, does not even take the courtesy to listen to what is being said.
I wonder what is the real purpose of Parliament, the purpose of debate and the purpose of the new rules. It was really
amazing to me that when the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) proposed an amendment that this Bill be hoisted for six months, setting out his very serious argument, it was as though it was sort of pro forma. We are trying to communicate to the people of Canada that this Party deeply cares about senior citizens, and we want this injustice which is being perpetrated against them to be given six months' study. What is unreasonable about that?
I fully support the Hon. Member in his challenge to see, at six o'clock tonight, how many Hon. Members opposite feel that an injustice is being perpetrated on our senior citizens, who are being asked to carry an unfair burden in the fight against inflation.
I want to deal with some of the arguments put forward by the Minister. I believe she has not really challenged our fundamental objections to Bill C-131. I even wonder how much heart she has herself in carrying forward the Government's intention of pushing this Bill through by the unholy use of closure once again. It is not good enough that the Liberals will not accept more time for study; they cut off debate in the House of Commons when Hon. Members are trying to speak for those of our citizens who need us the most. It is an absolute outrage. They are breaking a commitment to the senior citizens of this country. The Government has not justified the real hardship-


Sidney James Parker: I rise on a point of order.


Douglas Roche: -which Bill C-131 will create for many senior citizens.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) rises on a point of order.


Sidney James Parker: I would like to make a point of clarifying the fact that we do support the amendment; the Hon. Member has indicated that we do not.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: 1 am sure the Hon. Member realizes that that is not a point of order.


Douglas Roche: I am certainly pleased that the NDP will support this amendment. I wish on other occasions, when there were votes of critical importance to the future of this country, that the NDP had taken such an attitude of support for solid principles of legislation. I have certain memorable votes of the NDP in mind when I make that comment.
The problem which this Bill poses for the principle of universality and social security has not yet been addressed. When weighed against the fundamental concerns now being presented by myself and my Party, one finds that the Government has only offered, once again, the hollow plea of six and five and has even been unable to give evidence that there will be substantive savings in Government expenditure should the Bill pass.
My most important objection to Bill C-131 is that it breaks an undertaking given to citizens of Canada, in this case the
February 3, 1983

segment of the population which is the most vulnerable. It is certainly not a matter of violating a written agreement, as was the case with Public Service pensions in Bill C-133. In this case it is a question of reneging on a social contract. The Minister of National Health and Welfare herself made this point when she opened the debate on the Bill. At that time she said:
There is a social contract, as it were, that guarantees a basic pension for everyone.
I also cited the Minister in my remarks two days ago. She said that the Government "had no intention of changing the rules of the game", and that it would "maintain indexing of the Old Age Security pension". As late as November 4, the Minister claimed:
All social programs, that means in particular pensions and benefits for children, will remain as they are.
Why? The Minister then reassured:
People are in the middle of an economic crisis and they need stability.
Breaking a trust and taking money from people's pockets certainly does not promote this stability to which the Minister paid lip service. On this theme, I wish to quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Speaking last April at the National Pension Conference, he stated:
Put simply, people must be protected in their retirement years. The Canadian Government has pledged that they will be better protected in the future than they are now. Pensions which are not protected against inflation naturally tend to dwindle over the years. People who thought they had purchased protection for the rest of their lives find they face more serious financial problems the older they become.
I ask Your Honour, in view of this Bill, which is hurtling through its final hours in the House, how are the senior citizens of this country to have faith in the Prime Minister's word?
What is doubly galling is the fact that in so breaking its obligations to the elderly of this country, the Government would somehow like us to believe that its actions are not arbitrary, not unilateral. Again citing the Minister of National Health and Welfare, her Government is "asking 1.1 million pensioners to help lead the way in the fight against inflation". She asserted that she was "very conscious of the sacrifice we are asking", to use the Minister's words.
It is preposterous to suggest that pensioners have, in any way, shape or form, been "asked", for Bill C-131 dictates to the elderly that Old Age Security is no longer inflation-proof. As if that were not bad enough, the Government rams closure through the House in order to get the Bill passed. It is fortunate that the Government agreed to spare the poorest of pensioners this decrease in indexation by making up the loss in Old Age Security benefits through the annual Guaranteed Income Supplement, which continues, thankfully, to rise with the cost of living. However, by placing greater emphasis on the income-tested GIS, this measure threatens the cardinal principle of universality. To a greater extent, the elderly will be burdened with the welfare stigma associated with GIS, playing down the universality of OAS or a Government pension as a right. This manoeuvre, moreover, would seem to
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
increase the administrative complexity of the entire pension question.
My next major point concerns the hardship which Bill C-131 would create for the 1.1 million pensioners who are not covered by the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Estimates are that this Bill will cost them approximately $290 each over 1983 and 1984, or about $12 a month. According to the National Council on Welfare, about 100,000 pensioners are classified as poor or near poor among these 1.1 million, those single recipients of Old Age Security with incomes between $9,000 and $10,000 annually who do not qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement; or, similarly, couples with incomes of $15,000 or $16,000 who are not receiving the GIS.
The Government is fighting inflation on the backs of those who can least afford it. It is singling out the elderly in an effort to extricate itself from the problems caused by its own economic mismanagement. The Bill cuts back on the Government's moral obligation to aid senior citizens. They have left the work force; unlike working people, they are thus unable to recoup their losses and bargain with their employers to offset inflation.
By assaulting those pensioners who border on the poverty line but, because of supplementary incomes, do not qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Government is effectively punishing those who were able or wise enough to practise the virtues of thrift and planning. That is not to denigrate senior citizens who are compelled to rely exclusively on OAS and GIS; rather, I am arguing for some consideration toward those who, through their own devices, are now being penalized for living just above the poverty line.
There is a further inequity in Bill C-131, as there is in Bills C-132 and C-133. Single pensioners with incomes of $9,000 lose $290 in the next two years, but a family with two children on an income of $27,000 will lose less than $50 over the course of the much vaunted six and five program. A single elderly widow who has to live on $9,000 a year thus sacrifices six times as much as family with an income of $27,000 annually. This is not to say that the Government should squeeze the latter any more than it is already doing, but it should get its priorities in order. Bill C-131 perpetrates that sense of injustice.
Much has been made by the Government of the allegedly temporary nature of this Draconian measure. But if and when indexing is reintroduced in 1985, the computation for OAS will be on a lower base than it would have been had full indexing been adhered to over these two years. Therefore, pensioners are to suffer a permanent reduction in the amount of OAS benefit. Unlike the public servants who were nailed under Bill C-133, these senior citizens cannot return to the bargaining table to make up that amount. In short, Mr. Speaker, the gamesmanship of six and five simply cannot justify the economic hardship that Bill C-131 will wreak among the elderly.

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
I want to mention again the door-to-door canvassing of my constituency which i undertook last September. Pensioner after pensioner expressed fear of continually rising prices, and said how even a cutback of $12 monthly would make a significant difference in coping with the grim realities of day-to-day life. Rents, food and the cost of everything that pensioners buy, go up. I do not think it is right for a Government that spends $100 million on advertising its own Departments to expect pensioners to bear the burden of the ever-rising deficit. Fully 62.5 per cent of my constituents who responded to a questionnaire believed that benefits to the elderly should be increased rather than decreased. The very people this Bill is now victimizing are the survivors of the great depression and two world wars; surely it is time that their struggle ended.
Another point which I wish to make is that this unjust and immoral measure will effectively bring few returns to the Government, for all the fuss it is making. Estimates from the Department of National Flealth and Welfare show that capping OAS will save about $31 million in 1983. Mr. Speaker, what is that against a projected budget deficit of $23 billion for this year? Let us look at other areas where we can cut Government waste; for instance, the Government will spend three times more on advertising its programs this year than it will save by putting the burden of inflation on the backs of the elderly of this country.
In addition, Bill C-131 really reflects a lack of confidence on the part of the Government in its own six and five program. If inflation truly does drop to the targets of 6 and 5 per cent, then this Bill will be totally unnecessary as OAS benefits will be indexed to these levels in any event. But if inflation is really substantial, then Bill C-131 is a monstrosity, for it will take income away from senior citizens right when they need it most. If the Government is so optimistic that it has the answers to the problem of inflation, then why does it want a Bill to do what its six and five program is touted to do?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at the Government's use of closure and what I expect to be its automatic rejection of the amendment offered by the Hon. Member for Calgary West. The Bill breaks trust, it creates hardship and it is an ad hoc response to a fundamental issue facing our society. We should have spent the time we have given to this debate discussing instead a program that the Government could bring forth to deal with the "greying" of Canada. Surely it is evident that in future a greater proportion of our population will be over the age of 65. This will present a great social problem and a challenge, as it will be necessary to change many aspects of our society. We must not only deal with the elderly but we must draw on their experience for the benefit of the whole of society, not treat them as cast-offs waiting to draw their last breath.
I shall present a motion on a comprehensive program for aging under Private Members' Motions when the new session of Parliament begins-if that ever comes about. This session seems to be going on interminably and is doing damage to Canada.
I want to address the crucial question of a comprehensive program for aging because I believe we are going to have to pay some very serious attention to ways of increasing the number of residences for senior citizens. We must also make more home support available to senior citizens. They want nothing more than to be able to stay in the homes they have had for years and have probably paid for. They may not need a great amount of money to live on but do need some support in the years left to them.
I should also like to see more support for cultural activities for senior citizens, and I should like them to have the opportunity to engage in voluntary and community work. There is an enrichment of society there upon which all of us can draw. It is wrong to think that because someone is over 65 they cannot make a contribution to society.
1 could talk for a long time about the number of famous people in history such as Schweitzer, Churchill, Pope John XXIII and any number of composers and artists who made great contributions in their fields and to humanity after they reached the age of 65. There will be an opportunity for more of that in the future because of the greying of our society. We do not want just to tolerate senior citizens or treat them as whipping boys. We must treat senior citizens as an integral part of society, recognizing in this new technological age that they can make greater contributions to our society if only we treat them decently and provide them with the basic level of support and services that they need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) stand to be recognized for debate or for questioning?


Mr. Stewart:: For debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for debate.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and oppose Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Once again, with obvious predictability, this Government has chosen to invoke closure with respect to a debate over an issue which is in strong dispute. Repeatedly, and with good reason, this Government has been described as arrogant. The word "arrogant" as we all know, means overbearing, presumptuous and haughty. The arrogance of this Government is reflected in almost every move it makes, every pronouncement it utters and every attitude it conveys. Now, its disdain for our senior citizens is shown by allowing only 17 hours of debate on this most important Bill and only four sessions to hear witnesses.
Nowhere and under no circumstances does this arrogance assume more dangerous proportions than when it seems to achieve a dismissal of the established democratic rights of this House, and by natural extension the rights of Canadians, whom we all represent, particularly, of course, our senior
February 3, 1983

citizens. This Bill abrogates a responsibility to those seniors who have an unwritten contract, as the Minister herself stated. The only factor in the whole pension scheme, in my view, which bears scrutiny is the universality aspect relating to the top echelon of the income scale.
What are the savings in this Bill? Perhaps some $30 million. I would like to take a minute to examine some of the waste of this Government and put it in perspective with regard to what it is willing to do to the seniors in the name of saving. How much did we waste in Haiti to pay left-wing dictatorships and their lackeys? Some $25 million. How much did we waste on the Unity Office? Perhaps $50 million. Then there was the advertising of the Constitution; loans to left-wing nations. Michael Manley got a $90-million loan, $10 million of it forgivable. Will we ever recover it? What about loans to leftwing nations at no interest or very little interest over terms of 20 to 50 years in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars?
On the metric office, it spent perhaps $25 million. We have losing Crown corporations, dozens of them. According to the Auditor General's Report, most of them are absolutely and totally unaudited, operating on their own under the cloak of Government. Canadair alone owes this Government $1.5 billion. What is the tab for enforced bilingualism? It is $441 million. Their answer is to penalize the senior citizens of this great Canada of ours.
To invoke closure of debate on this Bill is to say to Members of this House and to their constituents that the Government has no interest in or regard for the opinions and needs of others. By invoking closure the Government is saying to us, to all Canadians, that what we want and what we feel is necessary in our lives is of no importance whatsoever.
By invoking closure the Government is saying: "We will decide what is best for you. We will make these important decisions for you. We are not interested in what you think, even if we waste millions of dollars on programs which are distasteful"-ones which my constituents do not want. By invoking closure, the Government is once again replacing democracy with dictatorship, a situation which I have spoken about in this House before and a situation which I regard with anger and distaste. I submit my outrage is justified, as is that of many Canadians who support that position.
Prior to this particular invocation of closure, there have been 14 times during this session of Parliament when this Government limited debate on issues before this House. As my colleague just mentioned, thank Heaven when it is over. On 12 occasions the Government has imposed time allocation, which we are now under, which is just a fancy word for closure; and on two others it resorted to outright closure in its true meaning. These were 14 actual instances when the Government was successful in imposing its dictatorial will.
There were other times when the Government attempted to invoke closure and was blocked, most recently when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) sought to whisk his controversial and disastrous Canagrex Bill through the House. The Hon. Member to my right presented a petition on behalf of his constituents only yesterday decrying this injustice. What
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
will Canagrex do? It will give the Government the power to buy and sell all agricultural products in Canada. The word for that, which I learned in my reading of Marx, is communiza-tion. It will cost more millions with another Crown corporation in place.
By invoking closure, the Government quite clearly reveals its lack of regard and respect for the Members of this House and, I repeat, for the people we represent, particularly our seniors. I might add briefly that this disrespect and disregard is further amplified by the Government's use of Orders in Council. This Government, much to its dismay, must present certain items of legislation to Parliament for examination, scrutiny and debate. That is our role on this side of the House, for the time being.
This Government, much to its dismay again, obviously finds the process of scrutiny distasteful. To have its destructive policies and its shallow reasoning subject to public scrutiny is an obvious irritant to this Government. It is much more simple and less embarrassing for this Government to pass Orders in Council whenever possible. How simple and, as I stated at the beginning, how arrogant! This arrogance is supported by fact. Since this Government was returned to office in 1980, it has passed a total of 11,345 Orders in Council, some 4,062 in 1982 alone.
What has been created by this by-passing of Parliament? A total loss of credibility, a total loss of confidence, people not knowing whether they can trust their banks or trust companies; and now contracts with senior citizens are broken. What it amounts to is a pox on the house of our senior citizens, particularly older women, many of whom have been on the low-wage scale all their lives or have received no wages whatsoever. We all know what the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) thinks of the spousal allowance and women volunteers. As my colleague who spoke before me mentioned, women have a great role to play in the voluntary sector of the country, particularly senior citizens.
Let us look at this Order in Council nonsense. There is VIA Rail, the beginning of the end of passenger rail service in this country. How many senior citizens wrote to me about the cancellation of the commuter train in the riding of Simcoe South? Literally dozens. It was their only mode of transportation to and from the city of Toronto.
The emergency planning order, arbitrary and far-reaching powers for a Government in a nebulous or manufactured emergency, included provisions, if anyone in this country could believe it, for the creation of civilian internment camps. I hope that right-wing senior citizens are not the first on the list.
There has been an increase in the cost of our postal service, another item that is very inflationary. It causes the seniors undue hardship. There has been no regard for a corresponding improvement in the postal service. There has been the imposition of mandatory metric weights and measures, costly and controversial to say the least. I am proud to join 36 other Members on this side of the House in the opening of a service station to give people that freedom of choice. The issue is not metric; the issue is freedom of choice. The issue is no Orders in Council.

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Orders in Council also provided for the pension benefits of Senator Pitfield and a handsome salary for the former Deputy Minister of Finance, lan Stewart-1 wish he spelled his name differently-while he looks for a new job.
What about the $200,000 to Ed Clark to languish on the Riviera while he becomes bilingual? He is one of the authors of the National Energy Program which is so disastrous to this country. What did he write his thesis on? If we are not talking about left-wing, then why was it on the Government of Tanzania? He is one of the people who is putting national energy programs in place for free enterprise Canadians.
Then there was the $70,000 to Mrs. Susan Warner in the Barrie office of Health and Welfare for language training in Toronto. Certainly that is required! They would not get one telephone call in French in a month. Waste, waste. Spend, spend. And now at whose expense? At the expense of our seniors who, the Minister admits, have a social contract with her Government. Most particularly it is at the expense of pensioners, who cannot recover lost income. They are in a fixed position, but they have to pay increases in costs for food, clothing and accommodation.
When this Government is ashamed of something it does, it does it secretly without reference to Parliament or to the people particularly, the over one million pensioners. When the Government has to go public, it uses every means available to limit and minimize debate and scrutiny. 1 am sure, Mr. Speaker, if it was at all possible, that this Government would have passed an Order in Council to limit senior citizens' pensions this year and next, and who knows when, if they could get away with it.
The ridiculous part of it is that none of this would have been necessary if pension funds in Canada had been put into a separate account, had been actuarially sound, had the Government backed them, and had free enterprise been allowed to invest in them. We would have had so much money in the pension accounts in Canada that we would not have had to lie to the people, to let them think there was a separate account, to let them think that they were forever safe from an encroachment on their pension. Bill C-133 also would not have been necessary in that case either. This act of Government is something it should be ashamed of and undoubtedly is the reason why, because it has to go public, it has now invoked closure on debate. I might add there are many more reasons why it would not have been necessary.
Why 14 years ago was this Government not looking at the economic crisis which was coming up? Why was it that Germany and Japan foresaw what was going to happen and really did something about it in their economic planning, in their research and development programs? Canada is now ranked 24th of 24 by the OECD in terms of economic growth, and I quote:
The OECD estimates that in 1982 the countries listed below economically grew at a faster rate than Canada.
The OECD goes on to list the countries. So we cannot blame it on the anchovies of Peru, or the penguins of the Antarctic, or the foxes of somewhere else, or on Mr. Reagan, because the countries listed are countries such as Belgium, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey. We are behind those countries. We are 24th out of 24 and I do not think you can blame that on world inflation.
Of the OECD's top seven countries, Canada ranks second in the unemployment rate, second only to the United Kingdom by half a percentage point. We all know what happened to the United Kingdom the minute it embraced socialism: it has gone downhill ever since. We are falling into the same trap because of the Government across the way, which believes it is much easier to start any kind of uphill fight on the backs of our pensioners. Canada is the only OECD country of the top ten in which industrial productivity has decreased. Who are we going to blame that on?


An Hon. Member:: Do you know why?


Ronald Alexander Stewart: I know why-because of 14 years of totally inept Government planning. If we were putting the money in R and D, everyone knows what it would do; even one-half of 1 per cent would provide some 400,000 jobs. Everyone knows the success of the Mitels of this world. But what do we do? We throw money at all kinds of make-work projects which will do nothing but further increase inflation and, for heaven sakes, we put it on the backs of the pensioners!
Perhaps it might be appropriate at this time to underscore and identify more clearly the nature of the shame involved, as the Hon. Member just said. The Minister of National Health and Welfare when speaking to the House on the Bill before us said she was doing the senior citizens a favour by arbitrarily enlisting them in the Government's sloppy battle against inflation. Some favour! It is like saying to someone who has just been the victim of a pickpocket: "Well, now at least your pants won't bag"; or telling the victim of a purse snatcher that a weight has been taken off her shoulder. Such reasoning defies logic. Such reasoning defies credibility when we are only saving $31 million, with a deficit like we have. Yet such reasoning is absolutely and totally typical of this Government. To offer such shameful reasoning to a particularly important segment of our society, believe me, Mr. Speaker, is without precedent.
The importance of our senior citizens, our deep regard for what they have done and continue to do, is perhaps the basic reason I find this Bill so shameful. Senior citizens are not old age people; they are Canadians over a certain age who have a lot more to contribute. I do not think we should forget the quotation; "Honour thy father and thy mother, that their days may be long". That is something this Government should take a long, hard look at, especially now when they are taxing somebody extra for being over 65. Canada did not spring full blown from the forehead of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), much as he would like to take credit for that creation, too. How do you suppose our senior citizens feel now
February 3, 1983

about the Charter of Human Rights? How much confidence do they have now in the people across the way?
Canada grew, developed and prospered over the past 116 years solely through the efforts of its citizens. Many of those citizens who hewed, harrowed, hallowed and clawed their way through the depression years know what the real cost and sacrifice is of being a Canadian. They have never complained, so why should we hit them first? Canadian citizens in every walk of life work hard and with diligence to create a better environment for themselves and for future generations. Those contributions were made in the home, in the marketplace and on many occasions on the field of battle, and I know we are all proud of the distinction with which they served in preserving the right of freedom which we stand in this House and champion.
Each new generation, understanding and appreciating these efforts, applied themselves with equal enthusiasm and sense of purpose, but this is being eroded by this Bill. The growth of our nation and our advancement as a society has been the result of all that hard work and diligence. Our acknowledgement, gratitude and respect for such services from our seniors should be without question. There should be no doubt of our ability to assume the continuing task without asking those who have given so much to give yet more, or to be hurt in any way. Yet through this Bill, the Government is doing just that, except with respect to the top scale of those receiving the old age pension. This year and next, and knowing this Government likely in the years to follow, the very pension we offer our senior citizens could well be reduced again by the simple means of an Order in Council, or by bringing some measure in and attaching closure to it.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that it would only be a 50-cent reduction. Fifty cents more for the Government to waste with its profligate spending. Fifty cents to give away to anyone, but not to our senior citizens, one of our most important commodities. Fifty cents! Is that not marvellous? The Minister is telling us that this stupid act of disrespect is for 50 cents. For shame!


Mr. Ogle:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), a question about part of his speech. He began by illustrating other areas in which Canada has lost money, and one of the places he mentioned was a project with respect to the left-wing Government of Haiti. The Government of Haiti, I believe, is considered by most Governments in the world as being probably the most right-wing Government there is under President Duvalier. I would just like to know now how far the Hon. Member feels he is right of the left-wing Government of Duvalier.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for the question. I would like to apologize; that was a slip of the tongue. Of course, it is a totally ultra right-wing Government, and that is as totally bad as a left-wing Government. I apologize.


An Hon. Member:: Fascism and communism.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) on a question.


Mr. Kelly:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to participate in the debate rather than to ask a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 think the first thing is perhaps we ought to look at the clock. With that in mind, there are Hon. Members who wish to rise on questions and answers, so I would expect and hope to see them at two o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, since the first of February, American and Honduran forces have been holding large-scale joint military manoeuvres in Honduras, less than 20 kilometers from the Nicaraguan border. This military exercise, called Big Pine, is the largest one ever organized in Honduras by the U.S. army. About 1,600 American soldiers are participating with some 5,000 members of the Honduran forces. These manoeuvres are being held at a time when relations between the U.S. and Nicaraguan governments are particularly tense, and their aim is to intimidate and destabilize the Sandinist regime.
It is my feeling that at a time when the Canadian Government is engaged in reviewing its relations with Latin American countries, it should make known its disapproval of manoeuvres which constitute dangerous provocation and may bring about a tragic clash of military forces in this part of our hemisphere. I would therefore ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to give public expression to our indignation in a communication to the Pentagon.

February 3, 1983



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, recent demonstrations by Canadians show three citizen concerns-the build-up of arms and instruments of mass destruction, unemployment, and support for the world's oppressed. In view of these anxieties, why does the effective role played by Canada in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe receive so little attention by Canada's media when that Conference holds possibility of progress in all three of these areas-in easing international tensions through dialogue and negotiation of confidence-building measures, in producing new employment by reducing barriers to trade, and in progress in human rights leading to freedom from oppression for such people as Anatoly Shcharansky, whose hunger strike has so possessed the souls of Canadians? Despite the apparent lack of progress in two years of the Conference, one believes that world opinion will bear heavily on those responsible behind the Iron Curtain.
I urge an interest by parliamentarians and the press in keeping before Canadians the significant possibilities which exist for our good through the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe at which Canada will undertake a major responsibility when it reconvenes in Madrid next Monday, February 7.
* *
*
[ Translation]



TRANSPORT


Mr. Rolland Dion (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, on Tuesday the Canadian Government announced a new western grain transportation policy. It seems that the announcement has raised a number of questions among Quebec farmers regarding the survival of the agro-food industry in that province. I would like to take this opportunity to recall that the policy statement includes a number of measures aimed at ensuring that there will be no adverse effects for agriculture in Quebec. First of all, there will be a four- and not a seven-year plan; the Livestock Feed Board of Canada is to set up a mechanism to monitor the effects of this transportation policy; and a task force will be set up to determine a fair and non-discriminatory payment system for Eastern Canada. There is also the assurance that the price of grain in Eastern Canada will not be affected by the new policy; that Quebec's diversity of supply will be maintained; that any additional payments to western producers will require the passage of legislation; and that a study will be carried out by the railways in Eastern Canada to explore ways of improving transportation for agricultural products from Eastern Canada.
Therefore, claims that the Government of Canada will be spending $3 billion on developing agriculture in the West are just not true. I may remind the House that the purpose of this policy is not to improve agriculture but to improve the transportation of agricultural products in Western Canada.



CALL FOR INCREASED UTILIZATION OF PORT OF CHURCHILL

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, at the present time several Ministers of the Crown are in various parts of Canada holding news conferences and meetings, publicizing planned changes in the Crow rate and the expenditure of several billions of dollars to modernize the railway transport system.
The Port of Churchill is an integral part of our transportation system, yet the Government has totally ignored it in its proposals. The Port has never been used to capacity and has a potential which has never been exploited. With the new proposed freight rate structure, the cost savings of using Churchill will be much more substantial than they are now. Increased capacity and utilization would greatly assist in movement of the projected 30 million plus tonnes of export grain, and relieve some of the bottlenecks in the system. As well, it would mean lower costs for goods imported to western Canada from Europe.
While I realize there are certain problems because of permafrost and ice, I suggest that these problems are not insurmountable. Techniques involved in constructing the Alaska Gas Pipeline, and reinforced hulls developed for Arctic shipping, should be considered.
If the Government is serious about modernizing our transportation system and developing industry in the West, I would suggest that it spend some of its funds now for Churchill.
* *
*



RAILWAYS


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party supports the development, modernization and expansion of railways for the benefit of all Canadians. The New Democratic Party recognizes the direct effect on the economy which such expenditure will have through jobs in the steel industry and railroad communities across Canada.
Western grain producers will appreciate the possible effects that such upgrading of railways will have on the movement of grain. This upgrading process is long overdue and has been neglected by the railways and the Government. In fact the movement has been the other way-to downgrade and abandon rather than to improve.
February 3, 1983

The New Democratic Party welcomes this change in Government policy and hopes that the Government has enough business sense to ensure that the Canadian people will gain equity in the railways for the tax dollars spent.
The New Democratic Party does not agree with the removal of millions of dollars of income from western grain farmers by changing the freight rate, the Crow rate, which farmers have to pay. For every dollar that a farmer earns, there is a multiplier effect of $6 or $7 across the country. A billion dollars, which farmers will have to spend on freight, will amount to $7 billion being diverted from the machinery industry, the fertilizer industry, the petro industry, the chemical industry, the food processing industry, and the retailing industry.

[ Translation]




Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Government on revising the Crow rate, in view of the considerable changes this will bring about in the transportation field. The people of the North Shore are especially pleased, because the mining industry can be expected to take advantage of these changes to build new railways and renovate existing railway lines. Grain handling facilities in the Ports of Quebec City, Montreal, Baie Comeau, Port Cartier, Chicoutimi, and probably Sept-iles as well, will also benefit. In the debate on the changes in the Crow rate, it would perhaps be useful to point out to the people of Quebec that substantial benefits in the field of grain processing and transportation will accrue to the entire province.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) has been questioned and pressed to make statements and give progress reports regarding matters dealing with veterans, yet he chooses to remain silent. The Minister says little, and does less, as though all were well and rosy within the Department. He has been asked about the length of time taken in processing veterans' pension applications, the aging veterans programs, Indian war veterans, Hong Kong veterans, War Veterans Allowance, compensation for prisoners of war, the implementation of recommendations by the United Veterans' Association and Committees, such as the Woods Committee and the Senate Committee on Health, Welfare and Science report entitled, "They Served, We Care". Still the minister does not inform us of the action he plans to take.
Just recently two of my colleagues questioned the Minister regarding ongoing problems veterans have been facing for years, yet we hear evasive answers, and no accomplishments are made. The Minister is contacted both in and outside the House and in Committee, in an attempt to have him reveal the developments in progress to better the conditions for veterans, but to no avail. These matters have been raised in the Senate, and still nothing is done.
The patience of my colleagues, of myself and, most important, of the veterans of Canada, is wearing thin. We want to know what the Minister is doing. We want to hear the plans he has made, the action he is taking, and we want the Minister to provide progress reports on his so-called investigations through motions in the House.



ABORTION


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, it is a serious matter of concern that Dr. Henry Morgantaler is attempting to open abortion clinics in Toronto and Winnipeg. While the Attorney General for Manitoba has turned down a request from Morgantaler for immunity from prosecution, and the Attorney General for Ontario has threatened prosecution if Section 251 of the Criminal Code is not complied with, it must be remembered that Morgantaler blatantly violated and continues to violate this Section of the Code in Quebec. The Attorney General of that Province has determined-and I think wrongly so-that, based upon the previous Morgantaler experience in Quebec, it is unlikely that a conviction could be achieved under present federal legislation.
Since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides the framework within which we, as Parliamentarians, can legislate on matters concerning abortion, and since amendments to the legislation are desperately needed if we intend to curtail the number of innocent unborn Canadians who die each year as a result of abortion, we must act now to ameliorate this deteriorating situation. Our unborn children are a very precious resource to this country.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the farming industry in Canada, especially the red meat producers' section, has been experiencing some very difficult financial times. In 1982 some 410 producers were forced into bankruptcy, a number that is growing. Despite the recent lower interest rates, this has not eased the pressure on those concerned. To assist them better, the reactivation of the 1935 Farmers'

February 3, 1983
Creditors Arrangement Act would be a move in the right direction. This would allow a farmer facing bankruptcy to make a proposal to his creditors to save his farm by adopting an alternate refinancing plan approved by a court.
For those farmers and others in dire straits, the use of agribonds through the Farm Credit Corporation should be approved. This would make available low interest loans over an extended period of time.
Agriculture is the most important industry in Canada today because more than 40 per cent of all direct and indirect jobs can be attributed to agriculture. It is my belief that everything possible must be done to maintain a viable and healthy agricultural industry, and to encourage and to motivate our producers. Therefore, I believe it is incumbent on the federal Government to play an even more active role to assist this very important industry by making it one of its top priorities. Flopefully this will be reflected in the new budget expected in a few weeks' time.



POLLUTION


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, research has shown that lead pollution of the air we breath is a very serious matter. This poison could retard the brain development of thousands of Canadian children. Over the last few years we have been losing the war against this pollutant due to the attractiveness of low price leaded gasoline over unleaded gas.
The incredible increase in the price spread between leaded and unleaded gas is forcing budget-conscious consumers to substitute polluting leaded fuel even in vehicles built for the unleaded variety. In Ottawa, for example, the price spread has almost tripled in the last three years.
Today we learned that General Motors of Canada plans to reintroduce lead tolerant car to the marketplace in response to consumer demand and, according to Martin Rivers of Environment Canada, such a move would mean lead emission levels will "shoot right out the window."
I have brought this problem to the attention of the House and of the Government two or three times before. The Government knows that the increasing cost of unleaded gas is a result of tax policies and unacceptably high markups by oil companies so the companies can simultaneously increase profits and protect their investment in antiquated leaded gas refinery systems. The Government also knows that our lead emission standards are inferior to those in the U.S.
On behalf of the people of Canada I demand, that the Government stop enticing Canadians to defile our environment and use its taxation and regulatory powers to discourage a resurgence of leaded fuel use.



FOOD AND DRUGS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Government is taking steps, through proposed changes in labelling, to provide consumers with increased amounts of useful information on the nutritional value of foods sold in Canada.
The advantages of a uniform and standardized system of nutrition labelling are clear: consumers, particularly those with food allergies or needing to monitor their intake of substances, such as sodium or sugar, will be able to make better informed choices as to the best food value for their dollar. Manufacturers who wish to promote the nutritional value of a product will be required to substantiate such claims by providing relevant information on the label.
The Government is allowing a 12-month period for discussion of these proposals and has invited the co-operation and participation of industry and of consumers. Some manufacturers will be test marketing the new system later this year, which will allow some experience with it.
The proposals for nutrition labelling have great potential to benefit consumers and industry. 1 hope that Canadians will use this opportunity to become acquainted with the proposals and their implications, and to make their views known.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Mines. She will know that industry spokesmen have stated that 50 per cent of Canada's mining work force is unemployed as a result of shutdowns and projected further shutdowns in the nickel, molybdenum, iron ore, coal and asbestos industries, with another 1,900 people to be laid off this Saturday from the Balmer mine in British Columbia. These 70,000 workers represent a payroll loss of some $2 billion annually. This all results, according to industry spokesmen, because of a loss of competitive position on world markets. What specific steps has the Minister of State for Mines taken to restore Canada to its traditional position as a world leader in mineral production?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, I think, as the Hon. Member has indicated several times, that he considers himself to be a champion of the mineral industry. If he is indeed, then he should be rejoicing because the mineral industry, particularly the coal sector, has been crying for years for changes to the Crow rate.
February 3, 1983


Philip Derek Lewis: Did you hear the question?


Judith A. Erola: This should be a great moment of joy for the critic because he knows how important this is to the mineral industry in Canada over the long term. More specifically I would like to tell him that the price of nickel rose to $1.81 today, and that should be some cause for rejoicing as well.
Locally I would like to tell him that in the Province of Ontario, through Section 38, 110 projects have been created for people in the mining industry. As a matter of fact a number of others are under consideration right now. We are waiting for approval for programs in British Columbia and Ontario. This Government is doing a great deal for those unemployed miners.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, recourse to the Crow rate and make-work projects has little to do with Canada's declining competitive position internationally. These sorts of make-work projects outlined by the Minister amount to little more than trying to fight a forest fire with one leaky hose.


REASONS FOR DECLINE IN MINERAL PRODUCTION
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of State for Mines not admit that the taxation of northern benefits, the delay in federal aid to Yukon mines, and the many measures in the MacEachen budget which discouraged investment in mining exploration and development, are at the heart of Canada's current decline in mineral production? Why does the Government persist in implementing these negative measures which are destroying Canada's mining industry, and jobs for tens of thousands of Canadians?


Judith A. Erola: No, 1 will not admit that, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta is as aware as I am that the current difficulties of the mining industry in Canada are due to international markets, no more, no less.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE ON PRODUCTIVITY
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, that being the case I would like to address my final supplementary to the Prime Minister.
It is known that Canada's declining international position in terms of mineral sales has to do with our lack of productivity. This decline is costing our resource industries and Canadians billions of dollars in lost income, and with it hundreds of thousands of jobs. Most experts agree that our declining industrial productivity is at the heart of this problem. Will the Prime Minister agree to establish immediately a task force on productivity improvement, with representation from business, labour, and government, so that new and permanent jobs can be found for the two million Canadians who are presently looking for work?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I will discuss that representation with the Minister responsible for mines.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In the third quarter of 1982 Canadian manufacturers were operating at their lowest level of capacity utilization since records were first kept in 1961. Two hundred and fourteen thousands jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector in Canada, of which 112,000 were in one Province, Ontario. This has occurred at a time when industry needs all the encouragement it can get. It needs increased cash flow to survive, and it needs to retool. Will the Minister revoke those provisions of the disastrous budget which discriminate against the manufacturing sector? For example, will he revoke the half year convention on capital cost allowance which, if maintained, will increase cash flow problems and further discourage capital investment, all of which adds up to jobs, jobs and more jobs being lost which are desperately needed in Canada today.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have had an opportunity to discuss all these issues with business in a series of consultations which I had throughout the country during the last few weeks. The sum of these consultations has been that the best way to provide for creating more jobs in Canada and to put our economy on the way to recovery is to give Canadian business a level of stability and certainty with respect to taxation. This, of course, means that the income tax measures now before the House must be passed as soon as possible. In fact, this legislation follows consultations and meetings held by a Parliamentary committee, which, after examining the legislation, proposed a number of amendments that have been accepted and are now part of the Bill.
As far as the business and particularly the manufacturing sector is concerned, the best thing this Parliament could do would be to pass, as soon as possible, the income tax legislation now being considered by Parliament.


John Horton McDermid: I get a great charge when the Minister talks about confidence in the country and passing a tax Bill which is disastrous and was brought in by his colleague sitting to the right of the Prime Minister. It was an absolute disaster. Now he wants us to pass it quickly to give stability to the Canadian economy. That is nonsense, and everyone knows it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 3, 1983
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, will the Minister make a commitment today to the people of Canada that he will get off the socialist binge that the Government has been on for the last 14 years-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: -and bring in policies and a budget that will restore faith in the private sector so we can get the economy rolling again? Will he make that commitment to the people of Canada today?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member was not laughing when he was asking the question.


Mr. Broadbent:: We were.


Marc Lalonde: I cannot believe that he took it seriously. I want to remind him that the Income Tax measure that is before Parliament is the result of extensive consultations with all elements in our society. It is the result of extensive hearings that were held by a special parliamentary committee which made a number of recommendations that have been included in the Bill at the present time.
It is obvious that no income tax measure will please everyone. There is always the problem that some people would like more of, and some less. That is unavoidable.
In effect, the Bill that is before Parliament at the present time is one that will be very beneficial over-all to the Canadian economy. In addition, it is one that will introduce the certainty that is required in the economy at the present time, and by the industrial sector in particular. This is a conclusion, as I have said, that I have seen endorsed overwhelmingly in the series of consultations that I have had across the country.
I am sorry that my hon. friend seems more interested in concentrating on his fixations rather than consulting with the people in the business community.


John Horton McDermid: We have been doing it for years.


Marc Lalonde: He should talk to the small-business people. They will tell him to get going on the Bill that is before Parliament.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Two years ago, when the Chrysler Corporation was in great difficulty, it went to the American Government for assistance. The American Government refused assistance until the Canadian Government put up some $200 million. The
other day the President of the United States was in St. Louis, Missouri, at a Chrysler plant, and was complimenting them on their recovery. However, in July a spring plant in Windsor is due to shut down. Guess where the jobs will be shifted? To St. Louis, Missouri! It is clear that Canadians took the financial risk but the Americans have the jobs.
Is the Minister prepared to stand in the House and guarantee Canadians that the terms of the loan agreement reached with Chrysler on behalf of Canadian workers will be lived up to and that we will not lose a single job?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, as I have said in answer to several questions posed in the House and by the media, the Government of Canada has fully lived up to its obligations under the agreement, and Chrysler has not. The Chrysler Corporation cannot expect the Government of Canada to continue to fulfil its obligations unless the company is prepared to find some alternative projects that will make up for the jobs lost in the diesel project, and for the job lost in the spring operation.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister knows that he still has not given a specific answer.


REQUEST FOR DEFINITIVE STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that Canadian workers in this sector, particularly in the Chrysler Corporation, are more productive than the Americans, considering that the Americans owe us for 1980-81 legally in excess of $240 million in duty remissions, and considering that Chrysler signed a legal agreement to preserve those jobs in Windsor, will the Minister say to the House definitively that he will insist that all of the terms of that agreement will be lived up to?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows enough about negotiations to know that it takes two sides, and we presently are in the middle of our negotiations with the Chrysler Corporation. I think it is incumbent upon me, if we want to have successful negotiations on behalf of the employees, of the UAW, and Chrysler Canada, to say that now is not the appropriate time to make specific commitments because we are trying to negotiate alternative projects to replace the two that have been cancelled.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister has said, in his quaint macho way, that he intended to talk hardball with the Americans. Since then Canadians have put up more than $200 million in loans, we have lost $240 million in revenue that Chrysler owes us for 1980-81, and we
February 3, 1983

have lost the spring plant and the diesel plant. Can the Minister tell us one thing he has obtained for Canadian auto workers?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I do not have enough time in Question Period to list all of those benefits that the Hon. Member suggested.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: However, I want to remind him of something I told one of his colleagues the other day. For all the criticism from the Hon. Member's Party about what we have done for the Chrysler Corporation, there are only some 240 workers of Chrysler Canada who are unemployed and there are over 43,000 Chrysler workers in the United States who are unemployed.


John Edward Broadbent: That is rubbish, and you know it.

[ Translation]


TEXTILES
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (International Trade). Canadian negotiators have just come back from the Orient, where they were to renegotiate our bilateral agreements with four of our traditional textile suppliers, namely, Korea, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, and considering their failure to do so, could the Minister inform the House of the measures he intends to take as a result of that failure, with a view to protecting Canadian textile manufacturers so they will not have to bear the brunt of the slump in the Canadian textile market during these difficult times? Furthermore, could the Minister inform the House whether he intends to use Clause 19 of the GATT Agreement to remedy a situation that is damaging to our textile industry?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his very important question. Following consultations with industry representatives, the Government decided that some form of assistance would be necessary. As soon as I receive a report on this matter, I intend to consult with my Cabinet colleagues on the options open to the Government.

Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He is probably aware of the material that was sent in the Crow rate package on "Black Tuesday'. One item is called "agricultural development initiative". It talks about $130 million to carry out a variety of functions. If all of these programs are implemented the $130 will not go very far. Is the Minister's Department administering this program and, if so, is the $130 million in addition to his agri-food budget or is it partly agri-food budget?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the program that the Hon. Member mentions is one that we call the agricultural development initiatives program. It is a program that my officials and I have been very much involved in from its beginning. It is in line with the agri-food strategy, no doubt. It is a beneficial program.
My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, announced a $75 million program, and he will be setting aside $20 million or more toward the food processing and meat packing sector in that area. That makes it even larger than the Hon. Member has been suggesting. Call it from whatever sector one wants to call it from, but we know that it is needed.
The Hon. Member is a strong promoter of research. The program also provides for a large research centre to be built in western Canada. It is necessary that that program be directly connected with the soil salinization problem and also with the water and soil conservation problems that we have, especially in western Canada. We have lost over two million hectares of land as a result of salinization. We are losing 100,000 hectares of land a year by salinization. Therefore I am sure the Hon. Member welcomes that fund which will go into the research centre, amounting to approximately $20 million. Yes, we are very much involved in the program.


Douglas Charles Neil: The Minister is quite correct that I am very interested in research. I wish the Minister himself were interested and would deliver $9 million of farmers' money to the research foundation so that it could carry out research.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Douglas Charles Neil: The second item following the $130 million item is $20 million for soil and water conservation, on which the Minister touched. Is this a program with which the prairie farm rehabilitation people will be dealing?

February 3, 1983
Oral Questions
For many years, starting in the 1930s, they concerned themselves with soil and water conservation. Will they be revitalized to do this job, or will the Minister set up another little department in his organization?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, it will be a program, as usual, with 100 per cent cooperation, but it will be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. I want to say that, when I spoke of the $9 million program for research, we said we would provide that money under the PFAA. The Hon. Member knows the rules and laws. He made a lot of noise about the so-called transfer. There has not been any transfer of scientists from western Canada to eastern Canada. He has not mentioned the fact that over a period of time I actually transferred 70 researchers from eastern Canada to western Canada. He has not congratulated me for doing that. He has not said that there are still 1,440 researchers working hard every day in western Canada. He recognizes, and we recognize, the fact that research is our most important product, and this program will be far greater than anything of which he ever dreamed.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Peterborough.


Mr. Domm:: Madam Speaker, 1 have been advised that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be arriving shortly. I would like to defer my question until that time.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member simply need not rise, and 1 will not recognize him.
The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will be aware of the proposals made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister of New Zealand with regard to changes in the rules of the IMF and the World Bank. I was wondering whether the Minister could tell us anything about his response to the invitations issued, I believe, by the Prime Minister of New Zealand to a conference on this matter.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has made specific proposals with respect to changes in the rules of the IMF. I think that at one time the Prime Minister of New Zealand, at a Commonwealth Finance Ministers Conference, did call for a new Bretton Woods Agreement. At that time those of us who attended the Conference were of the view that one ought to understand rather clearly what type of new institution might be necessary rather than, in a sense, abandoning institutions which were presently in place. However, in the absence of more specific proposals, the conversation did
not advance beyond the point I have mentioned, except that it was agreed at the Ministers' meeting that the notions which had been put forward by the Prime Minister of New Zealand ought to be studied further in the expectation that better understanding might be attained at the next meeting of Commonwealth Ministers.


NECESSITY FOR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Donald W. Munro: Given the fact, Madam Speaker, that there is an indebtedness of over $700 billion vis-a-vis developed and developing countries, and the proposal of the Right Hon. Prime Minister of New Zealand was designed to ameliorate the repayment schedule of this indebtedness by stretching it out, or changing the terms, and also facilitating contacts between the Bank, the Fund and the borrowers themselves, the loaners, will the Secretary of State look more carefully into his Department to find out what further progress has been made? It is my understanding that an international conference ought to be called, and the New Zealand Prime Minister is very anxious that it be called to discuss this very urgent matter. By the end of the year there will be real trouble.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there has already been real trouble. For example, in the case of Mexico-


Donald W. Munro: Mexico, sure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -there had to be a co-ordinated effort by the Bank for International Settlements, by the International Monetary Fund, and by individual nations in order to extend additional credits and to reschedule the debt obligations of Mexico. That same pattern has been followed-


Donald W. Munro: With $700 billion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -with respect to several other countries. 1 believe the Hon. Member is directing himself to a very relevant question as to how we deal in a global sense with the very large debts which have accumulated and concerning whether it will be possible to deal with new cases on the ad hoc basis which has prevailed up to the present time. In that respect the Prime Minister of New Zealand has made some proposals, for example, at the recent conference at Davos which I attended, with respect to methods of consolidating and dealing with that overhanging debt.
Therefore, what I can say is that, while it is not possible to say that these proposals have been developed to the point or have been brought forward in international fora to the point where decisions can be made, there is no doubt but that the Prime Minister of New Zealand is putting his finger on a problem which will require increasing attention and which is receiving increasing attention. It is not my intention, for a moment, to downplay what the Hon. Member is talking about.


Donald W. Munro: Helping or hindering?
February 3, 1983


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that the Government's continuing secretive behaviour surrounding the weapons testing framework agreement with the United States is becoming more and more unacceptable to Canadians. It is only too bad that the Conservatives have not seen fit to criticize this secrecy.
Today we learned, from the Pentagon as usual, that Canada will be asked to test "stealth" Cruise missiles. That is even more destabilizing, making verification almost impossible.
Why must we in Canada continue to learn of weapons testing plans from Washington, from the Pentagon, rather than from our own Government? While the Minister is on his feet perhaps he could tell us when he will table in the House the still secret framework agreement, or is that still a secret?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe, Madam Speaker, that the secrecy exists in the Hon. Member's imagination.


Pauline Jewett: Tell that to the Canadian public.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Her information is also quite imaginative, because there has never been any proposal from the Government of the United States to test what she describes as a "stealth" Cruise missile. That has never been made, and I doubt if it will be made. Perhaps the Hon. Member is able to define what a "stealth" Cruise missile is. The Hon. Member seems to pick up every unsupported speculation appearing in the press and founds a question upon it in order to create unnecessary alarm. There will be no secrecy about the framework agreement.


Miss MacDonald:: Table it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It will be tabled in the House of Commons very shortly, and the Hon. Member will have full opportunity to consider it and to ask questions. I will be able to prove that her allegation of secrecy is totally confused and unfounded, as is the defence and foreign policy of the Hon. Member and her party.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the minister apparently forgets that it was in total secrecy that they negotiated the testing of the Cruise missile. That information was leaked by an investigative reporter on March 10 last year. That is how we found out about it in this House. It was not the Government that told us, but a reporter who learned it from the Pentagon who told us. Therefore we do not believe anything the minister now tells us about squaring it off with the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Pauline Jewett: I do not believe him-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I will gladly give the Hon. Member the floor, but for a question.


REQUEST THAT WEAPONS TESTING FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT BE TABLED
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister whether the framework agreement-the great secret agreement-is going to be tabled tomorrow in the House of Commons. Is that why Ambassador Gotlieb is here today? While that poor, long suffering ambassador for disarmament is here today, will the document be tabled in the House tomorrow, and will the minister make a statement on motions about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in her second, rather unguided intervention, the Hon. Member has demonstrated clearly the validity of my first answer. She has said that there has been a negotiation in secrecy between Canada and the United States on the testing of a Cruise missile. There has never been any such negotiation, so it has never been leaked because it has never taken place. Such a negotiation can only take place after the framework agreement is signed. Then there will be a negotiation between the Department of Defence in the United States and our Department of National Defence about whatever weapons systems are being discussed. That is when the negotiation will take place on any specific weapons testing system, including the Cruise.
The Hon. Member had better get her facts straight for her next unguided intervention in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which arises from what 1 presume the Minister knows is the financial stress being experienced by many farmers in the country. I presume the Minister is also well aware of the provisions of a Private Members' Bill No. C-653 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex, to amend the Farmers Creditors' Arrangements Act. First of all, does the Minister favour the intention of this Private Members' Bill and, second, does he favour its provisions?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to read Hansard he will see that that question was asked before. I do not know where he has been, but my colleague, the Minister of Finance, answered that question and made public statements about it the other day. It is being considered at the present time.

February 3, 1983
22478______________________________
Oral Questions QUERY RESPECTING MINISTER'S INTENTIONS


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister if he will support the intention of Bill C-653 and, second, the provisions of Bill C-653?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member did not say what his intentions were and he did not say what the intentions of his Party were, either. My record shows where I stand on protecting farmers against bankruptcy, right from the beginning, ever since I first came to this House. The first Private Members' Bill to amend the Bank Act was a Bill that I sponsored. Let the Hon. Member do the same thing and then he can take credit for really caring about the interests of farmers.


REQUEST FOR EARLY PASSAGE OF BILL
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister agree to the introduction of the Bill on our next Private Members' day, next Wednesday? Will the Minister undertake with the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex that the Bill will be introduced? If he will do that, I can guarantee him a seconder for the Bill from this side and can guarantee passage of the Bill during that Private Members' hour.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am really amazed that the Party opposite can guarantee anything. I am utterly amazed. The Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex has shown foresight in introducing the Bill and has shown concern for the farmers. I had discussions with him before he introduced the Bill, and my views are pretty well known. I think the principle of the Bill is very good.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, how can the Minister tell that to the House? The Bill was introduced on April 22, 1982, and here we are in 1983. Why does the Minister not come clean and tell the House that he has not considered it at all and is only about to consider it now.


GUARANTEE OF SUPPORT
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Will the Minister consider the Bill and bring it in next week? If he does, I can guarantee a seconder from this side of the House for the Bill. In fact I will second it.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, if I go by past experience I remember that I introduced a Bill in the House in 1981 and the Party opposite said it would support it. Its agricultural critic said they would support it. They are still debating it. They are still sandbagging it. The Bill is called Canagrex.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: How can I go by what they decide? The Hon. Member may change his mind tomorrow morning.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and is supplementary to those asked by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown.
In light of the fact that Government has had to come to the aid, in a justifiable but massive way, of such economic sectors as the pulp and paper industry, the farm industry, the fishing industry, the farm implement industry, and the automobile industry to name but a few, will the Minister give an absolute guarantee to this House that he will not leave the planning and development of Canada's economic future entirely in the hands of the private sector?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, that has been the position of the Government for many years. It is still the position of the Government that the economic future of the country is in the hands of all the people of Canada and all their Governments. This has to be a joint partnership operation involving labour, management, and governments. I can assure my hon. friend that this is what we are working on as a basic premise of all our policies.


TRUST COMPANIES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of State for Finance who is in charge of financial institutions. He may have heard my representations yesterday with regard to bringing forward the white paper on trust companies. Is the Minister in a position now to say whether that will be done, or is this another matter that is to be left in limbo?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. gentleman's concern and interest in the matter of the Loan Companies Act. It is quite obviously one that the Government has been concerned with, resulting in the publication of the white paper in July last year. I must admit that this Department has been quite preoccupied in assisting and consulting with the Conservative Government of the Province of Ontario in respect of companies administered by that Government and which come under its legislation. Of course, I am referring to the role of CDIC in those matters that pertain to Crown Trust, Greymac Trust,
February 3, 1983

and Seaway Trust, all of which come under the jurisdiction of the Government of the Province of Ontario.


LEGISLATION TO INCREASE DEPOSIT INSURANCE LEVELS
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, since the Minister mentioned CDIC, would he now tell the House if he has consulted with the Government House Leader with regard to Bill C-142, which is supported by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, and myself, with a view to debating it and sending it to a special committee?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, again I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for bringing his interest and attention to bear on that Bill. This is the Bill that will effectively increase coverage with deposit taking companies from $20,000 to $60,000. Of course, Bill C-142 was introduced partly as a result of the recommendation of the Hon. Member who was one of the Members of the Finance Committee dealing with bank profits. I would like to indicate that with the support of the House, and with the agreement of the House Leaders, if Hon. Members opposite think the matter should be dealt with urgently, there is room for discussion that the matter be dealt with without debate, which would obviate the necessity and delay of going to Committee.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. It is related to the policy decision and the Crow rate announcement. There is no dispute anywhere in the country about the need to rebuild the railroads. I believe everyone agrees on that. The dispute centres around how the rebuilding should be funded.
Given that the farmers have been facing a particularly difficult financial squeeze for a number of years and that to impose an additional cost on the farmers today could result in only one of two things, a reduction in their cash flow or an increase to the consumer, which quite frankly is not able to occur under the structures in place, would it not make more sense to ask CP to invest a substantial sum from the very large profits it has been able to derive from its operations in Canada, together with an equal investment from the Government, the people of Canada, in building a railroad system that will satisfy the needs of the country as a whole, rather than to put the cash flow and the very existence of our farmers in jeopardy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the reality is that the Government of Canada, that is to say, the taxpayers of Canada, have been and would continue for several years to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the
Oral Questions
railways in order that they continue operating in the West because they were transporting merchandise at rates set historically at levels which did not permit the railways to operate. Therefore, there had to be some change in order to permit the Government of Canada not to continue subsidizing the CPR and the CNR ad infinitum for one, two, or three more decades, to the tune of many, many billions of dollars. Something had to be done in order to stop that.
What was done was not, as suggested, to make the farmer pay more this year or next year. That is not the solution proposed. The solution is that the farmer continue to receive what he has been receiving historically, but in terms of increased cost in terms of inflation that he be asked to share, as every other Canadian is asked to share, in meeting these increased costs.
That is the proposal that the Government put forward. It seems not only eminently fair to me, but it seemed in principle eminently fair to Mr. Gilson who made the survey, heard all parties, and arrived at a general recommendation along those lines. It is easy for the NDP to say that the Government should pour many more hundreds of millions and billions of dollars into the railways. Somebody has to pay for it. In terms of increased cost it does not seem unreasonable that the farmer be asked to share along with other Canadians in the payment of those increased costs.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACQUIRE EQUITY IN CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I do not deny the complexity of the problem, but I put to the Prime Minister that there is no one in Canada who believes that the farmers of this country can afford to absorb additional costs today. Surely he understands that the end result will be that those farmers will not have the cash to invest in the farm machinery that they require in order to maintain a viable operation. We will kill not only the farming community but the farm implement operation at the same time.
Is the Prime Minister aware that, as a percentage of its investment, CP has been putting less into railroad revitalization than it has been receiving from the railroad end of its operation in profits, as a percentage? Is it not reasonable to expect that CP should put back in proportion to what it gets from its railroad operations in Canada, and that the Government should take equity in CP for the money that is invested out of taxpayers' dollars?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member faults the solution because he says the farmer cannot afford to pay increased costs. I suppose there are many Canadians who cannot afford to pay increased costs. If we had not opened the Crow subject, as the NDP was saying we should not, and has been saying nothing else for two or three years, the end result would have been that the taxpayers of Canada would have had to improve the rail system to the tune of billions of dollars in order that the farmer would be
22480

February 3, 1983
Oral Questions
able to continue to move his wheat, along with other western goods.
For years, the NDP, and the NDP Government of Saskatchewan, have said, "Don't touch the Crow". They did not say what the Hon. Member is saying now. They have been saying, "Don't touch the Crow; it must not be altered in any way". That is not a solution, because the rail system was running down. There had to be a solution. Instead of opposing all moves, and instead of being reactionary from every corner, if that Party had said, "Here is a solution", they would have been able to contribute to a better solution, but they chose as always to criticize what is done and to propose no alternative until after the fact.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but it is not necessary for me to put that question at the moment because it was obvious from his answer a short time ago in this Question Period that he indeed does not support his colleague's Private Member's Bill.
I want to put a question to the Minister of Communications. It is with reference to the reduction and the decline in the quantity, and I want to make that very clear, in the quantity of farm and food broadcasting by the CBC. Is the Minister aware that a very capable and highly regarded commentator working with the CBC recently said:
Things in the CBC today are in one hell of a mess . .. The tools that we need to do our job are being taken away from us.
Is the Minister aware of the situation that exists in the CBC? If so, does he want to make a comment on it?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I know full well that the agricultural programming of the CBC has always been well received and well appreciated by the farm community. I would be most pleased to bring up the whole question about the quantity of programming now available on the air. I would also like to point out to the Hon. Member that my Department, in co-operation with Manitoba Telephone system, has set up one of the first telidon videotex systems which are addressed to the farming community. This service is now available in Manitoba. That is a clear indication of the Government's intention of seeing to it that not only the current type of programming continues but that new technologies are made available and are of use to the farming community in Canada.


TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS ON TORONTO REPORTING STAFF
John Wise: Madam Speaker, does the Minister of Communications realize that CBC management has a
policy that, unless it is absolutely necessary, farm commentators working out of Toronto do not get permission to travel outside the city of Toronto limits to cover meetings? If that is not asinine, I do not know what is. Will the Minister take a personal interest in this case, look into it and, if at all possible, refer it to the appropriate standing committee for review?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I will obviously look into the matter and bring the question to the attention of CBC management. It is indicative of the desire on the part of the CBC to try to cut its costs wherever possible. I can think of another occasion in this House when another Member of the Hon. Member's party stated that he thought CBC people were travelling too much. In any event, I would be pleased to bring the Hon. Member's serious concern to the attention of the CBC.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, February 2, 1983 and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, this being Thursday, I wonder if I might ask the Government House Leader what is the order of business for tomorrow and next week.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the new House Leader for the Tory Party and confirm to him that the business for today will be Bill C-131, the third reading. Tomorrow will be an Opposition day, as I indicated
yesterday.

As far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, on Monday we shall resume debate on second reading of Bill C-139, the income tax measures, and on Tuesday and Thursday, we shall be resuming debate on Bill C-132 which concerns family allowances.
February 3, 1983


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege. I spoke in the House on Tuesday, February 1, 1983, in the morning, on the Old Age Security Act (No. 2). The Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Campbell), rose on a point of order after my speech and said, as reported at page 22370 of Hansard:
-Mr. Speaker. I know the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House in his comments with reference to veterans, but I am sure he is aware that benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans are not affected by the six and five program; that in fact, as of January 1, benefits increased by 11.5 per cent-
He was then cut off by the Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin). I am informed by a flood of phone calls to my office in Vancouver, Madam Speaker, that pension cheques, indeed, are not going out in Vancouver.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of any privilege that I know of, and at any rate, it does not flow from the deliberations of today. Therefore, the Hon. Member would have had to send me a notice of his question of privilege before Question Period, and I have not received any notice.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I did send a notice. I am alleging that the Minister intentionally misled the House and that is a question of privilege. However, I do not see the Minister here today and I am prepared to deal with the matter tomorrow.


Madam Speaker:: I have checked with the Table. Any notice of a question of privilege has to be sent to my office and it has to contain a brief statement on what the nature of the question of privilege might be. Therefore, if the Hon. Member wants to follow the rules, I will be delighted to consider his question of privilege. But he must do it under the rules.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition to the House signed by constituents of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, Leeds-Grenville, Prince Edward-Hastings, Lenark-Renfrew-Carleton, and Kingston and the Islands. It contains 9,814 signatures. This petition is submitted to the House, for the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), by people wishing to express their concern about the mandato-
Motions
ry imposition of metric. Canadians should be free to use the imperial system of measurement in their business, trade and speech. That should be recognized as an inalienable right not subject to Government interference.



POINT OF ORDER


Madam Speaker:: Introduction of Bills.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, I wonder if it might be possible for the Chair to consider the method by which notices of intent to introduce Bills need not appear on the Notice Paper on a regular basis. There are notices on the Notice Paper which have been there for the last two years. If Hon. Members want to introduce a Bill, they should do so; but I do not see any reason why Bills should continue to stand on the Notice Paper indefinitely.


Madam Speaker:: I think that matter can be considered perhaps by the Committee which is now reviewing the methods of procedure of the House. I am open to any suggestion which might be made by the House.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I, among many other Hon. Members, think it is ridiculous that Madam Speaker must get up every day and read off these names of Hon. Members. They either want to move a Bill or they do not want to move a Bill. It seems to me they must want to get their names in Hansard every day. I believe that if they have a Bill to move, they should darn well move it; or Madam Speaker should be able to say that all these Bills stand, and that is the end of it.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his suggestion. I am sure it will be picked up by the House Leaders and they will let me know what their wishes are.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, consultations have taken place between all parties of the House and I believe the House will readily give its consent to the following motion, which I will now move:
That Five Members of the House, namely Messrs Clarke (Vancouver Quadra), Desmarais, Hovdebo, Kelly and Wright, be empowered to travel outside of Canada to the United Kingdom, for a period not exceeding eight days, to visit the Select Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General of the United Kingdom, and to report, upon return, to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to its permanent Order of Reference

February 3, 1983
Order Paper Questions
and the subject "Improving Accountability" contained in the Auditor General of Canada's Report to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981; and
That the necessary staff of the Committee accompany the Members.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of such motion? Does the House agree to the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,530 and 4,576.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Did the Government issue a letter of dismissal of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Andre Deom, and, if so, was it withdrawn?
2.	What were the terms of settlement between Mr. Deom and the Government, in cash and other considerations?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: 1. The
Secretary of the Treasury Board wrote to Mr. Deom, conveying the decision of the Treasury Board to dismiss Mr. Deom. At the direction of the Board, that letter was subsequently withdrawn when Mr. Deom resigned from the Public Service.
2. It has not been the practice of the Treasury Board to reveal details of separation settlements. It is the policy of the Treasury Board, however, that separation payments may not exceed two years' salary, with the precise amounts varying according to the circumstances of the separation, the age of the individual, length of service, and likely difficulty in securing re-employment. Each case is considered by the Treasury Board.


Mr. Nickerson: 1.	With reference to Department of National Defence dependents' schools in Europe, for the last school year for which figures are available (a) how many teaching positions in each subject area or speciality were to be filled (b) how many applications were received and how many teachers were appointed from each Province and Territory?
2.	In the past ten years, was only one teacher from the Northwest Territories hired to teach in DND schools in Europe?
3.	Does the Department have a policy of excluding teachers from the Northwest Territories from teaching in their schools in Europe?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) Sixty-six positions were to be filled in the following grades or specialities:
Primary and/or Elementary Levels
Junior kindergarten		8	
Senior kindergarten		3	
Grade one		2	
Grade two		2	
Grade three		2	
Grade four		1	
Grade five		4	
Grade seven		1	
Grade eight		6	
French second language		4	
Librarian		2	
Remedial and special education		4	
Physical education		3	
Principal		1	
Total		43	
Secondary Level			
Art	2 Library	1Commercial and business	Mathematics	3education	2 Music (instrumental)	1English	1 Physical education	3Geography	1 Special education	1Guidance	1 Science (physics.	Home economics (or)	chemistry, biology)	3family studies	1 Principal	1History	1	Industrial Arts	1 Total	23
(b) Selection and appointments for 1982 are as follows:
	Nominations	Selections
N.W.T.	16	0Yukon T.	9	0B.C.	304	9Alta.	192	4Sask.	134	4Man.	78	2Ont.	814	31Que.	332	13N.B.	33	1N.S.	57	1P.E.I.	3	0Nfld.	38	1Total	2010	662. Yes.	3. No.	[English]


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 3, 1983



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), be read the third time and do pass; and the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 24460).
Mr. Blaikie:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member who had just finished his remarks prior to our seeing the clock at one o'clock; I believe it was the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). In the Hon. Member's speech, he referred favourably to the economies of Germany and Japan and did what a number of his colleagues are in the habit of doing, that is, holding up Germany and Japan as countries which Canada ought to imitate. In the same speech, the Hon. Member also waxed on uncritically about the virtues of free enterprise and non-intervention of the Government in the economy.
My question is in the way of a comment to the Hon. Member. When is the Hon. Member, and others like him, going to show some theoretical consistency? When are they going to grow up and admit that the economies which they hold up as worthy of imitation are economies in which there is a long standing tradition of Government intervention in the economy, Government planning of the economy, the very kinds of things which, when they are attempted in this country, the Hon. Member gets up and denounces as the horrors of socialism? When is he going to show some kind of consistency? If he is not going to do that, would he spare us these speeches which make absolutely no sense at all?


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, we have heard these diatribes from the socialists to our left before. What I am talking about is the fact that those economies have invested money in the proper areas, not wasted it as do the Government on North-South dialogue and diatribe. Those economies have produced the money by the free enterprise system, not by state control which every one of the NDP advocate. Why don't they stand up some time in the House of Commons and say: "We advocate state control"?
They talk about nationalization of the CPR. Anyone who makes a profit, which makes the world go round, they are against. This country was built on free enterprise. Show me something in North America that was ever accomplished under socialism or the things they espouse and I will tell them that they are wrong.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's answer is exactly what I was talking about. The CPR was built with Government money, under the direction of the Conservative Government of that day, and anyone who believes that the CPR was founded through the virtues of free enterprise would
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
not pass a grade five current affairs exam. It is embarrassing to hear that kind of garbage coming from someone who has been elected to the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member says the Governments of Japan and Germany have invested more wisely than the Government across the way, and I agree. One of the reasons that investment in those countries has been more wise than here is that the Government has taken a larger role in deciding where investment should be made. That is the kind of direction from the Government we would like to see. We make no bones about that. No apologies. We would like to see investment in this country controlled in the public interest instead of leaving them purely in the hands of the private sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Earlier today the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) made his remarks with respect to the subject of Bill C-131, and I thought his remarks at that time were relevant to that Bill, including some of the comments on the economy generally. The difficulty under the new Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders is that the Chair is obligated to attempt to maintain relevance as between the questions and answers in these ten-minute periods.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Hon. Member for Simcoe South that we do seem to be getting away from the point of Bill C-131. However, these are new rules and I do not want my comments to be considered as a ruling on relevance. It is clear that the comments between the two Hon. Members are relevant to one another; it is not clear to the Chair that they are relevant to Bill C-131.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, your comments are well taken. I noticed the irrelevance of the speech of the Hon. Member but 1 felt that some of the things he said should not go unchallenged despite being irrelevant.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member spent three minutes making a speech instead of asking a question. Then he gets up and talks about irrelevancy. He does not know the meaning of the word.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, if I could get to the relevance of this situation, nothing happens unless there is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair has no choice but to recognize a point of order, and there is at least one Member rising on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill on a point of order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) would read the new Standing Orders. It says Hon. Members are entitled to comment or ask a question. In commenting on what the Hon. Member for Simcoe South had to say, I was simply following the Standing Orders, and I commend the reading of those same Standing Orders to the Hon. Member for Bow River.

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Member from bird's eye would pay attention to what is going on in the House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Let him talk about the things we are talking about and forget the socialism.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, we have a very important Bill in front of the House concerning old age pensions. 1 wonder if you could not see any further points of order and let us get on with that Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is no way that the Chair can refuse to see an Hon. Member on a point of order. That is not an option open to the Chair, unless, of course, the House wishes to provide a very clear-cut order to the Chair in that regard. Perhaps Hon. Members will recognize the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and let us proceed with the ten-minute question and answer period.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as to the relevancy of what I had to say, nothing happens until you make a profit. Canada is now 24th out of 24 on the list of OECD countries.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is not a point of order.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Our gross national product is going down. I am not talking on a point of order, I am answering the question. Brighten up.
The whole point of this is that this country must start making money again to keep the existing social programs in place, which we on this side of the House want to do. We do not want them destroyed by the terrible policies of the Government across the way. We want the pensions to be paid and to be based on actuarially sound policies. There is no reason why we should be arguing about this had the money not been shoved into general revenue and wasted. Every Canadian could be assured of the pensions which were put in place for them. It works on the profit system, nothing else, and pretty soon NDP members will be wearing three-piece suits and trying to tell us they understand.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member keeps speaking about money which was put into general revenue. Does he realize that the Bill is about Old Age Security payments, the universal part of the pension, that there are no contributions to it, and that what he is saying makes absolutely no sense at all in the context of the pensions we are debating at this time? Does he realize that?


Ronald Alexander Stewart: I understand that; it is the fellows opposite who do not understand that. You can only have what you can afford and you can only afford what is made by profits in the free enterprise system of this country, which was built by our forefathers. They do not understand that. I would like to ask them how it works in Poland. Tell me about Poland, Russia and Afghanistan. Explain the rest of it to me.


Mr. Nystrom:: There is Ronnie Reagan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It would appear that Hon. Members do not want to continue the ten-minute question and answer period, but that is the intervention I am looking for now. In the absence of that we will proceed with the debate. The Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass).


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Bill this afternoon. I believe Bill C-131 is the topic we are supposed to be on; the short debate we had previously was enjoyable, but it did not make too much sense to me. There were some points on the extreme left that were raised but they were not relevant to the Bill we are debating.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, limits the increase to the old age pension plan to a maximum of 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. Old Age Security now sits at $246.62 a month and should increase to $271.61 on January 1, 1984, but will only increase to $261.74. That is a difference of $118.50 a year. This legislation is directed at the 1.2 million senior citizens who do not qualify for full or partial Guaranteed Income Supplement. Assuming that inflation stays at its current rate of 10 per cent, each one of those 1.2 million senior citizens will lose $290 in the next two years, or just over $70 next year and a further $220 in 1984.
Some of these people are single, elderly people with incomes just over $8,900 per year. That is the cut-off point for those who receive the full Guaranteed Income Supplement. Those receiving more than $8,900 a year, whose incomes are just in excess of that figure, are the ones this legislation hits hardest. If they live in urban centres such as Quebec City, Montreal or Toronto they already live below the poverty line.
The married elderly with incomes just over $15,000 per year will suffer a loss in income over the next two years of $580. We are talking about 50,000 elderly people-25,000 single and 25,000 seniors living as married couples with incomes between $15,000 and $16,000-who will be hardest hit by the Government's six and five legislation. It appears that the sum of money the Government hopes to save from these 50,000 senior citizens will hardly make a difference to this Government, which is the biggest spender of all times. But this $15 million or $20 million does make a difference to the 50,000 senior citizens. The $12 per month that it represents can make a big difference.
The number in Canada of those 65 years and over has risen to more than 600,000 in the last ten years alone. That age group is growing at an annual rate of 3 per cent. This means that without any increase in real benefits the economy will have to grow 3 per cent each year to provide the necessary revenue to support the pensions of these people. Also it means that the larger the population reaching age 65 with little or no
February 3, 1983

Canada Pension Plan or private savings, the greater the public burden will be since these people will have to be supported by the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
The population from infancy to age 17, on whose behalf Family Allowances and the Child Tax Credit are paid, is declining. There are about 850,000 fewer people in that age group today than there were ten years ago. This means that Family Allowances and the Child Tax Credit will be less of a burden on the public over the next few years than in the past. Also it means that an increased portion of the population is of working age and is contributing to the economy. Therefore, we could adequately support those who will be retiring within the next two decades if we were to use this period wisely.
The Bill attempts to bail out the Government from its own economic and fiscal mismanagement and place the burden on the backs of the elderly. Most Canadians are willing to share the burden of reducing inflation. Most Canadians are able to reduce their lifestyles to their incomes. Old age pensioners are being told that they will have to cut their already small pensions to conform to the six and five policy of restraint. Although the six and five program is a small step in the right direction, it should have considered the exemption of Old Age Security recipients, as many senior citizens have a hard enough time without having to cope with decreases in their pensions.
A 10 per cent inflation rate in the country, coupled with a 6 per cent decrease in pensions, will have a devastating effect upon seniors who are now only able to cover the costs of the bare essentials of life. Restraint should not be imposed upon those citizens who can least afford it. It is not fair to ride out the recession on the backs of our senior citizens by seeking restraint from those who can ill afford it. Approximately 20 per cent or 600,000 of our elderly live in poverty. We also know that senior citizens are forming an ever-increasing segment of our population. This is why we must take a serious look at all our pension needs to ensure that at the time of retirement one is able to live out one's declining years without worrying about having enough funds on which to live.
Pensions should be looked at as deferred income upon which we will draw once we leave the workplace. Also we must make sure that all pensions are not drained of funds by over-extending loans to the Provinces. There should be sufficient funds to ensure the presence of actual money, not just paper figures.
Because of the lifespan of people today, we must study the impact this will have on the national economy. Approximately 2,000 years ago the average life expectancy was only 22 years; 75 years ago in Canada the life expectancy for males was 48 years and for females 51 years. The average life expectancy today for males is 74 and for females between 76 and 78 years. Today's 65-year-old man or woman probably has greater vigour, stamina and health than the 50-year old of the 1900s.
There is no question that the lifespan of man will continue to increase. We may be forced to review retirement practices in industry. We may find it desirable to lean toward the direction of voluntary retirement, depending upon the health of each worker. The human values of forced retirement at age 65 cannot be overlooked. Suddenly, at 65, a person who has spent
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
most of his or her life in the labour force is no longer allowed to contribute. He or she is suddenly cut off from his or her working companions, and just because he or she turns 65 is supposed to stop functioning. How can we justify this kind of treatment when today these very same people have been the most active senior citizens in the history of the country? A person who is forced to retire at the magical age of 65 is faced with more than a loss of income, and in many cases must learn to deal with emotional problems which are every bit as serious as economic ones.
When we consider the hardships which seniors experienced and lived through, such as two world wars and a devastating depression in the 1930s, we must re-examine the methods by which we express our thanks and gratitude. Senior citizens have already paid the price; we should not, by cutting back on their pensions, ask them to pay more.
People who are now aged 65 were born in 1917. They experienced a few good years after the First World War, and then came the depression. People who have not lived throught the Great Depression will never know what it was like, and our seniors who lived through it still suffer because of malnutrition and lack of basic essentials. They did what they could to make the best of the situation.
Then came World War II. All through these years Canadians co-operated. Many young men and women gave up the best years of their lives to do their part in the Canadian war effort. After the war they watched as the country underwent many changes, and still they co-operated. Today we are calling upon these people once more. We continue to burden them with the problems of the Canadian economy. We should realize that these people have already done their part many times over and that they should at least have the right to live as they see fit.
Today in Canada we need a drastic change of attitude. Not only do we have to realize what elderly people have accomplished, but we must also realize that we should not put our elderly people on the shelf. Many seniors are able to work and want to work, but modern methods of business and industry deny them the opportunity to do so. Older Canadian citizens have a treasury of skills and experience which can be used throughout our community. There are approximately 400,000 people in Canada receiving pensions, most of whom are women who fall below the poverty line. The approach of the Government in Bill C-131 does not deal with the problems facing us. The Canada Pension Plan will need contributions of around 9 per cent of earnings in the future instead of the present 3.6 per cent to maintain the present level of benefits. At the present time the Canada Pension Plan looks as if it will be bankrupt by the year 2020. It is discouraging Canadians from investing for their old age or retirement.
The high level of taxation and erratic interest rates are eating up the savings of senior citizens and are part of the economic mess which the Government created. The Government must try to correct the present economic situation, but not by the means proposed in Bill C-131. It will mean great

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
hardship for senior citizens and will reduce the savings of those who planned for their retirement.
Bill C-131 will attack those least able to absorb the six and five program and the group least able to influence changes on its behalf. The group is being asked to shoulder a burden which will have greater impact upon it than upon any other segment of Canadian society. The Government seems almost two-faced about its moral responsibilities and the narrow political motivations of its regional caucus. Statistics Canada indicate that the poverty line for single individuals living in metropolitan areas is $8,922, or $10 more than the Guaranteed Income Supplement. While it may be true that the GIS will be indexed to compensate for the limited indexation of the Old Age Security pension, the loss of any amount at all will be very difficult for the single pensioner whose income is about $9,000 or $10,000 per year, or the married couple with combined earnings of slightly over $15,000 per year.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said:
We are asking 1.1 million old age pensioners to help lead the way to fight inflation.
By this, the Minister is actually asking some 300,000 seniors, whose only form of support is the Old Age Security pension, if they will volunteer to be in the front line of restraint. These are the people who survived the hungry thirties, served the country in wartime and built up our industries in the post-war era. I can safely say that if the Minister was actually to ask senior citizens at random if they support limited indexing, she would get quite different results than the ones expected by the Government in the House of Commons.
It is important that Canadian people, in general, take a look at how we treat our senior citizens. This is important because it says something about the way we look at human dignity and the value of people. In many cultures older citizens are the ones who receive the greatest respect. They are the ones the rest of society looks after in a very special way. The senior citizens, the wisdom of the community, are held together and looked after and cared for by the whole community. For centuries the Chinese have respected the wisdom of the old, and this is true in their culture even today.
I represent the riding of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island. P.E.I. has a unique situation. There are probably proportionately more elderly people there than in many of the other Provinces of Canada. In the riding of Malpeque alone we have 3,325 senior citizens out of a total population of 32,628, according to the 1981 census. When I speak on this Bill, therefore, I speak as the representative of many people who will be affected by the cutback in their pension and the fact that their pension will not keep up with the cost of living.
These people, having lived in the Maritime region in Canada, know only too well the sacrifices that have to be made as a result of rising costs. A great portion of these people have spent their lives doing physical labour, working the land or fishing. Some of these people had to move to other parts of
Canada in order to find job opportunities. But as many Mari-timers do, they returned home a few years later wishing to spend their remaining years in the peacefulness of their own Province with a sense of security and belonging. Now this Government plans to take away this small sense of security. The worry of finances has always been a problem for these people, and the six and five program continues to create hardships for them, even in their old age. These people do not live in metropolitan centres but in a high-cost region. Yet the Government insists on taking from the poor and defenceless.
Our Canadian seniors did not have unemployment insurance as a safety measure when they were out of work. They could not depend on social assistance and welfare to help them when they were unemployed. Anyone who speaks to senior citizens can read the hardship in their eyes as they tell of their experiences with poverty. I cannot imagine any government attacking the people who built this country and made it what it is today so that we all can prosper. We are saying to them, "You have to sacrifice some more. You have not sacrificed enough". Yet these elderly people have had their lives shortened because of the privation they had suffered and the struggles they had when they were young.
I feel that Bill C-131, if passed, would further demonstrate this Government's lack of concern for the Canadian people and demonstrate how unjustly it treats our citizens. This Government is attacking the weak who cannot stand up to its wrath.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief but I felt compelled to speak to the House primarily because of the anxiety, concern and fear of many of my constituents and friends who fall in the category of senior citizens. Talking to them, reading their letters, wining and dining with them, if you like, I have found that maybe 90 per cent of their concerns are based on misconceptions of the legislation before us. This, I think, reflects on me, on other Hon. Members of the House and particularly on our Party, since it is our legislation. We are not consciously reminding our senior citizens about the intent of the Bill and what it is designed to do. It is designed not to destroy old age pensions but, on the contrary, to protect the basic principle of what has to be considered, I think, as one of the most enlightened, progressive pension plans of any country in the industrialized world. It should be because, as the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) pointed out to us, our senior citizens in many, many instances, have been deprived of the possibility of earning a meaningful income with which to provide for themselves as a result of the depression, the war and recessions. As a general rule, it is safe to say that many of our senior citizens reach the age of 65 with very little in the way of investment income. I think it is imperative that this Party, in fact, all Parties in the House, remain as determined as ever to see that the basic principle of old age pensions stays intact.
Essentially, that is precisely what this Bill intends to do. I must confess my bias toward the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) who has shown great dedication to the problems of senior citizens and, to women, reflecting not only her natural compassion but her years with

February 3, 1983
the Commission on the Status of Women and her particular interest in social policy and social reform both in and out of the House. I was surprised at how many senior citizens fail to appreciate the fact that those senior citizens receiving the GIS are not in any way affected by this legislation. I think it might be useful to review for the senior citizens who may be listening and for all of us who are approaching that age, that all Canadians, by virtue of the fact that they are Canadians, regardless of their status in life, whether rich or poor, are entitled to a basic old age pension. We have never sullied that pension in recent years with the concept of a means test. We have said that all Canadians because of their contributions, so eloquently described by the Hon. Member for Malpeque, are entitled to a basic old age pension. We can, however, argue whether that old age pension is sufficient or insufficient. Periodically it has been improved. In respecting the new 20-minute rule, I will not trace the history of pensions, which were once applicable at age 70 and one day, we hope will be applicable at age 60. Regardless, the fundamental basis of our policy is that each and every Canadian is entitled to a pension, and there is nothing in this Bill which destroys that principle.
Years ago we recognized that in order to protect the sanctity of pensions, they had to be viable and economic, not threatened by the economic problems of our good friend, the United States, or the target of every right-wing person in the country. We recognized that there are many Canadians, who, for one reason or another, cannot live on a basic old age pension. They were in the work force probably before the Canada Pension Plan reached its maturity. Not through a means test but on the basis of income tax paid, we provided what is known as an income supplement, in other words, an addition to the basic plan. What the Minister has been able to do here by way of a compromise in the light of the problems we have at the moment is to suggest, in fact to guarantee, that any senior citizen obliged to request or obtain the GIS will continue to have that GIS and the basic old age pension fully indexed. That has not been explained sufficiently in the House. Because of the partisan nature of the House, speakers have glossed over this fundamental principle. As a result of glossing over this fundamental principle, they have created unfounded fears among many of our senior citizens who fail to understand the Bill, as many of us fail to understand the complicated measures.
I can reassure those people who receive the GIS that they will continue to receive it. It will continue to be fully indexed, as will their basic old age pensions.
Who is being asked to make some kind of sacrifice through a curtailment of some benefit through this Bill? It is those Canadians who are fortunate enough not to need the GIS. They are Canadians from all walks of life who, through good planning or good fortune, have other income over and above their old age pension. These Canadians are hardly envious of those receiving the GIS. They are glad they do not need it because it means more for other Canadians. We are simply asking those people to recognize the dilemma that this Government faced last year. Inflation was rampant in this country. It
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
threatened to run away, and the Government was forced to take action. The Government weighed the various alternatives at its disposal, from wage and price control to total disregard for inflation.
It is no secret that every economist in the world has a different view about how to control inflation. Even leading Nobel prize winners in the field of economics have opposing views on the question.
In its wisdom the Government suggested that we could not continue to shelter all Canadians fully by virtue of indexing. We were selective because of our Constitution as to who would make a sacrifice at a time when restraint was needed. They were Members of Parliament, Senators, public servants, members of Crown corporations and some senior citizens who had indicated in their tax returns that while they welcomed the old age pension, they did not need the GIS.
I often ask myself what would have happened to our pension plan if inflation continued to spiral to 20 per cent. What would have been the Government's position? I suppose it would have had to face the reality that the basic old age pension was insufficient. I hope the House would have insisted that the Government increase that old age pension. One would have to wonder how long Canadians who marry their private pensions to their old age pensions would have been able to survive. Certainly, people on fixed incomes suffer more than any other Canadian in times of inflation.
The thrust of the Government's plan was to bring down inflation and to allocate the sacrifice that was necessary in such a way as to enable us to maintain the sanctity of our concept of old age pension, in this case.
I do not wish to give an inflammatory, partisan speech because this subject is too important to drag into that type of environment. Fortunately, inflation has come down dramatically and continuously. When we capped the GIS and indexed salary increases, the level of inflation was at 11.2 per cent. At that time, limiting indexation represented a real sacrifice, if you like, of 4.7 per cent.
Today, as we are discussing this very Bill, the annual compounded rate of inflation since June is down to 7.2 per cent or, to round it off, if I am permitted, to 7 per cent. In reality, we are talking about a capping of 1 per cent or, to be specific, 1.2 per cent. As well, energy prices have come down throughout the world and other factors are bringing down inflation. I do not think anyone can accuse me of being a demagogue if I suggest that inflation could very well be at 6 per cent or less in this country by June. It really makes the exercise academic from that point on-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Exactly. That is the point.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -as long as inflation remains below 6 per cent. I know, from talking to senior citizens in my riding, that they wonder in effect what the fuss is all about. I said that I did not want to mislead them, because there is some curtailment on the basic pension. I said, "But you would be pleased

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
to know that the gap between the capped pension and inflation is now 1.2 per cent". Had it been that insignificant last June, we probably would not have needed the 6.5 per cent.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Hon. Member, whom I never interrupt, laughs. I hope I am not pricking her sensitivities with clear logic. She may wish that inflation had risen to 20 per cent, but we do not. We think that it would have been disastrous for the country and for those living on fixed incomes. We believe it would have been a total disregard of the Government's responsibility to govern and bring down inflation in order to protect people on fixed incomes and to make certain that the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the concept of old age pension remain immune to attacks from those that would destroy it.
The Opposition likes to have the best of both worlds. They supported six and five. At least those Members in the corner did not support it. I suppose the temptation to address themselves to the fears of senior citizens was just too great for some Members. The fact still remains that those Canadians who must remain on a basic pension, and only the basic pension, have to make a little sacrifice.
The most difficult chore that a government is faced with in a democracy is to single out those who must pay or carry the burden of sacrifice in order to continue our democratic process. We have respected the need of those who unfortunately require the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and we will continue to index fully not only their GIS but their OAS as well. That group represents at least half of those Canadians who are collecting old age pensions.
I do not think I need to go on any further. I believe the figures with respect to the impact of indexing on the February cheques as opposed to the January cheques represent approximately 50 cents a month. If we all had our way, it would not even be that much, but as one who has prided himself on his concern for the senior citizen-I am sure all Members have this concern-we should be thankful that inflation has fallen to 7.2 per cent when capping is at 6 per cent. We should be thankful that the real impact on those who have to suffer the six and five implementation will be less. In reality, senior citizens are being asked to suffer the brunt of 1.2 per cent inflation, and not the original figure of last June which was over 11 per cent, therefore, rounded, almost 5 per cent.
I do not want to answer the hypothetical question, which I am sure should be asked, as to what we would have done had inflation continued at a rate of up to 15 per cent or 20 per cent. It is significant that it did not, and I am not even interested in attempting to claim that the six and five program was the main instrument in bringing it down, because then I would be partisan. My purpose in making this case today is really to respond to those senior citizens who have expressed to me, both by letter and in direct contact, their concerns, their worries and their uncertainties about what six and five means to them.
It means, fortunately, very little to those few people whom it will affect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have three quite short questions. The Hon. Member has said in his speech that if a senior citizen has an income of $750 a month, that person will not be affected. He has also said that he is happy with the fact that the Government, in effect, intends to tax every senior citizen who makes $750 a month or more by 3 per cent of the OAS. That is a special tax which people who earn a salary of $750 a month do not have to pay. Is the Hon. Member happy with that figure of $750 a month? Is that the break point for what he considers to be sufficient income for senior citizens?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is the break point for universality.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Hon. Member and I apologize if I did not speak as clearly as I should have spoken. If he would check Hansard, he would find that at no time did I mention the specific figure of $750. He would have to explain where he heard that figure. What I said, in effect, was that those Canadians who do receive the GIS as well as the basic old age pension have my assurance, as I understand the Bill and the Government's position, that the GIS and basic old age pension will continue to be subject to full indexing as if the six and five program did not exist. I said that that is not true in the case of all Canadians fortunate enough not to need the GIS. I must express some puzzlement as to where the Hon. Member picked up the figure of $750. If I myself used that figure, then I apologize, but I am quite sure that I did not.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Nine thousand dollars a year.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the combination of OAS and GIS does not even amount to $9,000 a year, which is where I derived the figure of $750 a month. What the Hon. Member is essentially saying is that, by voting tonight, the Government will take income away from every senior citizen in this country, 47 per cent of whom make $750 a month or more. The Hon. Member, through his intention to vote in this direction, is acknowledging his belief that $750 a month is sufficient for a senior citizen. That is the only implication.
I suggested in my speech this morning that we could vote for the six month hoist, and we will have that opportunity later this afternoon.
We could ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to ask every taxpayer to contribute 15 cents a month more, and then the Government could leave the situation unchanged with respect to senior citizens. I think that Canadians would give 15 cents a month more to the tax man so that senior citizens would not be hurt. I wonder what the Hon. Member thinks of that idea.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Hon. Member should ask a question, not repeat his speech given this morning. There is a fundamental difference. I think that if we are to utilize the question
February 3, 1983

period after someone speaks, we should try to stick to asking questions. I will read the speech of the Hon. Member because I usually do. I was very careful to avoid the subject as to whether or not the combination of GIS and OAS was sufficient. 1 did make the point, for instance, that inflation has continued in the other direction, that the Government and the House had been faced with the reality, the problem and the obvious concern that that combination was insufficient, and it is all a matter of judgment.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is insufficient.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think that if the Hon. Member reads Hansard, he will find that I said that if inflation had continued higher, with the limited incomes of senior citizens, the solution would have been to increase the basic old age pension. I am quite sure that is what I said. I notice that the young lady whom I respect, the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald), is nodding her assent. It would have been imperative to increase the basic old age pension because it would have been very obvious to all of us that we were really creating immense hardship. I simply express satisfaction and relief that inflation has come down from 11.7 per cent to 7.2 per cent, and all of us should be very grateful that this has happened.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lincoln rather belittles the fact that next month's cheques will only be decreased by some 50 cents. Two things must be recognized here. First, for some people a 50 cent decrease is significant. Second, it represents a slow but steady erosion of the base. That is our concern. However, 1 would like to ask the Minister one question. He rightly pointed to the fact that the GIS will be indexed and that people who are on the GIS will not suffer any immediate decrease in the money they receive. However, some 50 per cent of pensioners are not covered by GIS. Many of these people are just barely above the line.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Three hundred thousand.


James Douglas Manly: These people will have a reduction in the amount of money which they would have received. What is the Minister's comment?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, the "Member's" comment is simple. I am as concerned as you are. There is always a cut-off in every program. There is always that grey area and always someone who is $1 over assistance or $1 under it.
I thank the Hon. Member for calling me a Minister, but I am only an hon. backbencher.
I remember that very problem with Unemployment Insurance, when $1 or $2 meant a big difference in the tax bracket.


James Douglas Manly: It is still there.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This is what happens in our so-called progressive tax system. I think we can all agree that one can make the case, as the Hon. Member made it, that there are people who do not quite qualify for the GIS but who could, if they had slightly less income. There must be a cut-off, I think
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
we all agree, and that cut-off point is periodically reviewed. I am not suggesting for one moment that the basic old age pension should not in time be increased. However, as one who is as much in favour of social policy as anyone in that corner, I also understand the reality that we must be able to afford these things. It might be a condemnation of Canada that in 1983 we must take cost into consideration. However, let us compare our concern over our program with the situation in the United States. I ask Hon. Members which country is further ahead.


Mr. Gauthier:: Canada.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Therefore, at the risk of appearing vain, arrogant and smug, which I am not, because I am as caring as the hon. gentleman, we have fashioned a good program. Those of us on this side of the House who espouse Liberal policy made sure that that basic program was not attacked by those I categorize as reactionaries, who periodically float the balloon at old age pensions, Family Allowances as something we cannot afford. I happen to believe that we must be able to afford them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You were talking about the Minister of Finance.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Therefore, if the hon. gentleman wants to tell me that there is a whole category of people who will suffer by the capping and who have a hard time living only on the old age pension because they are almost but not quite eligible for the GIS, I must agree. I would be more than pleased to discuss that matter with the Minister, as I am sure Hon. Members have intimated in their questions. In dwelling on that, I think we have unintentionally left the impression with most senior citizens that somehow something Draconian will happen to all who draw either the old age pension or the old age pension and the GIS. I am simply making the point that that is not true. It does not presume for one moment that there is not some hardship and some specialized cases which the hon. gentlemen pinpointed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Calgary West for a question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the figures given to us this morning suggest that people over 65 will contribute $18 this year to the federal Treasury and closer to $30 next year. The alternative is that every taxpayer in the country should contribute $1.80 and that senior citizens should keep the $18. The choice to be made at six o'clock this evening is whether the special tax should be applied to senior citizens rather than to all taxpayers.
I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) if he is satisfied with the Government's intention to make that tax apply for the remaining years of the lives of people now over age 65. Every senior citizen who makes $750 or more per month is being asked to make a contribution ten

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
times the size the contribution would be if it were spread over every taxpayer in the country. As a man with a social conscience, can the Eton. Member defend supporting the Government's intention to deal with the seniors of the country in that fashion?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble defending the Government. This Government identifies with senior citizens and has brought in the old age pension, Family Allowance, the Canada Pension Plan and UIC. I am proud to support one of the most compassionate Ministers that I have had the privilege of working with in my 20 years in the Flouse of Commons.
If the Hon. Member has a persuasive case-and I am sure he has and that he believes in it-then I am sure there will be a huge groundswell of support for his speech and we will be inundated with thousands of letters from concerned Canadians to endorse his concept. In that case, I will be in the vanguard to help the Hon. Member sell his concept.
His argument is equally true of everything, however, and I am surprised to hear that from a Conservative. It is equally true of income tax. It is equally true of those who would equalize all incomes. Without getting into a philosophical argument with the hon. gentlemen, I would congratulate him on using the question period to advance his arguments. We will see how persuasive he is when the vote is taken.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are a few points that I want to make to the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). I should like to point out some errors he made in his historical reporting. If he examines the record, he will see that unemployment insurance payments were not started by a Liberal Government but by a Conservative Government. He should get that point straight.
He also made some reference to the fact that throughout its history the Liberal Party has done so well by senior citizens. When the late Mr. Harris was Finance Minister, he brought in a $6 increase for senior citizens at a time when they were in real distress. The "six buck boys" rode across the country claiming that was all they could spare for senior citizens. The Hon. Member should recall the history of the Liberal Party in this regard. It is not something he would want to brag about.


Peter Joseph Lang: That was 25 years ago.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) says that was 25 years ago. There are many people who remember the way in which the Liberal Government of that day treated senior citizens. It was the basis of the debate that overturned the Liberal Government of that day and threw it out of office.


Mr. Beatty:: The Hon. Member is about to make his maiden speech.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My colleague says that the Hon. Member for Kitchener is about to make his maiden speech, so perhaps we will hear from him on this subject.
The debate on Bill C-131, the Government's measure to limit the indexation of old age pensions, is unfortunately being brought to an abrupt and unnecessary end this afternoon by the imposition of closure. That is being done because the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) believes the debate has gone on too long. On this side of the House we believe that the debate should never have started. The spirit of the Bill is mean and petty. It is particularly miserly when you take into consideration that group of senior citizens whose incomes range just above the old age pension and GIS combined-people whose annual income is in the vicinity of $9,000 and $10,000. There are some 300,000 Canadians in that bracket and it is they who will feel the greatest impact from this Bill.
As well, the Bill achieves very little in the way of savings for the Government as it tries to combat the swollen and burgeoning deficit it has created. If we look at where we stood vis-a-vis inflation last year, we see that, as a result of this Bill, the Government will realize $10 or $15 million. That is a mere pittance compared to the Government's deficit spending this year which is upwards of $30 billion. That is for this year alone. But the Government reaches out to grab that $10 million from the senior citizens of the country at the same time as it continues its profligate spending on Government advertising, travel by Ministers and public servants or on fitting out offices. It is quite content to spend money in that way as it reaches out for the widows' mite.
The Government can argue that that is the way it is going to attain its objective of restraint, but at the same time it is handing out huge sums of money to bail out corporations that have got into trouble. How can the Government justify the fact that it is prepared to see $34 million go to Maislin Corporation, or half a billion dollars to Dome Petroleum while it claims it has to take $10 million away from the senior citizens of the country? Why should hand-outs to companies like this be right and proper while a senior citizen is asked to cut back a few dollars on his or her income? Those few extra dollars might make a difference to that senior citizen faced with the rising cost of living.
The eloquent Member for Lincoln said that a number of these senior citizens will have to practise a little sacrifice. Why should they have to practise a little sacrifice while the Government does not curtail its spending in other areas? That is why we on this side of the House cannot see any logic to the measure that is being pushed through this afternoon and, Mr. Speaker, neither can any senior citizen see any logic in this measure.
If the inflation rate continues at the 10 per cent rate it stood at last year, each senior citizen in the income bracket over and above $8,900 would stand to lose up to $300 in the next couple of years. That is what they would lose. That is a $300 penalty imposed on those who really cannot afford it, those who are not unionized or organized to argue their case and who depend on people here in the House of Commons to argue it for them. That is what I mean when I say that this Bill is mean and petty
February 3, 1983

in spirit. This Bill will not achieve very much for the Government, but it will penalize people in a way that is totally uncalled for.
I have said what they would lose if inflation were to continue at 10 per cent as it was last year. Suppose we take the optimistic scenario that the Hon. Member for Lincoln put forward this afternoon and the Minister of National Health and Welfare put forward at different times, that inflation comes down to 6 per cent and 5 per cent the following year or near it. Suppose we were to accept that scenario. One would have to ask what would be the use of this Bill at all because it does not save the Government any money. It does not do one single thing. All this does is to create anxiety, concern and uncertainty among hundreds of thousands of senior citizens all across this country. That is what it has been doing right along. The Hon. Member for Lincoln termed those anxieties and uncertainties "misconceptions". I have to tell him they are there. They are there because of the way in which this Bill was imposed.
I find it difficult to understand why it is necessary to proceed with this Bill. If the Government is out $10 million or $15 million, it can find that in savings in other ways. If inflation comes down, it gains absolutely nothing from this Bill and does not need to put it forward in the first place. Nothing that the Miniter or her colleague has said has convinced me or other Members of this side of the House that the Bill is necessary. Neither did they convince any of the organizations which appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when this Bill was in committee for study in detail.
I just want to list some of the organizations which appeared before us: The Canadian Council on Social Development, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the Economists and Sociologists and Statisticians Association and the Canadian Labour of Congress. All these organizations represented thousands of people who are staunchly opposed to the legislation.
The other day the Minister stated that there were no organizations which wanted to appear before the Committee when this Bill was being studied in detail. What she seemed unaware was that many organizations made their views about this Bill known when they appeared before the Committee on the complementary piece of legislation, Bill C-132, which is to limit the indexation of Family Allowances. I want to mention a couple of organizations which took that opportunity when they were appearing in committee on Bill C-132 to address themselves to the Bill we are debating this afternoon, Bill C-131. I mention two of them in particular because they represent the views of women. As is a known fact, the great majority of people of pensionable age, 60 per cent, are women.
The first group I want to refer to is the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. That is the advisory Council to Government on the Status of Women. I want to quote what its President, Lucie Pepin, had to say at the committee hearings when the advisory council appeared on December 12,
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
1982. As reported at page 52:54 of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, she said:
-we are saying that in spite of the economic situation, which is very uncertain at this time, we would like the Government not to take any action in the area of family allowances and pensions. Not only do women make up the majority in these two groups, but, as several studies have shown, the poorest people in Canada are women. So obviously, that is what we are saying. We are asking the Government to be cautious because we do not agree with the action they wish to take. We feel that these two programs should not come under the six and five program.
That was the statement of the President of the Government's Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Did the Government listen to what was being said? It totally ignored the advice it was being given by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. That should not surprise any of us. On many occasions previously the Advisory Council or its President has spoken out. I think particularly of its former President, Doris Anderson. We know how completely ignored the advice put forth by the Advisory Council has been by the Government on critical issue after critical issue.
One of the other groups that appeared before the Committee was the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. That is the umbrella group which represents some 230 women's organizations across this country, some three million to four million women. They, too, had strong opposition to this Bill. I want to read what they had to say at page 51:10 of the report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when appearing before us on December 9 last, it reads:
-we want to emphasize that the companion Bill to this one, which would limit the indexing of the Old Age Pension, makes even less sense to us. The main losers in capping the indexation will not be the wealthiest elderly, because they would have paid back a good part of their increase in taxes. As a result those who will be most affected are the near-poor elderly whose income is just a little too high to entitle them to a Guaranteed Income Supplement for the elderly poor.
We, therefore, call on all Members of Parliament-
She said all Members of Parliament, not just Opposition Members of Parliament.
-in the name of equity, as well as in the name of efficiency, to vote against both of these truly bad Bills.
That was the view of these two major organizations representing the women across this country, to vote against these two truly bad Bills. The Government has not taken that advice. I know it has not listened sympathetically to the views expressed by organizations, groups, individuals, senior citizens, Opposition Members, just about everyone has expressed opposition to this Bill, except Government Members. We are opposed to it because it is mean, petty, penalizes those who can least afford it, strikes out at women in particular and accomplishes very little except to exacerbate uncertainty, anxiety and concern among Canada's senior citizens.
I have received hundreds of letters and calls from across the country, on this issue. I talked to people in my constituency. I listened to what they had to say. I read their letters. I listened to those who came into my office.
I take calls from people who are truly upset because this Bill has created such uncertainty that they feel they do not know

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
where the Government will take action next or how it will next take action against them. 1 try to reassure them that their interests are being spoken to in the House of Commons, because a good many of us are trying to do that. But how can a person be really reassuring when the Government moves in, as it does this afternoon, with closure to put an end to debate on this Bill? How can you really reassure people that their interests are going to be protected when the Government lines up all its backbenchers and says, "Vote against it. Cut off debate. Don't let anything more be said on this issue." I hope that all senior citizen who are today represented by a Liberal Member of Parliament will take the opportunity to get in touch with that Liberal Member of Parliament and make it known very clearly how strongly they feel about the way their Member of Parliament has voted to impose this restraint on senior citizens, showing their responsibility for the difficulties which are being created by the Government.
It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that pensioners understand just why the Government is pushing this measure through. We all know that the economic situation in this country is in a terrible mess. Even the Government has to acknowledge that at this point. The Hon. Member for Kitchener says that it is not true that the country is in an economic mess.


Peter Joseph Lang: I said you sounded very happy about it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member for Kitchener just has to read a few of the reports which are being put out by every international organization in the world to find out just how bad the economic mess is, and that economic mess has been brought on by the economic policies of the Liberal Government.


Mr. Schroder:: Not true.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Not true? I know that that is what the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder) is saying, it is not true that it has been brought on by the Liberal Government. I am sure he is going to say that it is due to the international recession. Is that right? He nods his head. He says it is all due to the international recession. Well, I would like to ask him why it is that the recent OECD report which was published in December, 1982, shows that Canada's economic growth, its industrial development, ranks 24th out of 24 industrialized countries in the world? Why is it that, given all of those other international factors these other 23 countries had to absorb like Canada, they still do far better than we do? Can the Hon. Member tell me why we are at the bottom of the heap? Why is it that at this point we rank behind Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Iceland? Why is it we are at the bottom? It is because there is no responsibility here in this country for the economic policies which have been developed. That is exactly why we are 24th out of 24 industrialized countries. It is because the policies of this Government over the last two or three years have driven us into that position. And, as a result, what does the Government do? What does it do when it sees we are in this economic mess? It looks around the country and says, "Who are the people we can make the scapegoats?" When the Government
began to come to grips with this situation, as it has just begun to do, belatedly, who did it make the scapegoats for the things it has done wrong in the past? The first people it singles out are the senior citizens of this country.
That is what is wrong with this particular Bill. The Government is blaming its own failings on those who had nothing to do with it. I want to advise the Hon. Members opposite that they have their priorities totally wrong when they turn and point to the senior citizens of this country and say, "You are the ones who are responsible for the profligate spending. You are the ones who are responsible for the riotous living which has caused this economic mess." It is this Government which is responsible for the profligate spending. It is this Government which is responsible for the riotous living which has driven Canada into 24th place out of 24 industrialized countries. It is not the senior citizens of this country.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are so staunchly opposed to this Bill. We do not feel that the senior citizen should be asked to bear the burden of the Government's mistakes. That is why we feel, sir, that not only should this particular measure be given a six months' hoist this afternoon, but that this Bill should be lost forever.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the rhetoric of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I realize it is unfortunate to have to introduce facts into the situation for the Hon. Member, but I am going to do that and I will ask her to respond to such facts. We hear from the Opposition day in and day out, "Let's have some restraints. Let's reduce the deficit. Let's bring inflation down." Day in and day out they get up, and every time the Government introduces some form of restraint, the Opposition starts putting on its social conscience, something which has never manifested itself when the opposition was in Government because it has never introduced any major social programs.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands says our economic trouble is due to profligate Government spending. Let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. I will quote from the "Economic Review April 1982" put out by the Department of Finance of Canada, and we can compare total Government expenditures. If we look at this we will see that total expenditures of the central Government, the national Government, the Government of Canada, as compared to its GNP, between 1969 and 1972, was 14.0 per cent. In the United Kingdom it was 19.9 per cent; in the United States it was 18.0 per cent; in France it was 17.9 per cent. Let us move up to the middle of the decade. In Canada it was 16.8 per cent; in France, 18.3 per cent; in the United Kingdom, 24.0 per cent; in the United States, 19.6 per cent. All are greater than Canada. Let us move to 1979. In Canada, 15.6 per cent; in France, 18.2 per cent; in the United Kingdom, 24.6 per cent; in the United States, 18.2 per cent.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the Government's spending on goods and services is not the cause of the increased deficit. The fact of the matter is we have had a
February 3, 1983

recession which has reduced revenues and increased expenditures in social programs because here in Canada, this Government has not taken an axe to the social programs as they have in the United States and in Great Britain, Conservative Governments which the Opposition has endorsed in the past.
I ask the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands why the Opposition continually hounds us that the deficit be brought down and, at the same time, whenever the Government introduces restraint in the transfer payments, or in any other area, the Opposition is up squawking? Put your money where your mouth is.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be laughing. It was just because of how ludicrous that performance was by the Hon. Member for Kitchener. The Hon. Member asks about Government restraint and why it should not be supported. I would state to the Hon. Member that if the Government would bring in restraint on its $70 million of Government advertising, you would see plenty of support from this side of the House. If the Government would bring in restraint-


Peter Joseph Lang: It has been reduced from $90 million to $70 million. That is a reduction of about 25 per cent.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member says it is reduced. It is not at all reduced. It has gone up this year, and the Hon. Member for Kitchener knows it.


Peter Joseph Lang: No, it has been reduced from $90 million.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Not only that, Mr. Speaker. Government expenditures on Ministers' travel, Government expenditures on Public Service travel, Government expenditures, as the Auditor General has pointed out, have gone up in every single area. Why is there not restraint practised in those areas? Why does restraint first have to be imposed on the senior citizens of this country?


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, there has been restraint by the Government on its Departments-that is the major thrust of the six and five program. The Government put a six and five limit on administrative costs, public servants and Members of Parliament as an example for the country, and asked all Canadians to share in bringing about a six and five world. When we talk about singling somebody out, every time there has been a piece of six and five legislation, the Opposition focuses in on one group and forgets to mention all the others in the public and private sectors who have been asked to help. The Opposition forgets to pay a compliment to the people of Canada who have endorsed the six and five program and who understand the importance of working together to bring inflation down.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member still goes back to saying that the people in the front line, the ones whom the Minister is calling on to lead the fight against inflation, have to be the senior citizens of this country. He agrees with that.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
The Hon. Member has introduced a figure which I think is a very important one and perhaps he will elaborate on it. He has said for the first time that I have heard it admitted by the Government that its advertising program this year was $90 million. No one, not even the Minister, has admitted to that heretofore. So now what we would like is a breakdown of that $90 million so we can point out to the Hon. Member exactly where money can be saved so that it is not the senior citizens of this country who are made the scapegoats of the Government's program.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to accept any representations the Hon. Member would like to make with regard to ways in which the Government can reduce any excessive expenditures. If the Hon. Member would like a complete breakdown of the expenditures of the Government's advertising, she can put a question on the Order Paper and that will be answered.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, two years later.


Peter Joseph Lang: The major thrust of this legislation is to reduce inflationary expectations. It is not to take away large sums of money from senior citizens. This Government and this Party are the ones who have given senior citizens income security without any assistance, in fact with opposition, from the Conservative Party of Canada. Now, the Hon. Member clearly does not understand the thrust of the legislation to reduce inflationary expectations, she has not addressed that issue at any point in her remarks.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kitchener has said this Bill is not to take money away from senior citizens. May I ask him, then, why we are going through the futility of this exercise?


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, what I actually said was this Bill is not to take away large sums of money from senior citizens.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, just small sums.


Peter Joseph Lang: The Bill in fact takes a minimum amount away from senior citizens, as has been indicated by the Minister. What it does do is to put a limit of six and five on indexation in general of Government expenditures through the six and five program. In addition, the six and five applies to indexation under the Income Tax Act. So that we are dealing with the problem of revenues indexed downward and expenditures indexed upward. Anyone with common sense will realize that is a deficit producing situation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Well, now the Hon. Member for Kitchener has said it is not going to take large sums away, just small sums away from senior citizens. Well, if it is just going to take small sums away from senior citizens, I would suggest that total can be found elsewhere. That is the argument we have been making all along, that $10 million can be much more easily found in the $90 million expenditure he mentioned with regard to Government advertising. Surely it would be more fair, more equitable and more just to take that $10 million out

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
of the Government advertising program rather than to take it out of the pittance which is sent to senior citizens. That is exactly the argument.
The Hon. Member has agreed with that and I hope that when the time comes for the vote this afternoon he will stand up and oppose the legislation on that basis.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly we are asking Canadians to contribute a small amount from each sector and in that way no one sector of society is asked to take on a greater burden, which is what the Hon. Member was trying to criticize us for before. In fact, we have asked many different groups in our society-in fact all groups in the public and private sector-to adapt to a six and five world. By doing that we are able to ask each group to contribute a small amount. This is called reducing inflationary expectations.
Now, with regard to the Government spending on advertising, I totally agree with the Hon. Member that this is an area where we can make savings, and the Government is making savings. But the Hon. Member talks about Government advertising as if it were totally wasted. Much of it is used to inform people of the important programs available to them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member for Kitchener keeps trying to justify the unjustifiable. He keeps trying to say that if we are going to save money, we should be able to save it out of the cheques which go to senior citizens. I keep suggesting to him ways in which the Government could save that money and practise its restraint elsewhere. I mentioned one area, my colleague mentioned another. A prime candidate for savings is that of the Press Council. The $20 million has not been spent, it has not even been allocated to anyone as yet, to impose some kind of censorship on the free press of this country. I know the Government is willing and wants to do that, but perhaps he will consider the $20 million as a candidate for saving rather than taking the money away from senior citizens.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order in connection with the ten-minute questioning, which this time was 12 minutes. It was never intended that a person would get up and make speeches on which he could not be questioned. In this last instance, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) spoke for five and half minutes altogether and he made a speech each time. The first time it was for three and a half minutes. Now, if he is going to do that, I would like the privilege of questioning him. He should be asking questions, and if he wants to make a speech he should stand up and make it so that we can question him.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Flora was dueling with an unarmed man.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member sought the floor on a point of order and of course the Chair must recognize that. I do not want to rule on the point of order, because this has happened twice today and I feel that if I do so I will begin to create a series of precedents as to how the ten-minute period is to be used to the satisfaction of the Members. For example, earlier today I indicated the question in my own mind as to whether it is the wish of Members that
the ten-minute exchange be relevant to the Bill or simply relevant to the preceding Member's speech. In my view, and I warned Members that I did not want to make that a ruling, it is adequate if the ten-minute interchange is simply relevant to the previous speaker's speech. However, in the same manner I want to point out in this subject raised by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) that it is not necessary to conclude that only questions and answers are part of the ten-minute exchange. It is perfectly acceptable that a Member may choose to use some time for a comment of some nature. The only sense I have of the Committee's report in this regard is that, and in this sense it is clear, comments should be short and sharp.
Now, I did let the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary speak a little longer than I think I should have. On the other hand, I deliberately added to the ten-minute period an amount of time adequate for the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) to make a reply. We are all trying to work out the best way to proceed during this ten-minute period. I will avoid a ruling on the Hon. Member's point of order for the reasons I have just given. Perhaps, as the days go on, the matter will sharpen up in due course.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak against Bill C-131 because the principle involved in it is very important. It is the same principle which is involved in Bill C-132 and Bill C-133. The principle is that the Government has chosen to cut the spending power of certain groups, not the spending power of all people, as was quite erroneously, if not misleadingly, said by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. There are certain important groups which the Government has refused to touch with its six and five program. In this case, in Bill C-131, it proposes to cut the spending power of about one million pensioners. Last summer the Government and the Tories basically agreed to this. The Tories would like the public to forget what they agreed to last summer, but I doubt that the public has forgotten or will forget.
The Government tries to cover itself, in the words of the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), by talking about the programs it introduced during more prosperous years in the past. He mentioned various programs. In fact, all of them were first proposed, and one of them first introduced, by the CCF and its Leader, not by the Liberal Government. It was the CCF, as led by James Woodsworth, who first put to the conscience of Parliament and this nation the necessity of providing social security. Although the CCF did not have the constitutional opportunity to introduce things such as Unemployment Insurance, it had and used the opportunity to introduce medicare. It pioneered medicare on the continent of North America. The claim of the Hon. Member for Lincoln is as hollow as most claims made on behalf of the Government.
Furthermore, now that inflation has been brought down by the international recession caused by the policies of this
February 3, 1983

Government and its allies in the United States and Great Britain, the Hon. Member is trying to claim that this Bill will not make any difference. The Hon. Member for Lincoln suggested that it would amount to only 50 cents-why bother spending all the hours spent by the Government preparing the Bill, all the dollars spent by the Government advertising its program and all the time necessary to debate this Bill, if all that is at stake is 50 cents? It is quite an incredible statement that the Hon. Member made. 1 do not think anyone could take him seriously. In fact, I think he is known as a man with a great sense of humour. I am sure he was speaking with his tongue in both cheeks.
My point is that the Government has chosen to cut certain classes of society and has gone against the principles about which it bragged, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), less than five years ago when he was taking a different tack than the one he is taking today. This was also at a time of inflation, in 1977, when he said:
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-
This is in contrast to the groups the Government is now letting off scotfree. It does not give them a larger claim. He continued:
-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.
I would add that pensioners cannot raise the price of oil, interest rates in banks, the price of housing or the price of other goods on the market in order to obtain more income. They are the ones who are defenceless. They are not the cause of inflation. In any event, the Prime Minister said:
They are not the cause of inflation. They are its victim. We have an obligation to help protect them.
Well, that was almost five years ago. Clearly the Prime Minister has forgotten what he said then, but the people of Canada do not forget. By contrast it illustrates that the Government and the Tory Opposition, in complete agreement and totally in bed with each other on this point, will not cut the incomes of oil companies. The Government will not cut the excessive profits of banks and other lending institutions. It has refused to take any measure to restore the kind of control which was placed on banks by legislation for many decades until the 1960s. It will not even take any measure to acquire income tax from hundreds of Canadians who are earning more than $100,000 per year. These people not only are not cut, they are not taxed at all. The Government knows this well because it has reported on them. It refuses to take any action year after year to collect taxes from these people. Instead, it wishes to cut three classes of citizens. One is the pensioners. The second is the mothers of children. The third is public employees and some private employees. It is promoting the cutting of wages of all employees. We should notice that this is directed in a class sense against employees and completely
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
excludes employers. Employers are not to be cut by six and five. Employers are invited to cut their employees by six and five and, glory be, we have all kinds of patriotic employers who are willing to cut wages. So what is new?
In Spadina there are many pensioners. Many of them have telephoned and written to me to oppose this legislation. We have pensioners in the Senator Croll Apartments, at 250 Davenport, at 91 Augusta, in the Kensington Manor, in Central Park Lodge, in the Queen/John Streets Building, in Laughlen Lodge and at The Good Shepherd. Also there are many pensioners throughout the housing area of Spadina, people living in old houses. Many of them have paid for these houses over 10 to 40 years with hard work both in earning money with which to pay their mortgages and in maintaining their houses with their own labour. Now they are often living in these houses with relatives and maintaining them with careful savings. These people manage their money very carefully because they do not have much. Thanks to the Government they will have even less in real spending power.
Spadina is mainly populated by people who work to earn a living. There are a few self-employed people in Spadina, although very few of them are wealthy. Mainly the people of Spadina are construction workers, factory workers, building cleaning workers, almost all of whom are women, and domestic workers, almost all of whom are women. I mentioned factories but I especially want to mention the garment industry in which the great majority of workers are women, and the workers in small stores, in hundreds of restaurants, many of whom work 12 and 14-hour days, six, if not seven days a week, just to earn a very modest living. These are people who are often victimized by our economy even while they are employed. These people receive much less for their work than the people who get off scotfree from paying tax. The $100,000 and $500,000 types get off scotfree from paying tax. Instead of paying tax they would rather pay a lawyer, an accountant or a lobbyist with the Liberal or the Tory Party.
It is for the poor people who have already suffered that this Government is providing a cut in their pensions. The Government has decided to breach its contract. This Government, which is supposed to enforce the rule of law, as all Governments are, has decided to breach its contract, not only with its own civil service pensioners, but in a political sense to breach the kind of solemn contract which the present Prime Minister made years ago and reiterated five years ago in the words that I just read a few moments ago.
I want to quote a comment made by the Canadian Labour Congress. The Canadian Labour Congress is not speaking only for its own members, some of whom have adequate private pensions, adequate compared to what the majority of people in this country have, but it is speaking for all Canadians, including the poorest. It reads as follows:
Since 1964, OAS benefits have declined from approximately 20 per cent of average wages and salaries to approximately 14 per cent.

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
With average wages and salaries that could be considered to have roughly kept pace with prices-they have not, they have fallen behind-this means that old age pensions are two-thirds of what they used to be in buying power. These are the people whose buying power this Government now presumes to cut still further.
We have heard again and again and again, from the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), other Government Members and the Parliamentary Secretary, that this is such a small cut. We have heard them say, "Do not worry about it, it is only 50 cents," or whatever they like to say. But the question is why. Apart from the time spent debating this Bill, advertising it, and the clerical book work that is needed to make a change, I am quite sure that this costs more than the 50 cents. What is the Government's purpose? The saving clearly is not worth the aggravation that it causes to the individual pensioner. Nobody likes to have their buying power cut even if it is said the cut is not very great. Why make a cut if it will not bring in any serious revenue?
The Government's first appeal is to inflation. The Government says, "We have bad times. We have to do this to stop inflation." The Government has to cut payments to mothers, employees and pensioners to stop inflation while the Government allows the banks, the oil companies and the other large multinationals to run wild with their prices. That does not make any sense. A cut of the size the Government is talking about, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), does not do anything to stop inflation. It could easily be outdistanced by far by a saving in the Government's own advertising, in which it tried to misrepresent the six and five program to the Canadian people.
Why? This is a question the Government has never answered satisfactorily to anyone in this House or outside of the House. Therefore, I will suggest two reasons why this Government has chosen to single out and attack three classes of our society: employees, mothers of children, and pensioners, in this case especially the pensioners.
First, this is a neat way of undermining the principle of universality which the Government, along with the Tories, now wishes to do away with. What the Government has done is to reduce that part of the pension, a right that not only makes people rely more on that part of the pension which is subject to a means test but, in fact, it will force more pensioners from one group into another.
The Hon. Member for Lincoln talked about the people who are just on the margin. I was too far away but I thought perhaps I could see tears in his eyes when he was talking about these people who were just one dollar over the level at which they would get GIS. He is not here now. I am sure he has gone out to get himself another handkerchief with which to wipe his eyes. But the Bill which the Hon. Member for Lincoln is supporting, presumably, the Bill his Government has put forward and the Bill put forward by the Minister whom he says he admires so much, will take some of these pensioners, not on GIS, and force them to the level at which they will have
to apply for GIS. In other words, the Hon. Member will force more of the people of this country to rely on a non-universal type of pension. I think that is the intention of this Government. I think this is a small step, along with other steps this Government has taken, in such things as medicare, to destroy the very principle which the Hon. Member for Lincoln claimed to be supporting, the principle that there were certain allowances and programs that people have basically as a right. The Hon. Member for Lincoln claimed there was no change in the basic principle of a basic pension. Yet, he will be voting an hour from now to change that very thing, the principle of universality.
Since this Government will not give us a reason that makes any sense, we have to guess at it. I believe there is another reason why the Government is so eager to break its promise. On this point I will quote again from the Canadian Labour Congress which has, over the years, been a very good defender of pensioners and poor people, far beyond the ranks of its membership. This passage reads:
It clearly breaks a promise to Canada's current elderly, namely, the promise that the OAS program will provide benefits of a given real value. But not only does Bill C-131 break a promise to the current elderly, it raises doubts as to whether the arrangements that are now in place will be maintained for future generations of elderly Canadians. The fact that the Government of Canada feels free to reduce OAS benefits for reasons of short-term fiscal expendiency has the potential to breed a great deal of cynicism about the security of all future public pension benefits.
Another passage, referring to pensions, reads:
They should be treated as incomes to which people have earned rights-
I want to emphasize that point, Mr. Speaker. This is based on years and years of work by people who built Canada. These people have earned a right to a pension. This Government is now breaching its political promise to them. It is breaching a pledge that it made, again and again, so it could be re-elected. Writing about the pensions, this passage reads:
They should be treated as incomes to which people have earned rights based on the type of compact among generations mentioned above.
That is the position of the labour movement of Canada. It is the position of the Party I represent, and I wish we could fight the next election and the one after that on better issues than this. I wish the Government opposite and the Tories would agree not to trample on pensioners, on mothers with children and on employees as segregated from their employers. We still have to find this other reason. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has kindly given us the slogan. What she has said repeatedly here in this House and in committee is that the reason for this aggravating and senseless imposition on pensioners, employees and mothers with children, is to mobilize them. Her great slogan is "mobilize". During World War II, I and others joined the Forces because we were mobilized to fight an enemy. Others were mobilized to work in the factories and produce the means we needed to fight the enemy. However, no type of mobilization is being carried on through this Bill. Rather, it is immobilization. Rather, it is an attack on people's morale. Rather, it is an attempt to divide and set the pensioners against the workers, to divide and paralyze the
February 3, 1983

people of this country so that they will have no spirit to resist the actions of this Government and of the Tory Party, which would like to do the same and worse.
The mobilization argument is the phoniest argument 1 have ever heard, even from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). It is as phoney as a three-dollar bill. She does not want to mobilize people. She wants to immobilize and paralyze them and set them fighting against each other so as to weaken the fibre of this country. I am sorry that the Government has chosen a tactic like this which does nothing to stop inflation and will do great harm to the Canadian people.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member who just spoke for some concrete proof that the Conservative Party is against universality.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to think all the way back to the months of June and July in 1982 when he, if he was present in the House, voted for the basic principle which he now claims to oppose. The basic principle which was laid out in the Bill at that time was directed primarily against employees. In other words, it was against one class, segregated from others. The Bill which they did not oppose was also directed against a certain class of pensioners. In that respect it was undermining universality. The Hon. Member and his colleagues, with one exception, voted for it last summer.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Member may have forgotten that the only immediate effect of that Bill was to cut the salaries of Members of Parliament. If he thinks that we should not have been singled out-


Ian Deans: That is not so at all.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -then I do not buy his logic. We voted to cut our own salaries to provide some type of leadership to the nation.
Throughout the three series of specific Bills on six and five affecting families and pensioners, we have been consistent in each case in moving an amendment at committee and report stages to cut the effects of these Bills down to one year rather than two years. The NDP has flipped and flopped in different situations. Why have they not been consistent in trying to make these Bills half as bad, and voted with us based on that logic?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: With respect to the first point raised by the Hon. Member, there was a great deal more contained in last summer's legislation than only the cuts on the salaries of Members of Parliament. As the Hon. Member well knows, it contained a great deal more, and there was no attempt by either the Government or the Opposition to segregate those issues. They were all lumped in together.
Of course, it gives the Hon. Member an excuse that may suit him and his wife, if he has one, and his brother-in-law, if he has one, and it may suit a few people to try to excuse
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
themselves for having voted for it. However, the main thrust of that Bill, as the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said, was to cut indexing for civil servants, in other words, to cut the indexing of employees. That whole principle at that time was supported by the Hon. Member for Calgary West.
In regard to the cosmetic and superficial amendments that have occasionally been introduced by him and his Party, we have supported those which seemed like a genuine improvement, but not when they simply attempted to hide the actual nature of the Bill.


Mr. Irwin:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak next but at this point I would like to ask a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) for a question.


Ron Irwin: My question is to the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Perhaps I did not hear him clearly but he used a catch word, "class discrimination" or "class action". He indicated that we only moved against public employees. The Members of Parliament are the employers. Was not the same six and five provision made against the employers as it was against the employees?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would read the legislation he will find that it is directed against employees. That is its wording. In fact, I believe all of us here are employees individually. We all individually determine our own salary, unless perhaps it is the Prime Minister. We are employees of the Government. Perhaps the Members on the far side could be considered employers.
The fact is that the philosophy of the Bill was directed primarily, if not exclusively, against employees. This is not something that was invented by anyone else. It was invented by the Government.


Ron Irwin: I will narrow it down for the Hon. Member. Is the Government not the employer and did the Government not take the six and five cut?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: No. The Government did not take a cut. The Government's individual Members took a cut, but they are not the employer. The Government is just that, the Government which continues to collect as many taxes as it can. The Government continues to raise prices far beyond six and five.


Ron Irwin: What about your staff employees?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The Government did not even reduce the staff allowance of the Member for Sault Ste. Marie, myself or anyone else below S86,600 for this fiscal year. It did not reduce the amount of money available to us as individual employers. It only sought to reduce the amount of money that we could pay to our employees. In other words, the attack was on the employees.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, my question is with respect to the Hon. Member's previous answer. Because of the example he chose, is he prepared to admit in public that our record on universality for Family Allowance and pensions is clear and

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
consistent? Will he also admit to the House that one of the very few pieces of legislation that we were able to get through the House in the brief two months of the Clark Government was, in fact, an improvement in the pension situation for women? That was one of our first orders of business and something which we accomplished.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: We know, as a matter of history, that the Conservative Party originally opposed the idea of pensions. During their brief appearance on the other side of the House a couple of years ago, they were studying the very idea of eliminating universality. That was their intention. If they had not been kicked out they would have wiped out universality.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Members has just made an assertion to the House. Where is the proof that we were studying the elimination of universality?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Under their then Minister of Health, that was the direction of the Conservative Government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If the Hon. Member had attended committee meetings, he would have discovered that there are three major parts to assistance to families in the family support area. One is Family Allowance, one is the income tax deduction and the other is the Child Tax Credit. He would have seen rather strenuous arguments for the need to study the Family Allowance system and the conclusion that it happens to be the fairest to the poor people in the nation and that more money should perhaps go into it and less to other parts of the system.
That is the thrust this Party had in committee. It comes about after careful analysis of a social support system which currently exists. It is not composed of rhetoric. Will the Hon. Member acknowledge that that is the thrust which I personally have carried in committee for several months?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have attended committee meetings. I am aware that one can find a wide variety of opinions among individual Members of the Tory Party. They are the strangest collection of oddballs. I am referring to the main thrust of the Tory Party, not only over the years but even this year and last year, during which time its Members have supported the idea of imposing six and five on employees, on pensioners and on mothers.


Paul James Cosgrove: And themselves, universally.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to address a few issues with respect to Bill C-131. I was pleased that the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) spoke directly ahead of me because it would give me a chance to defend the Official Opposition. I do not accept the fact that the Official Opposition is against universality. Periodically, one will hear Hon. Members opposite speaking against it, more to cause debate. I do not think anyone in the NDP and I do not think the overwhelming majority of the Liberal Party Members in this House are against universality. It is something
which is accepted in our system, and something we want to foster if we can afford it.
The Hon. Member for Spadina was just playing a little mischief on the House when he suggested that either the Liberals or the Conservatives were against universality. I am glad that he cleared up the concept of public employees. I am pleased that he did admit that Government members did take a cut as the public employees took a cut. He suggested that our budgets increased. Our budgets increased because we have inflation. If he does not understand that, it is no wonder he puts the question in the House and does not understand why the six and five program is necessary. Either he does not understand it, or he understands it and is against it. It is either one or the other. He should clearly state which of these alternatives he is speaking for or against, and he should not come here and play games with catch words which I thought went out with 1920 socialism-


Paul James Cosgrove: Communism.


Ron Irwin: -like communism, like class discrimination.


Cyril Keeper: He did not say communism. He said group of people.


Ron Irwin: It is gibberish and nonsense, and I do not accept it. The Hon. Member referred to the Canadian Labour Congress and its position. The riding of Spadina does not have the same industrial mix as the riding of Sault Ste. Marie, but it has much the same multicultural mix. They are very similar. I have been through the Hon. Member's riding. As a matter of fact, I heard the Hon. Member when he was more cogent and mellow, and that was much before he got into politics. He is not that way now, probably as a result of the influence of the 30 odd other NDP Members.


Cyril Keeper: Before he got into politics? It must be a long time ago.


Ron Irwin: Well, it was before he was elected. It was the 30 odd other NDP Members here who turned him so bitter against Liberals, per se. Perhaps if he began to know a few more of us and went to a few more committee meetings, he would understand that they think the same things he does. Concerning the Canadian Labour Congress-


James Douglas Manly: My dad was a Liberal; how much more do you need to know?


Ron Irwin: I could make a great comment, but I will not get into where the Hon. Member comes from.


James Douglas Manly: 1 come from Winnipeg.


Ron Irwin: Right now the Canadian Labour Congress is interested in jobs. In my riding, 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the people are unemployed. I do not know the figures but I suppose that 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the people in the Hon. Member's riding are unemployed because of its reliance on construction. The Canadian Labour Congress wants jobs.
February 3, 1983

Retired people in this country who have children and grandchildren who do not have jobs want jobs and a policy of job creation. They will accept 50 cents less a month from their pensions.


Cyril Keeper: You have got a policy of depression.


Ron Irwin: We have a program which leads to jobs.


Cyril Keeper: But you do not.


Ron Irwin: That is where the country and where the Canadian Labour Congress is at. I suggest that the Hon. Member check with the Canadian Labour Congress.
The test with respect to Bill C-131 is twofold. First, did the Government take an overview, and did it deal equitably and fairly with the senior citizens? It will be for the public to decide.
I think that this could be termed "the six bit debate", because that is exactly what it will cost a month, $1.50 or less a month if this Bill goes through. The Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) said, "It is a pittance", and those were her exact words. She then said that senior citizens are "anxious and concerned". I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who is causing this concern? The Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands said that when dealing with senior citizens who phone her, she tells them that the matter is being addressed. I would suggest that what she is telling them is, "Those Liberals down there do not know what they are doing and they are out to get you, but the Opposition will take care of your interests".


Cyril Keeper: She is right on.


Ron Irwin: If she says here that it is a pittance, then she should tell them over the phone that this is a pittance Bill.
I have listened to the debate all day. One Hon. Member said that we have wasted $3 million on this debate, six days at half a million dollars a day. Another Member of the Official Opposition said that we have not debated the Bill long enough and that we should continue. I am listening and I want to learn. I have heard suggestions coming to me from the left, from the right and from the centre of the Party opposite, and I am no wiser for having been here the whole day.


Cyril Keeper: That is obvious.


Ron Irwin: What is the overview? First, there is world inflation, world unemployment and world recession. Second, there are record deficits. We had to borrow over $20 billion this year. Why must we borrow? It is because we want to keep social programs in place, and that is the only reason. It would have been just as easy to do what was done in Peru or Chile in an attempt to balance their budgets and continue their social programs.
The third part of the overview concerns the need for leadership. I do not think the six and five program is a panacea. I do not even suggest that it is a cure-all. However, it gives the direction which the public wants, even though the Opposition does not understand it.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
If we cannot control inflation and set a direction, what good are savings? In 1973, the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands returned from a visit to a country, Chile, where inflation was running at 1,000 per cent a year. As soon as people received their salaries, they went out and bought goods because the next day their money was virtually worthless.
If we cannot control inflation, what good is the saving? Second, what good is an industrial policy? That is only something on paper, and it will not work. I agree with the Hon. Members. The bottom line is a healthy economy, for if we do not have a healthy economy, we will not have all of the cultural benefits which the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) wants for senior citizens. We will not have pensions, unemployment insurance benefits or money. I therefore agree that we must have a healthy economy. If we cannot control inflation, we will not have a healthy economy.
Let us get rid of some of this rhetoric and set the record straight. What are we discussing? There are 2.34 million senior citizens in Canada. This Bill would affect 1.1 million and, in 1983, would mean that they would each receive 50 cents to $1.50 less a month. They will not suffer a decrease; rather, they will receive an increase. In December, 1982, a senior citizen received $249.92, and in January of this year will receive $250.62. Senior citizens will receive an increase. Do you want to know something, Mr. Speaker? They are happy. They know there is widespread unemployment. I receive calls from senior citizens along these lines: "You will cut $300 from my income next year". Where are senior citizens hearing this message? It comes from the Opposition. It is not true. They are getting an increase.
1 heard several Hon. Members today, and I will name them if I must, who spoke of the immorality of what we are doing. What is our record, Mr. Speaker? Since the days of Prime Minister Mackenzie King, through the Governments of Prime Minister St. Laurent and Prime Minister Pearson right to the present Prime Minister, all Liberal Governments have brought in measures of social change such as unemployment insurance, children's benefits, pension benefits and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Major changes, from the Constitution to the trans-Canada pipeline and the St. Lawrence Seaway were Liberal policies and were usually strenuously opposed by the Panies opposite. This country is a world trader and sells $75 billion worth of goods per year to other countries. Is it immoral to say that we have to borrow $23 billion and so will have to take $1.50 of the pension next month but will still keep the $250. If that is immorality, then I should like to know what morality is.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said that the Opposition is playing political games. She is right, Mr. Speaker, and that is why this House is slowly becoming ineffective. That is why more and more decisions are being made by bureaucrats and Ministers. That is necessary

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
because we cannot have rational and logical debate in this House.
At least three speakers today, including the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) and the Hon. Member for Spadina, have said that fully indexed pensions are a social right. If they believe that, then they must believe that hospital care, education and any number of social services, are a right.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


Ron Irwin: Then we come to this question. If the deficit is up, if recession is up, if the economy is down, if unemployment is up and if we have less revenue, then is it still a social right to be fully indexed?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


Ron Irwin: If the answer had been no, then I would say that Hon. Members opposite do not fully understand Bill C-133. The key question is where we get the money. There are only three places we can get it-print it, impose more taxes, or borrow. I have not heard any of the more than 100 Members of both Parties on the other side that we should borrow more money, print more money or increase taxes.
I have heard those who represent the oil interests say that we should give more to the oil companies. I heard members of the same Party say that we should give more money to the North-South dialogue, and immediately after that heard another speaker say that we should give less to North-South. That is Party unity, Mr. Speaker. It is pushing and pulling at the same time. Those are the suggestions that were made today. The criterion is not what will work or what is best for the country but what will give the biggest headline in a member's constituency. That is not constructive debate and it does more damage to the credibility of the House of Commons than anything else we can do in the House. It shows a slow erosion that is almost irreversible.
I should like to return to the question of morality, Mr. Speaker. The test is whether things have improved in the last two or three generations. My grandparents did not have pensions or hospitalization or Unemployment Insurance. They lived on $30 per month. There were no benefits at all, no union protection and they only worked six months each year. Out of that $30 per month, $10 went for milk as they had eight or nine children whom they managed to support. But they had nothing at all. My parents had more, but they had nothing like as much as I do or as my children will have. I have legal aid, medicare and housing. They may have to go on a waiting list, to line up or wait their turn, but they are not deprived of housing. The housing program is fundamentally a Liberal program.
No Member of this House can say that things have not improved, Mr. Speaker. They must admit that there has been a giant leap in social justice in this country in only three generations. If that is immoral, then I do not know what morality is. If doing your job, trying to take reasonable
resources and spread them equitably is immoral, then I will get out of politics and go back to what I did before.


David Orlikow: The voters will send you back there.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I have been doing this since 1966 and any time the Hon. Member wants to come to my riding to talk to the voters, he is welcome. Members of his party were there last week and drew 36 people. It was their first meeting in three years.
I have much more to say but I want to end by referring to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) who said that we do not care about senior citizens. I believe he said that as Liberals we should vote against this Bill. He said that we should have voted against the last budget-I was here and I heard him say that. He said we should have voted against the Constitution-I was here and heard him say that. In Section 15-and I am going to be here to remind him of this for the rest of his life-there is a clause that says that no Government shall pass legislation that discriminates because of age. Yet today the Hon. Member tells us to vote against this Bill when he himself voted against Section 15 which would have disallowed discrimination because of age. He admits that he has done contradictory things in this House as he voted for six and five at one stage and will vote against it today. He has not done contradictory things just once, Mr. Speaker, but several times.
When I stand here later today I will vote on this Bill with the full knowledge that we all want to get to heaven, but some of us would like to get there with our socks on.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I warned the Government that Supreme Court judges might rule legislation illegal which we, as Members of Parliament and representatives of the people, felt to be in the best interests of Canadians. The Hon. Member has just said that he intends to stand in this Chamber at six o'clock this evening and, because someone is 65 years of age and has an income of $750 per month, he will vote to impose a special three per cent tax on them. Is the Hon. Member saying that he believes in age discrimination and that he believes strongly in the need to impose this special tax on people over the age of 65? Is that what he is saying, or is he saying that he hopes the Supreme Court of Canada will overrule his decision today and take that tax off because it is discriminatory, based on age?


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked the same question in different ways to three people, myself, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I refer him to their answers which dealt with his questions adequately.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We have a Question Period daily in which I can question Ministers. I just heard a speech by the Hon. Member. I want a clear-cut answer. Is he saying the intends to vote to discriminate against senior citizens in this country simply because they are 65 years of age and not the rest of
February 3, 1983

Canadians who are younger and earn a salary, but simply those 65 years of age who exist on a public pension? Does he just want those senior citizens to be discriminated against? Is that what he is going to do?


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member did not listen to my speech. If I had my druthers, and if we had the money, I would give every senior citizen in this country $1,000 a month because they have earned it, but we do not have the money. Even without the money, we have still managed to increase their pension by basically borrowing the money. A country can only borrow so much; a $23 billion debt is more than that of France. That is our social commitment. That is a debt on the future which we are prepared to pay. That is what I said. We are prepared to pay it. We will pay our social bills at this time and hope that the future will take care of our debt.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Calgary North rising to put a question?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am rising for a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, that argument implies that it is the Member's intention to tax every citizen over age 65 $1.50 a month because the Government does not have the money. I proposed earlier today that instead we tax every taxpayer an extra 15 cents. If we did that, we would have the same amount of money in the Treasury. That would give the $1.50 a month to senior citizens by taxing every taxpayer an additional 15 cents a month. Is the Member indicating that if there is an easy way to find the money, he will vote for the six-month hoist and let the Finance Minister straighten that out, or is he indicating that he believes senior citizens-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it the intention of the rule that one person should monopolize the whole ten minute question period with a series of questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Of course not. It is not the intent of the provisional rules. The Chair should apologize. I was seeking to find out from the Hon. Member from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) whether he was rising to put a question. I did not recognize him by his proper constituency name. I intend to recognize him after the answer for the purpose of asking a question.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked the question earlier. He did not think it was adequately answered. I am prepared to answer it. I do not agree that we should have a specific levy for senior citizens for pensions because what senior citizens require is much more than just a pension. If we did what the Hon. Member said, we would have a specific levy for their houses, a levy for their hospitalization, a levy for their para-bus, a specific levy for the rebate they receive from municipal taxes and on and on.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Perhaps it was not a serious question. I accepted it as serious. I do not agree with a specific levy. We should use the general revenue, look at the total requirement of the senior citizen and act accordingly because this is a group which does not have the financing to pay for their needs over the age of 65, but they have contributed. That is the criterion for using general revenue.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, during the speech of the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) he made a statement, quite correctly, that a major objective of the Canadian Labour Congress at the present time is jobs. He then seemed to imply that because the major objective was jobs, somehow the CLC approved of this legislation which limits the indexing of pensions of retired people to six and five.
I would ask the Hon. Member one question. Is he not aware that the Canadian Labour Congress has opposed this legislation? Also, I would ask him whether he has read the statement issued recently by the Roman Catholic Bishops of Canada which is very critical of exactly this kind of legislation, and a recent report of the United Church of Canada entitled "Income Security" which says that all our programs for senior citizens leave a number of single elderly people below the poverty line. They say that the elderly make up a very large proportion of the poor and near-poor group in this country. They are not happy with this legislation. Will the Hon. Member comment on that rather than accuse Opposition Members of being partisan?


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, 1 will answer that directly. The Canadian Labour Congress is having difficulty. The difficulty is this. The civil service sector of the CLC has more votes than the profit sector. For example, the Canadian Union of Public Employees has 257,000 members, whereas the United Steel Workers has only 203,000 members. The point is this. In the steel-working sector, they are not objecting to the six and five. They want jobs. In the public sector, which we have tried to protect, they want additional protection. That is the dichotomy that may split the Canadian Labour Congress.
The Bishops' Report is an excellent report. It is too bad there is not more debate on many of the other proposals, especially in the natural resource industry where we are using up too much of our natural resources, do not engage in enough manufacturing, and allow too much foreign investment in Canada, which makes us drawers of water and hewers of wood, the big debate on six and five. I talked to some of the Bishops personally. It is a good report that should be debated.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Hon. Member is talking about the wrong Bill. His argument, which I do not agree with, would have some validity if we were debating a Bill to limit the salary increases of public servants, but we are debating a Bill which limits the indexing of retired people.
The Canadian Labour Congress does not have to worry about Public Service unions. They are talking about retired people. That is what they are talking about. Surely that is the

February 3, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
question on which the CLC has expressed and will express itself.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, the CLC has taken the position that they are opposed to the six and five program. Again I reiterate "all phases". They are not going to vote in favour of one or against another. They are opposed to six and five primarily because there are too many public sector employees in the CLC. That is the problem that is splitting the CLC. If the Elon. Member is as close to the CLC as he says, he should know this because I certainly do.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we can be sure of, that is, that we are not going to have another ten-minute question period.
I want to make a few observations with respect to Bill C-131, to state my support for the six-month hoist motion and, of course, to indicate my opposition in total to the Bill currently before us. That will be almost all the time I have to speak about it, but nevertheless I wanted to get those two points on the record.
The question asked is who will be affected by this Bill. The answer has been placed on the record quite often, so I will not spend too much time on it. Those who will be most severely affected by the Bill are those who have made the greatest contribution to the development and the building of this country. They spent years and years building, forgetful of their own needs, just barely able to get by. They were looking forward to the time, perhaps, when they could relax a little, when society would recognize and respect the contribution they had made and would assist them in their later years. There are those who, for various reasons, have been unable to provide security for their later years, some because of a lack of skills to compete in the labour market, others who have engaged in humanitarian services at low levels of income, and those who have worked in enterprises which have not provided pension benefits. There are others, including those over the age of 65, who are going to be particularly hard pressed because of this particular measure. 1 refer to the single persons over age 65 who do not receive any Guaranteed Income Supplement or spouse's allowance if their total income, including the basic old age pension, exceeds $8,900, a level of income $10 below the poverty line for single persons living in metropolitan areas. These are some of the individuals who are going to be affected by the provisions of this particular Bill.
The Government has said this Bill is not to save money, and it is set out in the questions and answers which came with the documents regarding Bill C-131. It reads:
The Government is asking all Canadians who have the means to lower their expectations over the next two years in order to help bring inflation down to 6 and 5 per cent. Some degree of sacrifice by all Canadians is required to bring about economic recovery in Canada.
When we consider this particular statement, Mr. Speaker, I think it points out the fact that it was meant mainly to take from those, reduce the income of those who could well afford it. But we all know very well, no matter in what area in the House we are sitting, that that does not apply to these people we have spoken of today because they have, for various reasons I have pointed out, not been able to make the savings which would enable them to invest and have returns, or in any other way provide for their later years. Therefore, the question now is, why is the Government proceeding with this particular measure? It has been emphasized today that inflation is down and it is not likely to rise for a while at least, and it may even go down below the 6 per cent or the 5 per cent, or whatever. That being the case, I believe this amendment is most appropriate, that is, to give this measure a six-month hoist in order that there might be an opportunity to gauge the effects of the downward trend of inflation, and then find out if it is really necessary, and if it is not necessary, then why in the world is the Government going to impose it on us? I make this plea because of the statements which have been made today by the Government spokesmen.
There is one more thought which I want to present, and that is the psychological factor. People who worked without any pension plan were fearful of the future. Canada Pension came in and new hope was born. Now, because of this particular measure, they are saying, "What next? What is the next Government step? Are we going to be reduced further?" So they are thrown again into insecurity, fear and uncertainty. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are making an eminently reasonable proposal, that this be given a six-month hoist, and if not, then we certainly intend to vote against it and we trust that it will be defeated in the interests of those who will be so adversely affected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Order. It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 31, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forth every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill.
The question is on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes.

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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
February 3, 1983


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


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost. Amendment (Mr. Hawkes) negatived.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: If it please the House, perhaps we could dispense with the bells.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you could possibly clarify whether it is indeed the case that the Bill could have been defeated had 29 Conservatives shown up in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: And Nielsen eats Grits for breakfast? [Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It being 6:20 p.m., I do now leave the chair, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6:20 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 4, 1983