1983-01-17

STANDING ORDERS AND PROCEDURE


Madam Speaker:: As Hon. Members know, a number of new procedures become effective today for an experimental period of one year.
There are two areas in particular where the discretion of the Chair will be a significant element in the successful operation of the provisional rules. The First of these areas is a fundamental one which will directly affect the debating practices of the House. The introduction of a ten-minute period during which questions may be asked and comments made concerning the speech of the Hon. Member who has just spoken is likely to bring about a radical change in the way in which our debates are conducted. These ten-minute periods will be available to Members during most key debates, including those on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Budget, allotted days and the second and third readings of Bills.
The second area is the procedure, provided for in provisional Standing Order 21, which will enable Hon. Members other than Ministers to make statements of not more than one and a half minutes on matters of concern. A period of not more than 15 minutes has been provided for this purpose preceding the Question Period. This procedure has replaced the former Standing Order 43 and will operate in quite a different way. It is intended to provide Hon. Members on all sides with an opportunity to voice serious issues of international, national or local concern. The element of "urgent and pressing necessity", which was theoretically a requirement under former Standing Order 43 and which was not particularly applied, has been removed. There will be no need to move a motion and the unanimous consent of the House will not be required in order to make a statement. That statement will last exactly one and a half minutes and the Speaker will interrupt any Member who goes beyond that time.
I do apologize in advance because I know it is hard for Hon. Members to know exactly what you can say in 90 seconds. I know that very well because I was trained on television and radio to say very important things in a very short period of time. It will take time for Hon. Members to get used to that and I apologize ahead of time, but I will interrupt everyone when 90 seconds have elapsed.

Since the application of these two rules of procedure will be largely left to the discretion of the Chair, I would like to inform the House of the general guidelines I intend to follow, unless the House should indicate otherwise.
First, a few words about the ten-minute question-and-answer period. During those ten minutes, the Chair will try, as much as possible, to give priority to Members representing a party other than that of the Member who made the speech. However, backbenchers on the Government side will also be entitled to ask questions following a speech by a Minister. The Chair will cut off any questions that are likely to be too long. Questions should be just that, and not speeches. If 1 may be allowed to give Hon. Members some advice, the shorter the question, the greater the element of surprise, and the easier it is to make things difficult for the Member to whom the question is directed. In my opinion, the best questions are short, but of course, Hon. Members must be the judge of that. In any case, the Chair will not allow Members to use this period to make speeches. Only questions will be allowed.
Furthermore, the ten-minute period should not be monopolized or almost monopolized by one and the same Member. The ten minutes are to be used for debate between a number of Members sitting in the House during this time. The period is to be reserved for questions and comments about the speech preceding this period. 1 believe that in this connection, the Chair will probably have to take a stricter approach as far as the principle of relevance is concerned. The Chair has always been fairly flexible in this respect, but when only ten minutes are allowed for debate, it is clear that both the questions and the speech itself must be relevant in the strict sense of the word. Questions will therefore have to be concise and preferably consist of one sentence. Need I add that questions should not be preceded by a long preamble.
The Chair will try to recognize as many Members as possible and will give the Member whose speech is the subject of questions or comments an opportunity to answer, as they are put, all questions raised during this ten-minute period but it may be more practical, for instance, to have the Member answer all questions during the last two minutes. In any case, we shall have to experiment a bit with the new procedure before we know exactly what the best solution is for all Members.
Now a few words about the guidelines 1 intend to follow with respect to Members' Statements. As far as possible, the

January 17, 1983
Standing Orders and Procedure
Chair will try to apportion opportunities to make such statements as fairly as possible, among the various parties represented in this House. In fact, that is the intent of this parliamentary reform, that is to say, such statements should be allowed in direct proportion to the number of Members in each party in this House. I shall therefore try to provide for fair allocation of time for statements under the provisions of Provisional Standing Order 21. All questions raised must be on matters of concern, but they do not necessarily have to be matters of urgent and pressing necessity. The time set aside for Members' Statements should not be used to make personal attacks. I think that in the previous application of Standing Order 43, the Chair had to consider the content of the motion, but in this case, and in this particular form, Members are being given an opportunity to raise matters of concern. It is clear that personal attacks are not considered to be matters that should be raised and that are important, in the opinion of the House, at this point in the proceedings. This also applies to congratulations, and I always find it rather embarrassing, because usually, the people Members want to congratulate certainly deserve congratulations, and I give the impression of thinking that these people are most underserving of congratulations. So this is a little embarrassing for the Chair, but I think we should get some agreement on this. The reform is very clear about the matter that congratulations, however important they may be, have no place at this point of our parliamentary proceedings, and I therefore intend to interrupt any members who try to extend congratulations or recite poems or make jokes. I apologize to the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), whose poems I find quite delightful, but all this is over and done with, and I can no longer allow myself this kind of entertainment. In fact, I believe the Hon. Member was doing it for my sake, because he realized I enjoyed his efforts.
There will be no requirement to move a motion in order to make a statement under Provisional Standing Order 21, as we said before.
I trust that I have correctly interpreted the wishes of the House in preparing these guidelines, and in any case, the Chair will do everything in its power to apply them in the spirit in which the House has adopted its new rules-on an experimental basis, it is true-and that is why we shall be able to consult with one another as the proceedings of the House unfold under the new rules and find out whether they are still appropriate to our needs. Of course, the Chair is counting on the co-operation of all Members of this House in order to attain the desired results.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, I shall not waste the time of the House, but I should like to raise three points at this stage in the proceedings. First of all, I wish to thank you for your comments which I found very helpful in understanding how the House is going to operate. I shall now deal with my three points, one by one.
The first point I wish to raise concerns parliamentary procedure and the new rules that will be applied.
On November 29, 1982, the House passed a Government motion, which may be found on page 5400 of the Votes and Proceedings, proposing temporary changes in the Standing Orders appearing in Appendix C of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. I shall not read the motion in its entirety, Madam Speaker. We all know what it entails, and as you said just now, the House must streamline and accelerate its proceedings. However, I should like to quote a paragraph which I fee! is particularly relevant to my point of order. The paragraph in question appears on page 5400 of the Votes and Proceedings, and I quote:
That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print revised and re-numbered Standing Orders of the House incorporating the temporary Standing Orders and any technical or consequential amendments necessary.
Madam Speaker, we all have a revised and renumbered copy of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The new rules include the old and the new Standing Orders as well as certain technical and consequential amendments. Madam Speaker, with due respect, these words were not in the Committee's Report as tabled in the House. I wish to emphasize the words: technical and consequential amendments. If we carefully read Appendix C of the Third Report of the Special Committee, which is what we had to use during the Christmas holidays, we can imagine what could go on here, especially if we read it in both official languages, because in that way it is sometimes easier to understand the Standing Orders. If we do this, we see that it is quite clear the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) was very wise in the wording of his motion of November 29, 1982. I shall give two examples which gave me a bit of trouble. I am referring to Issue No. 7 of the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, where we read on page 7:39, in Standing Order 38A(1), in the French version, and I quote:
38A( 1) Entre le 60c et le 90c jour de seance de la premiere session d'unc Legislature, lors d'un jour designe par un ministre de la Couronne ou le 90c jour de seance si ce jour n'a pas ete designe, etc-
And in English, Madam Speaker:

-sixty and ninety sitting days of the first session of a Parliament on a day designated by a Minister-
It is not clear in English, Madam Speaker, to say the least. [English]
Before this first sixty-

In French, it does not say between the 60th and the 90th. The English does not correspond with the French version, and I suppose the Clerks noticed this and made a technical amendment.
At the bottom of the same page 7:39, we read that Standing Order 45(2) is deleted and the following substituted therefor:
January 17, 1983

(2) When a debate on any motion made between 2:00 o'clock p.m. (11:00 o'clock a.m. Fridays) and prior to the reading of an order of the day is adjourned or interrupted, etc-
Madam Speaker, perhaps you could explain the expression: between 2:00 o'clock p.m. and prior to the reading of an order of the day, since in my opinion it is somewhat confusing. I noticed when I read the Standing Orders, which were not distributed until last Friday, that a change was made to make things a bit clearer.
Madam Speaker, like myself and so many other Members, you have consulted with your advisers on the subject of these technical and consequential amendments. In any case, on Friday, January 14, all Members received a copy of the revised and amended Standing Orders. 1 do not know how many Members read them. This morning and yesterday, I had a chance to look through the new edition and to absorb the essential points.
Madam Speaker, my point of order arises first of all from the very little time allowed Members to prepare for the debate which, I have been told, is to start this afternoon on Bill C-133, and to do so according to the new Standing Orders. More specifically, I would like to ask the Chair to consider interrupting the debate temporarily, to give Members a chance to talk to the Clerks and find out whether this new edition of Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders contains a number of technical and consequential amendments which might, for many of us, provide some clarification. Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I may continue my comments and raise a point of order under Standing Order 75(9) under the old rules, which allowed a Member proposing an amendment to speak for forty minutes at the report stage. Standing Order 75(9) prescribes, and I quote:
When debate is permitted, no Member shall speak more than once or longer than ten minutes during proceedings on any amendment at that stage-
I was reading the wording of the Standing Order as it appeared in the issue of the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures.
Madam Speaker, that is clear: ten minutes at the report stage, but what worries me, and 1 wish you would provide some clarification on this point, is the practice according to which, for the purposes of debate, the Chair may combine amendments. If there are Members who, like me, for instance, have two amendments to propose at the report stage, I would like to know whether, if you combine them, 1 will have ten minutes to discuss two amendments which I consider important. Madam Speaker, I know that until today, there has been no ruling, no decision and no request made to the Chair about this matter. We used to have twenty minutes. Today, I only have ten. My speaking time is therefore very limited, and 1 wonder if you could inform the Flouse whether, if you proceed according to former Standing Order 75(10)-I believe it provided for combining amendments or changes-you will give Members who are proposing more than one amendment a chance to speak for at least ten minutes to each amendment, even if the amendments have been combined.
Standing Orders and Procedure
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, and this is the last point I wish to raise, I wonder whether you could perhaps give a ruling on the obligation for Members to present amendments to a bill at the report stage within twenty-four hours after the report is tabled. You may remember that on December 22, we adjourned at six o'clock. In my humble opinion, this was followed by a very long week-end, so that today, on January 17, we resumed debate at eleven o'clock this morning. Madam Speaker, I should therefore appreciate if you could inform the House whether the precedent set by Mr. Jerome in 1977 or 1978, which provided that in case of a week-end Members had until six o'clock on the following Monday to table amendments if a bill was reported to the House on a Friday, still applies. The week-end 1 am referring to started on Wednesday, December 22, but it was a very long week-end, since we are resuming our activities on January 17th, while we may still have some amendments to present. However, at this stage, Members cannot propose amendments to Bill C-133, which, according our information, will be called in a few minutes, unless you decide that we are entitled to propose amendments until six o'clock this evening.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, in order to assist you in any remarks that you might deem advisable to make with respect to the intervention, perhaps the Hon. Member is unaware of the meetings that took place between the Government House Leader, myself and the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, other officials and party representatives, together with the Clerk of the House, in order to examine the technical and consequential changes that have been proposed by the Clerk, under the authority which was given to him by the motion which was passed.
One matter in particular that was mentioned by the hon. gentleman who has intervened with respect to the reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization concerning the words "between 60 and 90 days" was picked up by the Clerk and he has, as I had requested, written to the clerk of the Special Committee that presented the third report in order to clarify the intention of the Committee. To my knowledge, the Clerk has not yet received a response to that letter. However, I am sure that these minor matters will be picked up as we go. The experimental changes, as were the last ones, will be the subject of interpretations and will present problems, both minor and major, as we proceed through the experimental period. I would suggest that if the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members are patient, they will find that these things will iron themselves out in time.
With respect to the other matter raised by the hon. gentleman concerning the filing of amendments at report stage, my colleague from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) will be raising

January 17, 1983
Standing Orders and Procedure
that as a specific point of order, upon which no doubt the Chair will want to hear him and perhaps others as well before coming to a decision.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have assumed that the latter point made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is a point of order which would arise in the event the Government called Bill C-133. I presume that you will not be ruling on that matter but will be prepared to hear arguments after that matter has been called, if indeed it is called.


Madam Speaker:: In response to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I must point out that if there are discrepancies between the English and French texts, I feel confident that agreement will be reached so that both texts are identical, but 1 have the impression that the Clerk did ask for clarification about the two versions because it is obvious that they are not the same. It is a matter of knowing which of the two is official and he is waiting for an answer about that. We will simply have to wait. Should a practical problem arise in the House in the meantime, the Chair will make a temporary ruling until a reply is received from the Committee. Both versions of the Standing Orders must, of course, be identical. The Hon. Member quite properly pointed out that it is sometimes necessary to read both versions to get a clear understanding of the meaning.
However, I think I can rule immediately on the regrouping of the amendments introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. Under the old Standing Orders, the amendments were regrouped because they could be debated at the same time, that is, the subject matter of the amendments was the same and the Chair would acknowledge that amendments related to the same subject matter ought to be regrouped and I believe that the time allocated for amendments was 20 minutes, not 20 minutes for each regrouped amendment, but 20 minutes for the two, three or four amendments or for the series of amendments. Therefore, nothing is changed. Henceforth, as we used to proceed in the past, the allocated time will be ten instead of twenty minutes when the Chair regroups amendments, not ten minutes for each amendment so regrouped as the Hon. Member was perhaps trying to suggest.
As for the bill which may be called this afternoon, I personally believe that I would be well advised to wait until it is before the House, and if it should be necessary to raise points of order, Hon. Members will seek the floor and I will rule at that time. In my opinion, it is too early to debate that question.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to bring to your attention and flag your comments with respect to Standing Order 21 which refers to statements by Members. I believe you stated that you would distribute time for those statements
based on the percentage of Members in the House. While that might work out to be fair and equal as between the Government and the Opposition now under Standing Order 18(3), I wonder if you should perhaps reserve your ruling since a circumstance may arise in the future where a Government would have many more Members and the period for statements would then turn out to be a great advantage to the Government in power. I would think, rather, that the opportunity should be almost equal as between the Government and the Official Opposition, with any third parties or independent Members having a percentage share.
I would simply like you not to make a ruling on that at this time, or alternatively, if you are to make a ruling, for us to have some debate on that point.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, the point that I wish to make is that if the decision is to be made that the distribution of time is to be made equally across the floor of the House, those Members which form the Cabinet should be deducted from the total number of Members.


Miss MacDonald:: And Parliamentary Secretaries.


Ian Deans: My hon. friend says Parliamentary Secretaries as well. I make the point that Cabinet Members do, in fact, have a time in the proceedings when they are able to make statements under "Statements by Ministers". In making the calculation I would urge you to consider that there already is a provision for Cabinet Ministers to make statements in the House, and therefore the total number of Cabinet Ministers should be deducted from the total number of Government Members.


Erik Nielsen: And Parliamentary Secretaries.


Ian Deans: My colleague from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says Parliamentary Secretaries too. I suggest you should consider that in addition to the point I am making in order to set out clearly a degree of fairness for Members who are deemed to be other than Members of the Cabinet.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to join with my colleague from the NDP in making a point of order with specific reference to the numbers. The rules provide that Cabinet Ministers shall not be included in the Members making statements for the very reason he has stated, that they have their opportunity. It is an opportunity that is not used, much to the dismay of our side. Cabinet Ministers do not take that opportunity to make statements.
In view of the ample opportunity for Parliamentary Secretaries to make statements in support of Bills during the adjournment debate and in speaking engagements, I would ask you also to consider whether they should be subtracted from the number of Government Members when you are making your calculation as to what is fair for the ordinary Members who want to bring a statement to the House that they feel important and should be made.
January 17, 1983


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am opposed to any form of discrimination.
I do not see why Parliamentary Secretaries and Cabinet Ministers should not be allowed to make statements during the 10 or 15 minutes preceding the Oral Question Period. Our new Standing Order refers to members, without excluding either Parliamentary Secretaries or cabinet ministers. Now, my hon. friend from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is saying that ministers for that matter have every opportunity to make statements following the Oral Question Period. I suggest his point is not valid, for if ministers are allowed to make statements at that time members of the opposition in turn may reply to them and ask questions. There can be no comparison.
I respectfully suggest, therefore, that no distinction be made at that stage of our proceedings before the Oral Question Period with respect to Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate what the Government House Leader has said in response to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). As Parliamentary Secretary, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I had the right to stand and make a motion as well. I feel that perhaps your Honour should reserve ruling on this matter so that we would have an opportunity to research the situation further. 1 feel that as an elected Member of Parliament, even though I am now a Parliamentary Secretary, I should have the right and privilege of making a statement during the time allotted to Members.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Not to waste time, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member took the words right out of my mouth. I resent being treated as a second class Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You earned it!


Jesse Philip Flis: I am already denied the opportunity of asking questions in the House and taking part in standing committees, and I would resent it very much if I were-


Mr. Clark:: You are paid $5,000 a year!


Jesse Philip Flis: -denied the privilege of making a 90-second statement on issues which are very urgent to my constituents who elected me, who put me into the House to speak on their behalf.


Charles Joseph Clark: Give up the $5,000!


Mr. Paproski:: Resign as Parliamentary Secretary!


Erik Nielsen: Cry-baby!
Standing Orders and Procedure


Madam Speaker:: 1 know that Hon. Members did not have time to read the new rules, but I think if they read them they will find that it is quite clear that at two o'clock, Members other than Ministers of the Crown may make statements pursuant to Standing Order 21. So that obviously excludes Ministers but includes, as in motions under Standing Order 43, Parliamentary Secretaries. So there has been no change in the spirit of these particular rules.
As for the matter of distributing statements on both sides of the House, perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. As I read the report which was presented to the House, it seems to me that the intention was to distribute these statements evenly between the two sides of the House. That would mean, in my interpretation, that one or two might be missed because we never know exactly how much time we have but it will be as close as possible to an equal number on both sides of the House.
Concerning the matter of the proportion, that is probably where I was not clear. When I mentioned proportions, I did not say why it would be necessary to apply proportions to certain of these interventions. The proportions would be, of course, between the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party and would have to be established according to the number of Members each party has in the House. I think that is, in general, quite a fair rule, as it is used during Question Period and can be applied to this particular part of the procedure.
Hon. Members will know that once in a while one side intervenes more than the other because of the particular timing, but it might be easier to remedy that situation because each Hon. Member will have 90 seconds in which to speak and we will know exactly how many 90 seconds there are in the time allotted to dealing with statements under this particular Standing Order.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, 1 merely wish to draw your attention to the fact that at the time they went to press, they omitted the fact that the House would not meet either on New Year's Day, Good Friday, the day set for the celebration of the birthday of the Sovereign, St. John the Baptist's Day or Dominion Day. I suggest it should read Canada Day now.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, that word and that phraseology was left in at my specific request.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: And obviously agreed upon by all other Leaders of the Parties.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to re-open the debate, Madam Speaker, but I should say that I am always anxious to meet the wishes of the Hon.

January 17, 1983
Standing Orders and Procedure
Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). In this case, however, I suggest to him that he may continue to use the expression Dominion Day, but that as a law abiding citizen, he should know that there is no such thing as Dominion Day any more. What we now have is Canada Day.


Madam Speaker:: But the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) should know that this issue was not at all raised in the report tabled in the House. The Committee had not requested a change of name for that particular holiday. Therefore, the change could not be proposed by the Clerk of the House as a result of the Committee's suggestion. If the Committee wishes at some later date to deal with this issue and submit a proposal to the House, a change could be made. But the Clerk of the House was not in a position to carry it out.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise with respect to a completely different point of order with reference to the appearance of the new version of the so-called Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders. I note some contradiction between the words "permanent" and "provisional" as found in a title for Standing Orders. I would like to express my disappointment that, even after a notification of at least five years' duration, there is still no index in the Standing Orders.


Erik Nielsen: It is coming.


Donald W. Munro: My recollection is that at least five years ago, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, there was a request by myself and others as well that there should be attached to the Standing Orders an index, which is different from a table of contents. I managed, through the courtesy of the Table, to obtain an index which had been prepared by the reference branch of the Library and which gives the reference by Standing Order number to the various subject matters which are dealt with in the Standing Orders. I had hoped that in any new edition, and in this one, because it is a completely new edition, permanent and provisional though it is, there would be an index included at the end.
Just as an example, length of speeches figures nine times on the little index that I have in my possession. There have been changes in the length of speeches. For example, on the Speech from the Throne or on second or third reading, there may be different times concerning the length of speeches. That is all to be found in the table of contents if one looks seriously enough.
However, it would be so much simpler if, in the index, there were items to be found such as "Speeches, length of' or something of that sort, in reference to each of the various chapters or Standing Orders. I do hope that another edition of this volume of Standing Orders, be it permanent or provisional or permanent and provisional, will not come out without an
index. I implore the Chair to lean on the Table that that be done.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in fairness to those who helped prepare these permanent and provisional Standing Orders, it should be pointed out that the matter of an index was raised when we met with the Clerk of the House, during the adjournment. We were explained this involved a tremendously long work, and since there was limited time could not be done in the context of the changes made. However, I want to commend all those who helped prepare these Standing Orders, because they did a really tremendous job, even though it may not be perfect, and no doubt some aspects will be debated later on. However, within the time available, those people succeeded in setting down the old and new Standing Orders. They even included a table of contents. They also added a concordance, at our own request, in the margin. We have the comparison between the old and new sections, and it would be inhuman to demand at this point that an index be prepared for what is in fact an experiment, to last one year only, because no doubt other changes will be made. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member to be patient, understanding and thankful to those who endeavoured to serve Hon. Members in the best possible way, I congratulate all those who took part in that work, and I hope that the changes made will not face too negative a reaction. I appreciate that some Hon. Members may be unwilling to accept change, which raises all sorts of questions. But this is a matter of parliamentary spirit, an experiment to be made, and I think this is more than a minimum and we should proceed as soon as possible.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, the index is at least partially prepared in this paper by the reference branch of the Library of Parliament. It is there; it is ready. The only thing that is lacking is a concordance between the old Standing Orders and the new Provisional and Permanent Standing Orders. That should not take more than five years. It has taken at least five years to get even that much of it in print. I do implore you, for the assistance of all Members of Parliament, to provide that there be an index in the next edition of that little green book, whatever it is called.


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order regarding Standing Order 21. You mentioned a time period of 90 seconds, and I wonder whether it was Your Honour's intention, in order to help bring this House into the computer age, to instal a seconds clock, as is done in certain professional sports.


Madam Speaker:: Just for the information of the Hon. Member, we will have a manual seconds clock. It will be 90 seconds, I can assure the Hon. Member of that.
January 17, 1983



Regarding the point of order which was raised by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and the comments made by the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), I note he commended the staff of the House for the tremendous work they have done since the report was tabled in this House and during the parliamentary recess. 1 would join him in this, because I know that this was a huge task, for which I am very thankful. They recognize as much as I do that this new book of rules is not perfect, it had to be put together fairly rapidly. Although the staff had very little time available, it is quite near perfection, but quite perfectible also. I could not agree more with the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich as far as the index is concerned. This book of rules is most difficult to consult. It is not possible to get along with only a table of contents when working with such a complex book of rules. An index should be provided that for instance would give an idea, under certain captions, of the motions that may or may not be debated, the length of speeches, the times and hours of adjournment and so forth, because we know what an index is. This is an absolute necessity, we must be in a position to use the Standing Orders fully and rapidly. So the index will be prepared, but there was not enough time available for the clerk and his staff to prepare it before this book went to press. However, the index prepared by the staff of the Library of Parliament will be updated including the changes, albeit provisional, which were made to the Standing Orders, and it will be made available to the Hon. Members as a separate item, so they use it pending publication of a final version of the Standing Orders of the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am sure there will be from time to time clarifications of your earlier comments. One that comes to mind, and perhaps you can address your attention to it, is the term "quoting poetry" or "reciting poetry". Within the context of a Member trying to make a 90-second statement, I think it would be in order to quote poetry if it is part of the statement that the Member is trying to make, rather than reciting, as the "bard of Red Deer" did on various occasions, his own poetry. I think there might be some latitude allowed there. In order to make a point, I suggest that there could be some brief quotation from poetry which fits in with the statement which the Member wants to make.


Madam Speaker:: In these 90-second statements, if the Members says "as the poet said" and gives me one sentence of a quotation, 1 can accept that. But these statements may not be made in verse, no matter how pleasant they are to listen to. The idea is that these statements lasting only 90 seconds must be crisp, precise and concise, so the Member may have time to put a lot into those 90 seconds. Members will find out that one can put a lot into 90 seconds if the language is very strict and concise. I can accept a quotation of a line or two, but I guess that would be all.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), as reported, (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order with respect to the calling of this legislation today and with respect to the right of Members of Parliament to file amendments prior to today but subsequent to the report of the Committee on December 22, 1982.
As the House knows from looking at Votes and Proceedings for December 22, 1982, the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates reported out Bill C-133 without amendment. We then broke for Christmas recess and we are back today, on January 17, 1983, and this is the first order of business called. The question arises as to whether or not it can be called in the event that there are amendments yet to be filed.
I want to tell the House that on January 1 1, 1983-before we came here-I delivered by hand to the deputy principal clerk of the Journals Branch two report stage amendments which he did not accept. I am not quarrelling with that, but he did not accept those amendments.


Erik Nielsen: I will be.


Walter David Baker: There may be others who will feel that he ought to have accepted them at that time and that they ought to have appeared on the Order Paper. In any event, he did not accept them and they did not appear on the Order Paper. Those amendments are still there and I would like them to be considered by the House. They are substantive amendments to the Bill.
The first one is to curtail the length of the application of the Act itself; the second one was put down for the purpose of assuring that after the period of limitation of indexing has been run, a superannuate, a person on a pension, will not have suffered any diminution of his pension rights as a result of that curtailment for the two-year period set forth in the Bill.
Those are the two amendments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has one somewhat the same, but I felt it was important, the report state being what it is, that all Members of Parliament be able to express themselves, and that is what I wanted to do with respect to the appropriate amendments to this Bill. I want to have those amendments considered by the House, Madam Speaker. They were not accepted by the deputy principal clerk.

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
1 am now suggesting on my point of order that, under the rules and practices of this House which go back for some period of time, those amendments should be accepted; and equally by the practice we ought not to consider Bill C-133 until the appropriate period of time has passed for those amendments to be filed, printed and dealt with in the normal way.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier gave us the precedent with the judgment of Mr. Speaker Jerome on July 15, 1977, and that was the precedent for a report stage on a Friday, the Hon. Member being allowed until six o'clock on the following Monday to file his amendments. That is the weekend principle, and I think that a weekend principle applies as well.
Therefore, I have another case which I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair. It is the judgment of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux given on Tuesday, October 6, 1970, and it dealt with the case over a summer adjournment of the House of Commons. The only difference between these two is the weather more than anything else, but it was a long adjournment. I am going to read briefly from the judgment of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, if 1 may. It appears at page 8841 of Hansard and reads as follows:
The report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture was tabled in the House on Friday, June 26 last, as appears in Votes and Proceedings for that date. This was the day on which Parliament recessed for the summer.
In this case we recessed for the Christmas adjournment. He continues:
As is the usual practice, distribution was made of those Votes and Proceedings the following Monday, June 29. The House met after the summer recess on Monday, October 5. Again, as is the practice, during the week before the resumption of the business of the House on October 5, the Order Paper was distributed to hon. members. That Order Paper carried as a government order the entry dealing with the report stage of Bill C-196. According to the Notice Paper appended to today's Order Paper, a number of motions standing in the name of hon. member for Crowfoot and other hon. members were received prior to 6 p.m. yesterday, October 5. Standing Order 75 deals with the report stage of public bills following their consideration in committee.
Hon. Members have referred the Chair to sections 5 and 8 of Standing Order 75. Perhaps for the record I may be allowed to quote sections 3 and 5 of the relevant Standing Order.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux went on to do so, and then he continued:
The question for the Chair to determine is whether the requirements of the relevant Standing Order have been met. Section 3 of Standing Order 75 is clear that a committee report cannot be considered by the House until 48 hours have elapsed following the presentation of the report. How is this requirement to be interpreted?
There is another Standing Order which requires 48 hours notice. The unquestioned practice of the House has been that the 48-hour notice requirement is met when that period extends over a weekend or over two sitting days. For example, a notice tabled at six o'clock on Monday may be dealt with at two o'clock on Wednesday. Similarly, a notice filed at six o'clock on Wednesday can be dealt with by the House at eleven o'clock on Friday. A notice filed Friday afternoon can be dealt with on Monday afternoon at two o'clock, in spite of the fact that two sitting days have not elapsed ...
I am sorry I am using a precedent which dates back to April 14, 1913, but I thought we should go back somewhat to indicate that this has been the practice for many years now. This precedent confirms my interpretation of the Standing Order, an interpretation which was accepted before the ru,;ng of 1913 and which
has been followed since then. The ruling can be found in Beauchesne's third edition at page 827.
If the 48-hour requirement is met in the circumstances I have just outlined, it has certainly been met if the report has been filed on a Friday and the report is brought forth for consideration on the following Tuesday, even if there has been an extended recess between the two days. I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot, that it would have been unfair and contrary to the spirit of the Standing Order to have attempted to proceed to the report stage yesterday-
"Yesterday" was the day the question arose.
-since in practice there would not have been the proper time in which to file amendment motions. On this basis I suggest the report stage could not have been proceeded with yesterday. In fairness to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), this is a point which was made very clearly by him.
I quote this precedent, Madam Speaker, to indicate that I was denied, rightly or wrongly-and I am not making an accusation when I use the word "denied"-the right to file an amendment on January 11. I filed formally on January 11 an amendment which is important to me as a Member of Parliament and, incidentally, important to the Party. I believe I ought to have time to file that amendment, or I should have the unanimous consent of the House to file the amendment. We could argue about the procedure later on.
In any event, it appears that the Standing Orders of the House indicate that Bill C-133 cannot be considered, at least to the detriment of my right to file an amendment. That is my whole point. I am not arguing to hold up for an extra day the consideration of Bill C-133, but if it means that I cannot file my amendment or that my amendment is not now acceptable and will not be printed, then I am quite prepared to say that the Government business should stand. The Government House Leader said there are 17 other pieces of legislation which he has. One other of them should be called today so that my amendment can be filed in accordance with the practice set forth by Mr. Speaker Jerome in 1977 and Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in 1970. That is the point I wish to make.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest and also, 1 must admit, with sympathy to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). On the one hand, the old Standing Order 75(5)1, that 24 hours must elapse before consideration at the report stage and that there has to be at least 24 hours, notice for the amendments, but this does not prevent the House from proceeding to the report stage on a Monday if a bill is reported on the previous Friday. On the other hand, the Hon. Member tells us that he attempted to give notice of an amendment to a bill during a recess. He also referred to a few precedents, namely a precedent dating back to 1939 which is so mouldy that it is difficult to read, and one more recent of a ruling given on February 15, 1977, which also seems relevant to the discussion.
The situation is therefore that Standing Orders prescribe the procedure to be followed on the one hand, and the Government has dutifully followed this procedure by calling Bill C-133, today which is now under consideration. 1 would like to refer
January 17, 1983

you to former Standing Order 75(5) which has now become Standing Order 79(5) and which gives the procedure to be followed. 1 suggest that the Government has complied with this procedure. The rule states:
If. not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a Notice Paper.
We received the report from the committee on Wednesday, December 22, 1982 and this is now January 17, 1983. The prescribed 24 hours have elapsed and we have indeed respected fully the intent of the Standing Orders. Nothing in our written rules says that we cannot proceed on a Monday when a bill is reported on the previous Friday.
As for the complaint first raised by the Elon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I must say that I have not quite as much sympathy, not for him personally because he is a very good friend, but with his argument, because in fact he has suffered no prejudice as a result of this situation. He himself gave notice of two amendments at the proper time, on the day when the bill was reported. 1 have here today's Order Paper and, on page IX, we see two amendment motions, Nos. 4 and 5, in the name of Mr. Gauthier. Therefore, without prejudice to him even though the bill was only reported around 3 o'clock on Wednesday, December 22, he managed to give notice of two amendments in good time.
The situation is somewhat different in the case of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) since he tried to follow the new Section 79(5) of the Standing Orders by giving his notice 24 hours before the debate was resumed. However, since this was during an adjournment of the House or by analogy, if we refer to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome, during a weekend, his notice was refused. With all due respect to the officers of the House, I would personally challenge that decision. It seems to me that there was nothing to prevent the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton from giving his notice during the Christmas adjournment. First, it was a matter of common knowledge that, because of the urgency of the situation, we would proceed today with consideration of Bill C-133. This was not only a matter of common knowledge, but I had personally announced it in this House on December 22 for the information of the opposition Members. We subsequently had the opportunity to speak about this and I have had no indication from either the Opposition or the Government Members, including my hon. friend for Ottawa-Vanier, that they did not want us to proceed with this Bill today until this point of order was raised a few minutes ago. 1 therefore believe that the only actual prejudice resulting from this if indeed there is any, is that mentioned by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. In the circumstances, since the Standing Orders are not quite clear, that is since they are completely silent about the right to give notice during an adjournment, I believe that we would be
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
ill-advised to object to the request made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton concerning these amendments, of which he tried to give notice before Bill C-133 was called today, on or about January 10 or 11, 1983. I believe that, legally, we could do so if we were to refuse the tabling of these amendments, and I suggest that we can nevertheless proceed now with the report stage of the bill. On behalf of the Government, in any case, I have no objection to the amendments of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton being considered when the debate is launched later today on Bill C-133.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, we are being asked to consider not only the letter of the rules, but also their intent, just as we must look both at the letter and at the intent of a ruling. If I may, I would like to point out that Mr. Speaker Jerome said in his ruling: "I believe that we shall not be able to proceed on Monday with the report stage of the Bill because the Bill was reported only today, on Friday". I draw your attention to the fact that this ruling was made on Friday July 15, 1977. Two days ahead of time, at the very moment that the Bill was reported and the Government indicated its intention to proceed with the Bill on the following Monday, the objection was raised. This was done at the very moment the Government announced its intention to proceed with the report stage on the following Monday so that both sides of the House have reasonable notice of the change in the order of business. The situation is different today. The point of order was not raised on December 22, but at the very last minute when Bill C-133 had already been called, but in spite of this difference, we would be willing to allow the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to give notice of his amendments. In his ruling, Mr. Speaker Jerome had given notice to both sides of the House of his intention to prevent the House from proceeding with the report stage on the following Monday. As you can see, the situation is different in this case. No one rose on a point of order on December 22. On the contrary, several members gave notice of amendment motions. The Minister did so, an NDP Member did so, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) did so and all this on December 22 before the adjournment. We then have the case of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. I shall not repeat what I have already said. We are willing to agree that those amendments be added to the list. However, this consent notwithstanding, even if it were refused, I respectfully submit that the fact that we announced on December 22 our intention to proceed today with Bill C-133 was a matter of common knowledge and that no one rose on a point of order on December 22 when this House was informed of our intention to proceed today with consideration of Bill C-133. I therefore submit that in these circumstances, we are quite justified in proceeding with this Bill as soon as possible today.

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if I heard the Government House Leader correctly, notwithstanding the fact that the amendments the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) wishes to propose do not appear on the Notice Paper today, the Government is prepared, at the appropriate time in the report stage debate, to have those two questions put and to allow us, should we so choose, to divide on them.
In addition, if I understand it correctly, the position of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is that he still has an amendment to propose. I, therefore, on behalf of this party am prepared to extend the same courtesy to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier with respect to his amendment, nothwithstanding the fact that it does not appear on the Notice Paper.


Walter David Baker: They should be on tomorrow's Notice Paper.


Erik Nielsen: As my hon. friend says, if the debate goes beyond today they should certainly appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper.
I want to endorse completely what the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton has had to say with respect to the precedent set by Mr. Speaker Jerome, but I also want to raise what I consider to be an equally important and related point to the whole process of filing amendments, perhaps not only at the report stage. It involves the nature and extent of the responsibilities of Table Officers. I do not wish them to take anything I am about to say in a personal way at all. I think we have some of the finest professional talent at the Table that I have seen here in many years in the House. However, the submission I am about to make to the Chair is going to require the Chair to clarify and perhaps reconfirm the duties of the Officers in the service of the House, and I intend to back up my submissions by appropriate citations from our precedents.
There is no doubt, in my submission, Madam Speaker, that among the duties the House Officers have is the task of receiving Members' notices of amendment and ensuring that such notices are printed on the Notice and Order Papers. Citation 139 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition outlines the procedural duties of the Clerk. Subsection (6) reads as follows:
He prepares and issues a daily Order Paper for each sitting of the House and, as required, a Special Order Paper.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, Citation 141 outlines the duties of the Clerk Assistant, and in Subsection (2) this appears:
They receive the notices of questions, motions and amendments which have to be entered on the Notice Paper. They also receive amendments from Members proposing to amend the motion before the House at that time. It is their duty to see that these are drawn according to the rules of the House and to refer to the Speaker, the Clerk or the interested Member any that appear to be out of order.
That is as to content, Madam Speaker, of the draft submitted by the Hon. Member wishing to file the amendment, and not with respect to the interpretation which Table Officers may from time to time place upon the Starding Orders with
respect to the time of filing. That is a very important distinction.
Clearly it is the duty, in my submission, of the Table Officers to receive notices no matter what form they take. They also have the duty to ensure that such notices are drawn according to the rules of the House. However, they do not, in my respectful submission, have the authority to reject notices which in the view of the Table Officers are in an improper form. Indeed, where irregularities occur, it is their duty to notify the Member concerned and/or the Speaker of their belief that a given notice is not in proper form or fails to meet some other requirement of the rules. It is not, however, the duty of the Table Officers to make a decision on such a question. That authority resides in the House itself, and through the House in the hands of the Speaker.
Citation 120 of Beauchesne illustrates the point I am attempting to make. At page 39, under the heading "Procedural Duties of the Speaker", it reads as follows:
Foremost among his many responsibilities, the Speaker has the duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises, by refusing to propose the question upon motions and amendments which are irregular, and by calling the attention of the House to bills which are out of order. He rules on points of order submitted to him by Members on questions as they arise. Many powers have been vested in the Speaker by virtue of the Standing Orders.
It is my submission that the rules and practices of the House are open to continuing interpretation both by the Speaker and by the House. This fact is underlined by Citation 11 at page 6 of Beauchesne. I draw your attention to that citation but I shall not quote it.
Finally, it is well established that the final authority in determining the proceedings of the House is the House itself. This point is emphasized by Citation 13 of Beauchesne. It was raised by my friend a moment ago and was anticipated by the Government House Leader when he gave an indication that the Government was prepared to have the question put that the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton would have proposed in his amendment.
My point in support of that raised by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton is that the Table Officers are obligated to accept notices which Members wish to file as long as they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders and their practices as to form. In my submission, they have no authority to reject those notices, as appears to have been done in this case. The decision as to the acceptability of those notices should be made in this House by Members of this House, according to our long-established practices.
When notices appear on the Order Paper and they appear to any Member to be irregular for whatever reason, then it is the duty of the Member to raise that matter as a point of order, if he so wishes, for decision by the Chair.
What we have here, with the greatest respect expressed as to the conduct of whatever Officer or Officers at the Table rejected this notice, is that a judgment was made as to the interpretation of Standing Order 79(5). With great respect to
January 17, 1983

the Government House Leader, he has somewhat misinterpreted that Standing Order, according to my reading of it-and it has not altered under the experimental rules-which gives a Member of Parliament a right to file a notice of motion at report stage as long as it is done 24 hours before the order is called.
If my memory is correct, in this case it is the submission of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton that the notice for filing was made on January 11; certainly it was well before that 24-hour requirement. In my submission, it would be undesirable as well as improper for either this House or the Speaker to expect Table Officers to make judgments on the merits with respect to any notice filed.
Briefly, I believe the Table is obliged to accept notices proposed by Members, and it is up to the Chair or the House to raise questions as to the irregularity at the time the order is called.


Madam Speaker:: On this particular point of order, I should like to say that, strictly speaking, if we were to read the Standing Orders and apply the strict wording of them, we could proceed today. In consequence of that, the Government was obviously not at fault in wanting to proceed with Bill C-133 today. However, because of the time at which this particular report was received by the House, namely on the last day we sat before the Christmas recess, and, this being the first day we have reconvened, the interpretation is quite legitimate that, in the course of what is considered to be a weekend or, by analogy, some period of recess for the House, strictly speaking, we could take the report which had been deposited on the last day of the sitting.
This particular Standing Order does not make clear what happens when the sitting days are not consecutive to the one on which the report was received by the House, namely, when between that time and the time the report is to be considered there is either a weekend or a recess of the House. This has been interpreted by my two predecessors in two precedents, one of which was quoted by the Hon. Members who have intervened.
This point requires an interpretation. In this particular case, because the report was tabled late on December 22, and exceptionally we are reconvening much earlier than was normal, which would have been at two o'clock. So the time involved has been much shorten. I think the two precedents would have to inspire my ruling.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has offered to give his consent to the amendments of the aggrieved Members being received by the House. I think that would have to apply to all Members but I do not know whether other Members have amendments. I suppose the idea expressed by the President of the Privy Council would be that all amendments which Members want to table would be accepted, not only those which would be proposed by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Under unanimous consent I think we could do this and that is one way of solving the
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
problem. If the House gives unanimous consent for the acceptance of these particular amendments, then we could quite easily proceed today.
1 want to reply to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who raised the matter of the duty of the Officers of the House in receiving and printing amendments brought in by Hon. Members. He argued that under Standing Order 79 the Officers of the Table ought to have accepted the amendments and that the only latitude they have is to refuse amendments because they are not acceptable as to form.
I want to tell the Hon. Member that the Officers of the House have not been able to print the amendment brought in by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton because they were acting under Standing Order 47. They did not on their own deny the right of the Hon. Member to table the amendments; they recognize that they must receive the amendments proposed by Hon. Members. However, they do have to be guided by the rules, and Standing Order 47(1) reads as follows:
Such notice shall be laid on the Table before six o'clock p.m., or before five o'clock p.m. on a Friday, and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
That was a hang up; simply because those amendments had not been presented before six o'clock on the day of the adjournment. That was the only basis. They quite rightly could not print the notice of amendment in today's Order Paper, so they did exactly what they were supposed to do according to the Standing Orders.
Therefore, perhaps I could ask the House to give its unanimous consent to accepting the notices of amendments.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 listened with interest to your ruling. I wonder whether you might explain one part of it in order that I could make a clear judgment about it. If unanimous consent were not forthcoming-which I am not suggesting is the case-is the Speaker ruling that, because the 48-hour notice period was during an adjournment of the House and therefore the Friday to Monday rule came into effect, the Government cannot proceed with this piece of legislation today, that we would have to deal with a separate piece of legislation and allow the 48 hours to apply to the presentation of the amendments?


Madam Speaker:: I did not rule. I commented on the different interventions made by the Hon. Members. I would not rule on a hypothetical situation. I said that the time had been exceptionally short and that the two precedents would inspire my ruling, but the situation as it stands now is hypothetical. If the House gives its unanimous consent, then we do not have a problem before us. Again I ask the House whether it gives its unanimous consent to accepting notices of amendments to Bill C-133.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in your proposal you say that you are asking for the unanimous consent of the House to allow Hon. Members, and not just the Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), to give notice of amendments before
21884

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
three o'clock this afternoon. Are we therefore to understand, and I would like to be quite clear on this, that even if Members have the right to give notice of amendments, this right does not determine the acceptability of the amendments? They could still be rejected? I would like to clear up this point about their acceptability.


Madam Speaker:: That is exactly what 1 mean. Members may give notice of an amendment, but if the amendment is not acceptable as to form, obviously, and we normally do so if that is the case, it could be rejected. The same rules apply as before, and the only point being discussed now is whether the House is willing to give unanimous consent to allow Members who wish to do so to give notice of amendments.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I want to assure you that there is no intention on the part of myself or that of my colleagues to deny unanimous consent, but 1 want to be clear on something. I am concerned that, by going the route of unanimous consent, we are weakening the right of a Member to insist upon his or her opportunity to present an amendment, taking into account the precedents laid before the House by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). In any future discussions similar to this, we would once again have to go the unanimous consent route, since there was no clear ruling on whether the 48-hour notice period had been properly observed and the opportunity given to a Member to do what the normal practice and precedent would allow.
If it is in the opinion of the Speaker appropriate for a Member to challenge the legislation being brought forward at this time, and given that the 48-hour notice was not properly observed for the presentation of amendments, I would prefer that we go that route and then give unanimous consent to bring in the amendments, rather than give unanimous consent and not have a ruling on the position very well put by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton.


Yvon Pinard: Not necessarily, Madam Speaker. If at some time in the future, you were to ask for the unanimous consent of the House and failed to obtain it, you could then make a ruling based on the circumstances. But today, we have a very specific situation which is different from the one with which the Speaker, Mr. Jerome at the time, had to deal in 1977, when the point of order was raised at the appropriate time. We have here a new aspect which was not dealt with in that ruling, and on which you will not have to make a ruling today, if you obtain the desired unanimous consent.


Madam Speaker:: May I make it quite clear to the Hon. Member that it is difficult, at his request, for me to rule on a particular situation which has not yet arisen. If unanimous consent is not given, then I will deal with the matter. I do not think the right of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton would be weakened if we went through the route of unanimous
consent, because his right and that of all other Members to give notice of amendments is quite clear in the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders. It is not weakened in any way. We have here a particular situation which we have abundantly discussed and that all recognize. In order to allow the Hon. Member to exercise his right to give notice of amendments, we would need unanimous consent. Will the House give its unanimous consent to allowing Hon. Members to give notice of amendments before 1500 hours?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam
Speaker, I have been listening carefully, and I think we have a problem here which I am unable to resolve. The Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has two amendments which are stangely similar, at least as far as I have been able to ascertain, to my own two amendments which are on the Order Paper. If between now and one o'clock, we have time to start the debate on Bill C-133, are you going to let the Member for Nepean-Carleton, and this is purely hypothetical, discuss amendments or changes to Bill C-133 and give him ten minutes to speak to the same subject as I would? I asked for a debate on this point in the House. If so, I want to get back to my ten minutes' speaking time I mentioned earlier. If you allow the Member for Nepean-Carleton to table amendments that are strangely similar to mine and if you give him ten minutes more to speak to an amendment, I should also be entitled to ten minutes for Amendment No. 4 and ten minutes for Amendment No. 5, on a guaranteed basis, and the two amendments should not be combined to allow a total ten minutes' speaking time for both.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if I may say so, I think you dealt with that point. I believe it was you who said, in the course of discussion this morning, that the rules with respect to grouping would still apply. The Chair would have to take some part of lunch hour to review the amendments and decide whether or not my amendments should be grouped with those of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. I would not mind that, if that is the way the Chair decided. I do not think that departs from the understanding in any way or that my friend is prejudiced in any way.
My point was that I did not think I should be prejudiced because I happened to be the one in the firing line in this matter, or that any other colleague in the House should be prejudiced by the rule. I hope there will be unanimous consent. Then I could march up to the Table and present my amendments, joined by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier in presenting his.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: To answer the question raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I feel that it all depends on how the Chair decides to combine the amendments. If the Hon. Member's amendment and that of the Hon.
January 17, 1983

Member for Nepean-Carleton were combined, in that case, the ten-minute rule would apply.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 am not trying to stop the amendments, but 1 am trying to find out how the procedure could possibly work. We do not know what are the amendments. They are not on the Order Paper; they cannot be grouped now. We will proceed with the Bill immediately. It is entirely possible that some amendment may well be moved that will apply to a section with which we will proceed right away. It would appear to me to be an inconsistency or, for that matter, it would be depriving Parliament of the proper opportunity to deal with matters legally before it in an orderly manner.
I suggest that we give unanimous consent for the presentation of the amendments, but that the Bill simply cannot be proceeded with until the amendments are put on the Table, until those amendments are properly grouped and the groupings are then made known to Members of the House of Commons.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there is a very easy way around this if we were to allow the House to start working now. It would be to start with Motion No. 2, in the name of the Minister, which needs a Royal recommendation and therefore cannot be joined with any other amendment coming from the Opposition. The Minister confirmed that he had no intention of moving any other amendment. Therefore, if we were to start debate now on Motion No. 2, this could be done and Parliament could start work right now; we would not have to waste half an hour.


Madam Speaker:: I think I have to agree with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). This is not unusual. Parliament has proceeded in this way before. Groupings have been made by the Chair so that debate may commence. Grouping at some point will be given by the Chair if it is necessary, and amendments will be dealt with consequently.
Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
We do have a certain number of amendments. The Chair did proceed to the grouping of those for which it had notice. The grouping is as follows: Motion No. 1, in the name of the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), goes beyond the scope of the Bill in that it introduces a method of determining pension benefits not contemplated by the Bill as adopted by the House at second reading. I refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1). Furthermore, the motion seems to extend the objects and purposes as set out in the Royal recommendation. Once again I refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(7).
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Motion No. 2 is procedurally acceptable and will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 3 seeks to introduce into the legislative process elements which are not part of that process. In effect, the motion, if adopted, would place a condition on the coming into force provision of the legislation based upon an agreement between a Minister of the Crown and certain persons or groups of persons. The Chair is not aware of any procedure whereby members of the public could exercise the powers which are exclusively vested in Parliament. For this reason, I regret to say that the Hon. Member's motion is not acceptable.
Motion No. 4 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), seems to be contradictory to the Bill as agreed to by the Committee. The Hon. Member proposes in his motion a method of indexing pensions as though the Bill was never enacted. In this regard I would like to cite, in part, paragraph (2) of Citation 773 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition as follows:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the Bill as so far agreed to by the committee-
For this reason, I regret that 1 must rule Motion No. 5 out of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, you said that Amendment No. 5 was rejected by the Chair. 1 have not had enough time to look into all aspects of the matter, but it seems to me that in this House it has been the practice to allow Members to defend their amendments or changes before the Chair rejects them. I might have wished to make a few comments in support of Amendment No. 5, and if that is not the case-


Madam Speaker:: Motion No. 5 was ruled out of order because the Hon. Member's amendment is not acceptable as to form. It is contradictory, and in fact nullifies the provisions of the bill. It is, in fact, a new bill. Consequently, as the Hon. Member is aware, it cannot be allowed to proceed. The amendment is not acceptable, either in form or substance. It entirely contradicts the bill proposed by the Government. I could therefore not accept the amendment nor can the Hon. Member speak to this amendment.


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, could I also raise a point of order at this time with respect to Motion No. 4? With respect, I would like to suggest that this is also a motion which would require a Royal recommendation. I say this because presumably the Hon. Member's intent in moving it was to provide for the benefit index base to catch up to the level it would have reached without Bill C-133.


Walter David Baker: No, Madam Speaker, that is wrong.

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am arguing that this would require a Royal recommendation since it would increase the base from that provided in Bill C-133 for further indexation.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member may have an argument for some other amendment but certainly not with respect to Motion No. 4. All that Motion No. 4 says is what the Bill says, but it underlines and underscores it. The Government has told us, the Bill tells us, that this program is to be in effect for two years. All that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has said to the Government is: "Put your money where your mouth is". The Bill is to last for two years. If the Government is arguing about that, then I suspect perhaps there is something sinister in what the Government is considering by extending the period beyond that. That is all the amendment says. I believe I moved that amendment in committee for the Hon. Member because he could not, having been thrown off the committee by someone. 1 think the amendment should stand.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. Members are debating that particular motion. I have ruled on it and I would hope the House will accept my ruling, debate Motion No. 2 and vote on it if necessary.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), be amended in Clause 2
(a)	by striking out the figure "262.56" opposite the year 1983 at page 2 and substituting the figure "263.80"; and
(b)	by striking out the figure "275.69" opposite the year 1984 at page 2 and substituting the figure "278.31"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion before us gives effect to the modification to Bill C-133, which I said I would be putting forward in my speech on second reading of the Bill. The Motion substitutes the benefit indices shown for 1983 and 1984 for those originally proposed in the Bill. The effect of these revised figures is to provide for pension increases under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act at 6.5 per cent in 1983 and 5.5 per cent in 1984, instead of 6 per cent and 5 per cent as originally proposed.
As 1 mentioned in my earlier remarks to the House, the Government has decided that this modification should be made as a result of representations primarily from Members of the caucus supporting the Government. Those Members pointed out, and I shared their concern, that there is a difference between the indexing arrangements made for retired federal public servants and the public programs to which the six and five limits are being applied; that is to say, the Old Age Security and Family Allowances Programs. The difference is that public servants have made some direct contributions toward the cost of indexing and these moneys are set aside in the Government accounts under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account until they are used to pay for an individual's pension increases. Old Age Security and Family Allowance payments are financed entirely from general revenues contributed by the taxpayers of Canada.
It was argued that to cap the portion of indexing payable from the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account would, in effect, mean that the employees' own contributions were being taken away as part of the Government's restraint program. Since the program is intended to apply to Government expenditures coming from general tax revenues, this did not seem appropriate.
Accordingly, I am proposing that the restraint measures should be applied to that portion of indexing which is currently being directly financed by taxpayers in the same way as for Old Age Security and Family Allowances. We are accepting the principle that the restraint measures should not apply to that portion of indexing of Public Service pensions coming from direct contributions by the employees and the matching employer contributions.
I might explain, Mr. Speaker, how this principle has been translated into the 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent increases that will result from the indices proposed in the amendment. Hon. Members are likely aware that the indexing program has only been in effect and employees have only been contributing for this benefit since the early 1970s. Each individual's contributions are recorded and used to provide his or her own indexing benefits, which means that many pensioners have already received back all of their accumulations in pension increase payments. Subsequent benefits to these pensioners and benefits for those who never contributed because they retired prior to 1970 are payable directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund which comes from moneys provided by the taxpayers generally across Canada.
Looking at the historical data, we find that the ratio of indexing paid directly by taxpayers from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to that paid from amounts set aside in the account is over 90 per cent to less than 10 per cent. We have estimated, as well, the possible ratios over the next few years, taking into account the fact that new retirees have contributed over longer periods and have paid more for their pension indexing while inflation rates are declining. We have concluded that it would be reasonable to cap 90 per cent of the indexing at 6 per cent and that the other 10 per cent of indexing for which advanced contributions have been made will not be capped but will be at the full 11.5 per cent level that would have been payable in 1983. On this basis, 6.5 per cent can be paid in 1983.
For 1984, the same approach using estimated full indexing of 8.2 per cent based on the 7.5 per cent inflation rate projected for 1983 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in his October economic statement, will be used to allow an increase of 5.5 per cent. In passing, I would also like to say that all indications are that inflation will be very much lower than the projection of the Minister of Finance in his economic statement last October.
Inevitably, these calculations cannot be precise since they must involve estimates and assumptions about the future, but I believe they have been made on a reasonable basis. More
January 17, 1983

importantly, they do recognize the principle which I stated earlier, that employees' savings should not, in effect, be subject to the capping as part of the over-all six and five program.
I suppose it could be argued that instead of sharing this added amount to be paid as indexing among all beneficiaries, it should only be paid to those who still have a credit in the account. However, this would mean that those who retired over the last few years could receive full indexing until their credits were depleted, at which point they would suffer an actual reduction in their pension cheques. It would also mean that the added one-half of 1 per cent would not be available to those who have been in retirement for some time and who are more likely to be in need, as compared to those who have retired in more recent years when higher salaries were in effect. It is unlikely that this latter group would seek to maximize their own position at the expense of others.
I would also like to explain that there is no provision to actually charge the additional .5 per cent to be paid to all beneficiaries to those who still have a credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account. We recognize the principle that an amount equal to what would have been paid from the account will be paid, and the added cost of $6 million in 1983 and $12 million in 1984 will be borne by general revenues. This will reduce the projected savings available under Bill C-133 for reallocation to other programs in the area of job creation to $60 million in 1983 and $105 million in 1984.
1 have gone into considerable detail on what might be called the mechanics of the modification I am proposing. I have done so because 1 wish to be very clear that the Government has not changed the application of its restraint program. We are, instead, recognizing the nature of the contributory benefit arrangement that has been established by Parliament for public servants and are endeavouring not to interfere with the contributory aspect of that arrangement. This is consistent with the fact that indexing under the Canada Pension Plan for which only direct employee and employer contributions are made has not been included in the restraint program.
During committee consideration of this Bill there has been comment to the effect that the financing arrangements for the indexing of pensions should be on a different basis and that the proportion being charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund could be lessened by combining the pension accounts, and so on. In response, I want to reiterate what I said in my speech on second reading, that these fundamental and longer-term pension policy issues should be addressed in the context of the debate on national pension reform.
We are now concerned with a temporary measure that relates to a broad economic program to restore the Canadian economy, bring down inflation and interest rates and provide a basis for the maintenance and creation of jobs. This proposal should be looked at in that light. Polls continue to show that the need for this program is clear to the great majority of Canadians. 1 believe that although there has been an active campaign to express the understandable disappointment that many superannuants feel, as they consider the matter, I would like to think that they also will come to understand what the Government is striving to achieve through the six and five
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
program; that is, to improve the economic situation for them and all Canadians. Therefore, I would ask the House to support this amendment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that what first must become evident from the statements which have been made by the Minister today is that he has virtually wasted the Christmas recess, because he had an opportunity during that period to engage in some broadranging consultation. He has not done so. For the Minister to say that federal superannuants or serving members of the Public Service are disappointed with this Bill is, to say the least, an understatement.
I, too, want to repeat what I said at second reading stage. It is treachery, it is regarded as treachery and will be regarded as treachery. It will not be regarded by the Public Service as just a matter of disappointment. I suggest to the House that this issue and its effects will spread much further than among Members in the national capital area. If the Minister had taken time-which he obviously did not-to read the submissions that were made by the private sector actuaries as to the possible effects of this measure in terms of private sector plans reflecting the cost of living, and if the Government learned anything from it, it ought to have learned that it has embarked on a very dangerous precedent which will not be forgotten.
There has been a second breach of faith. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) was not President of the Treasury Board when the statement was made in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee by the former President of the Treasury Board, who has gone on to something else, that the Government had no intention of dealing with pensions except as part of a national pension review. I accepted that. The public servants accepted it. Their organizations accepted it. That was the second breach of faith within this Bill which was heralded in that budget of a Minister of Finance who has long since passed on to his just reward. I have always been told to speak kindly of the dead and 1 will. This Minister has lost the opportunity to redeem himself.
What is a Member of Parliament to do with respect to this bonus of 5 per cent for two years? I suppose it is closer to the 11.5 per cent than 5 per cent or 6 per cent so we are bound to accept it. But 1 do not want anyone in the House to assume that, by accepting this little crumb, this little pittance, from the President of the Treasury Board, he or the Government will ever be forgiven for putting the retired public servants into the trenches in the Government's war against inflation.
The Government speaks out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and this Minister's predecessor mentioned during CTV's "Question Period" this great fight against inflation. The Minister mentioned this morning that they are winning the battle against inflation since the rates are going down and will reach 6 per cent and 5 per cent. This is taking place even without this Bill being in place. This is occurring as a result of other economic policies of the Government which are impacting upon the recipients of

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Old Age Security, Family Allowance and the supplementary benefits.
If those things are already taking place, then I must ask myself, why is Bill C-133 necessary at all? The Government has so run down the economy of Canada that even its legislation cannot speed the process any further. I did not make this point on second reading, but I say to the Government now that one of the things it ought to have thought about over the Christmas recess, when I had a chance to consider this situation, is why it is doing this when it is not in place. That is something the public should certainly think about. Already the Government is saying that its objectives will be reached, not because of Bill C-133, not because of changes in the old age pension, not because of changes in the Family Allowance, but, rather, by reason of its economic policies which have thrown people out of work and killed investor confidence. That is why inflation will go down.
Therefore, Bill C-133 is not even necessary at all except for one purpose, and the Minister put his finger on it when he said that the polls revealed the necessity for it. 1 would like to see the polls tabled some time. 1 would like to see how the questions were couched. 1 think I could guess. The question would have been: "Do you think those big, fat, happy, lazy public servants and those who are on pension should be cut off?" The answer would be "Yes". And the second question, "Do we have any more sympathy for federal superannuants than for the serving public servant"? Of course, the answer to that question would be "No". That is the poll he speaks of.


Mrs. Mitchell:: How did you vote on Bill C-124?


Walter David Baker: I voted in favour of Bill C-124, and the Hon. Member knows it. If the Hon. Member wants to go out and talk to the serving public servant, the serving public servant said: "Yes, I am prepared to do my share". However, public servants are not prepared, any more than any other person, to see senior citizens, old age pensioners and retired public servants in the front line of this Government's fight against inflation. That is it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Inconsistent!


Walter David Baker: I should know better than to rise to what is an unbaited hook.


An Hon. Member:: It's your guilty conscience.


Walter David Baker: That is the situation. Therefore, I will now say to the Government that Hon. Members of this Party will, of course, vote for the amendment which amounts to the 30 pieces of silver which are being set forth to bribe a wee bit of support out of the Liberal caucus, to apply just a little bit of cosmetic to the situation, enabling the Government to say: "We did do something for you". However, I say that the breach of faith which was apparent in the budget
and in the introduction and second reading of this Bill still exists and that no amount of cosmetic will improve the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has given the Chair notice of his intention to move his motions and has given the Chair an opportunity to examine them. The Chair has some misgivings as to the procedural acceptability of the motion to amend Clause 1 of the Bill. The reservations which were expressed in relation to Motion No. 5 must also apply in this case and therefore, regrettably, the Chair must also rule this motion out of order.
The Hon. Member's other motion is procedurally acceptable, and for purposes of debate will be grouped with Motion No. 2. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 would dispose of this motion. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 would necessitate the question being put on the Hon. Member's motion.


Mr. Murphy:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour just made a ruling on a number of amendments. We do not have copies and without that information we are really not sure what is being discussed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has attempted to set the record straight in order to assist Hon. Members in anticipating the debate following the debate on this particular amendment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully like, at the very least, to reserve the right to raise a point of order with respect to what Your Honour said about the acceptability and grouping of the amendments. I understood Your Honour to say that one of the amendments of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was acceptable and would be grouped with Motion No. 2.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has made a decision on the matter.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to what Your Honour said with regard to the amendments, in the interest of understanding what you ruled in order and what you ruled out of order, and given the fact that we have not seen the amendment, wonder whether you might be prepared to read the amendments-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), the Chair has attempted to make it easier for Hon. Members to understand by putting into Hansard, at this stage, certain decisions. I think that when the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has an opportunity to consider subsequent amendments and debate, the record will be quite clear.


Ian Deans: Well, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain does not have a point of order.


Ian Deans: How do you know?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: Are you challenging the Chair?
January 17, 1983


Ian Deans: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At the suggestion of the Hon. Member, and in the interests of clarifying Hansard, I will read the motion to the House with unanimous consent.


Ian Deans: Thank you very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton),
seconded by Mr. Epp (Provencher), moves:
That Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), be ainended in Clause 2 by striking out at page 2 the year "1984" and the figure "275.69" opposite the year "1984".


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could I respectfully ask a question? My Motion is before the House with the Royal recommendation because it affects the revenues and expenditures of the Government. I would respectfully like to inquire how one could group the resolution of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton with mine. I know it does not have the Royal recommendation and is directly in the same line of activity, although with opposite effect to my resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For purposes of debate, the Chair has ruled that the Motions should be grouped. The Motion in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) is based on the assumption of a Royal recommendation. The adoption of a Royal recommendation would, in the opinion of the Chair, make it possible for purposes of debate to consider the other amendment at the same time. This is a grouping for purposes of debate only.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) just finished making representations on Motion No. 2. I take it that since Your Honour has grouped his amendment with Motion No. 2, he will not be able to speak again on this grouping of two amendments.


Some Hon. Members:: Wrong.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well, I am asking the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The grouping is done for purposes of debate. The Chair has indicated that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 would dispose of this Motion. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 would necessitate the question being put on the Motion of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. This is the ruling of the Chair.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am sorry to insist, Mr. Speaker, but you have not answered my question. My question to you relates to the fact that since the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton has spoken on the grouping of two amendments, he cannot speak more than once on the grouping. Therefore, he has-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has answered the Hon. Member's question very precisely. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 will dispose of the Hon. Member's Motion. A
Statements Pursuant to S.O. 21
negative vote on Motion No. 2 would necessitate the question being put on the Hon. Member's Motion. I believe that deals with the point raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Dollard):: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity, and I am in fact the first Member to do so, to make a statement under the provisions of Standing Order 21 of the new Standing Orders of this House.
The Catholic Bishops of Canada declared recently that the present economic situation constitutes a "moral disorder" in our society. Their political comments on unemployment, inflation, industrial strategy, social responsibility and the role of the unions and capital are very interesting. They are proposing major changes in our values and priorities. Finally, the bishops want to promote public debate on the subject. Madam Speaker, it is my earnest wish, and I hope that this will happen, that a Committee of the House would invite the bishops to come and study with us the possibilities for-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



INCREASE IN STABILIZATION LEVY PAID BY PRODUCERS

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, during the Christmas recess I received a large number of representations from grain producers expressing concern about the maximum levy payable under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. With low grain prices, and continually increasing input costs, the income of producers is being very seriously eroded. The latest increase of 33V6 per cent means that the levy has increased 140 per cent since the program was instituted in 1976. The grain

January 17, 1983
Statements Pursuant to S.O. 21
producer has no choice but to pay. He is locked in. He cannot opt out. He is at the mercy of the Government. And many producers want the freedom to opt out.
Despite excellent suggestions made by the Official Opposition in debate and in committee, in 1975 and 1976, the then Minister, the Hon. Otto Lang, stubbornly turned a deaf ear. We therefore have a situation where the Government, by Order in Council, without debate in this House, has increased the levy 140 per cent. We also have a situation where farmers-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, the practising physicians in this country by virtue of their training, their daily exposure to the physical and social needs of the people, and by the special trust which the public have in them, are right well suited to act as members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The insight which a physician could bring to the Commission is especially needed at the present time when the rights of the handicapped are being extended into so many human activities. A physician's special knowledge and understanding of the many complexities of the obstacles in the way of the handicapped qualify members of this profession for such a post.
My particular concern at this time is that, since the inception of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, those responsible for the appointments to the Commission have never selected a medical doctor to be a member of that important body.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: The costs of last fall's 17-day closure of British Columbia ports are now being realized. Our trading partners attach great importance to reliability of supply and, as a result, bulk commodity sales were lost, not merely deferred as was hoped. The grain loss alone has been estimated at $150 million by Wheat Board officials. In addition, the work stoppage resulted in the loss of $2.7 million in container revenue to the Port of Vancouver. The ports of British Columbia have lost the good will of their customers and a major battle in attracting new business.
The Hope Report listed eight major areas of contention between the employers' association and the union. These longstanding differences precipitated work stoppages and resulting federal intervention in 1970, 1975, 1979 and 1982. These contentious issues were once again ignored by the Government in November's back-to-work legislation and by
the two parties in the last minute agreement which they were able to forge. Once again I implore the Government to strike-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Sixty seconds!



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to make a statement today on the discussion paper entitled "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis" which was issued recently by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. First, let me say that 1 agree wholeheartedly with the Bishops' message and believe that it offered Canadians both a comprehensive analysis of our economic conditions and an ethical standard for establishing priorities for an economic recovery program.
The human suffering and tragedy associated with a 12.8 per cent unemployment rate can no longer be tolerated. I am certain that all Members of the House support the Bishops' suggestion that being out of work, particularly in a country as rich as Canada, is a moral problem. In their words, "It is through the activity of work that people are able to exercise their creative spirit, realize their human dignity and share in creation". A person without work is a person without purpose.
We in the New Democratic Party support the Bishops' call for a basic shift in values which would see the goal of serving the human needs of all people in our society taking precedence over the maximization of profits. Our economic recovery strategies must incorporate the ethical principle that labour, not capital, must be given priority in the development of an economy based on justice. We add our voices to those of the Bishops in a call for community discussions of the issues raised in their statement, and call upon the Government to allocate ample time in the days ahead to allow the House to debate adequately the unemployment issue in an effort to identify answers and solutions to this most serious and destructive human and economic problem.



SUGGESTION COMMITTEE INVITE BISHOPS TO TESTIFY

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Desmarais), I also refer to the Catholic Bishops' statement pointing out the moral implications of high unemployment. I, for one, would like to make clear that 1 support the right of the Bishops to make such a statement and agree that more focus must be directed to the serious problem of unemployment, which is at near record levels in all parts of the country. While we might disagree with some of the economic analysis and solutions put forward by the Bishops, I believe we should accept their challenge and discuss the matters in their statement at greater length. Consequently, I would urge the
January 17, 1983

Minister of Employment to meet with this Committee of Bishops and, in addition, that under the new rules the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration invite the Bishops to testify before them.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the Minister responsible for the status of women has proposed that the income tax deduction for non-working spouses should be drastically cut or eliminated altogether. Her proposal has caused a great deal of anxiety for the thousands of Canadians who would lose this deduction if her plan were to be adopted. Contrary to the Minister's statement, most working spouses who claim this deduction earn less than $20,000 per year and are not, to use her word, "affluent".
The Minister's statement that non-working, childless women contribute nothing to society can only be termed misguided or ill informed. Surely all Members of this House will agree with me that the vast majority of non-working spouses have made and continue to make a tremendous contribution to Canada. I am referring to the hundreds of thousands of non-working spouses who make up the army of volunteers at the Red Cross, the United Way, hospital auxiliaries, and thousands of other volunteer organizations too numerous to mention. The direct saving to the Canadian taxpayer by our army of volunteers defies calculation.
The disguised attempt by the Government to increase its revenue by close to $1 billion by eliminating spousal deductions during these very difficult times of economic instability and high unemployment across Canada is causing anxiety and concern which must be cleared up immediately. The Government must clarify its position on this ill-timed trial balloon and remove the anxiety it has caused.



LIBERAL PARTY POLICY ON SPOUSAL DEDUCTION

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to make it clear that I, and the great majority of my constituents, strongly support the long-standing Liberal policy of providing tax exemptions for spouses who do not work outside the home-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gilbert Parent: -while at the same time providing opportunities through the tax system for those persons who work outside the home and also care for children. I would urge the Government to make clear as quickly as possible that, while it might wish to do more for the parent who is employed outside the home, it will not penalize those spouses whose work is in the home.
Statements Pursuant to S O. 21 LABOUR CONDITIONS



INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER ANNOUNCEMENT OF LAY-OFFS

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, the time allotted for this brief statement amounts to roughly seven one hundredths of a second on behalf of each of 1,200 workers at the International Harvester farm implement factory who have been told they will be laid off indefinitely at the end of April. Throwing out onto the streets another 1,200 families means yet another kick in the teeth to the Hamilton-Wentworth area as a direct result of the Government's economic policies. Because of high interest rates and low commodity prices, farmers simply do not have the cash to re-invest in new equipment and cannot afford to go into more debt.
The farmers will be working their land again, the farm implement business will come back, and International Harvester may survive. But the 1,200 laid off workers are still faced with making ends meet until the market warrants rehiring at International Harvester.
This latest addition to the Hamilton area's unemployment rolls underscores the urgency of having the federal Government designate Hamilton-Wentworth under the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program. The Government has recently seen fit to designate communities such as Sudbury and Port Alberni under ILAP, and cities like Brantford and Chatham have been given six months extensions on their ILAP designations. The Hamilton area is hurting just as badly as those other communities, particularly in the steel and farm implement machinery business. Surely the indefinite closing down of International Harvester is enough to convince the Government to help Hamilton-Wentworth under ILAP.



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, Canadians just learned in a week-end interview with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) that Chrysler is reneging on its commitment to Canadians by slashing production and, therefore, jobs in Canada. This is in complete violation of the funding agreement the company had with the Canadian Government in return for bailing it out of bankruptcy in 1981. Without that agreement, Chrysler would not have received any help from the U.S. and thus massive unemployment would have resulted in both countries.
The workers of Chrysler Canada, in good faith, agreed to freeze their income demand in order to make the company viable again. We in the NDP insist that the Government accept nothing less than that Chrysler live up to its commitments to the Canadian people.

January 17, 1983
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who will have received a letter from me asking that she publish the legal opinion of the Department of Justice which has led the Government to decide to issue family allowance cheques for less than the law requires. I understand the Minister has been in touch with the Minister of Justice, and I wonder if she will table now in the House of Commons, and make available to Parliament and the people of Canada, the legal opinion on which she is basing this action which we consider to be illegal and unjustified?

Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, while I was away, my office staff advised the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that all legal questions were to be directed to my colleague the Minister of Justice. I am now able to confirm that the January Family Allowance cheques which recipients should receive within the next few days will be increased by 6 per cent, while Old Age Security Pension cheques for that month because of the difference in the phrasing of the legislation will be increased by 11 per cent, and then increased by only 6 per cent thereafter once the legislation is passed by Parliament.


Charles Joseph Clark: Even the Minister of Health should know that when she gets the opinion she is responsible for tabling it in this House, or for defending the Government's refusal to table it in this House. The Minister of Communications tells me they are not tabled; of course they are tabled. One was tabled on November 30 by the Minister of Justice.


REQUEST THAT LEGAL OPINION BE TABLED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice, in committee, indicated that he would not table legal opinions which reflected on an individual. This legal opinion does not reflect on an individual; indeed, it reflects upon the rights of this Parliament to legislate before the Government acts, and it deals specifically with the needs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who may be denied what the law now accords them because this Government is acting illegally.
Will the Minister of Justice table that legal opinion?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition well knows, there is a long-standing tradition in this House of not tabling legal opinions of the Attorney General. The fact is, though, Madam Speaker, that I am perfectly prepared to enunciate the salient points of that opinion for the Right Hon. Member. I can tell him that the
adjustments contemplated by the Family Allowances Act are annual adjustments, not monthly adjustments. In addition, the legislation does not require that the monthly payments should be of equal amounts.
Of course, if Bill C-132 is passed during the 1983 year, the amount paid under the new scheme will be exactly the right amount. If it is not passed during 1983, there would then have to be an adjustment at some stage to the monthly payments.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me interpret what the Minister of Justice has said. He has said that if this Parliament does not approve the Bill by the end of 1983, then this Minister's action to deny payments due to family allowance recipients across the country is illegal. That is what the Minister of Justice has just now said in this House of Commons.


GOVERNMENT TREATMENT OF LEGAL OPINIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: I ask the
Minister of Justice, Madam Speaker, to have the courage to place upon the Table of the House of Commons the full legal opinion which has been received. He did it once with regard to the legal culpability of RCMP officers, so may I ask him why he is prepared to table a legal opinion which may prejudice members of the RCMP but is not prepared to table a legal opinion which attacks the payments made to recipients of family allowances across this country. Why the double standard?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman well knows the traditions of this House and I am sure that in most circumstances, when it is to his advantage, he wants to respect them.
As has already been indicated, this is as exact an interpretation of the statute as we can give. It is not our interpretation, for instance, of the old age security legislation, but it is the interpretation which my legal officers give to the family allowances legislation.


DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT OF LEGAL OPINIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. He will know that he himself, in a committee of the House of Commons, tabled a legal opinion regarding the position of certain members of the RCMP in respect of the McDonald Commission. He tabled that legal opinion. Now the Government is acting in a way which we believe to be illegal and which the Minister himself has admitted will be illegal if Parliament does not pass the Bill before the end of 1983.
Why would the Minister table a document that prejudices officers of the RCMP when he refuses to table a document- when he hides a document-why is he hiding a document that
January 17, 1983

the Government uses as the basis for denying payments that should be made to recipients of family allowances across the country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Gentleman attempts to make something of the question of illegality. There is no illegality involved. What we are involved in is an interpretation of the legislation. The legislation does not require payments on a monthly basis. It does not require equal payments. If there is any problem with this legislation, all it requires is a simple adjustment to the payments before the end of the year. That would satisfy any problem of legality which may arise.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure he is aware that unemployment levels in the country continue to rise at an alarming rate. We now have 12.8 per cent unemployment in the labour force, or over 1.5 million people unemployed, and the level continues to go up by 50,000 every month.
In the past couple of weeks most of the Minister's statements have dealt with the NEED Program which primarily accounts for about 4 per cent, at maximum, of those who are unemployed. Surely, in the face of the massive unemployment in the country, the Minister has some programs and policies which deal with the great bulk of the people, the other 96 per cent, who are unemployed. Would the Minister identify those programs and indicate when he is going to bring them forward?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is very broad. He knows of a number of programs that we have in place in addition to the NEED program. We have the direct employment programs under the Canada Development Projects. There is a program presently available under the work-sharing program and Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. In fact, Madam Speaker, I can point out to the Hon. Member that, on a rough assessment, in 1982 the direct employment programs of this Department provided jobs for close to 200,000 Canadians, so we have been making a major effort to assist those in need. Other initiatives have been taken by other Departments to help with housing, and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a program to spur economic development.
We still say that the ultimate solution to the problem is to provide a framework by which the private sector can begin growing again. Interest rates must come down in order for that to happen, and they are coming down. That has to be the basic
Oral Questions
strategy. In the meantime we will try to provide the complementary programs to help the people who are most in need, at a time when they need the help.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone would be surprised that, while we hear the Minister talk about his programs, the unemployment rate continues to go up. Indeed, even the Government prolongs the time taken to make decisions that could create jobs for people.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN ARMED FORCES' RECRUITMENT LEVELS
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. For a number of months a proposal has been before the Minister with respect to increasing the recruiting levels in the Armed Services, and I think this has received the general agreement of most people connected with the program. What it needs is a commitment on the part of the Government, and an allocation of funds on the part of the Minister, to bring the program forward.
I would like to ask the Minister if he is willing to increase the recruitment levels in the Armed Forces in order to provide jobs and training for Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24. Will he provide the necessary funds? If the answer to those two questions is yes, when will he bring the program forward?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, as a Member of Cabinet I was also very concerned about the figures on employment at the end of last year. My Department was asked by the Department of Employment and Immigration to put forward different programs that could relieve some of the unemployment that currently exists in the country. At the moment we are collaborating very closely with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, because he is responsible for job creation. The Department of National Defence put forward different suggestions and programs in this regard and has told the Minister what we could do and how we would do it. We could do something quickly and efficiently. It all depends, of course, on the amount of financial assistance we can receive from his Department or from the Minister of Finance. As far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, it is ready to act promptly and efficiently on the issue at hand.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. During the Christmas break, Canadians experienced two significant events. On the one hand they learned that unemployment had risen to the record 12.8 per cent level, and at the same time the Canadian Catholic Bishops presented the people of Canada with their historic statement on the economy. Speaking for this Party I

January 17, 1983
Oral Questions
can say that we accept the Bishops' morality and their economic analysis.
Considering that the Prime Minister of Canada, that economic genius, dismissed the Bishops' statement out of hand, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us precisely what is wrong with what the Bishops had to say, either in terms of their moral analysis or in terms of their economic prescriptions?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it would certainly not be correct to say that the Prime Minister dismissed the comments of the Bishops out of hand. As far as the Government is concerned, it has devoted its attention and its programs to the alleviation of unemployment in the country. The total economic strategy of the Government has been directed to reducing inflation so that economic growth could resume in Canada and so that jobs would develop and unemployment decrease.
There is a fundamental interconnection between unemployment and inflation, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration has pointed out, and that is, namely, that as inflation comes down interest rates come down and economic recovery will resume.
1 am sure we are quite alive to the concern that has been expressed by the Social Commission of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops because its concern with unemployment is a concern that has been shared by this Government for some considerable period of time.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister reads the Bishops' statement, because it was precisely the analysis that the Deputy Prime Minister has just given us that the Bishops tore to shreds in their document.


GROUNDS FOR BISHOPS' STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to ask another question that comes from the statement of the Bishops. They point out-and they use the language with care and seriousness-that in their judgment Canadians are living in a state of "moral disorder". They give precise reasons for saying that, and they attribute the cause to the Government of Canada, among other agencies.
Considering that the Bishops pointed out that the top 20 per cent of Canadians, in terms of wealth, have more than 40 per cent of the income, and that the Government does nothing about this but, in the meantime, attacks pensioners and recipients of family allowances with cutbacks, would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that such a wrong set of priorities really does justify the Bishops' statement that we live in a state of "moral disorder"? If he disagrees, would he tell us why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the job of a Minister is to deal with Government policy, not to reach judgments on every view that is expressed by every
group in the country, even such an exalted body as the Social Commission of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
it is the judgment of the Bishops that there is moral disorder in Canadian society and throughout the world. That is a judgment which they are entitled to make. I am sure that, as the Government, we are entitled to make judgments on economic policies which we think are in the best interests of the country. We are prepared to debate these economic policies. Indeed, for two and a half years, as Minister of Finance, I took the view that if unemployment were to come down in Canada, if we were to succeed in providing jobs, we had to bring down inflation. That is our policy. It is the policy which has been followed by the Minister of Finance. It is a policy which has been followed by every western Government that I know. Every Government which subscribes to the International Monetary Fund subscribes to that economic analysis. That is our economic view.
The Bishops have taken quite a different economic analysis, and they are quite entitled to do so. We are quite entitled to defend our policies, as we have done for some years now. I think they will prove to be correct and will bring about the restoration of jobs in the country more rapidly than the rather dilapidated nostrums which the hon. gentleman puts forward.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister looks at the record, he is right that inflation has been going down, but unlike what he said, instead of the unemployment situation improving, it has been getting worse. Every Canadian knows that but the Deputy Prime Minister.


REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON BISHOPS' STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the Deputy Prime Minister indicated in his answer that he would like to have a debate-and presumably the Prime Minister, who has never participated in an economic debate in the House since the 1980 election, might agree with him-and considering that the Bishops precisely called for a debate on values and on economic prescriptions, will the Deputy Prime Minister agree to take action which will lead to a debate in the House on the return of the Prime Minister that will allow the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and myself to debate the bishop's report fully and frankly?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is a bit phony. We have been debating these questions in the House of Commons since the very beginning of this Parliament. I must say that every day we have debated these issues; we have had prolonged debates. For the Hon. Member to say, "Let's start debating the issue now when the Prime Minister comes back", where has he been?


John Edward Broadbent: Good question.
January 17, 1983


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF CULTURAL, FAMILY AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION OF FRANCE
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr, Evin, Chairman of the Commission of Cultural, Family and Social Affairs of France, accompanied by a delegation of French parliamentarians.


INCOME TAX
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the uproar which has been created by the Minister responsible for the status of women and her comments with regard to the spousal tax exemption, when she said:
-those families who are able to use the spousal deduction are at the top end of the income scale. It's only the more affluent families in our society that allow a woman to stay at home-
The Minister will know that in the 1980 tax returns those who were able to make use of the spousal deduction-75 per cent of them making that claim-earned $25,000 or less, including the working poor, the elderly, single parents; hardly what one would call the affluent. Is the Department of Finance giving serious consideration to the proposal either to reduce or eliminate the spousal tax exemption? Does it support that proposal or oppose it?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member would not have addressed that question to the Minister who is purported to have made that statement. I must admit that 1 have heard the Hon. Minister responsible for the status of women answer that question a number of times over the last couple of weeks. The answer is that the Department is not considering it, but 1 invite the Hon. Member to direct her question to the Minister responsible.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I thought that the Minister speaking on behalf of the Minister of Finance, who I understood dealt with taxation matters in the House, would be able to address himself to that question.


ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING PROPOSAL
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, since he is unable to do so, I direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister who is also a former Minister of Finance. Does the Government accept the untenable assumptions under which the Minister responsible for the status of women put forward her proposal-first, that only
Oral Questions
affluent families benefit from the spousal tax exemption and, second, that women who work in the home and are childless make no contribution to society? I should like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister whether those assumptions are Liberal Government policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the view of the Government of Canada is that all Canadians make a contribution to our society, whatever their status in our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not believe that the assumptions as stated by the Hon. Member reflect carefully and fully the very thoughtful views which have been expressed by the Minister who, in my view, raised some issues which require considerable examination by the Parliament of Canada and by the people of Canada.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They were straight quotations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 hope they will not fall for the oversimplistic analysis of the Hon. Member.


FINANCE
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, all Canadians have become concerned recently about the issues surrounding the security of their deposits in financial institutions as raised by the issues of Greymac, Seaway, and Crown Trust. My question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Is he considering an increase in deposit insurance limits as they now stand, since they have not been changed since 1967 and do not reflect the level of inflation? If he is proposing to do this, how much would the limits be? When would this be done? Finally, will it be applied to those people who have deposits in the three institutions affected by Ontario and federal Government actions of recent weeks?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that the Government will introduce legislation which will be effective immediately. It will increase the amount of protection under the certain circumstances which the Hon. Member raised, from $20,000 to $60,000. The amount is in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Finance which the Hon. Member obviously knows. That increase to $60,000, as I said, is effective immediately. It applies to all depositors and all corporations which fall under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. Generally the amount reflects the inflationary rise in the economy since 1967 when the $20,000 figure was struck.

January 17, 1983
Oral Questions


EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROPOSED NEW LIMITS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I understood him to say that this would be effective immediately and that it would apply to all depositors to institutions under Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act provisions. Does that mean that depositors who currently have money on deposit with the five institutions-Crown Trust, Greymac Trust, Greymac Mortgage Corporation, Seaway Trust, and Seaway Mortgage Corporation-are also covered, or is it only for new depositors from today forward?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, to my knowledge there is presently no claim against the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Bill which is already drafted is effective as of today. It is intended to cover any circumstance in the future where any claim may be made under any circumstance so that would, of course, include the corporations specified by the Hon. Member. Presuming that they meet the provisions of the legislation, and presuming that they meet general legislation, yes, they would be covered.


REQUEST THAT PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL. BE SENT TO COMMITTEE
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister of State is aware that there are two Private Members' Bills before the House right now, one in the name of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands and the other in the name of the Hon. Member for St. Catharines, both of whom are Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament. One of these Bills will be before the House this Wednesday, and is designed to raise the amount stipulated from $20,000 to $100,000. In order to show the sense of urgency that all Canadians are expecting from the Government in this very serious matter, will the Government agree to allow the Bill, which will be presented by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands this Wednesday, to go immediately to committee so that it can be debated, dealt with, and thus address the anxiety of so many Canadians about their deposits-their life savings in some cases-which today are at risk in some of these institutions?


Erik Nielsen: In the spirit of reform.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, 1 believe the Government has done better than that. We have just indicated that we will introduce a Bill which is effective as of today. It would be my hope that the Hon. Member, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which reported on bank profits and recommended the $60,000 limit, together with his colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel, and his colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre.


Paul James Cosgrove: -would stand behind their recommendation for $60,000. We want it immediately. We have taken their advice. I do not know why, for example, the Hon. Member is referring to some other Member of his party who has some other idea on the subject.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Come on now.


TRUST COMPANIES' ASSETS-INVESTIGATION OF TORONTO APARTMENT SALES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary to the questions asked of the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister knows that on January 8 the federal Government seized the assets of Seaway Mortgage Corporation and Greymac Mortgage Corporation. Does what the Minister is announcing today mean that the Government has determined there are insufficient funds in these corporations, that is, assets in the corporations to cover their liabilities? Could the Minister tell us the results of those investigations, and would the Minister also confirm that the RCMP is investigating the Toronto real estate transaction?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the Superintendent of Insurance for Canada acted under the Loan Companies Act subsequent to the action of the Province of Ontario which moved under provincial jurisdiction to take control of the assets of the three trust companies. Subsequently, because the two mortgage companies involved under federal jurisdiction were associated companies, and because they had been associated in transactions with the companies that were taken control of by the provincial Government, and for a number of other reasons the Superintendent of Insurance moved to assume control of the assets of the two mortgage companies that have been the subject of publicity of late.
I think that neither the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the Province of Ontario, nor myself, nor officials, would want to go into a great amount of detail on these issues at this time because, as the Hon. Member may or may not be aware, the corporations involved have served notice both on the federal Government and on the provincial Government that they intend to hold the Governments responsible for any loss arising out of these actions. Therefore I think at this time it would be prudent, on the advice of counsel for the Goverment, not to go into detail.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the Minister wants us to consider a Bill right away, but he will not go into any detail about the investigation which has been going on for about nine days or so.


NATURE OF RCMP INVESTIGATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Would he agree with me that increasingly in Canada money is coming from criminal activity? For example, money from
January 17, 1983

narcotic drugs is coming here and distorting areas of Canadian business. Would the Minister tell this House whether the RCMP is investigating the Toronto transaction and, more precisely, the origin of the money put up for the transaction, the people behind the numbered companies and the so-called foreign investors with their Swiss accounts? Is the RCMP investigating this transaction? Can the Minister tell the House whether the RCMP is investigating some of the matters I have mentioned and, if so, when can we get a report to this House?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that an RCMP investigation is under way. It would be high speculation to suggest what precise grounds were being investigated, and it would be entirely improper for me to confirm or to describe what are the grounds of the investigation.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Since 1983 has been designated the International Year of Communications, can the Minister tell the House whether he will support the request of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture which is now examining the Applebaum-Hebert report so that the proceedings of that Committee may be held before TV cameras and, if at all possible, right here on Tuesday and Thursday evenings when the House is not sitting?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, Canada intends to participate fully in the activities of the International Year of Communications as designated by the United Nations and I will soon have the pleasure of announcing the events which will take place in Canada to celebrate that year.
As to the suggestion of the Hon. Member, I think it is very commendable, but I would have to discuss it with the President of the Privy Council and Leader of the Government in the House under whose jurisdiction this matter falls.


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the National
Oral Questions
Gallery of Canada who, I believe, is the Minister of Communications. The Gallery has announced that it will not be holding an architectural competition but will, in fact, simply appoint an architect for the new gallery.


Mr. Jarvis:: Arthur Erikson strikes again.


John William Bosley: Could the Minister tell us whether the Government supports that decision and whether the reason for the support of that decision is so that Arthur Erikson, or someone similar, can get the contract? Or is it because there was a competition already and an architect whom the Government does not like won that competition some years ago?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, Hon. Members know that the Government has decided to go ahead and build two large museums in the National Capital, namely the National Gallery of Canada and the Museum of Man. As for all questions related to the construction of those museums, we have set up a Crown corporation responsible for making recommendations to the Government on the way to spend the funds and, of course, on the architects best qualified to carry out the projects. The construction corporation has made an analysis of various architectural firms and paid a visit to 78 of them across the country, from Charlottetown to Vancouver. I expect it will make recommendations to the Government which will have an opportunity to examine them and, naturally, the client-the Canadian Government-will make the ultimate decision about the selection of architects.


REQUEST THAT OPEN COMPETITION BE HELD
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Communications. There has been in the creation of institutions of such importance as the National Gallery a tradition in Ottawa that open competitions normally be held in order to make sure that public money produces the finest possible public buildings for the people of Canada. May I ask the Minister why that process will not be followed in this case? Why does the Minister prefer a procedure which is already tainted as a consequence of the embassy which is being built in Washington, and why will the Minister not recommend to his own Government that the open competitive process be used rather than another Liberal architect getting another job?
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: As the
Hon. Member is undoubtedly aware. Madam Speaker, in 1978 the President of the Treasury Board tabled in the House the policy concerning regulations for the selection of architects for the construction of public buildings. The Government has established other selection criteria which, when compared with others, are rather similar and whose objective is the same.

January 17, 1983
[DOT] (M50)
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. As he is aware, the Interest Act in Canada has not been amended for some 20 years. Section 10 of the Interest Act, by subsequent practice, is now completely outdated because we do not have mortgages of over five years' duration. Is the Minister proposing to introduce any amendments which would reduce the five year qualification down to one year in Section 10 of the Interest Act?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I have had occasion to review a whole series of questions with the officials of the corporation during the past two weeks. That question did not come up but I will certainly make a point of discussing it. If it is feasible and advantageous to mortgage holders, I hope we can bring it forward.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ACTION
Paul Wyatt Dick: According to CMHC research, it appears that there are some 707,000 Canadians who are presently trapped in mortgages of 17 per cent or higher. Now that the mortgage rate has come down, if the rule was changed to one year from five years it would alleviate much of the difficulty for those Canadians. Realizing that so many Canadians are trapped, will the Minister bring this forth with his officials on an urgent basis in an attempt to bring about an amendment?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I will obviously give the Hon. Member's suggestion the attention it deserves.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the recent statements made by the Minister responsible for the status of women. Unfortunately the Minister, in her very thoughtless remarks about tax deductions, insulted women who work hard in the home, with no pay and no pensions, and who certainly contribute to society in many ways. She ignored single women who need tax deductions, low income families who need tax credits, and also ignored the high unemployment which prevents many women from working.
Since the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today that he cares for all Canadians, I would ask him if this also includes
high priority for children and women and, if so, will he reinstate full indexing for family allowances and ensure the full indexing goes out on this month's family allowance cheques?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot give that assurance, but I will remind the Hon. Member that we have demonstrated our concern for the children of this country by the steps we have taken to enrich the child tax credit substantially. It is along those lines that the Minister for the Status of Women was thinking when suggesting possible ways of further enriching support for the children and women of this country.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of these same statements made by the Minister who is supposedly responsible for the status of women, which presumed that all women have the choice to go out and work and therefore need child care costs, would he explain the statistics, as far as unemployment for women is concerned, affecting women now and in the future? Will he tell the House that there will be jobs for all women who want to go out to work in the workforce?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would certainly hope that we could provide the setting in which that employment would take place. To that extent we have introduced a number of new measures over the past year, particularly the new National Training Act which is designed to help women, along with all other Canadians, retrain for new technologies and jobs.
I should say that I had a very successful meeting with the provincial Ministers of Labour and Employment on Friday in which we agreed to co-ordinate our efforts in this area in a very co-operative fashion. I think we can maintain that spirit and reach the goal that the Hon. Member is seeking to achieve.


COMMUNICATIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. It concerns the CRTC requirements for Canadian content and artistic control in Pay TV, requirements which would ensure that talented Canadian writers and actors have the opportunity to work and establish their reputations.
%


January 17, 1983

We are now finding that some companies are producing in Canada, for Pay TV, shows which are written in the United States, thus excluding Canadian writers, and many are soft porn shows which exclude serious Canadian actors and actresses. If this is accepted as meeting the requirements for Canadian content, the companies are then free to buy all of their serious programs outside Canada, which effectively closes the doors on opportunities for Canadian actors, producers and writers. Has the Minister discussed this matter with the CRTC, and does it propose to bring in clearer standards and regulations?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I think that two issues are involved in the Hon. Member's question. One is the question of obscenity and pornography. Quite obviously the Government of Canada did not uphold the decision of the CRTC to issue licences to Pay TV operators in order for them to turn the Pay TV system into one which promotes pornography or obscenity in Canada.
With respect to the question of Canadian content, I think the question raised by the Hon. Member quite clearly points out the necessity to tighten the rules for Canadian content. Some 18 months ago, in the area of capital cost allowance, the Government tightened up the Canadian content definitions in a rather stringent fashion. The CRTC held an issue hearing in the month of December on the whole question of Canadian content. I discussed the matter with the Chairman of the CRTC this morning. The Chairman of the CRTC shares the concerns expressed to me by many Members of the House. He has previously informed me that he expects to have a decision on the Canadian content hearings issue made public within the next month or two at the latest.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Many Canadians would like to know whether the $90,000 payment to Clifford Olson was made under what amounts to be an illegal document. Will the Minister tell us whether he has made a decision and whether he will sue to recover what is still available from that $90,000? Will he also agree to table the "black trust deed" that was entered into with Mr. Olson, signed on behalf of the Government of Canada, and approved by the Ministry of Justice?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, 1 told the Hon. Member some weeks ago in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that I would look carefully into this matter. I have had the opportunity to do so. Given the fact that the original payment was made
Oral Questions
entirely under the authority of the Attorney General of British Columbia, 1 have come to the conclusion that any legal action which is instituted to recover the moneys paid over should be instituted by the Attorney General of British Columbia.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OBTAIN LEGAL OPINION
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, in view of the fact that his own officials advised the entering into of this agreement-it was signed on behalf of the Solicitor General's Department-would the Minister not agree to obtain an outside legal opinion in order to determine whether or not his earlier legal opinion was bad, in view of the obvious conflict or interest?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman knows that the original decision was made by the Attorney General of British Columbia without the knowledge of either the Commissioner of the RCMP or of my colleague, the Solicitor General. Therefore, if any legal opinion is to be obtained, I should think it would be the Attorney General who would want to obtain those legal opinions.


USE OF WRITS OF ASSISTANCE ISSUED TO RCMP
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice. Now that there have been at least two Ontario courts which have ruled against the validity of the use of writs of assistance, I wonder if the Minister of Justice or his Department has issued instructions to the RCMP, through the Solicitor General, that these writs-in Ontario in any event-are not to be used and, if he has done so, why have the same instructions not been issued to the RCMP in the rest of the country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity to review the effect of the decision of Judge Belanger. I hope to be in a position to do that shortly.


LEGISLATION TO ABOLISH WRITS OF ASSISTANCE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, while the Minister is reviewing the matter, with the very great public image that exists across the country against the use of these very arbitrary writs by the police, would he look at the Order Paper where there have been draft bills on it for two years now, standing not only in my name but, I believe, in the name of other Members of the House of Commons, to abolish the use of these writs absolutely?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I will of course be reviewing the whole subject while I consider the question of an appeal of the Belanger decision. 1 might say that I, myself, suggested possible alternatives to the present procedures, in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

January 17, 1983
Petitions
[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I imagine he can tell the House today where matters stand concerning Quebecair.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I want to say to the Hon. Member that the discussions are still going on between Quebecair and Air Canada and the representatives of both governments. We must however wait for the financial statements of Quebecair to be audited, which should be done around February 15. We shall then be in a position to compare these financial statements with the various commitments the Quebec government is willing to make. A quick computation will then determine whether the project is feasible, and the other discussions now under way will continue, concerning for instance the routes which Quebecair has renegociated and will keep for itself.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, if I understand the minister correctly, contrary to the statement he made in the House a few months ago, to the effect that Quebecair I would no longer exist, the government will now do everything in its power to save the existing Quebecair company instead of creating a new one.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already replied to that question in the House and I have already confirmed what the Hon. Member of Joliette has said. There is nothing new in this. However, I stated at the time that I was not giving a blank cheque and that everything would be based on an audit of the financial statements, and this is what is happening at the present time.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by the Hon. Members on Wednesday, December 22, 1982, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



STANDING COMMITTEES


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To comply with the
spirit of Section 69(1) of the New Standing Orders and after consultation with my colleagues opposite, I believe that if you were to ask unanimous consent for the following motion to be agreed to without debate, you would receive it, which would allow us to reorganize the committees of the House without delay.

Consequently, I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That, notwithstanding any temporary or permanent Standing Order or any other order of the House, the Striking Committee shall consist of Messrs. Daudlin, Deans, Kempling, Nielsen, Parent, Pinard and Turner.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Madam Speaker, we would provide our consent to the moving of this motion now without debate. I assume, of course, that it will be the intention of the Striking Committee to prepare and report to the House within the ten-day time bracket which is now provided for in Standing Order 69. We will be reporting to the House within ten days from today.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, according to Standing Order 69(1) we must make that report in the first ten sitting days following January 1, and to allow this organization to take place within that ten days we have prepared for a meeting this afternoon at 4.30 p.m. in Room 112-N. We will have a clerk there to facilitate our proceedings, if this is acceptable to my colleagues on the other side.


Madam Speaker:: In that case, is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Erik Nielsen: For the sake of the record, I wonder if the Government House Leader would please indicate the business of the House as far into the week as he is now able, assuming completion of the report stage of Bill C-133.


Yvon Pinard: 1 will consider my colleague's request and give him my answer later this afternoon when we meet. If we have completed report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-133 before the end of the week, it is quite possible that next Friday will be an Opposition day, as I indicated to him earlier today; but I will give him confirmation later today or tomorrow.
January 17, 1983


POINT OF ORDER
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, when 1 came into the House this afternoon, I was of the opinion that Standing Order 21 provides that any Hon. Member may make a statement for a period of up to 90 seconds, or one and a half minutes. I had prepared my statement accordingly but 1 was cut off about three-quarters of the way through. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), was timing my statement, and he tells me that I was cut off at the one minute point. Therefore, the important part of my statement is not on the record.
The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), who followed me, was also cut off. I took out my stopwatch and timed his statement. He was cut off by Your Honour after 62 seconds.
I just want to bring this to Your Honour's attention. I wondered if perhaps you had been making use, up until that point in time, of a metric clock or something.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Charles Neil: However, I would suggest, although I do not want to make an issue of this matter, as someone from the other side pointed out this morning, that it might be advisable to have a digital clock on the wall so that an Hon. Member knows exactly how much time he has left in which to speak, because it is very difficult to time oneself. Most of us, I think, do our utmost to stay within the time limits but we were not even permitted our time limits today.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is quite right. He was short-changed by about 30 seconds and so was the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and two Hon. Members on this side of the House. I had to rely on a signal which was given to me by one of the officials in the House who was operating-


Erik Nielsen: On metric!


Madam Speaker:: -a stop-watch, and he had some difficulties with his stop-watch.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Swift!


Madam Speaker:: However, he caught on to the system quite quickly and for the rest of the period I think all Hon. Members were given their 90 seconds.
As for a digital stop-watch on the wall, 1 wonder if Hon. Members would just let me deal with that suggestion, because I do not think it would look too nice. We already have three clocks on the wall and to add a fourth one would perhaps not be a very good idea. Therefore, I will look after it and 1 think Hon. Members will be satisfied. However, I thank the Hon. Member; he is quite right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Order Paper Questions


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I wonder if, in the spirit of good will, we should not allow the four Hon. Members who were short-changed to make their statements now. I am sure that, with unanimous consent, we would allow that to happen.


Mr. Ouellet:: Tomorrow!


Madam Speaker:: 1 really do not know what to do. 1 feel awfully sorry for Hon. Members, but what should they do? Should they make their statements all over again or just the last paragraph? I suppose it would amount to the last paragraph. However, it is not quite fair because some Hon. Members on the other side of the House were also short-changed and they have left the House.
Could not Hon. Members try to make a more complete statement on another day? I think that would be the easier thing to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,766, 4,535, 4,541 and 4,558.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Do arrangements exist between the Canadian and the United States Governments to determine the identity of Canadian residents with term deposits in United States banking institutions who do not report and pay income tax on the interest they receive from the deposits and, if so, what are the arrangements?
2.	In each of the past four years, how many Canadian residents were (a) investigated in this regard (b) caught not paying the tax due to the Government?
3.	Will the government take further steps to determine how many non-payers exist and to determine what the loss is annually to the federal treasury?
4.	(a) Is it Government policy to close any loopholes that exist to ensure that proper taxes will be collected (b) would such a collection enable the government to collect less in taxes from those taxpayers who make honest declarations?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Under the provisions of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention, term deposit interest payments made to Canadian residents from United States sources are not reported annually from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Negotiations are presently under way with the U.S. Government to have this type of payment included in their annual report.
2.	Revenue Canada-Taxation does not maintain separate statistics on the reporting by Canadian residents of United States term deposit interest.

January 17, 1983
Order Paper Questions
3.	The determination of exigible Canadian income taxes and identification of those who have failed to pay those sums is a continuing ongoing principal objective of Revenue Canada-Taxation. Investigations are conducted to determine world income, from all sources.
4.	(a) It is policy to ensure that proper taxes will be collected and existing third party information reporting processes are considered adequate in this regard, (b) Taxes collected are at rates established by law.


Mr. Mazankowski: Was a study conducted on behalf of the Department of Agriculture regarding "energy costs and fertilizer prices during the eighties" and, if so (a) what were the terms of reference (b) to whom was the study contracted (c) for what reason was it not done internally by the Department (d) what amount did the study cost (e) what conclusions and/or recommendations were reached (f) what action will be taken or has been taken as a result of the conclusions or recommendations?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes. (a) See "Statement of Work" below, (b) Deloitte Haskins and Sells of Guelph, Ontario, (c) The type of specialist resources were not available during the period the study was to be carried out. (d) $11,000. (e) None, since final report has not as yet been completed, (f) No action can be taken until final report has been received and reviewed.
Statement of WorK
Title: Energy Costs and Fertilizer Prices During the Eighties
Background: Fertilizer is becoming one of the most important and costly inputs in the crop production sector of agriculture. Farm sector expenditures for fertilizer has increased by 620 per cent for the period 1971 to 1981 and now exceeds $ 1 billion annually. There has also been an increase in terms of fertilizer's share of total farm operating expenses. Before the dramatic rise in energy prices in 1973, fertilizers accounted for approximately 5.5 per cent of operating expenses. In 1981, this figure had increased to 9.4 per cent.
While potash and phosphate fertilizer materials are refined from mineral deposits, nitrogen fertilizers are manufactured with natural gas being the originating feedstock. With rising costs for natural gas and other energy inputs required for its manufacturing, the price of nitrogen containing fertilizers will continue to escalate during the rest of this decade. With increased agricultural production targets being a part of Canada's agri-food strategy, and higher nitrogen application rates being one immediately practical way of achieving this goal, it is imperative that price projections and anticipated levels of supply should be available for the information of both the fertilizer industry, the farming community and government analyses. Such information would be required by the Directorate for presentation at the annual Outlook Conference.
Requirements: The final report should contain information on the following:
(1) North American nitrogen fertilizer capacity. The location, capacity and level of technology used for both existing and new plants presently under construction or
expansion should be included. (2) Energy inputs required for production. A section on the various direct energy inputs required for the production of a tonne of ammonia and urea and their relative importance in overall production costs. (3) Price projections for energy inputs. The latest available price projections for natural gas, electricity and other energy inputs required for the production process. (4) Trading patterns for nitrogen fertilizers. A regional accounting of trans-border nitrogen fertilizer movements. (5) Supply and demand projections for nitrogen fertilizers. The emphasis should be on the North American supply and demand situation but some projections on the world situation is also warranted. On a Canadian level, projections should be on a regional basis as well as nationally.
(6) Nitrogen fertilizer price projections. Only ammonia and urea prices need to be considered as these are the major nitrogen fertilizer materials.
Methodology: The proposed methodology for determining future levels of supply and demand is to use a simplistic approach rather than a full scale econometric model. A number of regression equations should be developed which use presently available data series and the most recent price projections to determine the probable course of future fertilizer prices.
Relevant reports which can provide guidance and/or information in completing this study include: (1) Challenge for Growth, (2) Global 2000, (3) Canada West Foundation, (4) FAD and OECD food production projections.
In addition to the pure statistical work, there should be a close linkage to the fertilizer industry. The issues addressed are of vital concern to individual companies and some of the larger corporations have personnel involved in this area. Close cooperation is seen as a way of avoiding duplication of effort and improve the quality and relevance of the results.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did a Mrs. Susan Warner, Field Officer, Classification PM-2, in the Barrie office of the Department of National Health and Welfare's Income Security Program, attend a French language training course at the Ontario Studies in Education in Toronto between September 14, 1981 and August II, 1982 and, if so, what did it cost the Government in (a) wages (b) accommodation (c) expenses for Mrs. Warner during this period?
2.	Was a Mrs. Judy Kelly employed to fulfil Mrs. Warner's duties while the latter was taking the course and, if so, what was the total amount paid in wages to Mrs. Kelly during this period?
3.	Based on statistics from the Barrie office, what percentage of the total yearly transactions require (a) written (b) spoken use of the French language to provide service?
4.	From 1974 to 1982, how many French language forms available in the Barrie office have been filled out by applicants?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, Mrs. Susan Warner, Field Officer, in the Barrie District Office, did attend French language training during the period September 14, 1981 and August 11, 1982.
January 17, 1983

(a)	Cost to Government in wages: PM-2 Salary range: $22,698-25,571
(b)	Accommodation: $845 per month for 11 months
9,295
(c)	Expenses: $600 per month for 11 months 6,600
2.	Yes, Mrs. Judy Kelly was employed in an acting position to backfill during Mrs. Warner's period of French language training. Amount paid in wages to Mrs. Kelly-PM-2- $22,698-25,571.
3.	(a) and (b) No statistics are kept. Mrs. Warner visits the Midland Office once a week where it is estimated that French is used 70 per cent of the time.
4.	No statistics kept.


PASS PRIVILEGES FOR CN-CP TELECOMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES
Mr. Benjamin: Were pass privileges for employees of CN-CP Telecommunications terminated and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows: Yes. (a) July 1, 1982. (b) At the request of the management of CN-CP Telecommunications, following the conclusion of a new collective agreement between CN-CP Telecommunications and its employees.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Mr. Stevens:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. 1 would like to ask this Parliamentary Secretary, as I have asked another Parliamentary Secretary, why we have to date still not received a reply to question No. 2,042 which was placed on the Order Paper almost two years ago and deals with the Prime Minister's world tour. It simply asked what was the cost of that world tour and, specifically, how much was being borne by the taxpayers of Canada.
Perhaps, Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that we have the Prime Minister off on a new jaunt, we could catch up in at least reporting to the people of Canada what these trips, including five others I have asked for on October 23, have cost Canada to date.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Madam Speaker, I will certainly take notice of that question on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader. I would like to remind the Hon. Member
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
that to date some 83 per cent of the questions have already been answered.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and the motion of Mr. Gray (p. 21886) and the motion of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (p. 21889).
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, the Christmas recess is over, we are back again, and it seems as though we have never been away.
I had hoped Bill C-133 would not be in front of us on our return, despite what the Government House leader had said. 1 had hoped that during the Christmas and New Year's recess the Members of the Government would have consulted with their constituents and other interested parties and decided not to go forward with Bill C-133, which is an amendment to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, otherwise known as the SRBA.
What is this Bill all about? It is part of a trio of Bills and relates closely to Bill C-131, which is an amendment to another Act for the same purpose, and that is to limit the indexation which takes place each year of old age pensions, civil service pensions and the pensions of the Armed Forces. These two Bills, C-131 and C-133, are a pair and do the same thing, only to different groups of people. They started off with the intention of lowering the indexation capping or ceiling to 6 per cent this year, 1983, and to 5 per cent next year, 1984.
After a great deal of discussion and dialogue and the beginnings of a revolt in the Liberal Party, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), in a fit of uncharacteristic kindness, increased the limits by one half of 1 per cent. This was enough to cause the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Evans) to give up his principles of supporting his constituents and decide to vote with the Government. Some other Liberal Members decided to stick with their principles and do as they said they were going to do, and they voted against the measure.
To determine what this is all about, we should go back a little into the history of it, and I am quoting from the report of

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
the President of the Treasury Board, who is here this afternoon, of March 31, 1981. He pointed out:
Prior to the 1973 amendments, the amount of the increase was related to the increase in the cost of living since the year of retirement or death, as the case may be, with a maximum increase of 2 per cent per year, similar to the Canada Pension Plan at that time. Effective January I, 1974, this 2 per cent ceiling was removed and provision was made for an annual increase in pensions related to the full increases in the cost of living.
The amount of this increase in any January is equal to the percentage increase in the average of the Consumer Price Indices for the 12 months ending on the preceding September 30 over the average for the 12 months ending a year earlier.
That should have been clear enough to everyone concerned and certainly the civil servants and the Armed Forces felt, because of the report of the President of the Treasury Board, that they did have a guarantee of such increases. The report went on to say:
Between April 1, 1970 and December 31, 1976 employees contributed one half of one per cent of salary. Effective January 1, 1977 this rate was increased to one per cent.
It was presumably increased to 1 per cent to make it pay for itself. That is why there was no complaint from the Armed Forces or the civil servants about having their contributions doubled. The report continues:
Prior to January 1, 1974, the Act also provided that all supplementary benefits would be charged to the Account. Since that date, however, those benefits paid in respect of a former contributor are charged to the Account only until their accumulated total equals the aggregate of all amounts credited to that Account in respect of that person. Supplementary Benefits paid in excess of that aggregate are then charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The same report points out that there was at that time a balance in the Account of $900 million in the spring of 1981.
When we talk about indexation of pensions, it is clearly set out in the legislation, and we have it from the Statutes of Canada, Chapter 43, in the "Short Title":
This Act may be cited as the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, when we get a complex Act, it generally has an interpretation section, and this Act is no exception. The interpretation section says this about "Pension Index":
Pension Index , with respect to any year, means the average for that year of the Consumer Price Index for Canada, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, for each month in the twelve-month period ending on the thirtieth day of September in the immediately preceding year;
That is repeated again under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. For this reason, those employees of the Government who are either in the Forces, the RCMP or the Civil Service, or employees at large of the Government, I suppose felt they did have a firm commitment from the Government that this indexation would be made. After all, it spells out what the indexation is supposed to be and it is not supposed to be at 6 per cent. It is to be the difference between the two Consumer Price Indices. It points that out in the legislation and it was promised in the House.
Finally, it was also promised in a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I think this is what particularly irritates all public servants, members of the Armed Forces and
others to whom this Bill is going to apply. The Prime Minister, in response to a letter from a Mr. Power, wrote and thanked him for a telegram which he received on September 27. I will quote the philosophy of the Prime Minister. I am doing this so that the people here can see why the public servants thought they had a pretty firm commitment. They had it in the Act and they had it in this letter. I quote from the Prime Minister's letter:
In our society, pensions provide a means of sharing risk so that we can retire in reasonable security and dignity, without fear of the future. Protecting pensions from inflation by indexing them to increases in the cost of living should be an integral part of our pension schemes. Indexing does not give pensioners an increasingly larger claim on our economy's production, that is, more money to buy things they could not earlier afford. Rather, indexing merely enables pensioners to maintain, roughly, their same standard of living.
Even a modest rate of inflation destroys, at a devastating rate, the buying power of people on fixed incomes. Pensioners are out of the work force and cannot bargain or strike for larger incomes.
Perhaps the party on my left will think of that. There is quite a difference between Bill C-133 and Bill C-124, and I will repeat the words of the Prime Minister here:
Indexing does not give pensioners an increasingly larger claim on our economy's production . . . Rather, indexing merely enables pensioners to maintain, roughly, their same standard of living.
The Prime Minister then goes on to say:
Pensioners are out of the work force and cannot bargain or strike for larger incomes. They are not the cause of inflation; they are its victim. We have an obligation to help protect them.
The Prime Minister closed by saying:
I have asked my staff to send a copy of our correspondence to the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Robert Andras.
Yours sincerely,
"P. E. Trudeau"
That letter was dated October 12, 1977. Surely, with that in his hand, the civil servant must have felt that he had a commitment, and that he had it from the Prime Minister. The legislation mentioned what the indexing was to be. Yet we now are faced with this current piece of legislation which is going to change all that summarily, not with the consent of the civil servants, not with the agreement of the Armed Forces. The Government has not even tried to negotiate with them. They have not said: "Look, we are running short of money in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Fund; we need more money, so you people have to put in more money". I suspect they could have reached an agreement on something like that, but they did not even try. The President of the Treasury Board simply brought in a Bill saying from now on we will stop this indexation.
I have been attending the meetings of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee on this subject for I don't know how many meetings we had. It went at a frantic pace for two weeks before Christmas. The tenor of those meetings was all the same. The various elected representatives, and others, appeared in front of the Committee to explain that the people
January 17, 1983

they represented were in no way satisfied with what was going on, that they were entirely in opposition. This went on day after day, and one can hardly blame them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted for his speech has expired. He could continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I would like to thank all parties of the House for their unanimous consent. 1 will try to be as brief as I can. When I was at home over Christmas, as other Hon. Members were, I am sure they as well as I received a lot of petitions and people came to see them on this subject. The PSAC in Victoria called a meeting and asked me to address them. It was the largest meeting they had ever held. They were adamantly outraged that they had been deceived and let down by the Government in this manner. The Hon. Members on this side, I believe, are totally opposed to this amendment. Therefore, I would ask Hon. Members opposite to search their consciences very carefully to see if they should in any way support this amendment.
Thank you for the additional time, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Bill before us could not be improved upon as an illustration of the bankruptcy of the Liberal Government. Before I go into the details of what is wrong with it, I want to make the point that this Bill is wrong in itself; it is wrong as being illustrative of the much broader six and five program, it is wrong morally and economically, and any Party or Hon. Member who cares either about economic improvement in the country or has a sense of fairness and morality should have nothing to do with it.
I want to say to the Hon. Member who has just spoken that I find the Conservative position more than a little interesting. This Bill is not some accidental outflow of the six and five program. This Bill is not a fluke in political history. This Bill which we are debating now is inextricably linked to the six and five measure which the Conservative Party of Canada voted for with the Liberals. Therefore, for the Conservatives to get up now and oppose it is, as I say, a little strange. I point out to the Conservative members, who are looking a little perplexed about this, that the "Budget in Brief' document dated June, 1982 contains on page 6 an explicit reference to the six and five program applying to public sector pensions. And the Conservatives supported that program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I say to my Tory friends, they cannot have it both ways. They can get up and oppose this piece of legislation; and if they are going to oppose it, they should oppose related legislation. If they want to support the Liberals in something they perceive to be popular with the public, then they have to have the guts and integrity to get up and support
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
the Liberals when they do something unpopular. They cannot have it both ways.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is wrong both morally and economically. It is wrong because it says to more than 200,000 pensioners who entered into a contract in good faith to create a fund which they contributed to, and which the Government, after the fact, is unilaterally going to break: "We are going to take over the next two years some $100 million out of your pockets".
It is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, to attack pensioners at this very difficult time in our economic history, especially when the same Government leaves upper income Canadians entirely alone, but I say the immorality is compounded when the pensioners are attacked on the basis of a program, a contractual arrangement, which they negotiated in good faith. Now the Government, which has the electoral power in this House to do so, is arbitrarily going to change the contractual arrangement.
1 say, Mr. Speaker, particularly to all those Canadians in the private sector, that public servants ought to be receiving a fully indexed pension because they negotiated it. They contributed 1 per cent of their salaries. The Government was supposed to put up the rest as the employer, and that fund has a $14 billion surplus now. I say to the Government of Canada that this money does not belong to it; this money belongs to the pensioners and the Government is wrong to take it away from them.
This Bill, and the superficial amendment which the Minister has introduced today to try to cover himself and to protect the Government, is a perfect illustration of what the Bishops in Canada described in their statement over the Christmas break as the moral disorder which characterizes our political and economic arrangements now. And to their credit, the Bishops did not leave their critique in general terms. They made a general critique, but they give examples and specifically cited the six and five program. I regret to say we have in this country a system which can be described as one of moral disorder. The Bishops did not say that because they have suddenly discovered inequality or they have suddenly seen unemployment existing in Canada; not at all. They make their criticism not on the basis of past injustices but on the basis of this Government's approach to dealing with these very real difficulties.
On behalf of my Party, I want to make it clear that we regard the Bishops' statement as one of the most significant in the history of the Church in our country. We say it is a document that ought to be read not simply by Roman Catholics, not simply by Christians, but also by Jews and people of other religious faiths, and indeed by Canadians who have no religious faith at all. It is a document superb in its intelligence, superb in its moral analysis, and in our view it is a document which is morally and economically sound. The Bishops have not only made a moral criticism but have also given us a sound economic analysis far exceeding in its depth and range of concern that which is produced, if I may say so, by most economists in Canada at this time.

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
In recommending this document to the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on its details but on its relevance to a Bill which is unfair precisely in terms of the Bishops' analysis. I want to make three points about that analysis which I think ought to arouse the concern and interest of the people of Canada. First, not in their words but in the over-all impact of their analysis, what do the Bishops say? They insist that moral priorities are inextricably linked with any economic decision made by the Government of Canada. They reject the banal approach so often taken by professional social scientists and the Government of Canada that somehow you can separate instrumental political/sociological decisions from their moral implications. To their credit, the Bishops draw our attention and the attention of the people of Canada to the reality that you cannot separate morality from economics. That is very important. Specifically in the context of unemployment, they have now said not that there is unemployment, which is hardly new, but that there is unnecessary unemployment. In that context they have said that unnecessary unemployment is not simply sad or difficult or unpleasant for people; they have drawn the appropriate moral conclusion and have said in fact it represents political immorality because a Government that can be doing something better in terms of the job requirements of Canada is to be morally condemned if it is not doing those things.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the document says with great emphasis that men and women, not only in Canada but beyond it, really achieve their full humanity through the work process. They say that work is essential.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the views of the Hon. Member on the discussion paper issued by the Bishops for at least four minutes. I do not see how it is relevant to the amendment under consideration, and without telling the Hon. Member what to do, I would like him to focus on the matter under discussion, namely amendment No. 2.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The point has been made that the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is not relating to the subject matter before the House. The Chair has been listening to the comments of the Hon. Member for Oshawa and although he has departed from the main thrust of the point now before the House, it is my understanding that he is, however remotely, relating to that subject.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I commend-if it is appropriate to pass judgment on the Speaker's ruling-your judgment. It did not surprise me that the Liberal Member opposite could
not see the connection between the moral points 1 was making and his abysmal legislation. He was illustrative of the point.


Walter David Baker: He is opposed to it.


John Edward Broadbent: I quickly correct myself, Mr. Speaker, because he is the Liberal Member on the other side of the House who is forthrightly and with integrity going to oppose this legislation.
The second point I was trying to make about what the Bishops have to say is something I would like to see taught in every class in every part of our land. That point is that they have said that for men and women to really realize themselves as human beings, to use their phrase, "To exercise their creative spirit, realize their human dignity", they ought to be able to work. They ought to have the right to develop their capacities and talents by labouring in their community. Surely that is a fundamental point and it goes to the root of the philosophy of social democracy. Historically it has gone to the root, of course, of a form of Christian socialism. We share in that and we would like to see it debated and discussed in the context of this kind of legislation.
The third point I would make about the Bishops' statement, which is so relevant to this Bill as an example of the six and five legislation, is that it makes a cogent analysis of the international economy, particularly the Canadian economy, both from the point of view of the efficacy of certain economic programs and from the point of view of the morality of those programs. I note in this context, Mr. Speaker, that the objections to the Bishops' statement over Christmas, in my judgment, were not accidental. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) objected in his casual and dismissive way. The Conservative Party's financial critic objected. I would suggest that they objected not because the Bishops did not understand the economy; they objected precisely because the Bishops understood the economy only too well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted for his speech has now expired. He can continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I will not abuse the courtesy shown to me by the House and I will try to conclude quickly.
I made three points which seemed to me to be very important aspects of what the Bishops were trying to do for the people of Canada. The moral passion and concern which led to the creation of this immensely important document was rooted in their concern that the people of Canada ought to have the right to work. They were deeply concerned that in a nation as wealthy as ours in potential and with men and women who want to work, but because of our political and economic arrangements more than 1.5 million Canadian men and women cannot experience the dignity which comes from labour.
January 17, 1983

I want to conclude with this observation. They offered us the injunction that we debate and discuss this matter throughout Canada. They put it forward modestly, made arguments modestly, and I think some of us should praise those arguments extravagantly because of the fine work they did. They called for the debate to take place about the basic principles they raise, but on behalf of my colleagues I want to appeal to Members on all sides of the House to recognize what the Bishops have done for us. I want to urge them to read the document, set aside their prejudices and consider the morality of the argument and consider the economic analysis. Above all,
1 appeal to the Government, having done that, to consider what the Bishops have urged us to do. They have said to us as parliamentarians, implicitly: get rid of your past prejudices, get rid of your present set of priorities which are wrong, and get on with the job of producing more programs in Canada immediately so that all those men and women in our land who would like to get a job and the dignity that comes with it are able to do so. I say in conclusion, let us get on with that job.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) made some comments about a very important document, and 1 admit to him that the importance of the Bishops' statement deserves full debate in this House. 1 do hope some day when the NDP have an opposition day they will put it down to be discussed thoroughly.
I found it rather amazing that, in addressing himself to Motion No. 2 under study at this time, the Leader of the NDP did not once address himself to the amendment before us which concerns Bill C-133 which proposes to substitute some figures and increase the indexing which was six and five to 5.5 per cent and 6.5 per cent. I want to make it clear, in speaking to Motion No. 2, that I find it equally difficult to accept such a low amount of adjustment to what I consider public servants should have, that is full indexing of their pensions, since they have paid for it.
This Bill has an unusual aspect to it in that it is legislation which proposes to decrease expenditures rather than increasing expenditures. Public servants to whom I have spoken over the Christmas break said they cannot understand why at the moment the Government is calling for better inflation protection for all pensions in its "Better Pensions for Canadians" Paper, while at the same time it is moving with great haste to curtail the inflation protection of public service pensions. Some pensioners are looking for an explanation as to how this circle can be square, and are beginning to conclude that maybe-just maybe-there might be something to the charge made this morning by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that they are being made the scapegoat for inflation.
Another claim made this morning by the Minister in regard to the 6.5 and 5.5 amendment was that the six and five program only applied to the Consolidated Revenue Fund contributions. Pensioners regard with deep suspicion the claim that they have only paid for .5 per cent annual indexing. They wonder, first of all, why it is that a 1 per cent contribution to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act only brings .5 per
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
cent indexing, when a 1.8 per cent contribution to the Canada Pension Plan buys basic retirement, survivor and disability pensions, plus 11.2 per cent indexing, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Secondly, they wonder what has happened to the statements and explanations given by the Government in
1978	and 1979 when it argued that, in determining the amount of indexing paid for by pensioners, it was necessary to take account not only of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act contributions, but also of the inflationary interest being earned on their share of the Public Service Superannuation Act, Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
I am not aware of any analysis or study that the Government has issued to show that what was wrong with its 1978 and 1979 statements and nothing has been corrected by this Bill. As far as I can determine, the Government has simply ignored its statements of three and four years ago, hoping perhaps that, if ignored, they will go away. This, quite frankly, mystifies pensioners and causes them to shake their heads in disbelief when they read "Better Pensions for Canadians", the Paper I mentioned earlier, and find the Government espousing what appears to be the underlying philosophy of its 1978 and
1979	statements and advocating that this philosophy be based in the private sector.
There are some arguments to be developed regarding the funding of the PSSA. The fund is derived from matching contributions by employer and employees of 6.5 percent of payroll contributions. Any unfunded liability is to be liquidated by the employer over a number of years. In the last actuarial report in 1977 on the PSSA, with an actuarial assumption of
5.5	per cent for salary increase, 6.5 per cent for interest rates and 3 percent for inflation, the Department of Insurance recognized that there would be deficiencies in the fund. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982, the amount the federal Government credited to the PSSA, the main fund, due to salary increases in excess of 5.5 percent, was approximately $951 million.
Capping salary increases to 6 and 5 per cent fortuitously gives rise to an average salary increase of 5.5 per cent, which is the actuarial assumption for salary increases. The Government will effectively be relieved of its statutory obligation to credit the fund with any moneys resulting from excess earnings on the interest the fund now bears.
In the past, the interest earned in excess of the actuarially assumed rate of 6.5 per cent was used by the Government to offset its $951 million contribution. With a capping that will produce a rate of salary increase equal to the actuarially assumed rate, there will be no need to liquidate the deficiency. The question that arises is how the excess interest will be used. There is a substantial amount of interest being paid on the fund of $15 billion invested at an average rate of interest of
10.5	per cent, based on 20-year Government borrowing.
In the private sector the interest earned on pensioners' shares is used to finance, in part, the increase in benefits. This

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
practice seems reasonable because the excess interest earned from inflation is used to offset the effects of inflation. This is not the case, however, with the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. All the excess interest has been used to offset the employer's share of the cost of inflation for its actively employed members. The situation is acceptable as long as the employer honours his promise to provide fully indexed pension benefits. If a restriction is placed on such benefits, consideration should be given to using the excess interest earnings for the purpose of increasing pension benefits.
The projected annual pension payout as of December 31, 1982, in respect of the PSSA and the SRBA is about $900 million. Capping indexing at 6.5 per cent next year will create some savings for the Government. In 1984 the savings at 5 per cent, by the Minister's own account this morning, are estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $160 million. The excess earnings on the PSSA, the main fund, for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1983 and 1984 are estimated by the Government to be approximately $539 million and $661 million, respectively. Bearing in mind that the Government no longer needs to use these amounts to offset its share of contribution due to salary increases in excess of 5.5 per cent over the next two years and that the pensioners' share of the PSSA is about 30 per cent, according to the 1977 actuarial report, the share of pensioners' excess interest earnings would be in the neighbourhood of $162 million in 1983 and $198 million in 1984.
In fact, the current restraint program already saved the Government about $951 million in respect of salary increases which have been capped. Using at least part of the excess interest earnings from the PSSA to fund the benefits paid out of the SRBA would enable the Government to live up to what many of us believe to be a contractual obligation. In effect, what it should propose is to use the surplus from the PSSA to fund the deficiency in the SRBA. A similar view was expressed in the 1977 actuarial report by the Chief Actuary of the Department of Insurance, Mr. Walter Riese, because the funding of benefits through one account would result in greater stability and avoid the situation where one account would have a surplus while the other had a deficit.
Another point about the funding and indexation issues related to the Public Service Superannuation Plan, is the investment of funds exclusively in Government of Canada bonds. According to the Tomenson-AIexander Report of 1978, commissioned by the then President of the Treasury Board, the PSSA would have earned at least 1 per cent more if its investment had been in a diversified program instead of strictly in Government bonds.
Finally, by law, the excess earnings on interest rates will be credited to the PSSA account under Section 34 of the Act. This will further enrich the main pension fund while not changing by one iota the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, there are essentially two points that I wish to make in this debate. The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) read
into the record part of a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to someone who had been asking how firmly committed the Government was to applying the CPI to a pension. The letter was dated 1977, but I think it is a very pertinent document today as it gives the ironclad guarantee of the Government of the day to apply to pensions the difference between the CPI at the end of one year and the CPI at the end of another. I think the end of the year comes in September but nonetheless there is a 12-month difference. I think it would be very useful if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), who has only recently assumed that office, could have that commitment of the Prime Minister in front of him even though it was given seven years ago. I am sure that in the time he has been in office he has not had a chance to look at all the correspondence. This is a very important piece of correspondence and he should see it before he embarks too fully on the course he has set. If the Hon. Member for Victoria, when he gets the document back, might be permitted to send a copy across to the President of the Treasury Board, I think it would be a very useful contribution to this debate.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It could be appended to Hansard.


Donald W. Munro: If it would suit the Chair, the Hon. Member for Victoria has actually offered to table the document and have it appended to Hansard.


An Hon. Member:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: 1 think that by unanimous consent we will have it appended to Hansard: that is very good.
Now 1 will come to the two comments I should like to make. The first one is one of substance and the second one deals with form. I am not sure that time will permit me to deal with both of them, but I should like to make a few comments on the matter of substance and also read into the record a couple of remarks which were contained in correspondence between a Public Service pensioner and the former President of the Treasury Board. Again I should like to send a copy of it across to the present President of the Treasury Board because he may not have seen it. It was dated August 30, 1982.
Meanwhile, on the substance side, I want to underline first and foremost the consideration that the commitment made to public servants was ironclad. It was in the letter of the Prime Minister. In effect, the present legislation breaks faith with those people who are no longer able to speak for themselves from within the Government as they once were. As public servants and through their collective bargaining agency they could negotiate with the Government. When they are on pension and no longer on the salary roll, they are no longer in a position to exercise the same pressure. Therefore that is the group in this particular situation with whom faith is being broken.
Of course the Government should be used to breaking faith by now. Canadians are becoming used to this Government
January 17, 1983

breaking faith, but these are the servants of the Government and of the people of Canada. It does not become any Government to break faith with its own servants.
1 would modify my comment about their lack of organization to some extent because public service pensioners do have an organization which is known as the National Federation of Superannuants which operates from outside the Government. On occasion it can and does make submissions to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts or Miscellaneous Estimates when it does its utmost, but without the same sort of emphasis which can be made from the inside.
When these public servants were still serving the country in an active form, they entered into a binding contract, which was mentioned by the Hon. Member for Victoria, that indexation, as represented by the difference between 12 months' variation in the cost of living, would be applied to their pensions once they left the service. In addition, to indicate that they were prepared to make their contribution to this contract, they fulfilled their part of the bargain. First, by adding an extra one half per cent and then 1 per cent to the pension to which they were contributing. Now that they have made that contribution, the Government is denying the existence of the contract. Therefore, there are two points to remember in considering this matter. There is the extra contribution which public servants made while they were in the service, and there is another matter, that is the size of the pension.
Let us remember that the maximum pension which a public servant is able to obtain is the average of the best six consequential years of employed service; thirty five-fiftieths of the best six consecutive years of employed service, in other words, 70 per cent of the average within that six years of service. It is not the full salary; it is 70 per cent of what they were getting. As has been indicated, that 70 per cent was to have been indexed under the provisions of the law to allow those no longer eligible for annual increments since they were no longer salaried employees-and salaried employees would be eligible in those circumstances for annual increments-to maintain a way of life to which they had had to adjust, taking into account the ravages which runaway inflation cannot fail to have on fixed incomes. The 70 per cent mentioned is a theoretical percentage because the formula for calculating pensions is thirty five-fiftieths of the average annual salary over the best six consecutive years of employed service.
I have before me an extremely well-written letter by a former public servant. I would like to read most of it into the record if time permits, and I would like to send a copy to the President of the Treasury Board because it was sent to his predecessor on August 30, 1982. He wrote on that date to express his strong concern over the implications of the Government's proposal at that time to limit the indexing of the superannuation benefits of Public Service pensioners to 6 per cent this year and to 5 per cent in 1984. The adjustments have been made since to 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent. He wrote:
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
I am deeply concerned first of all by the breach of faith and of principle which the proposal, if implemented in its present form, would represent. The undertaking to provide fully indexed pensions to retired members of the Public Service has a firm and specific legislative basis which involves obligations to be discharged both on the part of the employer and on the part of the employee. It was the problem of inflation which at the time of the enactment of the legislation sharply posed the need for it. In previous years Public Service pensioners had suffered heavy erosion in their standards of living. In the circumstances the introduction of such legislation was not only a progressive step and a matter of simple justice, it also had a financial justification in the requirement of an additional premium from contributors.
I see that Mr. Speaker seems to be somewhat uneasy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I must inform the Hon. Member that the time allotted to him has expired. Of course he may continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: I feel that this letter is worth putting into the record. I will send a copy to the Minister as well. He continued:
Mention of the contributors' additional financial obligation cannot help but place the Government's proposal in a very curious light. For there has been no suggestion in Government statements on the matter that the resources of the Superannuation Fund are inadequate to the requirements of providing fully indexed pensions.
As I am sure you will agree, pensioners have particularly strong reasons to be concerned about the effects of inflation. In our society they are, as a group, most strongly disadvantaged by those effects. Public Service pensioners are initially disadvantaged at retirement by the adverse impact of inflation on the level of their pensions . . . For some years now the range of variation over any six-year period had been quite substantial because of the factor of inflation.
He continued:
Where there is such discrepancy in income levels, both actual and prospectively increasing, Public Service pensioners must inevitably be concerned also about the inequitability of applying the Government's proposed limitations of 6 and 5 per cent to Public Service employees and pensioners alike. For such a simplisti-cally conceived approach appears to ignore the very different situation of pensioners, specifically that they have a much lower level of income, that the real impact of the limitations will therefore be heavier on them and that, unlike people in the work force, no procedures or mechanisms exist to offer them the hope of recapturing in later years when the economic situation improves the reductions in their income.
In the final paragraph, he continued:
I do not mean to imply by the foregoing comments that Public Service pensioners should be excused from making their contribution to the fight against inflation. Since they are the most strongly disadvantaged by it, pensioners are indeed bound, in my opinion, to be the strongest supporters of firm, fair and consistently-implemented measures to combat the disease. The Government's present proposal is not such a measure: as well as constituting a breach of faith it would permanently disadvantage pensioners. It cannot therefore attract the kind of co-operation which I am sure pensioners, in accordance with their limited financial means, would be ready to accord to the Government if they could recognize the sacrifice asked of them to be fair and well considered.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will have a copy of this letter made and sent across to the President of the Treasury Board.

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Before I recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lang), may I deal with the proceedings on the adjournment motion this evening?
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-Finance-Small business development bond program-role of chartered banks-(b) Request that Minister investigate situation; the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Fisheries-Disclosure of Kirby Task Force report contents-(b) Request that recommendations be made public; and the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen)- Trade-Representations to United States authorities on lumber industry-(b) Query respecting possible diplomatic note.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), as reported, (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and the motion of Mr. Gray (p. 21886) and the motion of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (p. 21889).
Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to speak on the amendment put by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). The amendment reads:
That Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), be amended in Clause 2, by striking out at page 2 the year 1984 and the figure 275.69 opposite the year 1984.
I want to indicate that while the Government respects the ruling of the Chair with regard to the admissibility of this amendment, the Government does not accept this as precedent-setting since the Government had no opportunity to make representations in the House in this regard.
Also, while I am on my feet, I have a couple of points with regard to Motion No. 2 which increases the payments to Public Service pensioners from 6 per cent to 6.5 per cent. This is done to respect the principle of not in any way reducing the payments based on contributions made by former employees, former public servants, and matched by the Government. This results in an increase of $18 million in payments. I find it difficult to understand how the Conservative Party spokesman,
the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, can call this a pittance or a crumb. We once heard an Hon. Member say, "What's a million?" Now we have the official spokesman for the Opposition Party saying, "What's $18 million?"
The amendment is a very simple one. It respects the contributions made by public servants, and the indexation based on those contributions will be at the CPI inflation rate of 11.5 per cent. The contributions that are made from consolidated revenue by the taxpayer will be limited to 6 per cent and 5 per cent.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third or fourth time that I have been on my feet in recent days talking about Family Allowances, the decision to cap those, the Old Age Security payments and the decision to cap those, and now today talking about the Government's determination in effect to put a 5 per cent tax on all retired civil servants. 1 cannot help thinking as a Member of this House how rotten it feels to stand here and be faced with pieces of legislation, one after the other, which have the effect of taxing every senior citizen in this country, because that is what the OAS legislation will do.
This legislation today is a specific 5 per cent tax on all retired civil servants. Also on our agenda we have a 5 per cent tax on all the children in the country. 1 look across at the 147 Members of the Liberal Party and wonder how they can support these measures with any kind of priority.
I hear the answer from time to time that we are going to save the Government money. The Parliamentary Secretary said that $18 million is not inconsequential. I agree. Eighteen million dollars is a lot of money. Hon. Members over there supported the Government which spent $650 million to buy service stations just two or three months ago. They supported the Government that has provided $1 billion in hidden subsidies to one Crown Corporation called Petro-Canada. Supporting an expenditure of $1 billion on the one hand and putting a special 5 per cent tax on retired people to get back $18 million or $80 million on the other hand, where is the sense of fairness in that? Where is the sense of social justice?
Hon. Members should read the briefs which came before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Where is the economic sanity in these measures when the nation has 1.5 million people unemployed? We have 1.5 million people unemployed because the people of Canada do not have enough money in their pockets to buy the goods and services which workers could produce. When you have no markets, then there are no jobs.
When a person stands in this chamber and says that we are going to take money out of the pockets of the poorest segment of society by way of a specific tax just to provide a little more money for the Government, we are saying in economic terms that we are taking money out of the pockets of those who spend everything they get because they are so near the poverty line and have no choice. When we say that the Government is going to save $18 million or $80 million, what we are really saying is that we will throw more Canadians out of work
January 17, 1983

because that tax money is coming out of the pockets of the people who would spend the money on the necessities of life which, in turn, creates jobs. That money is being taken away from those people and it is being put into Government's coffers.
We get into these amounts of $18 million, $80 million or $1 billion and sometimes we lose sight of what they represent.
This Bill before us today which Government Members are going to support as sure as can be will impose a 5 per cent tax on a specific segment of our population. Who belongs to this segment? Let us not lose sight of who they are. The segment includes everybody who serves in the Canadian Armed Forces for a length of time; any war veteran; everybody who serves in the RCMP or their widows. These are the people. What about the maintenance people who throughout an entire working lifetime never made a wage close to the average industrial wage? These people retire on $5,000 a year, perhaps $4,000 a year. But the Government is going to take a special 5 per cent tax from those people who have a pension entitlement of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5,000 only. What about all the clerks who serve this Government and the people of Canada so well? These people had a contract with the Government. Yet on the last day before Christmas we saw the best paid civil servant in this country, someone who made over $100,000 a year, hand in his resignation which was accepted, become eligible for a pension of about $60,000 annually. To reward this civil servant for his long-term service, he was put in the Senate at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of about $6.5 million, if he serves in the Senate until he is 75 years of age.
On our first day back in the Elouse after being away for Christmas we are asked to take an average of $30 a month from the pockets of the poorest element of Canadian society, those living on fixed incomes and pensions. That is to come from the pockets of people who have pensions amounting to between $6,000 and $7,000 a year. At the same time the Government has been handing $6.5 million to one individual. Where is the justice in that? Where is the priority and the social conscience that is supposed to be a part of every political party and of every Member who is sent to this House?
If the Government is genuinely interested in saving money, does it really believe that its priority should be an attack on pension incomes in order to save that money? It should reconsider some of its decisions, or are Government Members prepared to stand in front of their constituents and say that they believe in this attack on the senior citizens of this country with a special tax rate of 5 per cent per year for the rest of their lives while its priority for spending should be the purchase of $650 million worth of service stations? Is that the Government's priority? Is the Government's priority to spend its money for the ownership, power and control of service stations in this country which it will recover from the pockets of senior citizens, mothers and children of this country? This is the priority that Parliament is being asked to endorse.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
It is an abomination and not what 99.9 per cent of the people in my riding would view as appropriate Government policy. The Minister is denying reality when he rises in the House to say that the six and five program must be universal. The Government controls the superannuation accounts and is a participant in the Canada Pension Plan. One is indexed and the other is capped. The Government is creating first, second, third, fourth and fifth class senior citizens in Canada, depending upon their source of income. There is no logic or justice to the Government's policy.
This group of people with whom we are concerned have spent a lifetime serving the taxpayers of this country. They retired with a contract with the people of Canada, through the Government of Canada, in which they agreed to pay extra funds during their working life in order to participate in a pension plan that will be indexed. These employees could have reached an agreement with the Government to contribute less money into the fund and save more for themselves to protect them against inflation. However, they trusted the Parliament of Canada to keep its bargain. I hope that Members opposite will join our Party to defeat this Bill and this amendment.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak to the amendment to Bill C-133 which was moved by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). One might call it the half per cent solution. It is an insult to the public servants and pensioners of Canada. It is simply a gimmick to buy off some Liberal consciences. It is a cheap price.
Through this amendment, the Government is pretending that the purpose of this Bill is to deal with the problems of the pension accounts. Well, if there were problems in the pension accounts, they should have been dealt with otherwise than through the six and five legislation. As well, certainly changes should not have been initiated without consultations with the unions and the civil servants through their pension associations.
It is not often that we find the Conservative Party agreeing with the New Democratic Party in opposition to this piece of legislation. The Conservatives usually agree with the Government, as evidenced by Bill C-124 which is the legislation which started us down this slippery road. I want to say that the Conservatives cannot deny the fact that they knew, on June 12, 1982, the Government's intention when it was clearly stated in the budget that was brought down at that time. The Conservatives supported Bill C-124 which was an Act to implement the six and five program. The Government clearly stated that it would also apply to people receiving Public Service pensions, and the Conservatives were aware of this at that time.


Mr. McDermid:: Did we support the budget?


Sidney James Parker: The Conservatives supported that Bill.
I was very interested by some of the Minister's comments. He said that this amendment tried to avoid interfering with the fundamentally contributory nature of the program and that

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
the Government did not want to change the pension arrangements fundamentally because that should be done in the context of over-all pension reform. Yet, many delegations came before the committee and told us that there was no consultation whatsoever with the Government regarding its intent to change the rules about the indexation of their pensions. If the truth were to be known, the Government is interfering with the most basic and fundamental aspect of the program. It is interfering with the rights of pensioners and working people to be consulted about their pensions. Even the most rotten of private sector employers-those who have pension plans-generally carry out consultation before they change the pension rules. This is not the case with this Government. In its arrogance, it just rammed measures like this through Parliament.
The Minister, in his arrogance, even denied us the right to question him before the committee after all the delegations had appeared. The Minister was unfortunately unable to return after we received all these delegations so that we may have the opportunity to question him on the facts which were disclosed at those hearings.
The Government is attempting to say that the changes in the pension plan concern the funding of the program. This is nothing but a smokescreen. If there were problems with the pension plan, the Government could have discussed them with the union and the pensioners. However, the Government does not operate in this fashion. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) stated that the Government should have taken the opportunity of the Christmas recess to consult with the people on this issue. The question of consultation is an important one which I had hoped the Conservative Party would have taken more seriously before Christmas. The Conservatives were absent at many meetings at which important witnesses appeared. Although they were entitled to have seven Members at the Committee, we were usually lucky to see two. In some cases, even those who showed up admitted that they knew nothing about the legislation. In this light, it is ironic to hear the Conservatives talking about consultation.
In closing, I would like to comment on the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board that he hoped pensioners would understand what the Government is trying to do. 1 suggest to him that they fully understand the Government's intentions. In fact, I am sure, as a result of the contact I have had with pensioners, that they understand its intentions. It is trying to steal money from the pensioners, raid pension funds which workers have contributed to, while blaming pensioners for inflation. It is breaking a contract with its workers that pensions would not be changed without consultation. In other words, the normal procedure would provide for consultation in order to explain to pensioners and retirees and their associations the Government's plans before they were initiated. There is no question in my mind as to whether pensioners know exactly what the Government is doing. Hopefully, they will make the Government pay for it.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal again with the principle of the Bill and will commence by saying that the principle is wrong. When one starts from a wrong premise, no matter what one does, it remains wrong. Consequently, the device of giving back a half of a half per cent, as has been suggested by the President of the Treasury Board, (Mr. Gray), will not make the Bill any more right, because it has been wrong from its beginning. The amendments may carry out certain improvements, but would not correct the wrongness of the principle of the Bill. The injustice wrought by passage of the Bill would still be there, and the only way that it could be corrected would be to withdraw the Bill entirely, and that is what the Government should do.
There are a number of arguments which show that the Bill is a double-cross of superannuates, in particular, and also, to a lesser but still a large degree, of those who are still in the Public Service. I want to use some of the arguments used by people in the Public Service to prove that very point.
The Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act are really the follow-up of other Acts which have been in place for a long time. Under the PSSA, which was consolidated in 1924, the sums deducted from the pay of employees and former employees for their contributions have been greater than the total amount paid out in pensions and indexation combined or, in other words, the amount paid by the Public Service and by those who are now superannuates, some of whom have passed on, and by former and present employees, is greater than the amount paid out. Consequently, this fund has been carried by the contributions of the civil service, of those who are involved, of the 26 organizations involved in this particular Bill. In this group are included the Civil Servants Widows Annuities Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, just to cite a few examples.
Therefore, the amendment proposed by the Minister, which we are now being asked to accept, would not correct the things which are actually wrong. It is an attempt to make the Bill a little more palatable, but it is still basically wrong and it is still a double-cross.
The Government has never addressed the point that the people have put their money into a fund. This matter concerns their contributions. While the Government has stated that it has made so many contributions, in actual fact the amount paid into these funds by the civil service, by employees, is greater than the amount paid out. Civil servants have been paying into these funds for at least 55 to 58 years. Over this period employees have contributed a total of more than $4 billion. Matching contribution transfers by employers over the same period total about $4 billion. Accumulated interest totals about $5.5 billion, and the actuarial liability adjustment totals about $6 billion. Therefore, the total payouts from the PSSA and SRB accounts total about $4.5 billion.
We can see where the Bill is basically wrong. It is saying that the Government is contributing something which is being paid, whereas the amount being paid out has actually come out
January 17, 1983

of the pockets of former employees of the various associations which are now affected. To make matters even worse, in the days in which the Hon. Lester Pearson was the Prime Minister of Canada, in the early sixties, the employees and superannuates were contacted and a deal or an agreement was entered into. Representatives approached staff associations with a proposal to exclude superannuation from collective bargaining. In return for excluding superannuation from collective bargaining, the Government of the day promised to make no unilateral changes to the Canada Pension Plan. That is something we should not forget. The employees were asked, and a bargain was signed and sealed with them, namely, that if they would give up their rights to bargaining for their superannuation, then the Government would put it into legislation and would not change it unilaterally.
No agreement should be changed unilaterally unless there is provision for it in the agreement. If Bill Jones, a man out on the street, sells a cow to Bill Smith and agrees that Bill Smith will pay $20 a month until the total cost of the cow has been paid, that agreement cannot be amended unilaterally. Bill Jones has no right to say, halfway through the deal, "We will change the agreement and charge you $30 a month for the use of that cow", even if the price of milk does go up. Because the country is now in a deep depression, much of which-not most of which-has been brought about by the policies of the Government, it is not right for the Government to go to the pensioners and say, "We will now make you pay. We will take some of your pensions away to pay for the expenditures which have been wrought because of the deep depression we are in", the depression or recession, whatever one wants to call it.
Had the Government not introduced the National Energy Program, there would still be thousands of people working who today are unemployed, who have used up their unemployment insurance benefits. Had the Government not introduced many of those parts of the budget of November 11, 1981, thousands of people would be employed today who are unemployed. Those were the factors which brought about the situation we are currently facing. Why should the Government now go to those who are receiving the least, those with whom an agreement was made that their pensions would be indexed for their financial security, and say to them, "We will cut some of that off, unilaterally, whether you like it or not"? That is not the way any Government should act. The Government would not permit a private organization to do that, not on your life. As a matter of fact, the Government already has legislation on the books wherein it is stated that a private company which is paying out pensions may not reduce those pensions unilaterally. Such companies simply would not be allowed to do it. Pension plans registered under the Canadian Income Tax Act are prohibited by law from reducing either accrued benefits or any supplementary benefits which may come from that particular Bill, yet the Government is doing what it forbids private industry to do.
The Bill is a double-cross and it should be withdrawn. That is the only way the people of Canada can be satisfied.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker,
I had no intention of entering this debate until I sat here, and sometimes in the lobby, listening to what is being said in this House today. I am fearful that the wrong impression is being created in the minds of many Canadians who may possibly be listening to this debate.
Nobody can argue, particularly on this side of the House, that this is a popular measure. On the other hand, nobody can really expect all Government measures to be popular because Government by itself has to lead, and it cannot strive constantly to be at the top of the popularity polls, as Hon. Members in the Opposition would have us suspect.
Government means sometimes taking hard and harsh measures where it is possible, and in this case the only way it is possible to take these measures is within federal jurisdiction. It also means inciting to voluntary action, where the jurisdiction does not exist; and that is exactly what the Government has done.
Government means on occasion also having to tell the people the truth, which is not always pleasant. In this particular case inflation certainly is not pleasant. But unfortunately it is a fact not only of Canadian life but also of global life.
Government has to lead; it does not have to follow. It has to lead in the fight against what is one of the worst attacks on the global economy, this inflation. Inflation has to be fought and, like any war, the measures that are used, the weapons that are used, to combat inflation are not always pleasant. Nobody, particularly on this side of the House, even pretends that the present measures are pleasant.
However, let us be very careful that what we are saying is the exact truth and not some kind of distortion of the facts. The impression left by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), that the Government is taking 5 per cent out of the pockets of pensioners, is simply not the case. To take out of people's pockets implies that it is already in their pockets, and that is not the case. What the Government is saying to pensioners is, "Look, do not make the prophecy of higher, continuing inflation a self-fulfilling prophecy". We are saying, "Look, let all Canadians, irrespective of age or position in life, join in the fight against inflation so that we do not, with our own expectations, continue to fuel the flames of inflation". That is what we are doing, not taking away money which is there already but money which could conceivably, under the old legislation, accrue to these pensioners. I think we have to be very careful about that.
How is this fight against inflation going? The present indices are extremely good. Inflation is coming down. Interest rates are coming down. Despite all the efforts on the part of the Opposition members to paint a total picture of gloom and doom, there are good signs on the horizon. And for that we all have to be thankful. One sector of the economy alone cannot carry this fight against inflation.

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
The Member for Calgary West also, when he was specifying what kind of pensioners are being hit by this piece of legislation, mentioned the military. I, too, would like to mention the military pensioners, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration. But it is because of my respect and admiration for the military pensioners that I can guarantee to the Hon. Member for Calgary West, or a Member from any other riding who would like to use the same example, that the military pensioners are in the forefront of fighting not only past wars but even the present war against inflation. I can guarantee that on the basis of my own conversations with these military pensioners. They are the ones who say, "Yes, we have a war, a different kind of war, and we all have to get together in it, and what will the Government do if it manages to save some of our money, albeit it is our money?"
I will tell you some of the things the Government can do, Mr. Speaker. It can create jobs for people who would give their eyeteeth to be able to collect a pension. They cannot even collect unemployment insurance, the way things are at present. They have no jobs. If some of the money which may have gone eventually to some of these pensioners were, instead, to go to some of these young people, particularly the young people, to give them a chance in life, to give them a chance to contribute to the economy and get the economy on track so that inflation is down for all of us, so that unemployment is down, I defy any Member opposite to show me the military pensioner who would object to seeing some of the money that he or she may conceivably receive in the future deny that chance to the young people of today.
We have spoken today in the House of the possibility of the Armed Forces being opened up to young people. I would have it known that that proposal came from the Liberal caucus and I, for one, am damned proud of it. But before that proposal can be adopted, before our dreams can materialize, we are going to need money. I defy any Member in this House to show me the convinced military person who is going to deny a few bucks of his possible potential income to a kid who might join the Armed Forces, get a better training and be able to support his country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) rising on a point of order?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wonder if the Hon. Member who last spoke, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) would permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is that agreed? The Hon Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: During the period in the House today when statements were made, the Hon. Member made a statement, I believe, in which she mentioned listening to the Catholic Bishops and debating what they said, and bringing it before some group in the House, or words to that effect-strong words. Now the Hon. Member has just given a speech in which she has said that inflation is the main problem, that we have to fight a war against inflation. Does the Fon. Member not
consider that she is being inconsistent in, first of all, saying that she wants to look at what the Bishops have said, and they have said that unemployment is the main problem, not inflation, specifically? Now she has just given a speech in which she said that the poor military pensioners must again lead their country in a war against inflation, a war that apparently Canadians do not want to fight. They want to fight the war against unemployment.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, as you will notice, 1 gave that speech without particular notes. I would have to check the "blues". I do believe that what I said was that inflation was one of the worst scourges facing the global situation at the moment. I did not say it was the most important. I believe I did say it was one of the worst. I can agree that unemployment is equally bad. I will agree with that.
I also did say in my speech today, speaking about the Bishops' statement, that whereas I understood and agreed with the drift of it, I did not agree with all their economic analyses. I stand by that. I still say that we all have to help with unemployment. There is no use sitting back and whining about it. A million and a half Canadians unemployed-it is easy to say that, but it is not so easy to do something about it. This is where leadership comes in, this is where the Government comes in, and know some of the pensioners we are talking about, this is where they will be in, too, helping instead of just whining.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, in response to the last speaker from the Liberal caucus, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, (Mrs. Appolloni), who stated that she is proud to be in the Liberal caucus, may I ask how she can possibly be proud of a Bill which is going to break a contract with several thousand senior retired civil servants who honoured their part of the contract. That is the essence of this Bill. It is a Bill which is breaking a contract which is signed, sealed and delivered, and under which the retired federal civil servants performed their part. We are not talking about somebody breaking their contract so, therefore, we are going to break ours. They honoured their contract. And the Hon. Member says she is proud to be a Liberal Member of caucus. How can she be proud of a Liberal caucus which for years has been spending more money than it has been taking from Canadians by way of taxes. They have achieved it by way of a fraud, by borrowing the difference and offering people programs with a low tax and saying, "Don't worry, folks, we'll borrow the difference", and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston stood up and voted for every one of those budgets for the last 14 years which have had an increasing deficit attached to it. Inflation is simply too many dollars chasing too few goods, and the Liberal Government turned on the printing press, Mr. Speaker. It was not the retired federal civil servants who turned it on. It was not the ordinary Canadians, the farmers and others, who turned it on. It was the Liberal Government, backed by a Liberal caucus which in vote after vote has stood up and voted for the policies of the Government, which have put the nation into the position it is in today.
January 17, 1983

We cannot get around the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is unilaterally breaking an agreement with people who honoured their side of it. Public employees for years have paid 7.5 per cent of their salary to support the pension fund. In a recent letter from the President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Mr. Jack Donegani, points this out:
In the private sector, employee contributions seldom exceed 5 per cent and are frequently less.
We cannot get around the next point Mr. Donegani makes, and that is:
Benefits paid from the plan to date have been more heavily financed by employees than by their employer. Of $1,360 million paid out between October 1981 and September 1982, employees contributed $735 million compared to the Government's $625 million.
The third point, Mr. Speaker, which is the principal one to my mind is this, and I again quote from Mr. Donegani's letter:
There is a surplus of $15.5 billion in the Public Service Superannuation Account.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for years they have been paying in an extra 1 per cent. It has been piling up in the superannuation account, and now the Government is taking it away from them. They took the extra 1 per cent. It is in the fund and it should at least be paid out until the fund is at zero. If we were going to be honest and decent about it, we would at least say to them, "As long as inflation continues, you will get your inflationary increases until the fund is down to zero." In the alternative, let us at least be honest with the retired civil servants and give them the 1 per cent back.


An Hon. Member:: Plus accumulated interest.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Naturally. Give it back to them, plus interest. The ultimate humiliation, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not only breaking the agreement, we are forcing and continuing to force the present federal civil servants to pay the 1 per cent extra, and yet they receive no guarantee at all that they are going to get it back. We are taxing them to the extent of 1 per cent extra but we are not imposing that tax on the rest of the general taxpayers. The Government cannot get around the fact that it is breaking a contract, however it might try to weasle and squirm about it and however much Members from the Liberal caucus refer to all the great past Liberal victories and the great Liberalism and support for the people.
When someone in our country breaks a law, the full weight of the Government will come down upon him. That is what our criminal law is. If somebody breaks the law, the whole weight of society bears down upon them and puts them in jail, if necessary. We have a rule of law, Mr. Speaker, that if I have a contract with you and I break it, you can invoke the power of the state and take me to court, get a judgment against me, and use the power of the state to collect that judgment. People cannot break contracts. Yet the Government can break a contract because of the absolute power of the legislature. If it decides it wants to break a contract, it can by law. Canadians out there across this whole country need to understand that is what is happening, that they have a Liberal Cabinet that is
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
breaking the law, that is breaking a contract and a trust. How does Government expect people to trust it if it is going to pass laws and then turn around and break them?
The reason we are down to six and five-and indeed it is probably much less than six and five for most people-is not Bill C-133. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) hit it right on the head when he pointed out that it was the past economic policies of the Government which are driving this country into a recession, and probably a depression, which is causing inflation to fall. If this Bill were never passed, we would still be down to six and five this year and the following year. Therefore, why are they taking it away by way of a statute which breaks a contract and breaks that whole concept of trust in Government, when the economic conditions for this year and thereon will take it down? These civil servants deserve to receive 11.6 per cent inflationary increases because they not only have a contract which says they get it, but they paid their premiums and there is a surplus in the superannuation account of SI5.5 billion. Until that superannuation account is at zero, Mr. Speaker, I say that we, the Parliament of Canada, have to honour the contract we have entered into.
We all know that the reason for Bill C-133 relates solely to the polls. The polls told the Cabinet that if they brought out a six and five policy, which would accord pretty close to the reality starting this year and next year, they would gain some political benefits. If it wants to do it that way, that is fine. Let it try to get its political benefits. But every Member in the Opposition will stand and speak to the people of Canada and say it is solely as a result of the recession that it is going down to six and five. We could have zero inflation, and we will, if the Canadian people stick with the Liberal Government, because they will drive us into a depression where we will have negative growth. There will not be any talk of 1 per cent or 2 per cent. We will be into negative figures. They have taken this nation right now from the second highest standard of living, when these guys first came to power, to twenty-fourth in the OECD under most of the major indices when they compare us with other industrial nations.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we as citizens should expect that the Prime Minister of the land would respect the rule of law and the commitments which the Government had made. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had previously committed the Government to full indexation of Public Service pensions as a right earned during the working years. Why cannot Canadians expect the Prime Minister of the land to look out for their interests? Why does the Prime Minister not look out for this rule of law? Most of us Hon. Members represent our constituents because we are elected from there, but certain people, by virtue of the office they hold, are supposed to represent the broad interests and primarily to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. The Prime Minister is not doing that and, certainly, we from the western part of this country have no sense, and have not had any sense for years, that the Prime Minister even understands how we feel about the issues, or
21916

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
even cares. Whenever he comes out to talk to us, and he makes promises, as he did at the Western Economic Development Conference of 1974, we find afterwards that the actual policy and the actions of the Government belie the fine words which the Prime Minister can put out and, therefore, the Office of the Prime Minister has been reduced in stature and image as a result of the conduct and actions of the Government.
We have had this before. In the oil agreement, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said to the Alberta Minister of Energy that the Government would follow a certain course of conduct, and the very next day turned around and did exactly the opposite. So the next time we had an oil agreement, or a natural gas agreement, we insisted it be signed. The Government signed, sealed and delivered an agreement on gas pricing, and 24 days later the Minister of Energy stood in the House and unilaterally broke that agreement. We from the West have no illusions about the integrity of the Government in its upholding of contracts. We have had them broken before, and now every retired federal civil servant is in the same boat. They signed an agreement. They made their extra payment. And they are now being robbed of 1 per cent. That is the type of action, Mr. Speaker, we will not tolerate, and we will oppose this Bill at every possible point. I hope that the Hon. Members opposite, who genuinely care for their constituents and for the rule of law as being the prime difference between a democracy and a totalitarian state, that concept of the rule of law, that you do not break your contract, will stand up one of these days for that rule of law, or this nation is finished.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) speaking about the sanctity of the contract, the need for the Government to recognize that it must keep its word, that a deal is a deal, and all those other phrases the Member uses to oppose this legislation. I would remind that Member, as I remind other Members of the Conservative caucus, that Bill C-124, which this Liberal Government introduced and which the Conservative Party supported, with the exception of two of its Members, did exactly that. It broke every signed collective agreement this Government had with its workers, agreements which affected over 300,000 Canadians. It is pure hypocrisy, if I can call it that, Mr. Speaker, for the Conservatives to get up now and talk about the sanctity of a contract or agreement. If that is what they believe now, what did they believe last July or August when, time after time, on 16 different occasions, the Conservatives got up on recorded votes and supported the Liberal Government in breaking collective agreements? Remind yourselves of that, please, and let Canadians remind you on election day.
I would like to speak in opposition to the amendment before us, Mr. Speaker. The Government has made a big "to do", another one of its PR schemes, in saying that it is increasing the increase of pensions of retired Government workers from 6 per cent to 6.5 per cent in 1983. However, the Government has failed to point out two very significant things. First of all, under the present legislation those pensioners are entitled to
approximately an 11.4 per cent increase this year. Secondly, the fact that this Government is only increasing, through this amendment, the increase from 6 per cent to 6.5 per cent means very little to the average retired Government worker. It means an average of approximately 10 cents a day, not a significant increase. Ten cents no longer buys a newspaper or a cup of coffee or tea. In today's society, ten cents a day does not buy a darn thing except perhaps the vote of one or two Liberal MPs. The real shame of this amendment and this Bill is that the Government has broken its word to thousands upon thousands of Canadians. It has promised, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on down, that it would consult with retired Government workers before it changed their pension scheme. Those pensioners, and those about to go on pension, have the word of the Liberal Government that it would not make changes without consultation with those workers. Well, what good is that word, Mr. Speaker? What faith can people, who in some cases have spent forty years working for the Government, put in the words of the Prime Minister if sometime in the future, for political reasons, the Government decides it wants to break its word?
Like many Members of Parliament, I have received letters from individuals affected by this legislation. I would like to tell you how these people feel. This is a letter from A. J. Willis in Flin Flon, Manitoba. He says:
I am a superannuate, having retired seven years ago after 39 years of service-
I am sure that you will realize that the passage of Bill C-133 will place superannuates such as myself in a serious position, and I would like to cite the following situations:
As of January 1 my water bill has increased from $55 per quarter to $69.
There is no natural gas pipeline to Flin Flon so much of the home heating is done by oil, which has increased from 28 cents a litre a year ago to a current price of 35 cents a litre.
I would urge you to impress on your colleagues in cabinet the inequities which would be created by the passage of Bill C-133.
So there is one person who worked for the Government and people of Canada for 39 years and he is going to lose. Yet his expenses are not going to increase by 6 per cent and 5 per cent. Home heating costs in northern Manitoba are not insignificant and are going up by 25 per cent. A few months ago he believed that this Government was going to give him a pension increase, to which he was entitled, of 11.5 per cent. He would plan on the basis of that increase, but that can no longer be the case. He now has to get by with a 6 per cent or a 6.5 per cent increase, yet his costs are increasing much more drastically than that.
There are others throughout this land who have written letters talking about their own particular situation and how they are suffering under the Government's legislation. I have letters here which were written not by constituents of mine but by constituents of Liberal Members of Parliament. They feel they have to write to Opposition Members in order to get support for their position in the House of Commons. I hope the Government Members realize the situation they have put their own constituents in. With the exception of three Liberal MPs, they have put their constituents in a situation where they can
January 17, 1983

no longer trust their Members of Parliament to represent them or their interests.
Throughout this process the intention of the NDP has been to make sure that those who have views in opposition to this Bill have a chance to speak. We allowed this Bill to go to committee. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), submitted the only list of witnesses to be called to the committee. We talked to and contacted a number of groups across this country and insisted that the Liberal majority on that committee allow these witnesses to be heard. I am glad we did because we found out a number of interesting things through speaking with those witnesses. We found out that this pension plan has a surplus of about $15 billion. We found out that in most private pension plans the employer pays over 50 per cent of the contribution. So this Government is not generous because it is paying less than most employers on a percentage basis. We found out this Government reaps a benefit of approximately 1 per cent by taking money from this plan rather than borrowing on the market. So we have that information, Mr. Speaker, and we will be using it in the rest of this debate to prove why this Bill is unnecessary, why this Bill is not only a betrayal of the trust of the retired Government workers but why this Bill is completely unjustified, except for the political gain of this Liberal political machine. It has nothing to do with the restraint program and it has nothing to do with good government. It is strictly a public relations effort of the Government. As each Member of this Party has an opportunity to speak, he or she will point out to Members of the Government that they should defeat this Bill.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if three more Liberals show the courage of their convictions and vote against this Bill and if the attendance of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party is sufficient, the Bill could be defeated, and then the public servants of the country would have their trust in Government restored.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak in opposition to this Bill. I urge all Members of the House to join with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in voting as their constituents perceive their duty to be, and that is, against the Bill.
As has been stated by a number of Members who have spoken already, the Bill would limit the increase in Public Service benefits to 6 per cent in 1983 and to 5 per cent in 1984. It would affect all retired federal public servants, Armed Forces personnel, members of the RCMP, diplomats, judges, Governors General and widows of the same.
I think the motivation for the Bill is very simple. Hon. Members opposite, other than the two I have mentioned, are capable of anything because they stand for nothing. If their pollster tells them that something is going to be popular, then, ipso facto, they are immediately in favour of it. If their pollster
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
told them that 50.1 per cent of the population is in favour of lowering the ceiling of this Chamber, they would immediately be hot for it and could scarcely contain their enthusiasm.
This Bill shows that they are descendants of Commodore Vanderbilt who, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, was famous for saying, "The public be damned". Hon. Members opposite have added the twist, "Retired public servants be damned, public trust be damned, public sanctity be damned and public integrity be damned." These are the people who purport to form the Government of the most favoured country on the face of the earth.
The Bill is wrong for many reasons, Mr. Speaker and in the brief time available to me I will offer some of the reasons.
First, public employees pay 7.5 per cent of their salary to support their pension plan. It follows, I submit, that they are entitled not to be treated in this way.
Second, benefits paid from the plan to date have been more heavily financed by employees than by employers.
Third, there is a surplus of $15.5 billion in the Public Service superannuation account.
Fourth, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has committed the Government to full indexation for public servants and his Ministers have defended the plan over the years, yet they are now unilaterally breaking the contract with the public servants.
Fifth, the Government's Green Paper on pension reform clearly supports the need to protect all pensioners against erosion by inflation.
Sixth, the six and five program has been justified on the basis of national interest.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is truly in the national interest to deny pensioners, one of the groups in society least able to adapt because it has no more working years ahead, the right to protect their standard of living.
I should like to quote from a book by John Kenneth Galbraith entitled "Money", which Hon. Members opposite might find interesting. He points out that on December 8, 1931, with one-sixth of the total German labour force out of work the Government of Heinrich Bruning decreed a reduction of 10 to 15 per cent in most wages, this being a rollback to the level of four years earlier. He went on to say that earlier, the wages of public employees had been reduced by one-fifth and taxes on wages, salaries and incomes sharply increased. Unemployment benefits had also been reduced. He pointed out that in the following year unemployment rose to one-fifth of the German labour force and in the next year came Adolf Hitler.
These economic ghouls think that the way to deal with diminished demand is to cut the pensions of retired public servants, amongst others. These economic ghouls think that the way to get people back to work is to reduce the purchasing power of retired public servants, amongst others. They think the way to get inflation down, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) is to reduce

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
the purchasing power of a large group of Canadians by throwing many of them out of work, by punitive interest rates, by an unduly restrictive monetary policy. You could make a list of ways to create unemployment in Canada and I submit that you would find the Government has gone through virtually everything on that list.
According to Mr. Galbraith's theory, the way to add to a recession is to reduce purchasing power. That is now the case with respect to retired public servants in this country.
There is no point in talking to Hon. Members opposite about the sanctity of contract after what they have done in the energy industry, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills.
1 put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that after this Government has gone, things will be better for every retired public servant and every self-respecting Canadian in all parts of the country. There is no point in pleading with it to respect contracts. It does not have any contracts it respects, except the one with Mr. Martin Goldfarb, its pollster. Mr. Goldfarb has told the Government that breaching its contract with retired public servants would be a popular move. That is the end of the argument.
I see seven or eight Members opposite, and I submit that each of them has retired public servants in their riding who undoubtedly have written to them. But Hon. Members opposite will not respond to cries of, "I need the money to get by". I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the average federal public servant's pension is something in the order of $7,000. 1 would also remind you that this proposal would reduce the average federal pension next year by $345. There is no point in telling Cabinet Ministers, with their Jamaica tans, that a $345 reduction is going to hurt some people. They do not give a damn. They have a poll from Martin Goldfarb that tells them that if they push the Bill through it will look as if they were doing something about inflation.
Most Hon. Members opposite do not have the slightest idea of what causes inflation. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has told them that the way to lick inflation is to put the small business community out of business or to create more unemployment. In my view, most of them do not have the energy or the material between the ears that would lead them to examine the causes of inflation. If they did, I submit they would discover that some of the causes are printing money, excessive interest rates, throwing people out of work who then cannot pay taxes, which then drives taxes up for others and drives UIC contributions up. These things are beyond their understanding. They do not know what makes the world function in the eighties.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if four of them would put their retired constituents ahead of Party discipline, this Bill would be defeated. Then a great many public servants who paid for these pensions and expected to receive them would get them.
Finally, in the few seconds remaining let me say that someone who has worked in the federal or a provincial Public
Service for ten years will not forget the fact of Hon. Members opposite passing this Bill. There is not a single retired public servant, federal or provincial, who will forget what was done through this Bill.
I should like to give a personal example. An uncle of mine worked in the Public Service for 40 years at a lower wage than he would have received in the private sector because he believed he would have some security on retirement. People like him and thousands of others in the federal Public Service are completely at the mercy of a Government, a Government which would make Commodore Vanderbilt and his "public be damned" blush with embarrassment.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-133 it strikes one that we are being asked to view a quadruple feature horror series at a local drive-in. First, the Government presents Bill C-124, "Dracula", sucking some of the lifeblood out of the economy. Not content with that, the series goes on to Family Allowances, pensioners and Public Service pensioners-featuring Bill C-131, "Son of Dracula"; Bill C-132, "Daughter of Dracula"; finally, Bill C-133, "Dracula Sucks". Those are the names of four films. Other Members who have teenagers as I do are probably well aware of them. They are not particularly great drama, but they are full of gore and there are many victims. Not only do we see the Government and its Ministers acting like Dracula toward Public Service pensioners, recipients of Family Allowance and Old Age Security pensions and Public Service workers, we have seen the Official Opposition, who had lots of warning that this was all part of the deal, acting like nothing less than Igor, running around and helping to prepare the way and the victims for Dracula to descend upon. Now they try to act as the victims' defenders.
How do we know this? If we go back to the budget, it was referred to as part of the entire six and five program-"A Strategy To Bring Down Inflation". It was all laid out there so clearly and simply that even a Tory should have been able to understand it. Thankfully, two of them did. Two Conservatives saw the light, but what about the rest of them? Now they are claiming to be champions of the family, children, old age pensioners and Public Service pensioners. They were prewarned in writing and verbally, and only now do they discover that innocent people are being hurt at this time and well into the future. This strikes one as more than somewhat odd.
Many odd things have happened in this debate. We watched the spectacle of some Liberal backbenchers who were really brave when there were public meetings of public servants in the Ottawa area. At those meetings they said that they would oppose this legislation.


Walter David Baker: With all their might.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Yes, with all their might, as the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) just said. The Government responded, and of course it made a great to-do about that fact. Instead of six and five, it responded by increasing limits to 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent.
January 17, 1983

If we take the average Public Service pension-and these calculations may not be exact-and average them with the survivors' allowance or pension, we come up with an average pension of something in excess of $6,000 per year, and one half per cent of that is roughly $30 per year-30 pieces of silver. Now we know what it takes for Liberal rebels to be brought around-30 pieces of silver. It is Public Service pensioners who will get it in the neck.
In a number of briefs before the Committee there was ample testimony. One of the best briefs was from the economists, sociologists and statisticians association. Mr. Potter, chairman of its pensions committee, gave some very interesting facts. He stated that Public Service pensioners had been willing to be patriots. They had not minded that the Government had misused, misallocated and had been bad business managers in dealing with their pension funds over the years, as long as the promised full indexation was provided.
The Dave Becks and Jimmy Hoffas of the Canadian pension industry sit over there on that side. It is a pension heist, it is a pension steal; it is nothing less. Talk about breaking contracts as some people do-there has been a lot of that going on.
As reported, Mr. Potter made the following statement in committee:
The idea is that the pension account and the indexing account collectively earn less interest than a fair return on a well-managed private pension plan by about one percentage point, according to Tomenson-AIexander.
Also, in quoting an answer given to one of the Members from Halifax, he pointed out the difference by indicating the following:
The actual amount of the indexing account was $807 million.
If these funds had been invested in an appropriate manner, as was often recommended-and this has been done outside the federal Government sector in many areas-and if the 1 per cent extra were added, which the Tomenson-AIexander report suggested, the amount in the fund would be somewhere between $6.3 billion and $10 billion, rather more than a little over $800 million. The Public Service pensioners of Canada did not mind the fact that the Government was using their money to finance its other operations as long as they got the agreement that was indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by Prime Minister Pearson and other Cabinet Ministers over the years. Instead of a written contract they had an "iron clad guarantee" of full indexation. When this is taken away, how much can we rely upon the good faith of people who have been hosed and bled? Now they are being told that they will be bled for years to come, while other public sector workers will do their bleeding over just two years. How long can we expect good faith from the workers when the Government itself has not shown any? The Government has shown no respect for the sanctity of contract. The Official Opposition on Bill C-124 did not show any respect for the sanctity of contract despite its words today.
If we are to look forward to a period when labour and management, whether in the private or public sector, come together in order to arrive at some sense of harmony to provide a beginning to proper social and economic reconstruction, we must build upon a better foundation and better principles than the fact that the Government can break its word at any time
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
although it demands different standards from the private sector in the pension industry. It is absolutely rotten, it is despicable; it is bad government and it sets the worst precedent possible.
As was indicated in testimony before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates when it was dealing with Bill C-133, it demonstrates that "the Government is a bad credit risk". We do not need that kind of reputation today.
Finally, enough has been said by many people on this subject. I urge backbench Government Members to read very carefully the detailed submissions. I am not referring to wild arguments about principle but to the detailed submissions showing that there is ample money available through contributions of Public Service workers to finance full indexation and much, much more. If they believe this and are human enough to feel even a little twinge of guilt, I ask them to pressure, to lobby and to talk to their Ministers. Canadian public servants, Canadian pensioners and Canada as a whole deserve proper, fair and reasonable treatment.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-IVloose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks, I hope, will be short and to the point. I had planned to speak just on two subjects, but one was dealt with very well by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) when he put forward the basic concept of free ownership society, namely the sanctity of contract. I am glad to see that the NDP are accepting this principle in relation to this Bill. Secondly, I wanted to put this whole matter into a wider perspective. 1 have listened to much of this debate and I think that is the one missing ingredient.
Many years ago, as a teacher of history I used to bemoan the fact that teachers of history, both at the high school level and at the university level, had to rely almost entirely on sources that were American in origin and as well to some extent the Cambridge history series from the U.K. As a Canadian, knowing just a Iitle bit about our history, this was always a matter of offense to me. When I got my chance in 1957 as Minister in charge of resources in Canada, and I include in that human resources, 1 asked the leading historians of Canada to get into a group and select among their number the most learned and literate in their specialty to write a series of books on the history of Canada for Canadians from the Canadian viewpoint. That series is almost complete now. The original plan was for 18 volumes. The volumes take us up to 1967. The volume I have in my hand is the one covering our history from 1939 to 1957. I found out that after these books were published very few appeared in the schools of this nation. They were not designed for children; they were designed for adults. I find that very few Members of Parliament over the last 25 years, since these books began to be published, have read any of them. MPs are busy people.
However, I went so far a few years ago as to invite some of my colleagues to a dinner. I paid for both the solids and

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
liquids, and presented each one of them with a copy of this volume. A couple of years later I quizzed them all on whether they had read it. Not one had. One fellow said he had leafed through it. But, after all, he is now a Senator and has more time than most of us.
I point that out because what we are doing in this debate is ignoring the lessons of our nation in the past. If you look at this short, devastating, punchy volume of our history from 1939 to 1957 you will notice that, first of all, it is entitled "The Forked Road". What were the forks in the road that we took as a nation during that period from 1939 to 1957? One of the forks that we took was the gradual process of turning the real power of decision-making in our nation over to what is called by one author as the managerial elite. A more popular description taken from the Chinese of a few mandarins is how we refer to them. These mandarins believe, to the extent of making it a religion, that they, and they alone, know what the right decisions are. They draw from all the experts in their departments and from all across the world all the knowledge there is, from organized committees and other committees who examine committee work. Out of it all comes a rational thought. It was a battle for a while. Parliament did put up a bit of a battle. But because of the success of these early mandarins Canada went through the war with ultimate ease. War usually devastates a nation economically, but Canada grew in all forms during the war. Yes, we lost a few tens of thousands of our boys, but the country grew. It became mature under the leadership of this very self-styled elitist group who ran the civil service.
More modern books were written as monographs. "The Ottawa Men" was published last year, in 1982, written by Granatstein. I urge all Hon. Members to read this book to find out how that control mechanism got command. Granatstein admits at the very beginning that he admires tremendously the concept that only the gifted and the elite shall rule. Not Parliament, not the people, only those gifted by high degrees from Oxford, or famed universities in the United States are fit to rule the Canadian people. The choosing of this fork during the war ended probably in 1946 with a White Paper, a brilliant Paper on the future of Canada looking ahead 20 or 30 years. Following that there was the Gordon Commission which looked ahead 20 years to 1980. There was a real positive thrust and drive to this elite which we in Parliament, I regret to say, accepted as God's word.
Now we come to a little Bill where the end is shown in all its ugly facets. We are asked under this Bill, in a policy on which a great majority of Parliamentarians agree in a time of duress, at the middle and the end of a recessional period, that we should put restraints on those who are earning money that we should not ask for too much which would keep inflation growing. The great majority in Parliament voted for the six and five program. They did that without any breaking of contracts with those working because when you are dealing with people who are working contracts can be amended, particularly those that come under the power of Governments, provincial or federal Government.
In this particular section we have an unusual thing. The Government has extended this six and five rule to apply to people who no longer are employed and who have been charged heavily these last ten years for this indexing in order to build up the fund. If you look at the figures on these funds you will find that, because of the large payments made by all of those who work for Her Majesty's service here in Canada, we have collected a lot more money in these funds than we will ever use. It is found money for those who manage our money, in other words, the Department of Finance. Here we see the end product of turning power over in this fashion to a self-styled superior group of elitists. They really believe in their hearts that they are the voice of God and the people. They come down to a level where they state, with regard to these people who have slaved for 30 to 40 years of their lives and were charged more than the private sector for their pensions and have been fully charged and more for their indexing, that they will be consistent. They said, "We are rational people. We do not distinguish between those who continue to work and those who are helpless and on retirement." Therefore, the fork in the road that we chose during the war to save ourselves and after the war to follow the great plan for the future of Canada now comes down to this disgusting bit of meanness that sometimes falls from the table of these men who sit around and control our country.
I suggest that any nation or Parliament that does not know where it has been certainly does not have any future. I will close by simply pointing out that I want as many people in Canada as possible to know that this Government will go in due time. I am positive that there will be another Government in its place. I am positive, and God willing I will be there, that this law will be changed and will have the support of every NDP Member who is in Parliament at that time, every Conservative and every Liberal, because once these Liberals are removed from the threat and the power of the elitists to whom they have surrendered, they will vote as human beings who have a mind and can think and act with justice and equity, as we should.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak against this Bill C-133. I will not go into the statistics since other Members have spoken about the amount of money that was paid into the fund and which is held by the Government of Canada in trust, I might say, for these retired people and those who will retire in the future.
1 will not argue as to whether the fund that was set up for indexing is actuarially sound. I would suggest that if the fund is not actuarially sound, it is not the fault of the pensioner or the public servant who is presently contributing to the fund, but the fault must fall squarely on the shoulders of this Government. It should have been monitoring the fund on a continuing basis over the years and adjusting contributions and investing the funds in such a manner as to ensure that there would be sufficient money to cover the indexing and that the fund was actuarially sound.
January 17, 1983

A few weeks ago a letter was delivered to my constituency office in Moose Jaw. It was written and signed by the President and Vice President of the Moose Jaw Branch of the federal Superannuates National Association. The letter is dated December 3 and is addressed to the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada. I would like to read an excerpt from this letter. It says in part:
An extract from the 1974 Treasury Board booklet, "your superannuation plan", reads in part as follows: "In any year when there is an increase in the cost of living, pensions will be increased in an amount directly related to the increase in the consumer Price Index, without limit".
I would like to underline the words "without limit". They go
on to say:
We note that the latest issue of the Treasury Board booklet omits such a direct statement and wonder why the change.
We have fulfilled our part of the agreement with our contributions and those that follow in our footsteps continue to contribute to the S.R.B. Account at the same rate of one per cent. Our pensions were earned, we contributed our best years, our best efforts and to applying an agreed portion of our salaries to the Superannuation and S.R.B. fund in trust. These funds should not be tampered with but be handled with trust.
Should the Federal Government break this trust with Bill C-133 it would be equally rational to apply the six and Five formula to Canada Savings Bonds and the Bank of Canada. We could also apply the same formula to our 1983 and 84 income tax returns.
The Hon. Donald Johnston, a former Treasury Board President, recognized the indexation of pensions to the Consumer Price Index as a 'minimum benefit'. The breaking of this agreement with Bill C-133 will completely destroy the integrity of our Government.
I would submit that the statement quoted from the 1974 Treasury Board booklet indicates that there is a contractual obligation between the Government of Canada and the superannuates. I suggest that any court of law would find, if there was not an actual, written binding contract, an implied contract in that statement.
The superannuates and the civil servants have carried out their part of the contract by making their contributions on a monthly basis. Surely the Government can be expected to carry out its obligation. It is either a contractual obligation or an implied contract and, at the very least, a moral obligation. When I was a boy people said that a man's word was his bond, and so it was. They also used to say, perhaps not with the same conviction, that if a Government gave its word, it could be trusted. The present Government, over the past 14 and 15 years, has eroded that trust. This Bill will further erode that trust very seriously. When the public loses its trust in Government, it can cause very serious problems in society.
I would like to read another excerpt from the letter I referred to earlier which is addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This excerpt is under the heading "Who Can be Trusted". They say:
Mr. Prime Minister, in your speech to the nation you requested the people of Canada to 'trust me'. Should your Government really expect our trust in view of Bill C-133 which will take from us something which we have contributed to by
agreement?
Then they go on to discuss the people who will be affected by this indexing. These are people who can least afford to have their incomes cut. They have been faced over the years with
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
very high rates of inflation, rates which are continuing. They have been faced with high costs for food, shelter and clothing, and in many cases they find that it is almost impossible for them to carry on.
I would urge that the Minister reassess his position, consider the question of trust and integrity of the Government, and withdraw the Bill. If the Minister will not do this, I would then suggest that the individual Members of Parliament on the Government side join with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and vote against the Bill, and let the people of Canada see that at least some of the Members on the Government side can be trusted. We must rebuild the trust in Government. We must rebuild the integrity which has been lost over the last 14 or 15 years.
I would again urge Hon. Members opposite to stand up, to be honest with themselves and with their constituents and to show that they have integrity by voting against the Bill.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Bill with which we are dealing today, Bill C-133, is indeed about money, pensions and indexing, but, far more than that, it concerns integrity, trust and fair play. Those words are not written into the Bill, it is true, far from it, but that is really the basic issue we are discussing here.
We on this side of the House have listened with amazement to the unbelievable and really hopeless attempts of the Government and of Hon. Members opposite to justify Bill C-133, a piece of legislation which, in fact, makes a mockery of Government trust. I say that we have listened with amazement to the speeches which have been made by Hon. Members opposite and to the arguments in committee because it is very hard to understand-indeed, it is impossible to believe-that Hon. Members opposite would once again, not for the first time, go back on their word and, in this instance, reduce the indexing of pensions of superannuated public servants, of Armed Forces and RCMP personnel. There really can be no justifiable reason nor logic behind a decision to cap these pensions at 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent.
On many occasions I have head Government Members rise in this House and unequivocally state their support for pensions, their interest in pensioners and, especially, after some initial reluctance, they even came out strongly in support of that extra security of indexing which would ensure that inflation did not erode the inherent value of the pensions which our senior citizens, our retired citizens, receive. Yet, with little thought, little concern and certainly no consultation, the Government has decided arbitrarily and unilaterally to declare an agreement void, to throw it out, to really declare its nonexistence.
Bill C-133 essentially declares that the contract between employer and employee, the contract which deals with Public Service and Armed Forces pensions, is null and void; it is over, it is through. However, it does more than that. With such a dictatorial measure, the Government has effectively destroyed

January 17, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
any remaining hope of retaining its integrity as an employer. It certainly cannot go on to say that, from here on, it will negotiate in good standing, in good faith, in the hope that others will retaliate, in the hope that others will come back on the same terms with the Government. This has been destroyed. The fact that Government employees have personally paid into this pension so that indexing can continue obviously means nothing to most of those opposite. Their actions to push this Bill through at any cost show a total lack of concern for the ramifications of this legislation, where it will lead. What will be the next step? If this agreement, this contract, can be broken, what other contracts can be broken? Where can it be done on the national scene? Can it even be done on the international scene?
Passage of this Bill would allow the Government to steal pension moneys away from those who have worked in the Public Service, in the Armed Forces and in the RCMP. It really questions the dedication of those people to successive Governments over the years. They have earned their pensions and Bill C-133 is a slap in the face of those who are now retired and who rely heavily on the security of an indexed pension. There are many such people who live in Kingston and The Islands. Many have worked for years in the Public Service, either as Armed Forces personnel or as civilian staff at the base at Kingston, in the penetentiaries or in the many other Public Service outlets in the Kingston area.
There is sometimes a view abroad that public servants, and retired public servants in particular, live on a very comfortable, secure income. If one looks at the average of those pensions, including the people who are the widows of pensioners, one finds that that average is slightly under $7,000 a year, which is in fact well below the poverty line.


Walter David Baker: Sixty-nine hundred.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is what we are discussing. We are not discussing people who sit back on incomes of $50,000 a year. We are discussing the great majority who live below the poverty line on these pensions, and it is this group of people from whom the Government is stealing this miserable pittance.
I see that the Hon. Member opposite is arguing again today.


Walter David Baker: It is the Parliamentary Secretary, part of the great conspiracy.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Parliamentary Secretary may be content to take money out of the hands of retired public servants and retired Armed Forces personnel. He may be content to take money away from the widows of those people.


Walter David Baker: He has OHIP.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: However, I can tell Your Honour that we on this side of the House are not.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), toward the end of last year when he produced that television series, spoke of great and noble qualities. He spoke of faith, hope and trust. He did not mention charity because the Prime Minister really does not know much about charity. However, he spoke of faith, hope and trust when he addressed the nation. How can he honestly
expect these qualities, which he emphasized will be demonstrated across the nation when his Government introduces legislation like Bill C-131 to place limits on the indexation of old age pensions, or Bill C-132 to place limits on the indexing of Family Allowances, or this Bill, Bill C-133 to place limitations on the pensions of public servants and Armed Forces personnel?
Earlier in the debate my colleague, the Hon. Member from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), referred to this vicious trilogy of legislation. One cannot help but wonder if the Government is using this as a means to introduce a new kind of removal of benefits from the general public, removal of benefits by breaking contracts and ignoring agreements which the public has come to expect. The very Government which has placed this country into severe recession because of its policies is now attempting to use its victims as guineapigs on which to try to rebuild the economy, and these guineapigs it is singling out, the people to whom this limitation of indexing applies, are the very people who are most vulnerable to the high interest rates and to the inflation which the Government has created.
I really find it quite incredible that the Government holds to this plan with such tenacity; indeed, I would say with such bullheadedness. Have the Members opposite no understanding of their obligation to fulfil the terms of what is really a social contract, an agreement made, so we thought, in good faith and respect for the other party concerned? No, sir. It is obvious that such a decision to introduce this Bill was made with very little regard for the parties involved. The successive regressive actions by this Government are placing public trust, respect and confidence in Government in a very, very precarious state.
Times are very difficult. Why does the Government add to the situation by destroying whatever confidence is left in the country? Unemployment continues to rise and there is no relief in sight. Bankruptcies continue. Canadian businesses and labour struggle with little encouragement or incentive from this Government. In the midst of this recession the Government has decided to introduce policies that will place increasing burdens on the very Canadians most affected by the economic instability which it has created, not worldwide problems, but which it has created.
The proof of what I say is that when one looks at the last OECD Report on how the industrialized countries in the world are doing, Canada ranks twenty-fourth out of 24 countries. It is what the Government is doing here in this country that is creating the economic instability, not what is coming from abroad, and the Government's response to it is to introduce Bills which make it more difficult for those who are most vulnerable.
Where does the Government go from there? One has to ask, because I was astounded, as most of the people in this country were, to hear comments made by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Erola) to show that the next step
January 17, 1983

the Government proposes is to take away the benefits of spousal tax exemptions, again from those who can least afford it. That Minister has indicated that it is her intention to remove spousal tax exemption, and that spousal tax exemption is used by 75 per cent of the families who receive $25,000 a year, or less, as income in this country, the people who are at the lower end of the income scale.
That seems to be the progression of the moves that this Government is taking.
I understand that my time has elapsed, but I am very concerned. I would say to you that Bill C-131, Bill C-132 and Bill C-133 show a progression of the kind of steps that this present Government is bent upon taking, and the statements by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women just show another indication of that progression. It is to hit those who are at the lower end of the income scale, those who can least afford it and to break trust with those with whom agreement has been made. How can the Government expect any kind of support for that kind of action which denies decency, fair play, justice and integrity?


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, there are only a few minutes left in today's session, but I would like to begin to speak on this amendment, to speak against it.
I would like to speak for my constituents, particularly those who have paid into government pensions. 1 would like to put on record a short letter that I received today from a member of my constituency, Thomas Barrie. Mr. Barrie has written me a very short, concise letter that says, as far as I am concerned as clearly as anything I have heard in the House today, what the debate is about. He says:
Bill C-133 is unfair. Any pension that is not sufficiently indexed in these times of financial stress is a one-way ticket to welfare.
As a retired federal public service employee I, along with my counterparts, have paid for indexed pensions and paid well for them.
Please do your utmost to put this Bill out of business.
Sincerely,
T. S. Barrie
I do not think anybody could say it more concisely, more clearly nor more surely than Mr. Barrie has said it to me, and which 1 have now read to this House of Commons.
What is involved in this particular amendment, is what many Members this afternoon have spoken about. It is a breaking of trust, it is the breaking of a deal.
The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) brought back to me the memory of my own childhood, when I grew up in a community 1 suspect not unlike the one he grew up in, where it was taken for granted that there was a universal acceptance of another person always keeping their word. I remember when I was very small my father simply said, "You don't have to write things down because if a man gives you his hand, if a man makes a deal with you, it is a deal. If I make a deal with someone, it is a deal". To me that means not going back on something which has been accepted by both sides. What has
Adjournment Debate
taken place, as has been said very clearly this afternoon by several Hon. Members, is that this particular Bill is the breaking of a deal. It is a deal between the Government of Canada and the civil service people who have paid into pensions. That was an arrangement which came about by negotiation, bargaining, and finally the hand was put out. It was called a deal. They said, "We will shake on it; we can believe in each other". Now that deal is being broken. That is why we are against what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it agreeable to the House that we call it six o'clock? It is only a moment before that time.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, on December 22 I questioned the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) with regard to the Small Business Development Bond. If all Hon. Members can give me their attention for a moment I would like to point out the problem that is facing small business in Canada today with regard to the Small Business Development Bond.
The advertising the Government is perpetrating on small business right across the country is such that the businessmen who have found themselves-particularly small businessmen- in financial difficulties because of the downturn in the economy, high interest rates and so on, are approaching their banks and asking for assistance under the Small Business Development Bond, and are finding that the Small Business Development Bond is indeed a myth.
The Small Business Development Bond was first introduced by a Conservative Government to assist small businesses to develop and expand their operations. The present Government in an ill-advised way said that the Small Business Development Bond would continue for businesses in dire straits.
Because of the Government's introduction of that Clause, "financial difficulty" into the Small Business Development Bond, it has become totally ineffective. Banks are profit-

January 17, 1983
Adjournment Debate
oriented and they do not want to lend money to a company which is in dire straits because that company will probably go bankrupt and they do not want to lose their money. That is eminently reasonable. My contention, therefore, is that the Small Business Development Bond has become totally and absolutely useless because the Government has introduced the two words "financial difficulty" as a prior qualification before a small business can apply for this bond.
The words "financial difficulty" cause two problems. First, many small businessmen do not want to admit that they are in dire staits because every small businessman is an eternal optimist and feels he can pull his company out. Second, banks are profit-oriented and are unlikely to throw good money after bad. The Government, to pretend that a Small Business Development Bond is in place, that it is available for small businesses which are having financial difficulties and they can rely on this, is an absolute, monstrous lie. It is a monstrous misleading of the Canadian small businessmen for the Government to continually indicate through the advertising media, radio, television and newspapers, that for small businesses which are in dire straits or in financial difficulty there is assistance available to them through the SBDB.
The bankers see it this way: that unless the bond can salvage the company, it is unwise to lend the money. There are so many factors affecting the survival of a small business- Liberal Government policies, red tape, bad budgets, a myriad of things-that it is unlikely that the bond alone could save the company.
In my question to the Minister, I asked about the Small Business Development Bond. 1 tried to point out in my questioning on December 22 that the banks themselves not only are not making available the Small Business Development Bond to businesses which apply for it, but require from the business a statement from their chartered accountants or auditors to the effect that the bond is needed or the business will go bankrupt. It is criminal to think of the number of small businessmen across the country who look to the Government for assistance when they do hit dire straits, and are told they can get the Small Business Development Bond, but when they go to the bank find they are refused.
In addition, as I pointed out in my questioning, they go from one bank to another and find that the banks have an agreement among themselves that no matter what the circumstances, one bank will not make the bond available to a client who has been refused by another bank. So we have shades of collusion between the chartered banks whose branches have received directives from their head office that they are not to even accept an application from a small businessman who has applied at one bank and has been refused. That is considered "raiding" one bank's customers and they do not want to do this.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that previously many, many small businesses across the country used the
Small Business Development Bond very effectively. They created jobs and expanded into other markets. Then the present Government said that the bond would continue for small businesses in financial difficulty only. Adding those two words "financial difficulty" totally destroyed the concept and effectiveness of the bond. This made it absolutely useless for small businessmen in dire straits, facing possible receivership or bankruptcy, to go to a bank and expect to get some assistance under this bond. It is just not happening.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his representation and tell him that we are taking it very seriously, as I hope to show in a moment.
The Small Business Development Bond is a very important part of the Government's ongoing program to help small business. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) pointed out to the Hon. Member, it was for this reason that we included the Small Business Development Bond in the budget last June and extended its life.
The Hon. Member has now raised very serious questions about collusion between the banks, and neglect towards small businesses who have great trouble. He mentioned in particular the Royal Bank. The Minister promised to check with both the office of the Inspector General for banks and with the Royal Bank. Because we took the Hon. Member so seriously we followed up on his representation and also went to the Canadian Bankers' Association. I would invite the Hon. Member to give me copies of any documents he might have. He referred to a directive from head office to branches concerning how to handle these applications. If he has a copy or knows of a copy of such a directive, I would like to see it. We have not had it from him and I am acting without that knowledge in telling him what we now know.
We have found that borrowers are quite free to go to any bank to put in an application for such a loan. I must remind the Hon. Member that these programs are geared to people with financial difficulty. That obviously presents practical problems for the banks because they are going to be dealing with an application from a stranger who is in admitted financial difficulty. They are going to be slower or less happy to deal with them on that basis. Also, the banks' willingness to get involved with this program will depend, very correctly, on their existing portfolio and on their tax position. Now, that does not mean neglect or collusion.
The Royal Bank, for example, has 38 per cent of the allbank financing under this program. I would refer the Hon. Member to the comments of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about the behaviour of the banks, particularly the Royal Bank, which in their opinion came out very well in its attitudes and lending programs towards small business. The Royal uses a degree of risk in its existing portfolio as the basis for decisions on such loans.
January 17, 1983

Finally, I should like to point out that the Canadian Bankers' Association has very strongly denied the existence of any hidden agreement or collusion between banks on such borrowers' practices. They say that any borrower is free to go from one bank to another to seek such a loan, without having the banks react badly to them.
If the Hon. Member has a copy of such a directive, I will follow up on it. The Minister followed up on his earlier recommendation which we took seriously. We hope this information will move the issue along for him.


FISHERIES-DISCLOSURE OF KIRBY TASK FORCE REPORT CONTENTS. (B) REQUEST THAT RECOMMENDATIONS BE MADE PUBLIC
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, the matter I wish to bring to the attention of the House relates to the report of the Task Force on the Atlantic Fisheries which was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on January 8, 1982. At that time the Minister appointed Michael J. L. Kirby as Chairman of the Task Force and said that he would succeed to the position of Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when the work of the Task Force was completed. When the Prime Minister made that announcement he attached urgency to the work of the Task Force and the indication was that a report would be forthcoming very shortly thereafter.
In August 1982, six or seven months later, the Chairman of the Task Force, Mr. Kirby, indicated that he would be ready to report in September. At that time he distributed, amongst persons interested in the Atlantic fishery, a questionnaire which he thought would be the final activity of the Task Force. Oddly enough, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's indication that the work of the Task Force would involve far reaching inquiries amongst those interested in the fishery, in fact the Task Force held no public hearings and only dealt with people on a private basis. No real public discussion was generated by the work of the Task Force and thereafter it became a matter of media activity and investigation. The media informed the public what was going on.
That media activity is of concern to Members like myself; the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), and the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). It was also our concern last December when we raised the matter in the House and asked when the report of the Task Force on the Atlantic Fisheries would be released.
There was reason for our concern because by October 1982 it had become clear that the Task Force report had been completed. There were rumours abroad in the City of Halifax that it recommended the takeover of two of the largest organizations in the fishing industry in the Atlantic area, that is, H.B. Nickerson and Sons Limited, which 1 believe still has control of another large fishing group. National Sea Products Ltd., and also the Newfoundland Lake Group Ltd., which I understand is the largest private concern in the fishing industry in Newfoundland. This rumour was met with shock and
Adjournment Debate
alarm and had a very upsetting effect on the fishing industry in the Atlantic Canada, particularly Nova Scotia.
That was not the end of rumour, Mr. Speaker. On November 29, 1982, a report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald indicated that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) had provided information to the London correspondent of that newspaper, indicating matters that were included in the report of the Task Force.
To remove any doubt that parts of the Task Force report were being leaked to media persons and other officials, a series of articles appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail, of all newspapers. It is not noted for concern about the Atlantic fishery. On January 4 and January 14 of this year these articles indicated very clearly that the newspaper, or the reporter involved, had possession of copies or parts of copies of the report of the Task Force on the Atlantic Fisheries. The fact that a reporter for the Toronto Globe and Mail could tell readers exactly what was contained in the Task Force report indicates that what we are observing is a report by trial balloon. Mr. Kirby and his officials involved in the Task Force, are simply sending out trial balloons to the public by way of leaks to newspaper reporters and others about what is included in the report.
I think the most serious leak to date was the indication that large private concerns in the fishing industry were about to be taken over-in effect nationalized-so that the Government could enter directly into the Atlantic fishery by way of operating a part of it.
There is no question that the Atlantic fishery is of vital economic importance to all four Atlantic Provinces, but particularly to the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. In the case of the Atlantic fishery, it employs thousands of persons in fishing vessels of independent fishery operations and onshore plants. International exports from the Atlantic fishery alone total $1.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, you do not have to use your imagination to realize what effect the Atlantic fishery has on the economy in eastern Canada.
For the Government and its appointee, Mr. Kirby, as head of the Task Force, to play fast and loose with this vitally important matter is a shame and a sham. I call upon the Government today, as I did a month ago, to release immediately the report of the task force on the Atlantic fishery; not to send out any more feelers to find out how the public and the Atlantic fishing will react to the conclusions or recommendations of the report, but to put on the table the actual material included in the report so that it can be judged by those interested in the Atlantic fishery.
It is wrong that the Government and the chairman of that task force, Mr. Kirby, should adopt this process and procedure of leaking bits and pieces of the report. It is harmful to the Atlantic fishery and it is dangerous to the economy of the Atlantic Provinces, particularly the Province of Nova Scotia.

January 17, 1983
Adjournment Debate
I ask the Government to stop this sham and this shame and to come clean with the Atlantic fishery and those persons whose lives, existence and future security depend upon what action will be taken by the Government of Canada with respect to the recommendations, made not only by the Task Force headed by Mr. Kirby, but by all other persons and officials who are knowledgeable and interested in the Atlantic fishery.
At the risk of repeating myself, 1 ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Canada to take immediate action, come clean and stop this chicanery once and for all.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, 1 greatly admire the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). I have sat with him many times in committee and I know that he is seriously interested in the Atlantic fishery. But I must say that his approach today has confused me somewhat, and to a certain degree disappointed me. We have heard seven minutes of talk about shams and shame. There were very few, in fact by my count no constructive suggestions whatsoever.
The Hon. Member talked about the Kirby Task Force report and suggested that somehow the report was constructed in isolation of the people of Atlantic Canada, in particular those people most concerned with the fishery, those people who participate in that industry. He told us that was a terrible thing. 1 want to tell him that this Task Force and its report resulted from the most extensive consultation and the most extensive investigation and research ever carried out in the Atlantic fishery. Near the end of his comments he accused us of floating trial balloons and told us that we should quit floating them, that we should quit testing the public. That is a contradiction in terms.
The fact of the matter is that essentially the Kirby Task Force had two jobs. One was to investigate and make recommendations regarding issues concerning the harvesting, processing and marketing of fish. It has done that, and I am very happy to report that part of the report will be available very soon. Its second job was to have a look at the question of the financial difficulties being experienced by many of the same players mentioned by the Hon. Member opposite a few minutes ago and to give us some advice on how to restructure the industry.
The Hon. Member talked about private enterprise, private concerns, and the possibility of the option that Government could take an equity position. I tell him that that kind of concern rings somewhat hollow when those same private concerns are coming to the Government of Canada this day, yesterday and I am sure again tomorrow, with their hands out. As a Member of the New Democratic Party, its leader at one point, used the phrase-and pardon me for my license in borrowing it today-corporate welfare, or whatever it was, I simply want to say that when an industry, private or not makes decisions that get it into serious economic trouble and comes to the Government with its hand out, it should certainly not be
surprised that the Government of Canada is interested in spending the people's and the taxpayers' money wisely.
In summary, let me say the Government recognizes the need to dispel all the uncertainty in the industry as quickly as possible. As I indicated, the Task Force report will be made public very shortly. It is presently being prepared. Further, the question of restructuring that vital industry, vital to my constituents and to those of the Hon. Member, will be answered very shortly as well. It is now before a committee of cabinet.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that I know of his great interest in the fishery. I know of the sincerity of his attempts to acquire information. I want to tell him with equal sincerity and with equal passion that the way to help this fishery is not by giving us a litany of sham and shame, or by casting doubt upon the good work of Mr. Kirby and his commission, but by contributing and suggesting solutions to the problems facing this most important industry in Atlantic Canada.


TRADE-REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES ON LUMBER INDUSTRY. (B) QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE DIPLOMATIC NOTE
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, on December 17, I raised a matter with the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) regarding representations to the United States authorities on the lumber industry with particular regard to the investigations being conducted through the processes of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the International Trade Commission and the International Trade Administration in the United States. At that time I urged the Minister and through him the Government to utilize the opportunity provided to deliver a "clear and careful but unmistakable message", and supported the suggestion that a diplomatic note along those lines be delivered to the United States Administration for the attention of the U.S. Department of Commerce thus clarifying our legitimate deep and serious concerns with regard to this whole array of complex problems.
I am led to believe that, following that intervention in the House, although I am not suggesting that the action the Government took came about because of that intervention, that a diplomatic note or other means of communication was in fact undertaken by the Government or by some of its representatives. While it may not be appropriate to release the substance or the content of such a note or message, I and a number of others, certainly in the Official Opposition, and certain others who work in and around the federal Government would appreciate being briefed on this matter so that we may continue to deal with this very sensitive issue in the appropriate, constructive and non-partisan manner in which I think we have all conducted ourselves up to this time.
There is a problem with mixed jurisdiction. I am sure the Hon. Member who is answering for the Government this day will realize that the number of departments and the number of people who find themselves seconded to this department and
January 17, 1983

other concerned departments creates some confusion. There is some concern that the note may not have received full consideration by some of the people within the Government service who have the greatest depth of experience and knowledge in the particular areas involved. We would like to be assured that in any future action that at least those misunderstandings do not take place, and again we would appreciate being briefed at some point as to what will happen.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary attempt to inform the House now or perhaps at a later date whether the International Trade Administration in the United States has sufficient staff at its disposal in order to give proper and full attention to the very complex and vast array of material now being assembled here in Ottawa?
Finally, could the Parliamentary Secretary also report on what stage we have now reached in our assemblage of the submissions of both the forest industry and the provincial Governments regarding the whole matter of stumpage rates, which may very well give us the first clear insight into our policies across Canada in that regard?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) for the question he put in a non-partisan way. We are all interested in assisting this industry. I want to immediately assure the Hon. Member for Kootenay West, since he suggested that the note was not sent because of his representations, that it is precisely because representations by him and others like him who are sincerely interested in this industry that a diplomatic note was, in fact, sent. He need not be needlessly modest today.
1 can now report that a formal diplomatic note was presented and received. This note expressed the Canadian Government's serious concern over the action brought by the U.S. industry and reiterated our view that the charges made in their petition had neither substance nor merit. Particular attention was drawn to the importance of these products in our cross-
Adjournment Debate
border trade and the serious effect that any disruption of this trade would have on both the Canadian industry and on the communities which depend on it. Secretary Schulz has acknowledged the importance of the matter and a formal reply is expected in short order. Our ambassador has also brought our concern to the attention of the Department of Commerce which, as the Hon. Member will know, is primarily responsible for carrying out the investigation.
As 1 noted when the matter was raised earlier, the countervailing procedures in the United States are laid down in legislation, and once a petition has been filed and accepted any investigation must follow a strict timetable. As part of these procedures, the U.S. Department of Commerce has requested and has been provided with extensive background on the various federal and provincial programs which were the subject of complaint. Based on this and other evidence, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is to make a preliminary determination on or before March 7 as to whether or not any element of subsidy exists. I must say that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) is confident that the material provided will thoroughly refute the allegations made in the petition, particularly those concerning provincial stumpage practices. 1 think this was a matter of very great concern to the Hon. Member for Kootenay West.
In the meantime, bilateral consultations have already been initiated with the United States under Article 3 of the GATT Code on Subsidies and Countervailing duties. The course of events will determine the extent to which further bilateral and multilateral action may be necessary. In any such effort to preserve this vital export trade, I can assure all Hon. Members that we are continuing to work closely with both provincial governments and the Canadian industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, January 18, 1983