1983-02-01

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 22, 1982, consideration of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Dantzer (p. 21795).
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not usually inclined to speak on non-scientific or noneconomic issues to an empty House of Commons and to Government Members who do not listen anyway. However, 1 have a few remarks to make on a topic about which 1 feel very strongly, both for the deleterious effect it will have on senior Canadians' ability to live in dignity, or even to survive in some cases, as well as the breach of faith and contract which this represents between the Government and its citizens.
All Canadians acknowledge and support restraint and moderation in spending. Indeed, Government spending is exactly what should be restrained, but that should not come from past contractual obligations, or from needy senior Canadians who cannot defend themselves. Most Canadians are more than willing to share the burden of reducing inflation, including our seniors, and most Canadians are able to adjust their lifestyle to their incomes. Not all are, of course, and certainly not the unemployed; but the 87 per cent of Canadians who are working are able to maintain a reasonable lifestyle, even if some belt-tightening is required.
The real tragedy of this, the richest country in the world, is that one in seven Canadians cannot find work, and because of the loss of tax revenues from these unemployed, the Government now wishes to break its moral obligation to defenceless senior Canadians.
The tragedy rests in the failure of the Government to have invested wisely in the productive aspects and in the job-producing aspects of a healthy Canadian economy over the past 20 years. If instead of selling off our valuable natural resources to other nations we had devoted our tax dollars to the support of advancing technologies and the manufacture of all the products needed by less well-endowed nations, there would today have been more jobs than there would have been Canadians to fill them.
If we had invested wisely in the infrastructures of a sound productive economy, we would not be debating this disgraceful Bill today. What we, the citizens of the richest and most literate country in the world, should be debating is how we could be improving the Canadian lifestyle and the lifestyle of other world citizens who are not blessed, as we are, with either our resources or our abilities. But here we are today, the supposed leaders of our country, debating the cutting back the cutting back on the moral obligation to aid many of our senior Canadians, both men and women, who have, through no fault of their own, unless age is now a fault, left the work force and are now no longer able to influence or add to their own income to offset the inflationary costs which are largely the result of this Government's failed economic policies and massive bureaucratic overspending.
There may be no written contract between the Government of Canada and retired Canadian seniors, but there is a clear and strong moral contract between the Government and people who have given 40 or 50 years of their lives to building this country, paying their taxes and raising their families and who now are the taxpayers of today.
[DOT] (i no)
Has the Government surveyed or in any way asked today's taxpayers, the sons and daughters of today's seniors, if they in fact want the moral responsibility to their parents' retirement withdrawn? I think the public of Canada would give a resounding no to such a breach of moral contract.
Let me quote the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) when she introduced this "mean and wretched measure", as described by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). The Minister said:
We are asking 1.1 million old age pensioners to help lead the way in the fight against inflation. I am very conscious of the sacrifice we are asking of them.
I doubt that very much. I doubt that she, any other overpaid and underperforming Minister of this Government, any of the rest of us Members or, for that matter, most of the working public, can have any possible conception of the trapped feeling, the despair and anguish of a senior Canadian who is too old to work and is unable to meet the daily and weekly costs of an existence which the rest of us have defined as the poverty line.
The Minister claimed that the so-called Guaranteed Income Supplement, which is not deindexed, will protect the 600,000 or so of the hardest hit pensioners, particularly single pensioners whose income is less than $8,900 per year or married couples under $15,000 per year, and those two out of every
COMMONS DEBATES_________________________________ February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
three unattached women over 65 who live below the poverty line.
If the old age pension is already inadequate for these seniors, so that they are already in need of an income supplement to bring them up to or past the poverty line, then why is the Government making the problem even worse by reducing the impact of the already inadequate old age pension? How does taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another save money? How can putting more seniors on the extreme dependency list by reducing the increase of their basic pension plan help the pride and self-respect of a person's retirement years? How can the Government of the richest country in the world even consider a pension plan which would only keep its retired citizens in a state of poverty?
What a joke is the term "Guaranteed Income Supplement" when one looks at the record of the Government! The dictionary definition of "guarantee" is: "Give one's word that something will happen; given as security for fulfilment of conditions".
Canadians well know the record of the Liberal Government in giving its word-its word about no wage and price controls, its word about 18-cent gasoline, its word that it would reduce Canada's annual deficit. We have seen the Government go back on deals made on Canada lands through the National Energy Program. We have just witnessed the passing of legislation to renege on or to flatly break the Government's contract on pensions to public employees, RCMP members and people in our Armed Forces. If the Government is prepared to break written deals, it should come as no surprise to Canadians that it will readily break moral or unwritten contracts with its seniors.
It is interesting to note that private sector pensions, those provided by life insurance companies, do not have the privilege of reneging on their amounts or conditions. The Government sees to it that private company pensions may not withdraw any rights, conditions or amounts which have been promised, and this is how it should be. Why, then, should Canadians tolerate a Government which can break its word, its social contract with Canadian taxpayers? Can it be that the Government old age pension plan is failing? Obviously, the answer is yes. None of the private sector plans has failed or been cut back. This is because they are, by law, actuarially funded so that money will be there when needed. At the very least, actuarial funding should be a condition of Government pensions, or we will be continually facing the cutting back in promised pensions similar to what we are seeing today.
In Canada's aging society it will be impossible to sustain various pension plans we now have on the books. The 2.1 million so-called "old people" of today will become 3.4 million by 2001, which is just 18 years away. Instead of breaking its social pension contract with Canadians, the Government should be introducing legislation not to increase pensions but to improve them, consistent with many of the recommendations of the Senate special committee report of 1979, particularly as it relates to gross underfunding in general, and the terrible inequities and injustices suffered by women under present provisions in particular. What good is a pension plan
that has no money? Thanks to lack of planning the only way the rest of us will get a pension will be to increase the taxes on our children.
As I said earlier, private pension plans must, by law, be actuarially funded so that the money must be there when the time comes to pay it out. Not so Government pensions. This was brought out clearly when this House debated the large pension increases voted on by Members of Parliament for themselves. If the money had had to be found to buy such pension increases for Members of Parliament through a private pension company, it would have been a different story and Members and Senators would not have been able to afford to vote themselves pensions of a size double that allowed other Canadians. Imagine the unbelievable cost of $1.2 million for a pension for our new Senator Pitfield. By the time he retires, it is estimated that he will have been paid some 15 times as much money as the average Canadian pensioner. How is that for equity and social justice Liberal style?
Of course, I support the principle of the 6 per cent and 5 per cent wage guidelines in our fight to bring inflation down, but I do not subscribe to the breaking of a moral or a written contract with just a selected few Canadians, rather than all Canadians.
I would also support a major economic policy drive to increase Canadian production, productivity and other measures which would lower inflation to below 6 per cent per year. Then the pensions of seniors would not need to go up over 6 per cent and this Bill will have been proven to have been unnecessary.
What we need is economic action, not negative legislation. If any Liberal Member, after voting himself or herself a huge pension increase just a year and a half ago, were to rise in support of this despicable cutback in pensions to deserving seniors, then hypocrisy will have been elevated to a new level in this House of Commons and Liberal social justice to a new low.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of my Party, the New Democratic Party, on Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Before I do so, I have one comment on the words of the last speaker. He said that the Conservative Party, of which he is a member, supported the principle of six and five and then he said that he is against this Bill. It seems to me that the Conservative Party must have foreseen, if it supported the principle of six and five-this phony Liberal principle-that in fact the Conservatives would be faced with Bills like this one which will affect old age pensions. As well, the Conservatives would be faced with Bills that would affect children, Family Allowances, Public Service employees, retired army people, retired policemen and other retired employees of the civil service. The Conservatives must have known that. Is the Conservative Party of Canada so divided and so mixed up in its leadership fights and its Members so preoccupied with
February 1, 1983

stabbing one another in the back that they are to the point where they are muddled in their thinking?
What we are seeing in Canada is the disintegration of the Conservative Party. Those of us who come from Western Canada are concerned that we really have an Opposition in this House. Therefore, it falls to us in the New Democratic Party to provide an Opposition, a real Opposition, to this terrible Trudeau Liberal Government. That is the task we will begin today.
1 am pleased to begin on behalf of constituents of mine, old people and young people, who are concerned and have written to me about the effects of the six and five program. This Bill robs a million pensioners of benefits. I use the word "robbed" because it limits the indexing of Old Age Security to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. It means, as well, that older people will be out of pocket as a result of reductions in benefit levels in the two-year period 1983 to 1984.
Second, it means that when and if indexing is reintroduced in 1985, the calculation will be computed on a lower base than it would have been if full indexing had been permitted over that period. Therefore, pensioners in Canada will suffer a permanent reduction in the amount of Old Age Security benefits. Our calculations are that it will be close to $300 that old age pensioners will lose. Over half of this group is women who are in particular need of money.
I ask the Government, where is the equity and justice in this six and five program when it takes $300 from the pensioners in Canada? There are Governments in this country which bail out the big companies, such as $500 million for Dome. This Government takes $300 away from each pensioner in Canada but provides $500 million for large oil companies and the banks who back the debts of Dome.
In my Province of British Columbia, the Government has even bailed out a ski hill, Whistler Mountain. The B.C. Government is prepared to bail out speculators and developers of a ski hill while this Government is prepared to take $300 from each pensioner in Canada. That is the type of justice we see in Canada and the people will realize it.
We in the NDP, as the real Opposition now in Canada, must point this out to the Canadian people. We will certainly do that in Western Canada, where I come from. Those who are watching or who read this debate must realize that the six and five program is a phony program. I see the Minister nodding his head. We have a depression in this country which was caused by the Government. It was its policies, like those of the United States and Great Britain, to bring in monetarism and put interest rates as high as possible to squeeze the economy, which have caused the economy to take a nosedive.
The Minister will say that it is an international problem. That is partly true, but Canada has the worst record, if one sees the OECD figures. There has been a drop of 5 per cent in our GNP. This country has the worst performance record.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
It is Government policy to induce a depression. It has done this by making the interest rates so high that people could not afford to borrow and, therefore, would not spend. The entire economy is in a recession-some call it a depression.
How does the Government propose to recover from this recession? It proposes to do it on the backs of the working people, on the backs of old age pensioners and retired civil servants and on the backs of children. It is a gutless policy.
I have asked some people in my riding to write about this type of policy. I want to relay to the House some of those letters. I have one letter from Mrs. Margaret McNeill of East 33rd Avenue in Vancouver. She says that she is concerned about high interest rates that are going up, increases on taxes on low wage earners and the six and five limit on Old Age Security while there is no limit on prices. She knows that when she goes to the local store the prices are not restricted or controlled. However, her pension is controlled. It is a shame to fight our economic difficulties on the backs of old people.
Mr. Park of Normandy Drive in Vancouver says that he is waiting to receive his old age pension. He understands that the inflation rate is near 10 per cent. He says, "I have to ask myself, is this what I went overseas for in World War II?" I see the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) in the House. How does he feel about a letter like this from a veteran who lives in Vancouver? This man went overseas and fought for our country and is about to become a pensioner, but he has to suffer because his pension is cut back.
We are talking about people who are making less than $9,000 a year. It is all very well for us who make $60,000 a year to restrict the pensions of elderly Canadians. It is a shame and a scam. It is the most unjust piece of legislation we have seen in the House for a long time.
I could read more letters. I have in my hand a letter from Mrs. Adams who lives on Fraser Street in another part of my riding, and she wrote about her difficulties. These old people are proud people. They have fought for and served the country. They are prepared to make sacrifices and have made sacrifices for Canada. But why must we fight a Government-caused recession on the backs of these people? I say it is unjust and that eventually the young people of this country will realize that if it can be done to old age pensioners today, it can be done to them when they get old, with a Government like this.
In our society we once respected our old people. I hope that some people in society still do. However, it is certainly a mark of Government disrespect to make old people poor through a law like this.
I will conclude by saying that once I was the energy critic in my Party and I watched $8.7 billion being earmarked for grants to oil companies. I saw grants given to Chrysler, to Maislin and to Dome Petroleum. Then we saw the money being taken away. Therefore, we in the New Democratic Party, unlike those in the Conservative Party who are so divided that they find trouble even being logical about this matter, certainly oppose the six and five principle. We will
COMMONS DEBATES ____________________________________February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
fight, and we will to our dying breath, the injustice of this legislation, which fights our present economic problems on the backs of the people who can least afford it, namely old age pensioners in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Campbell (Cardigan):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House in his comments with reference to veterans, but 1 am sure he is aware that benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans are not affected by the six and five program; that in fact, as of January 1, benefits increased by 11.5 per cent-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is not a point of order; that is a point of debate.
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-131, I may point out that we are discussing the dire consequences of a policy set by the present Government some fourteen years ago.
You will remember that at the time, inflation was already a problem, and I recall quite distinctly the words spoken by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who boasted here in the House that: We have wrestled inflation to the ground. Those were his very words. However, we also know that it was not true, and that the following year, the Government tabled a motion in the House to adjust Old Age Security pensions if inflation were to exceed 4 per cent. Because the Government failed to act then, in 1971 it brought in full indexing of Old Age Security pensions. And even then, nothing had been done to wipe out inflation. All the Government did was add another cushion to lessen the shock of inflation. That is all very well, and it could go on for ever, but today, we have a situation where the Government has decided to impose its 6 and 5 program. For the edification of the young New Democratic Party Member who has just left the House, the 6 and 5 program applies to salaries in the Public Service, some Crown corporations and a few other corporations and to various individuals, but it does not affect veterans' pensions nor the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Today-and I think it is rather peculiar, although the people concerned are recipients- people receiving a special allowance as an income supplement, since they are going to lose about $35 a month, will receive compensation. What they lose on their Old Age Security pension, they get back in the form of a supplement. So they get indexing to cover inflation, and that seems to be the privileged class under the Old Age Security Act, namely, people whose individual income is less than $8,900. I know there is a certain percentage of people in this situation, but honestly, Mr. Speaker, what about people, especially in Quebec, in the country, who have worked all their lives and saved up and have made modest investments which today provide them with a retirement income. Everywhere we are encouraging people to save for their retirement, because the State-oh, I know that
the New Democratic Party and many members of the Liberal Party expect Canadians, upon reaching the age of 65, to go to the Government authorities and say: Look here, 1 have no money and no possessions and I have spent my last cent. Now it is up to you. No, that is not the Canadian way. The vast majority of our senior citizens have additional sources of income. They are not living in abject poverty, but the Government seems to be favouring those who are. People who have saved up are being told: Look here, you are going to be penalized for this, whether you are a public servant or a former bank clerk or a teacher or whatever, you have savings in the bank, so we are going to take away your savings. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the 6 and 5 is being imposed twice, since under the provisions of Bill C-139, indexing of the personal deduction will be capped at 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. The deduction was introduced by Mr. Turner in 1973, after the 1972 election when he said that Mr. Stanfield's policies would bring this country to bankruptcy. If that is the case, he has certainly benefited from this program. Pensioners, however, who have been able to provide for a modest income by dint of saving carefully, are twice penalized. I think this is extremely unfair, and to me, it is certainly not part of the 6 and 5 program we supported in July. The program we supported then applied to salaries and not to pensions or family allowances. However, in other areas the Government is ignoring its own 6 and 5 policy. Some people are being given fantastic raises well above the 6 and 5 levels. That is why my colleagues and I are opposed to the 6 and 5 as it applies to indexing of Old Age Security pensions. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, we shall vote against this Bill.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member who has just spoken concerning the six and five policy. I would say that each and every one of us agrees with the basic suggestion that the rate of inflation must be reduced at all costs and that the Government had to come up with a policy designed to rid ourselves of that cancerous growth which is undermining our economy as well as those of the North American continent and of other countries which are traditionally oriented towards expansion and contemporary economic development.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the six and five per cent program, it is often too easy to make demagogic speeches and keep on asking who should have full indexation, who should have capped indexation, and we might proceed in stages and wonder whether it is fair to anyone. In my opinion, the underlying principle of this whole issue is to devise a formula whereby the full load will be shared by all Canadians.
It stands to reason of course that senior citizens would deserve full indexation. As I said before in this House, perhaps
February 1, 1983

they would even deserve much more than what they are getting now if we keep in mind the fact that among Canadians they are the ones who did make it possible for our economy to flourish very rapidly. However, what we must not forget is the fact that-and I am talking about the basic element of the entire issue-if we manage to reduce the rate of inflation to 6 and 5 per cent and even to bring it down to zero, elderly people will be the first to benefit because, as the previous speaker said a moment ago, they have worked hard throughout their active years, they have faced their responsibilities and they were able to set a few dollars aside for their retirement. It was extremely difficult for them to save that money during those long harsh years, and they now find that inflation is robbing them of what little savings they do have. Senior citizens whom I have met in my own constituency and during my travels all tell me the same thing: Do try and get rid of inflation and we shall be able to live with what the Government gives us and, in some cases, with what we have saved. As for those who have no savings and no investments, they say: We shall get by with the Old Age Security and the Income Supplement for senior citizens.
In fact, what these people want is to be able to get full value for their money. This is what they want. When we speak about the six and five program for senior citizens, since inflation is now going down and will soon be under six and five per cent then, everyone will benefit, starting with the senior citizens.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) when he spoke earlier, and he gave the impression that the Government was voluntarily trying to treat senior citizens unfairly with its six and five program. There is no discrimination, Mr. Speaker, since, under the six and five program, those who do not have a reasonable guaranteed income will receive a fully indexed income supplement. Therefore, if the Hon. Member for Edmonton West wants to speak about discrimination, I must point out that taxwise the program applies differently to wealthy people and to those with lower incomes, because there are two formulae. This is the purpose of the program, to have formulae which are fair for everyone. It would be wrong to treat everyone in the same way. Everyone must be treated on the basis of what they have or do not have. In this regard, I believe that the House would agree that the six and five program has been adjusted on the basis of each individual's responsibilities and income. This is an important consideration in this debate, but the public is being asked to believe that the Government has been insensitive to the needs of senior citizens.
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the new rules allow us to come back to this during the question period later on. So if there are any questions later, there will be no problem. Perhaps there could be a debate on the subject. Once more, however, I want to make it clear that the Government has been very sensitive to the needs of senior citizens. I agree, the formula may not be perfect, since there is no such thing as a perfect situation or a perfect regulation. However, it was necessary to find a formula that could be adapted as closely as
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
possible to the needs of this group, in much the same way this was done by the Government for our veterans, considering their very specific needs. As far as families are concerned, people with children receive special consideration in the form of the child tax credit, and as a result, the Government has given people who are particularly burdened with responsibilities as a result of inflation, the mechanisms that will help them to help themselves. Now, is it the best formula? Is it the ideal formula? I can only say that it is probably the best formula in the circumstances. If we compare our situation with what is happening in the United States, anyone can see that the Canadian Government has probably taken the most progressive approach in its efforts to control inflation, an approach that is sensitive, unlike other countries which are taking extremely drastic action with severe consequences for everyone concerned. Only yesterday, the President of the United States announced he was reducing the deficit by eliminating as many social programs as possible.
The Member for Edmonton West pointed out that when the Progressive Conservatives supported the 6 and 5 policy, it was on the understanding that it would apply only to salaries. In fact, we have applied the program to salaries, and that as far as senior citizens, mothers, people with families and veterans are concerned, the Department has given everyone an equal share of the burden. That is an important part of bringing down inflation to 6 and 5, which should not be overlooked.
Mr. Speaker, there is one last point I should like to make. It has to do with the fact that if all those measures enable us to reduce inflation down to nothing-and I am convinced we will be successful-the six and five program will lapse by itself. But still, it will have been instrumental in our fight against that cancerous growth which, whether we like it or not, is the root of most of our current problems in Canada. Canadians have been asking their Government and their Members of Parliament to find a truly acceptable solution in certain fields and to take compulsory action in others, with a view to shoring up our economy.
That is the price we have to pay if we are to set the country back on its proper course, as all Canadians want, including younger people. Seen in that light, the six and five program does offer an interesting challenge because, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) explained in his speech, on October 27, 1982, the money saved will be reinvested to create jobs. The Minister of Finance did say that $1 billion would be earmarked for creating jobs. Had the six and five program been launched only as a means to reduce public expenditures without any intention of using that extra money to create jobs, it might not be as good. But, in short, Mr. Speaker, the program is good because its impact can be felt on two fronts: it will enable us to strengthen the economy by reducing inflation and to free some funds to create jobs for young Canadians. If they stand to benefit, the program has to be very good as well for senior citizens and parents because those people are urging

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
us to create jobs for younger people who in turn want our economy to flourish. When we are moving ahead as a country, every Canadian is better off, including the elderly and those who have families. All Canadians will be proud to have a Government which has found an effective way to solve the problem without being unduly harsh towards its citizens.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has to be debated in terms of the whole picture of the six and five program, as the previous speaker mentioned. When I spoke on Bill C-131, I tried to put the perspective before the House as to where the Bill fitted into the course of parliamentary action over the last 40 years. In case there is anyone in the House who was not here at that time, I took as my starting place the official history of Canada from 1939 to 1957 called "The Forked Road", by Donald Creighton, just deceased a couple of years ago. He was then our leading historian. "The Forked Road" is the final copy in a series of 18 volumes of Canadian history, written by Canadians for Canadians and paid for by the Government of Canada. It was called "The Canadian Centenary Series".
I had a little fun the last time I spoke by saying I had never found another Member of Parliament who had read it, even though copies were handed out free to Members. They were too busy. I would plead at this time that some Members take the time to read what were these forks in the road that we chose in the war years and following. I mentioned one, that Members of all Parties had accepted the concept of the social revolution which is world-wide and will continue to be the main force for probably another 100 or 200 years. I pointed out that there was a Keynesian consensus that we all had to follow, as the economic victims of Keynes.
There was also the question of who should govern. That was the philosophy of elitists. Some of these forks in the road have to be considered again. This legislation or group of Bills we are now putting through have to deal with the question of how we can apply some slowing down to the expansionary nature of our cost-push inflation.
I think it is well known that both Government Members and the Official Opposition supported the concept that we should reduce the rate of income growth for the next two years to an expected rate of inflation of about six and five. But they have run along with that a lot of other connotations and thoughts which could only be described as the result of diseased thinking of the mandarins. To reach this exalted position of being an elitist in Government, according to their own words you must be consistent. What you do for one person, you must do for everyone, regardless of written contracts, moral obligations or common sense. Everything has to be consistent.
In the case of those employed in Government service in the last ten years, they have not only paid for their indexing, they
have paid double and the figures show it. The Government made money out of that huge amount of money they took from civil servants to pay for indexing. In this case, however, it is a little different, and to understand the difference I think you have to know just a little about the history.
I believe it was the Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour in 1924, who first brought in the old age pension at $20 a month. How welcome that was to people who had no chance to build some security for their retiring years. The old age pension of $20 a month was a great mark of acceptance in Canada of the social revolution. I might say in passing that the Hon. Peter Heenan called himself a Liberal-Labour and he was our next door neighbour when I grew up. so 1 have some knowledge of him.
Then jumping ahead to the "six buck boys" of 1956, we had a very good Minister of Finance who was persuaded that the time had come to raise the old age pension. He was persuaded by this elite corps which had now expanded and taken more control than they had in the earlier days. They said all we can afford is $6, so they were named the "six buck boys", raising the pension from $40 to $46.
Then we have the Diefenbaker period and we got it up from $55 eventually to $65, aiming for $100. Then a Conservative by the name of Stanfield took advantage of discussions we had in caucus and proposed that, with inflation beginning to rise, everyone-those on fixed incomes particularly but even those working under contract-should be indexed so that they could protect themselves against inflation and stop the Government from reaping profits out of inflation.
That proposal by the Hon. Mr. Stanfield was accepted by all parties of this House, and I think sincerely and honestly. Naturally, as it was accepted the civil service stepped in and charged all Government employees an extra amount to pay for indexation. I covered all that in my remarks on Bill C-133.
In the case of Bill C-131 that we are discussing, the situation is different. The difference is that there is no contract on paper concerning indexation, but there is a moral contract with all parties who supported it in the House. It is generally assumed by many that the Old Age Security cheque is a handout from the Government. When that program was introduced in its modern form it was supported by a program of taxation of two, two and two-2 per cent of this tax and 2 per cent of that tax, to be put into this Old Age Security amount. These people have paid all their working days without even knowing it was for their old age pension. So it is a non-written contract.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that even though I can honestly and gladly support restraint of six and five on the growth of income for people still working, it goes against the grain of all of us to take advantage of people with whom we have a contract, written or unwritten. I suggest that by worshipping this concept of the rationalists that everything has to be the same regardless of contract or principle, we do ourselves and this Parliament an injustice by putting this Bill through.
February 1, 1983

I would like to remind everyone that there is no country in the world which has done better for its senior citizens at all levels than this nation of Canada. Why spoil it by going through this because civil servants say we have to be consistent? For such a small thought, that of consistency, we destroy our own reputation as being fair and equitable.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to support the amendment in opposition to Bill C-131, which will limit pensions for old age pensioners. Prior to beginning I would like to refer to the previous speaker on behalf of the Conservative Party. He said that, of course, he quite willingly supported six and five controls over the wages of people who still have income. Then in the next breath he said he opposes the breaking of contracts, whether they are written or unwritten. 1 would like to remind the speaker for the Conservative Party that when he and his colleagues voted for C-124, they in fact voted for the Government to break contracts with hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers. They supported the Liberal Government in breaking collective agreements which that same Government had negotiated in good faith with its own employees. So the Conservative Party cannot have it both ways.
Bill C-131 is one the New Democratic Party has to oppose. New Democrats across the country, like old age pensioners across the country, recognize that this Government lacks the proper priorities in spending and taxation. The Government is asking people who were born before 1920 to make sacrifices. These are the people who were in their teens during the great depression. These are the people who fought in World War II. These are the people who worked in this country when wages and prices were low, and now that they have reached what we call their golden years, the Government of Canada is saying that they must sacrifice again. The Government of Canada and all Canadians should recognize the sacrifice those people have made. They should recognize that these people have sacrificed during the depression, the war and their working years, and that they should be given adequate and reasonable old age pensions. They should not be the victims of a public relations program divined by some Liberal strategists in the Senate. These are the people who have made sacrifices for Canada and it is time that the Government recognized their contributions.
Earlier I spoke about the lack of priorities. If the Government really wants the restraint program in order to make more money available for job creation, then why is a former Deputy Minister of Finance receiving a salary in excess of $100,000 per year although he does no work for the Government? What kind of priority is that? He will receive $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000, although he is not working. That would pay the old age pensions of a lot of senior citizens.
At the same time, why does the Government introduce tax legislation which will, in effect, reduce the taxes of those people at the higher end of the income scale? Why are we asking old age pensioners to make the sacrifice at the same
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
time as we reward those with high salaries? Does that make sense? Is that the priority of the Government?
Why is the Government so lenient in taxing the banks? The banks are making good profits at the present time but are restricting the salaries of their workers. Why is the Government not taxing the banks at a higher rate? That really is an example of its lack of priorities.
The Government has issued a green paper on pension reform but it is really just more public relations. At the time the paper was introduced we were debating bills which would affect old age pensions and Government pensions, yet the Government talks about pension reform. That is sheer hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker.
We have often heard Government spokesmen speak in this House about the plight of women in the country. I would remind the House that it is women who will suffer most under the six and five legislation. The legislation affects not only the women in the work force who tend to receive lower salaries, it affects not only women who worked for the Government and received lower Government pensions and also earned lower salaries, not only widows of former Government workers who also receive low pensions, and not only women who receive the Family Allowance-because that is often the only income they have in their own name-and this legislation is a direct attack on the women of Canada. They are the people who need the old age pension the most. If the Government were sincere in asking for sacrifices, it would have given full indexation to these men and women and would raise taxes for those people at the top of the income scale.
That is not Government policy, nor is it Government strategy. Its strategy is to invoke the public relations program designed in the other place by Senator Keith Davey, whose one and only purpose on the payroll of the taxpayers of Canada is to get the Liberal Party re-elected to Government. This is a public relations program and the leaked documents that have come our way prove that.
1 will not support that, Mr. Speaker. 1 recognize the sacrifice of the people born prior to 1920. I mentioned the depression and World War II. Some of these people also fought in the Korean War. They made sacrifices for Canada and they deserve the recognition and support of the Canadian people now.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be given the opportunity to speak on Bill C-131 and to add my voice to the many others in the House and across Canada that are violently opposed to the latest dictatorial attitude of the Government of taking their inefficiency out on the senior citizens. That is the one group in Canada that can least defend itself.
Yesterday I heard some Members say that approximately 75 Members out of 282 have participated in the debate. The Government seemed to think that was too many speakers. I am quite sure that there are 282 Members of Parliament who have a great many senior citizens in their ridings. If those people who have worked so hard and paid taxes for so many years had

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
their way, they would want to know where their Member stands.
Yesterday the Government introduced closure, although I am aware that it does not like that word, believing it is too cruel. Time allocation, which is the same thing, prolongs the agony a day or two; it is closure in all but name.
We must consider whether this Bill will seriously injure a group of citizens. I am aware that the reduction, beginning next month, will amount to only 50 cents per month. The Government will claim that that is peanuts and ask why we argue about it. If it is peanuts and does not mean much, then why did the Government propose it in the first place? Why did it not go after some other sectors of the economy that could better afford a reduction?
Our friends to the left support this Bill and each of the other Bills, as do we, but they have taken great exception to our support of Bill C-124 last August. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of difference between reducing the salaries of Members of Parliament and reducing to 6 per cent the increase given to members of the civil service who, we are well aware, are not among the most underpaid sections of the economy. We therefore agree that six and five is a good thing to aim for, but it should be aimed where you can get the money most easily and without harm.
If we look back at what our senior citizens have contributed to this country over the years, we see that it is a rather severe and draconian action to single them out and say they are going to have to bear their share of the burden. We should ask ourselves whether senior citizens have contributed to inflation. If that can be proven, then I suppose they should bear the blame.
I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in the House. I have great admiration for the Minister and I know she is a very sympathetic person. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in the Liberal caucus. I think the Minister probably said: "For God's sake, leave the senior citizens alone". I do not expect the Minister to divulge confidences in the Liberal caucus or the Liberal Cabinet, but I have enough confidence in her to think that that is what she did. She was sure talking to a tough bunch of nuts who said, in plain English, "to Hell with it"; and as a result senior citizens have to feel the weight of it.
Also it was pointed out by the Minister, because she had to make the best of a bad case, that the amount was not so much and that senior citizens who were in the direst of straits would obtain some benefit through the full indexation of the GIS. This will help them, but there are those people who are neither fish nor fowl and will probably be hurt. They are just a bit over the poverty line. Probably the $50 a year at the present time will put them below the poverty line. Therefore, I consider this an absolute calamity.
Someone spoke about a tragedy and a calamity and was asked to define the difference. Let me say that Bill C-133 was
a tragedy for pensioners, members of the RCMP and all other people who had their pensions reduced. Certainly that Bill was a tragedy, but this Bill dealing with old age pensions is a calamity. The best example of the difference between those terms, as I heard the other day, would be this: Suppose the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) fell into the river, that would be a tragedy; but if someone fished him out, that would be a calamity.
This is the most important Bill of them all. Certainly we are opposed to them all, but if we can take our choice or our druthers, it would be Bill C-133 to cap the increase given to old age pensioners. They should be left alone.
The next Bill which will be coming up for discussion will be the one on Family Allowances. Certainly some mothers or persons who are designated to receive Family Allowance cheques are in pretty good income brackets. That Bill will not be too severe on them, but it will hurt those in the lower income brackets. It is very important to try to protect those who are hardest hit by inflation. Thank the Lord that inflation is starting to come down and will hopefully reach bottom.
Let me return to our senior citizens. The Government should have certainly left this group alone. I am well aware that some Hon. Members across the way voted against-


Mr. McKinnon:: What do you mean by "left alone"?


Stan Darling: I mean that this particular Bill C-133 should be thrown out and that senior citizens should be left alone. They did not have the nerve to monkey with or reduce the amounts on this one in January because it was written into the legislation. Naturally the Treasury Benches are looking forward to having this Bill rammed through so that they will at least be able to get their pound of flesh when the February cheques are ready for issuing.
As I was about to say earlier, there were certain Government Members who rose, spoke against and voted against Bill C-133. Of course, that Bill affects a significant segment of the economy, but the Bill before the House presently will affect literally tens and hundreds of thousands who are in much more serious financial positions-the pioneers of our land, the ones who worked so hard when there were not the benefits that are available now.
I know that my time is drawing to a close. It could be pointed out to me that I should not be speaking on the Bill because I have a conflict of interest. I have reached that august plateau where I, too, am a senior citizen. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) is certainly getting his pound of flesh back from me, and I am not worried about it. 1 hope that certain Members on the other side will rise and voice their opposition to this very important Bill, as they did to the other one.
[ Translation]


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I now rise to speak against this Bill on behalf of all Canadian senior citizens, of all their children, and also, I believe, of all Canadians across the land.
February 1, 1983



Bill C-131 will limit the increase in the basic old age pension to a maximum of 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. Previously, this pension has been fully indexed to the rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. If consumer prices in fact rise faster than 1.5 per cent a quarter in 1983, and it is projected that they will rise by 1.2 per cent a quarter, this Bill will result in a sacrifice in real purchasing power by those who receive the old age pension and do not receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement or spousal allowance.
The other day some of us talked with considerable anxiety about Bill C-133. The principle there was different. It involved the principle of breaking a contract between the Government and its public servants. This Bill has no contractual element. The principle here is social benefits in a just society. One does not have to qualify for OAS, other than having spent 65 years working, paying taxes and contributing to Canadian society.
What is the Government's priority in terms of deciding to cut back on social payments such as this? It is a test of the Government's strategy for hard times. What do Liberals opposite think when we can no longer afford, in their view, a certain level of expenditure? Who do they think should be cut first? Who gets cut next? Do they have any batting order? Has anyone in Government ever applied his or her mind to the priorities which should exist within a just society? Are they adopting ostrich-like tactics and putting their heads in the ground, just going from crisis to crisis? Should not we all at least know what are the guidelines for determining the priority so that they can be seen to be just and thus, although unpalatable, at least have a chance of some public support?
What are the defects in the Bill? In my opinion, the prime defect in this Bill is that it creates the impression, or reality, that the Government, thinking that it has to cut somewhere, picks the weakest members of society on which to bring down its axe. I am referring to those who cannot fight back or those who do not have alternative sources of income. We know that the Bill, by definition, affects those in the country who have the least available alternative means of support.
Some years ago the life insurance industry conducted a study. As I understand it, it determined that those people with the highest level of incomes had the best chance of living longer lives. In other words, all other things being equal, if one had a decent income in old age, one's chances of living longer were better. The Government is doing precisely the opposite by applying, in rough language, the boots to senior Canadians. Senior Canadians are not persuaded that they should be treated this way. They ask why the Government should use brute force on them. The Government has hardly even attempted to persuade the elderly that there is not enough food for everybody, so to speak, and therefore in the interests of the whole family it would make it hardest for those who are no longer able to work. In fact, that is the tradition of the Government on this issue. The obvious conclusion is that the Government has a new set of priorities.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
In the last election campaign the Liberals said that they would increase the Income Supplement by $35 per month. What will they say in the next election campaign when they will have to look voters in the eye? Will they say that they are the Government which decided that people receiving Old Age Security must be comfortably well-off, although everyone knows that is not the case, and therefore they cut from them?
[ Translation]
1 believe that just before an election, this Government is willing to do anything for the voters, including our senior citizens. However, in a somewhat difficult period such as the present one, those who are the first victims of a Government attack are the weakest economically, such as senior citizens. Is this a fair Government? I believe that it is the most cynical Government in the free world. This is a Government made up of the most callous people. What other Government in the free world is now doing the same thing to its senior citizens? There!
I can hear no reply from Government Members.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there should not be cuts. There should be cuts for Mr. Ed Clark with his $200,000 gift to go to Paris with his family for 18 months. Maybe there should be cuts in the $1 million we have paid to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) over the past 10 years so that he can eat caviar and drink champagne and have his children supported, not a penny from his own pocket. Maybe we should make some cuts in the Prime Minister's perks. Maybe we should cut out such things as sending Janet Smith from the Privy Council Office to Paris and the Riviera to study French for 1 do not know how many months. That cost us about $13,000. Are there not enough people from Quebec, from Ontario, or from the West who are capable of teaching Janet Smith French without having to send her to France?
In passing, the argument of the Government was that it would cost slightly more to send Miss Smith to a language school in Quebec in terms of cash outlay than to send her to the Riviera. That is the most obtuse piece of logic I think I have ever heard from the Government. Of course, that money is going out of the country. Of course, that affects French teachers in Quebec and it hurts the balance of payments of Canada. How can you speak to Government Members when they do not listen?
I would like to refer to a suggestion made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). He suggested, quite properly, that if there are to be cuts, these cuts should be made from those in the working population who can bear a reduction better than the retired people. I believe he also suggested that perhaps we should make some cuts in the amount of money we are pouring into Canagrex or into other sacred cows. Maybe we should take the Auditor General's advice and get control of spending once again-

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Mr. Schroder:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 know my hon. friend would not like to mislead the House, but this Bill does not have anything to do with cuts or saving money. It has to do with reducing inflation to six and five.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: By reducing Government expenditures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder) is debating; he is not rising on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite is a distant cousin of mine, it turns out. Our families' roots began in the region of Guelph. With respect to him and to you, Mr. Speaker, he does not have the slightest comprehension of what causes inflation.
I respectfully submit that one of the causes of inflation is spending about 25 per cent more in a year than is taken in by way of revenue. The Government has been doing that now for some years and in large measure has been printing the difference. If the Minister who is heckling from the other side went down to his basement and printed as much new money on fresh new bills as the Government has done over the last ten years, he would be put in jail for printing counterfeit money.
1 suggest Hon. Members look at what happened in Germany in the 1920s and at what is happening in Argentina today. A government that prints money as fast as this Government has done can only create inflation. For the Hon. Member to get up and say that cutting back on Old Age Security payments will fight inflation is absolute nonsense.
The point I was trying to make, which was made by the Hon. Member for Qu'Appeile-Moose Mountain, is that if you are going to cut payments to people, then cut those being paid to the working population, not those paid to people on pension. Cut anything, cut MPs' salaries, but for Heaven's sake, do not cut money from the thousands and thousands of Canadians across the land-

-all those in every part of the country who count on the OAS. [English]
This is clearly a stop-gap, an ill thought out, crisis-coping measure that we are dealing with today. It is the measure of a Government that has lost the confidence of the people across Canada. With respect, Mr. Speaker, Canada is a ship without a rudder with a captain who no longer cares in which direction we are going. He is like Captain Queeg who was down in the engine room playing with his beads and took his ship on to the rocks. This country is being taken on to the rocks by this Government.
I would urge Hon. Members opposite to vote against this Bill in the interests of all their constituents.
[ Translation]


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


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: This can be done only with unanimous consent because the time allotted to the Hon. Member has now expired.

Is there unanimous consent for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Maltais) to put a question to the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what means other than those proposed by this government would the Hon. Member advocate to bring down the inflation rate.


David Kilgour: There are a number of steps the government could take to fight inflation. I have already mentioned reducing the budgetary deficit. That is one measure. We might also follow the example of Japan, West Germany and Switzerland. Obviously, the governments of those three countries have been much more successful than ours and those of all other countries in their fight against inflation. Those three governments have implemented a series of policies especially aimed at fighting inflation. For instance, the government of West Germany has lowered the so-called trade barriers to alleviate price competition. A government can promote investments. For instance, the government of West Germany grants a tax exemption to every resident who invests in housing. This keeps the manufacturing industry going. There is less unemployment. There are more people paying taxes and, therefore, providing the government with more revenues. In short, there are a number of steps the government could take to fight inflation. Also, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a careful study of the policies of these three counties would help us determine what anti-inflation measures Canada should implement. I can say that such anti-inflation measures have been very successful in those three countries.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I repeat that the unanimous consent of the House would again be required.
February 1, 1983

The Parliamentary Secretary again rises to seek unanimous consent to put a further question to the Hon. Member who has just spoken. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the Hon. Member that the present Government has already implemented the programs he just mentioned in those three countries. For instance, the Government has offered $3,000 to prospective homeowners; it granted tax cuts, such as the child tax credit, and offered a whole series of incentives to promote investments in Canada. Better still, through FIRA, it is trying to strengthen industry with a greater Canadian ownership.
However, I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether those countries have not precisely cut public spending and practically eliminated indexation, while the Canadian Government is still indexing at least at the 6 and 5 per cent level not only the benefits of senior citizens, but also the allowances for those families that need it most.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct in saying that the Government has just changed its policy, but the problem is not as simple as that, because for ten or fourteen years, the present Government has been fighting private enterprise, foreign investment, the oil industry and our own manufacturing industry. The flight of capital from this country has been enormous. It is common knowledge that last year, $1 billion left the country. There is $8 billion which cannot be found in the national accounts. So we have had a tremendous flight of capital from our country, and now it is a matter of confidence, of encouraging people, for instance, to build plants in Canada. The petrochemical industry in Alberta is a good example. Do you know that a company near Medicine Hat is now having a petrochemical plant built, not in Canada but in New Zealand? Why? Because the tax levied on the petrochemical industry is $1.05 per 1,000 cubic feet.
As the Hon. Member from Alberta said earlier, we cannot sell the product on the international market because it is too expensive. I think in Alberta, construction of nine or perhaps eleven plants was either cancelled or delayed because of this tax. One plant can provide, 1 think it was 800 or 900 jobs for two years, during the construction period.
We should have a Government that ... The Hon. Member mentioned that since the 1980 election, FIRA has been telling foreign investors: Do not bother to come, we do not need you. It is quite true that three months ago, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) changed his mind. Now, you may come.
But let me give you another example in connection with FIRA.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member, but although he did agree to answer a question by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Maltais), he should confine himself to the subject now before the House. I am afraid that we are now discussing an entirely different matter.


David Kilgour: As far as the other subjects are concerned, if I may not go on with my examples-although they are quite good ones-of the problems created by FIRA in this country, I would say that none of these three countries has similar measures because to my knowledge, these countries are incapable of introducing a measure that is unfair, harsh and ridiculous in the extreme as far as the economy is concerned. For instance, when, thanks to the Government, senior citizens see their purchasing power go down, unemployment and economic problems for our country are the result. Kenneth Galbraith, in fact, any economist will tell us that a drop in purchasing power creates major problems for the economy.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of speaking on this Bill earlier in the debate. Now that closure has been imposed on the debate on Bill C-131, I would like to add a few remarks in the brief ten minutes that I have.
First, I wish to condemn the Government in the most emphatic terms for its obvious attack on old age pensioners. The Government's appeal that old age pensioners must join all Canadians in contributing and sacrificing to help the Government reduce inflation borders on immorality. It is an appeal for sacrifice to today's senior citizens, our grandparents and parents, who more than anyone are used to sacrifice. They have sacrificed all their lives to raise their children. They made a sacrifice when they came to this country and went without year after year so their children and grandchildren could get the best education and enjoy a better standard of living. They knew what sacrifice was.
One has only to visit senior citizen homes such as the New Horizons Drop-In Centres across the country to learn of these sacrifices. Talk to the pioneers who broke the land with nothing more than an axe so that they could build and pass on something to their children: they know what sacrifice is; the Government does not have to tell them.
I say it is immoral for the Government to zero in on the senior citizens and for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to say that senior citizens know their responsibility to the Government. That Government is spending $40 million on television and radio advertising year after year. In the year when the Government is asking senior citizens to relinquish $260 of their pension which they received because of their sacrifices, the estimated total advertising

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
budget for all federal Government departments is $70 million. This money is spent for advertising its six and five program and how it will beat inflation. This same Government increases its deficit spending by 18 per cent to 20 per cent. That does not make sense to me.
Although the Government has told us of the need to control inflation, it is its own spending which has caused that high inflation. The Government injects money into the market which, in reality, should not be there. I cannot think of anything worse than the money the Government has wasted on advertising. It is immoral for the Government to increase its spending by 18 per cent while turning on a particular segment of our population which least deserves the treatment it is being given by this Government. They are citizens of Canada whom we represent in this House and we must protest that treatment. They were the pioneers who did without.
I am sure that if Hon. Members would reflect upon that for a moment they would remember what their grandparents must have gone through to ensure that they would receive a better education and a higher standard of living. Surely every family experienced the same thing. All of us did not live in affluence 50 years or 75 years ago. I still see those sacrifices in the northern parts of Alberta today. I still see people who spent their whole lives building communities by clearing the land in order to have something to pass on to their children. I have seen that and I know that Hon. Members have seen that. Go to northern Quebec, where many generations of families have lived and passed on the fruits of their hard work to their children. The Government is saying: "Thank you, senior citizens, thank you, pioneers; the people who laid the foundations and built Canada, thank you very much, but now we will reduce your Old Age Security". That is utterly sickening. It is immoral.
The Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare know full well, as the Minister stated in the House, that the senior citizens know where their responsibilities lies. The Government makes that appeal to the very people who do know what sacrifice is all about.
I am utterly ashamed that Members in the House would allow and vote for an attack on the senior citizens. It does not sound like very big dollars are involved. It will amount only to about $90 or so this year, and amount only to $250 or $300 next year. For some senior citizens, that is equivalent to two months' rent next year. For some senior citizens, that means the difference as to whether they have meat on the table or not. We know that Hon. Members opposite agree that it will affect some senior citizens who have private incomes and will not hurt them very much. However, there is a borderline group of 50,000 to 75,000 senior citizens who do not deserve the treatment they are receiving. It is wrong.
I think that every Hon. Member, if he searches his conscience, will know full well it is wrong and immoral. I would ask them to search their consciences and think back to the tremendous sacrifices made for them by their parents and
grandparents. Those are the kinds of people we are touching. If they do this, they will vote against the Bill and against closure.


Stan Darling: Right on.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a little sadness to take part in the debate. I support the amendment which is being proposed right now, but it is certainly no solution to the problems which Bill C-131 will inflict on over one million elderly Canadians.
I have a few comments on the debate so far, not only in terms of closure being brought in, but also concerning the peculiarity of the debate. I have not heard any high-rolling speeches from Liberal Members which can be sent out to pensioners across the country as to why this is so good for them. I heard one Liberal Member say that the six and five, in relation to Bill C-131, deals with inflation. The elderly in my riding, whether in Smithers, Atlin, Cassiar or on the Queen Charlotte Islands, know that the six and five program being brought in is not helping them with inflation. It is taking food from their mouths and part of their rent money. It is taking all kinds of funds away from them because inflation will remain higher. The Consumer Price Index will remain higher in 1983 and 1984.
I would like to hear some Hon. Members opposite stand up and give speeches, because I have sent copies of the ones they have given thus far to people in my riding. In those same packages I have also included speeches put on the record by Conservative Members and by those in my caucus. I have received some interesting comments in reply, which I will draw on some time later in my speech today.
In touching on the issue of Liberals not really standing up and sending a strong message out there, I would also say that a very strange boomerang kind of message is being sent out by the Tories. I remember watching them stand up in the House when the six and Five program was brought in in principle. They were pretty quick to get on the bandwagon and try to send the signal out to the business community that they were all in favour of six and five and that they would fight to see that it was applied in principle throughout.
Right at the moment that a Liberal backbencher rose and said that the six and five program, in relation to OAS, is to fight inflation, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) pointed out that for veterans it was in fact indexed at
11.5	per cent as of January 1 of this year. Again, the peculiarity of the kind of legislation which is now being brought forward by that side of the House is that it will not affect veterans. We are gradually seeing the whole concept of the means test rolled in, not only in relation to pensions and the OAS, but ultimately in relation to the GIS as well.
Let us run through a few facts so that we know exactly what we are dealing with. In relation to the 6 per cent being applied in 1983 instead of the Consumer Price Index, which would certainly be a few percentage points higher, even according to the Government's own estimates it will be 1 per cent above the 10; so we are looking at roughly a 50 per cent cut in the kind

February 1, 1983
of indexing which should have come forward. With respect to the 5 per cent in 1984, it is very much an unknown.
We have seen the inability of two Ministers of Finance to really come to grips with the problems this country is facing. While the whole interest rate issue is designed by Government, various Members on the Government side are always trying to say: "Well, it is the international scene; there is nothing we can do. It is the United States, Europe and Japan". However, the House of Commons and the Government do have control over interest rates. They have control over the Governor of the Bank of Canada and interest rates could have been rolled back; but it was a depression by Government design. High interest rates simply squeezed consumers. They could not borrow or get loans. They had to refinance mortgages. Rents went up. All kinds of problems were shot into the structure of the Canadian economy. Taking in closure, taking in the fact that there is no Liberal sending out signals as to why this is so good, leaving it up to the Opposition to point out why it is bad, it really leaves a vacuum out there for the elderly in terms of assessing why Bill C-131 is being brought in.
The biggest loss is the kind of trust which Parliament has lost over time. Members of Parliament and members of legislatures are next to convicted sex killers in terms of having the lowest level of respect and support of any group within Canadian society. If we consider trust, how can the elderly, those now over the age of 65, put any trust in Government? What will come next? In the next two years, each of them will have $300 taken away. What will happen a few more years down the road?
In any critical assessment of what has happened in the last 31 or 32 years of pensions in this country, one finds that there is a watermark close to each election. I would not doubt that some time in 1984 the Government will make some kind of an announcement that pensions will go up. Then we will have pension reform and the green paper will be reactivated. We saw this in 1971, right before the 1972 federal election.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Set-ups.


James Ross Fulton: We know what the Liberals are up to in terms of their set-ups and strategies to keep the elderly and workers in this country confused.
Concerning trust, how can those who are in their late fifties or sixties plan? The whole pension scheme is very much an unknown. To give an example, if hospitals are suddenly short of beds, or if there are line-ups of people because there is a sudden wave of sickness in Smithers, Vancouver or Ottawa, the first thing the hospital administration does is not to close the hospital or to limit the number of beds, although that is certainly something promoted by certain people in our society. However, when we really need an inflation net, when we really need something in relation to the Consumer Price Index, whether it is in relation to the Unemployment Insurance Fund or pensions, and when the Government gets a little sticky for cash, from whom does it take it? It takes it from those who are the least able to organize. Big business has full-time lobbyists
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
here in Ottawa. If the Government tried to take money away from big business, there would be all kinds of chaos and hell to pay. However, since it is going against pensioners all across Canada, many of them living in rural areas with insufficient income to get together and organize and to come in a mass lobby to Ottawa, they are the ones who get their teeth kicked out. They are the ones, as the Tory Member said, who get jackbooted and blackjacked first by the Government.
What about Dome? The Government gave over $500 million to Dome. The whole contract was based on high interest rates, cost of living increases and the Consumer Price Index. All of these things are done by economists to protect a big corporation like Dome which really should not have that kind of protection.
The Government poured $100 million into Consolidated Computers here in Ottawa and then tossed it up for auction and received $100,000 for it. The same amount, $100 million, was thrown away on a poorly assessed and analyzed Government enterprise. That money, which could have gone to pensioners, was thrown away instead.
When Bill C-131 is implemented after closure, perhaps after an amendment or two, what will happen? The Liberal Party, on its own Richter scale of misery, will have gone up again. The Liberals are once again the ones who are going after those who can least afford it and have the least capability of fighting back.
In relation to the pensioners, the first step will be a net income reduction in benefits for the first two years, 1983 and 1984. Second, if full indexation is restored-we do not know whether or not it will be but I am sure that will be tied to some kind of an election promise in the next election campaign- those pensioners will never be able to regain in terms of indexation what they lose in these next two years. There are over one million Canadians, more than half of them women, who will be affected by this Bill. They will have a reduced income based simply on the Government's own figures, not on the figures of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) which have been jiggery-pokery in one way or another. They have been calculated to be a net loss of $300 to pensioners during 1983 and 1984 for those getting OAS only, and $604 in the following two years, as a result of rendering the regular formula of indexation worthless. The total loss over the next four years is going to be in the neighbourhood of $900.
I can speak certainly for the elderly in my constituency, the Queen Charlotte Islands, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Kitimat, Hazelton, Smithers and on up to the Yukon, representing many native villages where there are many, elderly people. In Cassiar, Atlin and Good Hope Lake, and a number of very small communities, there are elderly but no homes for the elderly, unlike most cities across Canada. There are no special services, there are no Meals on Wheels for many of them.

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Taking $900 away from these people means perhaps the loss of little gifts that they were going to give to their grandchildren or special meals they were going to prepare for themselves, or perhaps some clothing, something for their apartment, their rental dwelling or for the home they live in. It is not really very much money when Members of Parliament are talking about it, but when I speak to the elderly and I read the mail coming in from the elderly to my office, it is a question of trust. It has been a very painful experience for them to see the Government squandering money to big business. Big business, Mr. Speaker, as Liberal Members opposite know, owes right now legal taxes that they are supposed to pay comparable to our existing deficit. Is the Government attempting to collect that money from big business? Not likely.
It is unfortunate at this point in the debate that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not here, but I took the time to read some of the debates that he was involved in, going back more than 30 years, and the fight that was put up by Members such as the Member for Winnipeg North Centre and others in this House that brought forward in 1951 the first real kind of pension program that we had in this country. We have been fighting ever since to get away from the concept of means tests.
Mr. Speaker, a pension in this country is a right. The Government is tampering with that right and Members are saying there is no written contract and so on. It is a right, and a trust to the elderly in this country has been broken. I feel ashamed for any Member who would get up and vote for Bill C-131 in this House.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it is also a sad day for me to rise and speak on the amendment and to Bill C-131.
The amendment is a worthy one and 1 want to make it clear that we will be supporting it because at the end it states that the Guaranteed Income Supplement will be added on to the Old Age Security benefit. So therefore, those who qualified for the Guaranteed Income Supplement would in fact, be indexed. It is a very small token, and we do not agree with the six and five concept.
I want to speak for a moment about the comments made by the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais). He said the Liberal Government is sympathetic to our senior citizens, yet not one of their Members is getting up and telling the real story here. I want to tell that Hon. Member how sympathetic they are in my riding, where senior citizens come up to the railway station and try to get on the VIA Rail passenger train. There is no accommodation available for them, although they have actually booked on that train. When they gel. to the station they find that the Government, through its program of cutbacks and so on, has not enough equipment on the train, so they cannot board the train. The Government has abandoned lines in many parts of Canada which senior citizens helped to build, yet those are the very kinds of travelling systems that our senior citizens need and desire. Is that being sympathetic to these people?
For a moment, if I may, I would like to revert to the original Bill that caused all these problems, Bill C-124. The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has indicated-
[ Translation]


André Maltais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Maltais) on a point of order.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out that the remarks made earlier by the Hon. Member do not reflect at all what I said. If he wants to quote me, I would urge him to read the blues. That would be much easier than speaking off the top of his head in the House.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the "Budget in Brief' of June, 1982 which caused this problem. For the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka to say that the Conservative Party agrees with the six and five program for working people in the public service sector but he does not agree, and his Party does not agree, with Government policy on Old Age Security pensions, Family Allowances or Public Service pensions, I think is being very, very misrepresentative as to what happened. The "Budget in Brief' states very clearly, and I quote:
Public sector compensation restraint program will constrain rates of pay of federal government employees to increases of no more than 6 per cent in the first year; no more than 5 per cent in the next year.
This will create a savings of about $250 million the first year and $550 million the next year. The Conservatives supported that program. I know the Conservatives have a problem counting, but I did not realize they had a problem reading, because if they had gone on a little bit further they would have seen this:
A 6 per cent limit on increases in indexed social payments . . . comes into effect with the January, 1983 increases; stays in effect for two years-
Very clear. The next page applies to Family Allowances, to people receiving Public Service pensions or old age pensions, but does not affect people who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. It gives a very clear indication of what the Government was going to do. At the bottom of the page it says:
It will generate $45 million this year and $315 million next year for reallocation.
It does not say anything about inflation. It says that the Government is going to take this money from these programs and reallocate it. I would like to ask the Government, when it is taking this money from senior citizens, from children and Public Service people who are on retirement, and it is going to reallocate it, does that mean it is giving it to the railways? Does that mean it is giving it to Dome Petroleum? Because if that is what the Government is doing, I think it is a sin and does not show very much sympathy from that side of the House.
February 1, 1983

The Government is ashamed of this Bill, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is ashamed of it, and that is why they have brought in closure on almost every one of these Bills, to try to control debate, to try to stop this side of the House from identifying the problems they have.
Senior citizens in my riding are experiencing expenses that many people cannot cope with. How they are doing it, I do not know. If there is a major snowfall, it means hiring someone to help senior citizens in many parts of my riding open up their path to get in and out of their homes. It means extra heating costs.
I want to refer for a moment to the point made by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), who said that if the Government had to do this, it should do it to the working people. My goodness, he has identified the working people as being the ones the Government should attack, but he did not attack the profits. He did not say the Government should attack the excessive profits the banks are making, or the excessive profits that other people are making. But the Conservatives and the Liberals have an obscene way of dealing with things.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Perhaps the Hon. Member may wish to call it one o'clock.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, the United States Government has just announced that more than $22 million has been proposed to continue the completion of the Garrison Diversion project. This is in addition to the $4 million which was overwhelmingly voted against and then re-instated last month.
As reported in Time magazine of January 3, 1983, Congressman Silvio Conte stated publicly in Washington that Senator Mark Andrews of North Dakota persuaded the House-Senate Conference Committee to restore the proposed funding for the water diversion project. Congressman Conte further declared that Senators knew they must vote in favour of these moneys for Garrison or risk having Senator Andrews put a halt to their own projects.
In view of the fact that the best interests of Canada are not being taken into consideration when funding for the Garrison Diversion Project is voted upon, and the recommendations of the International Joint Commission are being totally ignored, it is all too obvious that immediate representation by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) must be made to the United States Government to resolve this ludicrous situation.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker,
1 want to call the attention of the House to the anxiety felt by Air Canada employees as a result of the announcement made by Air Canada in the Fall of 1982 that there would be a 10 p. 100 reduction in manpower. Air Canada subsequently submitted to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers a six-point program designed to avoid the layoff of 585 employees. Unfortunately, this six-point program was never officially negotiated and between January 3 and the end of March, 359 employees will be laid off in Montreal alone and perhaps even more will lose their jobs in the Spring. Since air local 1751 has stated publicly that it is willing to immediately begin negotiations with Air Canada in an effort to stop its members from being laid-off, the Department of Labour should urge the corporation to immediately discuss with the unions the details of the single six-point proposal it made last Fall.
In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the union has indicated its willingness to accept any management proposal for a work sharing program.



TRUST COMPANIES


Mr. Don Blenkam (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the Government brought Bill C-142 before the House as a matter of urgent necessity. Thousands of people have claims against the Crown, Greymac, and Seaway companies, and at this point can only receive $20,000 toward their claims. The balance of their money is tied up. There is no protection, and they can get nothing. This Bill could be passed through this House in one day and the urgent concerns of these depositors, many of whom are retired, would be alleviated if they were covered up to $60,000.

February 1, 1983
The Government has had a white paper on trust companies before the House and the Government is aware that there are real concerns with respect to the administration of matters involving the Department of Insurance and in connection with all of the powers the Government has over trust companies, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and banks. These security problems should be referred to a special committee of this House forthwith so that the House can make the necessary inquiries, hear evidence, and assist the Government in introducing new legislation, and organizing its supervisory and licensing powers. Let us get Bill C-142 passed. Let us get all matters concerning financial institutions before a special committee of this House. Let us get on with it.



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, Canadians were again treated to wise words from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) today when he vowed that to wring jobs from Chrysler he would "play hardball". Where has this Minister been and what has he been doing that he is only now deciding to get tough? Is there any reason for Canadians to believe that the Government will deliver job security to the industry now, and not just more empty promises and fewer and fewer jobs?
Canadians last year gave up $1.6 billion in duties at the border under the auto agreement, while the United States only gave up $500 million. That was a $1.1 billion giveaway, and for that Canadians received considerably less than $1 billion in new investment. That is only 7 to 8 per cent of new investment in North America, and much less than our fair share.
While Chrysler seems to be leading the way in reneging on its promises to Canadians, the entire industry is not meeting its commitment to Canadian auto workers or taxpayers, and it is time the Government showed the auto manufacturers that it will not accept any more excuses.



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, recent allegations emanating from Afghanistan contend that Soviet MIGs dropped cannisters that emitted a crippling brown gas on Moslem rebels. I am very concerned that such reports are becoming more and more commonplace in recent years. This being the case, and in light of the fact that the UN Committee on Disarmament is convening in New York today, February 1, 1983, to consider an agreement on the prohibition of chemical weapons, I would urge the Government
of Canada to champion the call for a full and verifiable ban on all chemical weapons, at the United Nations.
A convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxic Weapons was entered into in 1972, but the problem of chemical weapons remains. In the UN the emphasis is on gaining agreement to prohibit the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons, and on the destruction of existing stocks.
The horrific results of such weapons can no longer be tolerated by any thinking nation. For the sake of all humanity, and in the pursuit of humanity, I strongly urge the Government of Canada to instruct the Canadian delegation at the UN Committee on Disarmament to work tirelessly to ensure that the negotiations which will begin today will be successful so that the spectre of chemical weapons can be finally removed.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, the announcement in Winnipeg today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is startling and bad news for the western grain producers. The Government has absolutely disregarded some of the important economic factors that exist in the farming economy. The cost of production has increased at least 25 per cent while the price of grain on the world market has dropped significantly.
Farm bankruptcies have increased by 65 per cent over the past year. It will be impossible for grain producers to accept responsibility for increased freight rates. Yet the Government and the Minister of Transport by their announcement today seemingly turn a deaf ear to presentation after presentation made by farm groups.
I call upon the Liberal Government and the Minister responsible to reconsider an action that will be financially impossible to bear for the western grain producers.



FINANCE


André Maltais: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the workers in the northern cities of Fermont, Gagnon, Shefferville, Labrador City and Wabush, 1 would like to ask the officials of the Department of Finance to review their recommendation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) that the allowances of northern workers be taxed because of the hardship imposed on these people who have created a very strong economy in the region. Furthermore,
February 1, 1983

taxation of northern workers' benefits might be a deterrent to the hiring by the companies involved of qualified employees to work in those regions.
I would also like to point out that the Committee set up by the Minister of State for Mines and Resources (Mrs. Erola) has suggested essentially that the tax exemption for northern workers be maintained. I believe that I am speaking on behalf of all the people who work north of the 55th parallel and who are affected by this measure.
1 therefore ask the Minister of Finance to check with his officials with a view to getting more detailed recommendations on this group of workers, and I hope that substantial changes will be made to this policy, in accordance with the suggestions of the federal-provincial industrial and labour committee, which requires that the taxation benefits for northern workers remain unchanged.



GARRISON DIVERSION


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I was dismayed, as I am sure every Manitoban was, to learn that the administration of President Reagan plans to allocate a record $22.3 million to the Garrison Diversion Project in North Dakota. That is a five-fold increase over this year's interim allocation of $4 million.
The effect of allocating this money and proceeding with the Garrison Project will be devastating on the Province of Manitoba. At risk is a multi-million dollar commercial fishing industry, the quality of drinking water for many Manitoba communities, as well as tourism and farming in the Province. For native people, many of whom are dependent on Manitoba's lakes not only for their livelihood but for the very food on their table, the stakes are particularly high. In short, a decision to allocate these funds and to proceed with Garrison will damage not only the Manitoba environment but the Manitoba economy as well.
But there is hope. Because the House of Representatives did initially vote to deny the interim funding for Garrison in December of 1982, the door is still open to convince our American counterparts of the negative impact that approving this funding for Garrison will have on Manitoba. Therefore I urge the Government to make serious representation to the U.S. administration to stop this funding, and once again to send an all-party parliamentary delegation to Washington to convince members of Congress to vote against the Garrison allocation when the vote comes to be taken this summer.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, over the past several years the Canadian farm industry has been experiencing serious financial problems. Farm bankruptcies in 1982 increased by 57 per cent compared to 1981, and by 85 per cent relative to 1980. Continuation of these financial problems could seriously jeopardize traditional Canadian agricultural practices.
There are 86 members of the Canadian Farm Survival Association in Ottawa today to explain to Members of Parliament the importance of immediate action to resolve the farm financial crisis. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is asked to address the problems of these farmers facing bankruptcy by immediately supporting appropriate bankruptcy legislation. He is also asked to provide long-term solutions by supporting proposals put forward for commodity price stabilization on a national basis, and also to support measures which would improve financing through agribonds and expanded Farm Credit Corporation refinancing resources.



NEED TO INTENSIFY INTERNATIONAL MARKETING EFFORTS

Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, Canadian trade performance in recent years has been one of the bright spots in our economy, but to remain competitive in the 1980s we must intensify our international marketing efforts, particularly for manufactured goods.
New manufacturing orders in Canada rose in November by a substantial 7.4 per cent over the previous month. While gains over one month do not provide a guarantee for the future, there are other signs of an improving climate. The rise in December's Consumer Price Index was the lowest in more than four years, and the index has been registering a singledigit figure for the last five months. Encouraging also are growing indications of the willingness of business and labour to adopt a co-operative stance in resolving our economic difficulties.
Awareness of Canada's place in the world economy is crucial if we are to weather current conditions and be positioned to take advantage of recovery, when it comes. We have moved into 1983 in a mood of generally cautious optimism, though there are also many informed observers who consider that the next 20 years could be very prosperous years for Canadians. Nonetheless, there are great challenges before us, and our success in meeting these challenges will in no small part rest on the support and active co-operation of informed Canadians. This in turn will depend on the efforts of Members of this House to broaden public perception of the stake of the individual Canadian in the health and vigour of both our own and the world economy.

February 1, 1983
22384_____________________________________
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Yegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development who, I understand, is responding to questions relating to the announcement by the Minister of Transport concerning the Crow rate. This announcement by the Liberal Government has effectively killed the Crow, and in turn given us a turkey. This proposal is not only complex, it is going to be costly, divisive, and will create a great deal of uncertainty and apprehension in the agricultural community.
The proposal provides for a freight rate structure which will double freight rates for producers by 1985, increasing them to five times the present amount by the year 1990, or roughly $1 a bushel. Given that, and the fact that producers are under very severe pressures of huge input cost increases and declining prices, how does the Minister expect the producers of Canada to pay this added cost, or has he something in mind which will assure the producers of Canada that their grain prices will increase in a fashion similar to that of freight rates?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I will not take advantage of the very obvious opening the Hon. Member for Vegreville gave me in his preamble. However, I might say, on behalf of the Minister of Transport and other Members of the Government, in fact the entire back bench who are associated with this initiative-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Just let us have their names.


Donald James Johnston: -that it is quite the opposite of what the Hon. Member alleges. This is really quite an historic day which sees the introduction of a new regime which is fair to producers, which will create an enormous amount of industrial benefits, and which is fair to the country as a whole.
As to the impact on producers themselves, the Hon. Member knows full well that it is being phased in and that, even after the phase-in, my understanding is that the cost will be something like 14 per cent of the revenue from grain sold as opposed to, say, 20 per cent in the case of coal, and that is at present-day values. So in fact producers will continue to enjoy very substantial benefits.
In addition, as the Hon. Member also knows, this is an opportunity for western Canada to diversify its industrial and agricultural base, and I must say I am rather disappointed at the attitude adopted by the Hon. Member who I would have thought would have been most supportive of the very creative steps taken by this Government, in particular by the Minister of Transport, in leading the reform of this very important issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, talking about openings, may I simply say this is a very sad day for the western grain producer. It is going to be very destructive and will add further to the difficulties the producers of western Canada face. The fact of the matter is we are going to have a doubling of their freight rates by 1985, while at the same time, today, grain prices are equal in real terms to the price level of 197273.


REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL IN INCREASING FREIGHT COSTS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, is the Government not cognizant of the additional burden which is going to be placed on producers? How are they going to meet this additional cost? It can only lead to further bankruptcies and foreclosures in the western agricultural community. Given that fact, would the Minister not consider recommending to his colleague, the Minister of Transport, a deferral of these increased producer freight costs until such time as farm input costs stabilize and grain prices increase?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do believe the Hon. Member is speaking with surely his tongue in cheek at least. He well knows the distortions caused as the result of the Crow rate and that these distortions have to be eliminated. Surely he is aware, for example, that at the present time grain traffic accounts for 20 per cent of railway traffic and 3.5 per cent of revenue. Surely the Hon. Member for Vegreville is aware of that.
Now, the fact is that, as I said in my response to his first question, if we assume an increase of shipments, for example, to 41 million tonnes in 1991-92 from the current 31.1 million tonnes, the rate that western grain producers will be paying after Government payments will be $27.21 a tonne. This rate would still represent only 14 per cent of the present price of wheat, that is, I repeat, the present price of wheat. I hope that the Hon. Member will agree that it is very unlikely that we will not see substantial increases in the price of wheat during that period of time, to the end of the decade.
I must say that I find that the facts upon which the Hon. Member is proceeding are really quite unfounded. The regime would appear to be extremely favourable to the producers in the long term and, more important, extremely favourable-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to lodge my protest that the Minister of Transport is not making a statement in the House of Commons, which is the proper place for a statement to be made, to the representatives of the people across Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 1, 1983


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The negative impact of this proposal put forward by the Minister of Transport today in Winnipeg particularly affects the Saskatchewan farmer. It is a body-blow to the Saskatchewan farmer. The Magna Carta, the statutory Crowsnest rate, has been destroyed. That is unacceptable to the western farmer.


ADEQUACY OF GRAIN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of State for Economic Development this question. The Government has made a statement to the effect that farmers in western Canada should accept this situation on the basis that there will be guarantees of service for grain transportation in western Canada. Where are those guarantees to the farmers of western Canada with respect to the ability of the railways to carry grain to export points?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member has carefully reviewed the material which was distributed to Members of the House this morning and to the press, he will have seen that there will be $16.5 billion in direct investment in the transportation system. The whole intent of that, of course, is to open up the transportation system, to eliminate the bottlenecks that have existed, and to provide efficient and effective transportation not only for grain, which represents approximately 20 per cent of the volume, but for other commodities which surely are of equal interest to Saskatchewan, such as sulphur and potash and, of course, the coal carriers are affected as well.
The whole purpose of this exercise is to make the transportation system more effective and also to diversify the agricultural base. It is my understanding that Saskatchewan represents approximately 60 per cent of grain shipments. Saskatchewan, with an efficient transportation network to move that grain, will probably see 60 per cent of the increased volume to which I referred a moment ago, which is estimated to rise to 41 million tonnes during the decade. That in itself represents something like $2 billion additional annual production at today's prices. If the present ratio is maintained, 60 per cent of that will be in the Province of Saskatchewan.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, what the Minister is saying is that the western grain farmers should buy a pig in a poke from this outfit. I can assure him that they will not accept that.


REQUEST THAT CHANGES BE POSTPONED
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister specifically with respect to the statement made by the Minister in his release in Winnipeg. In an announcement made today the Minister has stated that the Government is committed in principle to generally distance-related freight rates.
Oral Questions
Does that mean that the Government is considering a variable rate structure? If not, will the Minister stand in his place and give the House the assurance now that the Government will not permit variable rates?
Finally, in view of the fact that this is going to have serious, negative consequences in western Canada, will the Minister not agree to put the whole proposal out to summer fallow?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I must say that I am disappointed at the rhetoric. I wish the Hon. Member would take some time and examine the substance of these proposals.
The proposals which have been put forward will not only have very beneficial impact in terms of the very constituencies that these gentlemen who have been questioning me represent, but they are designed and intended to create long-term, economic development opportunities for the Hon. Member's Province, for western Canada and, in fact, for the country. It is unfortunate that the Question Period today will not permit us the timeframe-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It sure is.


Donald James Johnston: -to expose to Hon. Members the enormous potential that this initiative represents for the country as a whole as well as for the Member's particular Province.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would simply say to the Minister that the proposal put forward by the Minister of Transport is a bureaucratic boondoggle to put the control of western grain production in the hands of the bureaucrats and the Government of the day.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF TRANSPORT MAKE STATEMENT ON MOTIONS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister if he will not now agree-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I can understand why the NDP are so sensitive on this issue. It is because they have been on the back burner on it all along.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I can understand why the Prime Minister smirks in his seat and why the Minister of State for the Wheat Board is hiding in Paris. He did not have the courage to come back to Canada when this was announced.
I want to ask the Minister whether he will give a commitment that at least the Minister of Transport will make a statement on motions in the House, so that we can ask somebody who purports to know something about the issue, some

February 1, 1983
Oral Questions
questions about this very serious and, as the Minister said, historic announcement.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the Minister is usually in the House. He will be in the House, and I am sure he will welcome any questions the Hon. Member wishes to put during Question Period.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, since a question of basic principle is involved in this important matter, I should like to go to the Prime Minister with a question.
A historic bargain was reached in this country on the Crowsnest Pass freight rate, according to which our prairie farmers were guaranteed a certain rate. In return the CPR got billions of dollars in land, mineral rights and other material. Canadians all across the land benefited from the value of export sales provided by our prairie farmers.
Considering that the Prime Minister has said a number of times in the House that no change in these historic freight rates would be made without a consensus coming from prairie farmers, would he explain to the House today why he and his Government have reneged so completely on this deal and sold our prairie farmers down the drain?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to my earlier statement about a consensus. I have had someone look up the report of what I said. It seems to me that I said we would do exactly what we have done. In Hansard for February 13, 1981, as reported at page 7213,1 stated:
At the present time our policy is not to touch the Crow rate, but if there is a general feeling in the west that the question must be reopened, then we would be happy to do so.
I think it is fair to say that just about everyone in the West agreed that the Crow rate should be reopened and that the question should be looked at. If we look at the two largest umbrella groups in the West, the Western Agricultural Conference and the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition, we see that they made it quite clear that the Government had to take action. We took action. The difference is that we knew that once we took action there would be the reactionaries, being both Parties in the Opposition, who would prefer to keep the status quo forever.
I think there is a realization amongst sensible people in the West that if we wanted to have a decent transportation system there had to be a reopening of the Crow. We reopened it and we brought about a solution after a great deal of consultation. The Gilson Commission participated in that consultation and came up with recommendations. We have had, I dare say, the courage to reopen this very difficult question when the NDP and the Tories would prefer to sit back and have no policy
position but to say that forever nothing must change in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the position of this Party is very clear. We want improvement in our grain handling system but we do not want the cost of that improvement to be forced on the backs of our prairie farmers. That is the issue.


CONTRIBUTION BY RAILWAYS
John Edward Broadbent: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that, as a result of the announcement made today, the cost to our farmers will be about $1 billion per year, while at the same time the CPR will continue to reap the benefits of the historic handouts that they got? If the Prime Minister acknowledges that that is the fact, then why is the Government of Canada using this method of improving our grain handling facilities? Why does the Government not make the CPR put up some money, or why does it not turn to some other sources of revenue to improve our railway system, instead of punishing prairie farmers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, under the arrangements which were arrived at, both railways will be investing some $16.5 billion and all the taxpayers of Canada will be investing some $3.7 billion. When the Hon. Member projects the costs of the farmer to the end of the decade, he forgest that in the proposal we are making there will be a reopening of this and a rediscussion of the issue in Parliament after the 1985-86 year.
I wonder if it is not reasonable or if it is inconceivable, with taxpayers paying a very large sum of $3.7 billion-this is general taxpayers from all parts of Canada, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia-and with the railways, the CPR and the CNR, paying some $16.5 billion to improve the rail system, that western farmers should also be asked to look at some of their costs, not in terms of the historic bargain because they are being guaranteed what they received in the past, but whether they should not be asked in all fairness to look at some part of the increased costs over the future. That is the position the Government has taken. That is the position, I must say, which has been reasonably supported by many influential farmers' groups in the West.
Naturally there is no absolute consensus because it is a very difficult problem. Nobody likes to pay anything if he can get somebody else to pay. Once again, given that the transportation system had to be completely changed, and given that the Crow rate, as was recognized increasingly by farmers themselves and their organizations, had to be looked at again, somebody had to come forth with a solution and somebody had to come forth with negative criticisms. It was predictable who would bring up solutions: a Government which is intent on axing-on acting and on reforming-


Some Hon. Members:: On axing!
February 1, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -not an Opposition which is absolutely determined to be negative about everything.


John Edward Broadbent: I would be happy to send over to the Prime Minister a list of a half a dozen farm groups representing farmers on the Prairies who are opposed to this policy. I say to the Prime Minister that he should check his numbers as well. He will find out that under this agreement the CPR intends in fact to spend less in the coming fiscal year for our railway system than it spent in the recent past under the Crow. Instead of doing their share, they will be doing even less than their share, and we in this Party do not accept that.


REQUEST THAT FARMERS BE POLLED ON ISSUE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister is really committed to living up to his promise in the House to do what the farmers want to have done in western Canada, will he not go to the farmers? Will he not take the proposal which he had his Minister reveale in Winnipeg today instead of in the House, put it into a plebiscite, send it out to every prairie farmer, and hear what the farmers of Canada have to say on it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is making two contradictory proposals. First he would want the Minister to be in the House today, and then he wants us to take it to the farmers.


John Edward Broadbent: Can't he do both?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister has chosen to take it to the farmers, who have a more open mind on this subject than the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I want to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It is sad that on this so-called historic day we see, as a result of an act of the Government, another nail being driven into the coffin of many grain producers, regardless of whether they be in western Canada or eastern Canada.
We have here in Ottawa today a number of food producers from the Canadian Farmers' Survival Association. I think the reason these people are here today should be obvious to all of us. This Association wants to determine the official position of the Government with reference to the re-enactment or reinstatement of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934. Would the Minister, on behalf of the Government, provide us with some information on what is the official Government position with respect to that particular Act?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution made to this debate by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex. He has brought this issue to the attention of the House and of Cabinet in a very forceful, systematic, and constructive way. Various proposals have been put forward, including the one by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex himself. The Government is examining all of these specific proposals. The Farmers' Survival Association, in particular, suggested the possibility of a number of amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is examining this proposal very attentively at the present time. I expect that my colleague will be in a position to make recommendations to his colleagues in the near future in that regard.


John Wise: I appreciate the Minister's very reasonable response to that question.


PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL
John Wise: Madam Speaker, I recognize that the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex in fact has a Private Member's Bill on this subject. I think the confusion arises from the fact that there have been a fair number of press reports in that part of the country indicating that it is the Government's intention to incorporate that Private Member's Bill into Bill C-12, respecting the Bankruptcy Act, which is now before the House. There have been very clear press reports indicating that that will be done. Could we obtain a concrete assurance from the Minister of Finance that in fact these press reports are true?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that the Government has a great deal of sympathy for the type of approach proposed by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex. However, as I indicated, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is examining the detailed implications of such a measure, and he is expected to report to Cabinet in the near future.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of State for Economic Development to clarify some questions concerning the announcement made today in Winnipeg. It has already been pointed out that the announcement is a very complex one. Also I suggest to the Minister that it is incomplete in the sense that a working group, comprised of bureaucrats and producer organizations, will be put in place to decide how the money will be distributed to producers. Could the Minister enlighten us as to what kind of process that will be? Is the working group in place? When will it report? What are its terms of

February 1, 1983
Oral Questions
reference? What other areas of enlightenment can he shed on this very complex subject?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, concerning the issue of the process of payment, there are some details which remain to be worked out. When that has been accomplished, of course they will be made available. The over-all principles of payment as set forth in the Gilson Report-the broad lines, of course-have been adopted. Further details will follow in due course.


Charles James Mayer: It is very important that the Minister should understand that a very complex set of proposals has been put in front of us today and that the bureaucrats have had a long time to work at it and understand it.


PRODUCERS' UNDERSTANDING OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, could the Minister give us some assurance that producers throughout the country will have a chance not only to have equal input into the decision that will be made as to how to distribute the payments, but to understand the full implications of it before the Government implements the proposals it has put forward today?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the Government in all areas of this kind has followed an elaborate process of consultation. I can assure the Hon. Member that the interest of all affected groups will be taken into account.


MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF FARM SPENDING
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. Railway investment plans have been described by the Minister of Transport as a good deal for Canada since they provide a multiplier effect of just over $2 for every dollar invested by the railways. This is due to the jobs and investment created in the spin-off from that investment. Is the Minister aware that the multiplier effect from farm spending is between 3.5 and 7 times each dollar spent? Could he explain to the House why they chose to shortcut those spending plans instead of letting farm dollars go the usual route? They have shortcut them and moved them over to the railways to generate only $2 for every dollar, instead of allowing them to go through the regular channels and create
3.5	to 7 times each dollar spent. What kinds of offsetting proposals is the Government planning to overcome this reduction or restriction to the Canadian economy, which will probably amount to somewhere between $3 billion and $6 billion by the end of the decade?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I find that question somewhat convoluted.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: The fact is the investment by the railways is absolutely essential to increasing, in an effective and efficient manner, grain exports from the West, which I pointed out in my earlier response are anticipated to rise by ten million tonnes over the decade. For that grain to get to market, Madam Speaker, it is essential that these investments be made.
It is a fact that these investments will carry with them very beneficial industrial spin-offs that are of value, of course, to the whole country. Besides that, I come back to the point that the basic Crow benefit of $651 million will continue to be paid to the farmers of western Canada. This will permit them options to diversify further and to undertake other areas of agricultural activity, which may very well create a much greater and much more viable agricultural sector in the West and also in the food processing sector itself. Surely the Hon. Member, who comes from Saskatchewan, should be appreciative of the benefits that this proposal will have for the very constituents for whom he is now pleading a case, a case founded on shifting sand indeed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, it is because I am from Saskatchewan that I am concerned. I am concerned as a Saskatchewan farmer, not just about my own constituents who will be affected by this move, but I am concerned also about employees of Massey-Ferguson, employees of fertilizer companies and so on. They are going to be laid off because there will not be as much money expended on that part of the economy since the money is being used in a less efficient method here.


REQUEST FOR OFFSETTING PROGRAMS TO MEET FARMERS' COSTS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I am also concerned about some of the assumptions made by the media and by the ministry. It appears the whole thrust of the argument in the proposal by the Minister of Transport is that shipments out of the country will increase. But it has been assumed that shipping grain is like shipping coal, that the last units are the ones that make the most profit for the shipper. This is not the case with grain. What programs are being contemplated by the Government to take into account the fact that the last units of production in farming are the most expensive, and to account for the fact that we are already beyond the point of being able to pay for those last units? They are costing more than the market will return. What offsetting benefits or programs are being proposed to handle that aspect?
February 1, 1983


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Get him to repeat the question.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, 1 thought I made it clear a few moments ago that Saskatchewan, with 60 per cent of grain exports, and with the additional potential of $2 billion in revenue at present day prices over the decade of which we are speaking will realize a benefit of approximately $1.2 billion in additional revenue because this initiative will ensure that the grain gets to market in an efficient manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: One of the complementary initiatives is, of course, the construction of something like 3,800 hopper cars.


An Hon. Member:: Here we go again.


Donald James Johnston: If Hon. Members are interested in the answer, Madam Speaker, I would suggest that they give me an opportunity to provide the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: The Hon. Member knows that is contained in the material before him. As the Prime Minister pointed out, what is being asked here is a participation in the cost in future. The Crow benefit to the tune of $651 million will continue to be paid to the prairie grain farmers.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Donald James Johnston: It is these additional costs in the future which they are being invited to share in with the other taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Deans:: They are not being invited to share at all. It is like inviting the old age pensioners to share.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The collection departments of the National Revenue offices across Canada, certainly of British Columbia, are garnisheeing 100 per cent of accounts receivable of small businesses even though that will mean those businesses cannot pay their employees. When did that directive go out from his office, and why?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, if accounts of certain businesses were garnisheed, it was certainly not done because of any specific instructions from the Department of National Revenue. These businesses were clearly defaulting on payments, either for
Oral Questions
income tax or deductions at source, so it is not a matter of specific instructions but of the administration of our tax laws.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, we know the Government is short of money, but is it a small business policy of the Government now to shut down businesses in order to extract every last ounce of blood it can from those small businesses?
Is it part of the Minister's policy to send out third person directives without the knowledge of the business affected by those directives?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I fail to see why the Hon. Member insists on the credibility of his statements, I explained to him that when it was necessary to garnishee the bank account of a company or person, it was because the company or person had seriously defaulted on income tax payments. If a person or company has defaulted on income tax payments, the other taxpayers who do pay their taxes every month are in fact paying as well for those who do not, and the Hon. Member should realize this.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The President of Egypt met with the House of Commons and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees this morning. He had discussions with the Prime Minister yesterday. The President discussed the Canadian role in the peace process in the Middle East, and his Minister of State has said that Canada should play a more active role.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he agrees that Canada should play a more active role in the Middle East peace process? If he does, how does the Prime Minister see us playing a more active role?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, for the time being I think the preferred option would be to support President Reagan's initiative of last September, which is well known to the Hon. Member, I am sure. We have indicated our support for that as well as for other options. If the Hon. Member would urge us to be more active, I suppose we could support that option more actively and appeal for the help of the Opposition to make it appear to be a united House of Commons which is encouraging President Reagan to follow up on his proposal.

February 1, 1983
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister needs any help from us, we have already stated our support for President Reagan's initiative.


CONSTRUCTION OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON OCCUPIED LANDS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the President of Egypt said this morning that Canada could help influence Israel because we have many connections there. I presume he has asked the Prime Minister to increase our activities in that direction to get a Middle East settlement. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether we are opposing further construction by Israel of settlements in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank? Can the Prime Minister tell us what representations we have made? Does the Prime Minister think that the peace process can proceed without the freezing of those settlements by Israel? What is our position on that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, our position has been stated several times by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is to the effect that we do oppose the settlement policy on the West Bank. It is part of Resolution 242 which we support, that all lands occupied by Israel should be evacuated, and that includes the West Bank. We have stated those positions publicly. We have stated them also to the Government of Israel.
My inclination at this stage would be to feel that our influence-our joint influence, since the Tory Party is joining the Government on this-would be to increase our pressure on the Americans to carry through with their plan, because I do not feel that it is very likely that we will get the present Government of Israel to change its settlements policy.

[ Translation]


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. Considering the concern raised by the new Western grain shipping plan, especially among Quebec farmers, could the Minister, in view of today's statement, inform the House whether he held prior consultations with the Quebec Farm Producers' Union or other farm organizations in Quebec to find out whether today's proposal would be acceptable to Quebec's agricultural industry?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I have the impression that my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Transport, had consultations throughout
the province and across Canada. In fact, he is well aware of the concern mentioned by the Hon. Member for Joliette. In any case, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that this concern is ill-founded and although a number of representatives of the Parti Quebecois have tried to dramatize the situation across the province, we have been given the assurance, by independent studies, that there is no reason for people to be concerned about this policy.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE-INQUIRY WHETHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS UNION OF QUEBEC WAS CONSULTED
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have also heard the Members of the Quebec Government expressing their concern, but I have also received letters from representatives of the Quebec Farm Producers' Union who were worried and were demanding positive action on the part of Members of the Government. Therefore, I am just asking the Minister whether he can provide some clarification, since the Minister of Agriculture in a letter to the Quebec Farm Producers' Union has stated that the apprehended negative effects would and should disappear as a result of the statement made today by the Minister of Transport. I am just asking the Minister whether he can give the House the assurance that the Quebec Farm Producers' Union will be able to set aside its concern as a result of this announcement or whether the Government did not bother to consult the Quebec Farmers' Association before making this statement?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I certainly do hope that today's announcement will lay to rest all previous concern. However, I may add that steps have been taken to reassure Quebec farmers, and that the Canadian Livestock Board is there to monitor the new policy. As I said before, independent studies have been made which gave us the assurance that there is no problem, that no markets and no incomes will be lost, and so on. In any case, we have taken steps to set up a monitoring mechanism to determine exactly what the effects will be, not only in Quebec but also in the Atlantic Provinces.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. For the last few months he has purportedly been doing battle with Canadian Chrysler Corporation, only to wring out of them a lot of hollow promises and no action. Today he is reported to have said that he will begin to play hard ball with
February 1, 1983

Chrysler, at long last. What specific assurances can he give the House and the Canadian UAW workers that no more jobs will be lost, either to those who are on lay-off or who have existing jobs?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, 1 had a meeting with the UAW yesterday in which we discussed a number of possibilities to assist me in my negotiations with Chrysler. 1 would hope that the Hon. Member would be as positive about these negotiations as the UAW was yesterday.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: One can hardly be optimistic if one looks at the Minister's track record so far. It has been a dismal failure.


AMOUNT OF DUTY REMISSION
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, when one considers that both Chrysler and AMC, through the remission of duties, owe the Canadian Government and the taxpayers about $300 million, can the Minister consider this to be hardball? What will he do to make sure that either the remissions are paid or Chrysler lives up to the original agreement?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, with respect to the preamble to the Hon. Member's question, we have obviously been doing something right. There are over 43,000 workers in Chrysler plants in the United States who are unemployed and only some 240 in Canada. Obviously the Government of Canada and Chrysler Canada have done something positive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Second, with respect to duty remission and the Government of Canada fulfilling its obligations, this will be undertaken during negotiations with the Chrysler Corporation.


RAILWAYS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Since the price of grain is at the 1972-73 level in terms of purchasing power, and since the Economic Outlook Conference did not predict any foreseeable increase in the next year or two, why has the Government totally rejected the proposal whereby any possible increase in freight rates would be geared to increases in the price of grain and instead took the other course, which was simply slapping on an increase regardless of an increase in grain?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I did not hear the question.
Oral Questions


Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, I will repeat the question. Since the Economic Outlook Conference did not predict any foreseeable increase in the price of grain and since the purchasing power is at the 1972-73 level, why has the Government totally ignored the proposal whereby the increase of any freight rate would be related to the price of grain?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I will infer that that question is addressed to me. I did not hear anyone say that it was addressed to me. I will assume so since I am taking questions on the subject.
As I pointed out earlier, the present wheat freight rates per tonne represent on average less than 5 per cent of the price of a tonne of wheat and, of course, that is not the case with respect to all other commodities. That is not a fair freight rate under the circumstances. The regime which has been implemented and phased in, which maintains the Crow benefit payment to farmers in a phased-in fashion, seems to me to take into account the fact of the current economic situation with respect to grain production. Therefore, over the period, one would expect to see an increase in the value of those crops, quite substantially beyond even the $2 billion which would be a result of a ten million tonne increase at current price levels.
Even then, at current prices, as I pointed out in an earlier answer, the freight cost would only represent 14 per cent of the value of the wheat sold. So, it strikes me as very fair indeed to the producer.


APPLICATION OF FINANCIAL RESTRAINT PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister why the Government totally ignored its own six and five program and, instead of sticking to a six and five increase, it slapped on a 100 per cent increase in the next ten years?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think the exchange that has taken place here today illustrates full well the importance of the initiative that has been taken. The facts that have been brought out on the floor of the House by myself and the Prime Minister on this side clearly demonstrate, I believe, that we should be able to look forward to the support of all Parties in terms of moving this very important initiative through the House-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Answer the question.


Donald James Johnston: -and particularly out of committee in a timely manner. I look forward to see the Hon. Member participate in those deliberations.

February 1, 1983
Oral Questions


APPLICATION TO RATES OF RESTRAINT GUIDELINES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I want to repeat the question asked by the Hon. Member for Mackenzie. 1 am addressing it to the Minister responsible for Economic Development. Why did the Government not stick to its six and five program when it came to increases in the rates?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the fact is-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Answer it.


Donald James Johnston: Let us look at the facts. They are that the basic Crow benefit, the gap in 1982-83, is being paid to the grain producers and, in fact, there is no inflationary increase in the current period. The increase next year will be 3 per cent which is lower than 6 per cent or 5 per cent; the following year it will be 3 per cent, which is lower than 6 per cent or 5 per cent; and the following year it will be 3 per cent, which is lower than 6 per cent or 5 per cent-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Donald James Johnston: It would be wonderful if that is the rate of inflation at that time. In fact, beginning in 1986, the grain producers will be required to pick up the first six percentage points. Let us hope that it is not that high if our campaign is successful, as it appears to be. But they will be required to pick up the first six percentage points which has an historical basis in terms of Canadian inflationary experience. Therefore, I would suggest that the program is very much in keeping-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw.


EFFECT OF ACREAGE PAYMENT ON GRAIN GROWERS
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I am rather confused, because the Government's own documents indicate that between 1982-83 to 1985-86, a four year period, the net increase to the grain producer will be from $4.89 a tonne to $9.35 a tonne. In less than four years there will be an increase of 91.20 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Charles Neil: That does not sound like six and Five should.
The other question I have is with respect to the proposed acreage payment. Has the Government conducted a study to determine what effect this acreage payment will have on the grain producer? I understand that the acreage payment program is to be spread around all the producers and the impact will be upon those people who presently benefit from the Crow rate. Has a study been done on this aspect, and will the Minister agree to table such a study?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to say specifically
what studies are available on the subject, but I can assure the Hon. Member that there was an enormous amount of deliberation and study by everyone, including Mr. Gilson, in terms of proposing a regime which would have a beneficial effect not only on the grain producer but also on the whole agricultural economy in western Canada, with the capacity of that economy to diversify and also with the incentive, if you like, which will be injected in that economy, which will enable the rail transportation system itself to be modernized and to become more effective and efficient. That is the underlying reason for this initiative, which is widely supported by everyone familiar with the bottlenecks and difficulties which have arisen in the past with respect to the transportation of grain in western Canada.

[ Translation]


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Madam Speaker:: In accordance with Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, I have the duty to table an authentic copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of New-Brunswick, 1983.
As Hon. Members will know, Standing Order 46(4) provides that the reports laid before the House in accordance with an Act of Parliament are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Committee designated by the member tabling the report. In this case, I suggest that the report be deferred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. However, the statute under which the Electoral Boundaries Commission submit their reports to the House determines the procedure to be followed with regard to these reports.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, last week the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) asked me if we would be designating an Opposition day this week and I told him that I would do so at the beginning of this week. I would now like to designate Friday of this week as an Opposition day.
[ Translation]
At the same time, since it is important for the Committees to become operational as soon as possible in accordance with the new rules, the Hon. Member for London-East (Mr. Turner) yesterday tabled a report concerning the striking of
February 1, 1983

the Standing Committees of the House. I would like to inform my colleagues in the House that we intend to move that this report be concurred in as soon as possible, namely tomorrow, immediately after the oral question period.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, earlier this week the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) said that on Thursday we would be discussing the third reading stage of the legislation now before us. Is he saying that he will be giving notice to concur in the Striking Committee report, to take effect some time next week?


Yvon Pinard: No, Madam Speaker. What I have said is that on Wednesday, that is tomorrow, we shall move for concurrence in the report after the oral question period. The report was tabled yesterday and notice was given yesterday as well. This requires a notice of 48 hours and we shall therefore be able to move for concurrence on Wednesday, which is tomorrow. Since this concerns the striking of the Committees, I do not believe that any other subject can be more important for Hon. Members on both sides of the House. I also believe that it is urgent that this report be debated. We want it to receive concurrence as soon as possible and we believe that this can be done tomorrow by allowing Members on both sides of the House to speak on a day normally set aside for private members' business.


Erik Nielsen: Naturally, when notice is given it will become a Government Order. I am just trying to ascertain with some degree of certainty whether it is correct that Thursday will be set aside for debate on the third reading stage of the legislation now before us, the Old Age Security legislation, that Wednesday will be a normal Private Members' day, and that Friday of this week will be an allotted day. Am I correct in those assumptions?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as I have just stated, tomorrow, we shall debate, if necessary and if the Opposition so wishes, the report of the Striking Committee which was tabled yesterday by the Hon. Member for London-East (Mr. Turner). We gave notice of our intention yesterday and we plan to move for concurrence in this report tomorrow. Of course, if the report is approved without debate, we shall proceed to private members' business. However, if the report is debated for an hour, there will be one hour less for private members' business.
I would also like to confirm that, on Thursday, we shall proceed with third reading of Bill C-131 and that, as I have already indicated, Friday will be an allotted day.
I hope this time everything is clear.
Business of the House


Erik Nielsen: Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear. What the Government House Leader is saying, knowing full well that we intend to debate that report, is that we either shut up or we do not get our Private Members' day.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: The whole day is taken up with Private Members' Business. I can give him notice now, as I have done before, that we will be debating that report. He knows that fact, yet he comes in here and steals the Private Members' day under the new rules. He pleaded for some acts of good faith on the part of Hon. Members throughout the House. I do not consider his action in trying to pre-empt Private Members' day in this underhanded fashion to be any display of good faith on his part or on the Government's part.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: I am very much surprised by the reaction of the Hon. Member for Yukon. The reason the report of the Striking Committee in relation to the Standing Committees was tabled only yesterday was because of the very request of the Hon. Member for Yukon in the Striking Committee. That report could have been tabled earlier because the Committee was ready to table that report any time last week. It was at his request that we waited until the last ten sitting days, in conformity with the new Standing Orders, to table that report.
On the very same Striking Committee, the Hon. Member for Yukon was the one asking that, as early as possible after the tabling on that report, we move concurrence in that report so that we-


Erik Nielsen: That is not true.


Yvon Pinard: -could allow the committees to work. That was your own request.


Erik Nielsen: That is not true.


Yvon Pinard: There is nothing else than the functioning of committees that interests more Private Members. That is why we are calling the motion tomorrow for debate. Therefore, I am surprised by that reaction. We want the committees to work as early as possible.


Mr. Wilson:: Twisting the truth.


Yvon Pinard: I have been very courteous today in rising 24 hours in advance and letting my colleague know that we intended to do that. Theoretically, we could have waited until the last minute. However, I wanted to give him fair notice. That is an additional reason I am surprised by his negative reaction.
I am telling him now that we want to allow the committee system to work as early as possible. That is in line with and consequential to the request made by the Hon. Member himself. He is free to allow this report to go without further debate because, after all, it is the first time since I have been a

February 1, 1983
Business of the House
Member of Parliament in the last nine years that a Party has forced that kind of Striking Committee to meet. It will be the first time in many years that a political party will have forced debate on the report of such a Striking Committee.
What I am saying is that what we are doing is proper. We are giving proper notice and we thought and still think that we are doing only what the Hon. Member wanted us to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, that is a deliberate distortion of the truth. What I requested in the final meeting of the Striking Committee, and the Government House Leader well knows this, is only that the report be introduced on the last possible sitting day, which was last Monday. There was no request whatsoever to bring on debate on that report as soon as possible. I would have expected that to occur, but I would not have expected it to occur at the expense of a whole Private Members' day; and that is what the House Leader is attempting to steal from us.
I am sure that if he had been following the normal parliamentary courtesies he would have expressed his intentions, which no doubt he knew of when he met with the Striking Committee and when he discussed this matter with myself and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), the Acting House Leader for the New Democratic Party. But he did not do that, knowing full well as he sat there what he intended to do this week. I find that totally not in keeping with the kind of good faith that he has been asking us to display and which we think we have displayed in the adoption of these experimental rules. Indeed, I find his action most underhanded and despicable in attempting to undermine Private Members in this way.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why the Hon. Member gets so upset. After all, if he reads the recorded notes of the Committee which met last week, in the third meeting he himself asked the Chairman of that Committee, the Government Whip, when he intended to move concurrence of that report. I remember very well that the Government Whip answered him, "As early as possible after the tabling of the report". It was after that answer that the Hon. Member for the Yukon suggested and pressed very much in the Committee that in fact we do not table that report before the last allowed day, which was yesterday.
Today, all he is getting is what he asked for. For other reasons-and I do not want to impute any motives to him-he seems to have different views today. What I am saying is that we did not know last week he would react this way when he was pressing for us to table the report yesterday and that we move concurrence in that report as early as possible to allow the committees to work in the House of Commons and in the parliamentary system. Now must we conclude that he is not interested in seeing the committees work?
He is saying that tomorrow is Private Members' day. We have had a very hard time to find three Bills to be dealt with
for Private Members' Business tomorrow. That is a fact, because colleagues on his own side are not ready to proceed. The committee system is very important for Private Members. If they want to debate it, why do they want to use Government time to do it? We have three days a week, as I explained last week, to deal with urgent and important business for the Government; therefore, our intent is still there. But if he has very strong reasons and he is able to convince himself that he is right, changing his mind today, then we might consider dealing with this matter some time next week. I think it is unfortunate that we have to wait that long to have the committee system work.
I would have expected that the Hon. Member would have facilitated, in a spirit of parliamentary reform, the adoption of that report, because once again it is the first time in many, many years that the House Leader of the Official Opposition forces a debate on the report of a Striking Committee.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it is not the Official Opposition which is forcing a debate on that report, it is the intransigence of the Government House Leader in his unreasonable treatment of the recommendations of the Special Committee which intended flexibility in numbers on those committees but have been required to submit to the diktats of the Government House Leader.
When he speaks of the actions of the Government Whip with respect to the timing of the tabling of the report and the debating of it, he will well recall that when I asked the Government Whip that question as Chairman of the Striking Committee, he did not answer but looked over to the Government House Leader in order to get his answer.
No one suspected that any attempt would be made to steal Private Members' days in this underhanded way. What the Government should do if it wants to treat Parliamentarians fairly-there are all kinds of Private Members on this side who were not canvassed and who have Bills that can be debated tomorrow-and if he wants to act in good faith, let him designate Friday for the debating of the report of the Striking Committee.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I listened to this exchange with some interest. I want to offer the comment that perhaps it is the kind of consideration that ought to take place at a meeting that could be called between the House Leaders in order to try to find an alternative that would satisfy even the noisy Tory in the back row.
I think it would be better, in the interests of the civility of the House, if we did not have the debate tomorrow. I do not see any reason why we should, in all fairness, create a conflict unnecessarily, and quite obviously we are going to have that conflict. I do not think that will facilitate the implementation and good working of the new House rules.
So keeping that in mind, I would like to ask the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader if it might not be more appropriate for us to discuss this-


Walter David Baker: It would have been.
February 1, 1983


Ian Deans: Well, we can still do it. We could attempt to find an alternative date on which to have the debate as quickly as possible, perhaps even to agree on a time limit in order to have the debate dealt with in a reasonable way and not have the animosity that is quite evidently growing in the House of Commons continue.


Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, 1 enter this debate in support of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The Government House Leader made the point in reply that they were having great difficulty finding Private Members to bring forward their Bills.
I would remind the Government House Leader that during Question Period, in reply to questions from the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) with respect to amendments to the Bankruptcy Act put forward by the Hon. Member for Lamb-ton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson), which are going to be debated tomorrow, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) gave him great credit. Great credit does not go anywhere unless the Private Members' hour can go forward. Therefore, the Government House Leader is eliminating the Private Members' hour during which there is going to be consideration of a Bill which will help the farmers of Canada.


POINT OF ORDER
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Today once again we have witnessed a callous affront to this institution of Parliament by a very autocratic Government. This is the fourth occasion that a very important matter of substantive Government policy having to do with very major changes to Western grain transportation has been announced outside the House.
I remind you, Madam Speaker, that such similar announcements were made back on February 8, 1982, June 28, 1982, August 4, 1982, and again today we had a very, very substantive announcement.
Once again Parliament has been circumvented. I believe major announcements of Government policy should be made in this House of Commons. The fact of the matter is that the issue itself is very complex. It has raised a number of important questions, questions which Members on all sides of the House should have an opportunity to clarify, but the answers that we received to questions on this very important subject in the House today have been far from satisfactory and far from complete.
I draw your attention to Standing Order 18(4) at page 13, where is outlined, as it is even in the Business of the House, the procedure for calling for Statements by Ministers. Just to reflect on that for a moment, Standing Order 18(4) provides:
(4) On Statements by Ministers, as listed in section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may make a short factual announcement or statement of government policy. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon and Members may be permitted to
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski
address questions thereon to the Minister. The Speaker shall limit the time for such proceedings as he or she deems fit.
That is a very, very important function of the parliamentary process, a function which has been denied as a result of the actions of this Government.
Madam Speaker, I draw this matter to your attention and I wish you would take it under advisement. It is not the first time that 1 have raised it, and I will continue to raise it because it does impair our ability to discharge our responsibilities as effective Members of this House of Commons.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised a very interesting question. I congratulate him on the way he raised it and on the way he has explained it. Unfortunately, the Standing Order to which he has referred indicates that there is a discretion that can be utilized by a Minister. A Minister does not have to make a statement, but "may" make a statement. I quote from page 13 Standing Order 18(4):
-a Minister of the Crown may make a short factual announcement or statement of government policy. That is consistent with the previous Standing Order 15.
Many rulings have been made by the Chair to the effect that there is that discretion. On the other hand, I agree with the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that more often in this House we should witness statements made by Ministers, allowing a short, controlled debate on the subject of policy raised in the statement.
Unfortunately, at least since I have been dealing with House business, first as Parliamentary Secretary and then as House Leader, there have been demonstrated abuses with regard to the length of time used in dealing with comment on the statement, causing the Government often to lose a whole day which could be used to deal with urgent business. Possibly we could agree at some point. It would be possible for any reasonable spokesman from the Opposition to negotiate in advance a reasonable length of time for questions and remarks following such a statement in order to allow the Government to proceed with additional business on the day the statement is made. It would then be possible for Ministers to make more statements in the House. I will be open-minded to that kind of discussion or agreement.
For the time being, unfortunately, we have on one hand Ministers who do not want to spend a whole day in the House on a statement while the Government has a pressing necessity to deal with urgent business. On the other hand, we would like to allow the Opposition the opportunity to express its views and to ask questions.
I am not saying that this opportunity does not exist even when Ministers make statements outside the House. Questions can be asked in Question Period of Ministers that particular day or on days following. This Friday will be an Opposition day. The Opposition will have the opportunity of raising this matter in their motion. Nevertheless, I would be open-minded

February 1, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski
toward allowing more statements, provided we had a commitment or agreement from the other side not to abuse the length of time allotted to asking questions of Minister who make statements. I look forward to discussing that with my counterparts in the near future, if they are still willing to negotiate in good faith.
Finally, in so far as tomorrow is concerned, I admit that I am much surprised by the reaction of the Hon. Member for Yukon. I was expecting him to applaud. Since he is not applauding but shouting and crying, 1 will reconsider with pleasure-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister is not now discussing the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I must remind him that if he is rising now, he must discuss the point or order.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: You are right, Madam Speaker, but I just wanted to make things perfectly clear. With regard to the business for tomorrow, the decision is not final. I am prepared to reconsider my suggestion and to postpone this debate until the following Wednesday so that following consultations we might come to an agreement. There have been consultations in the past but they did not bring any positive results. I hope this time, that the results will be more encouraging but if such is not the case, we shall proceed on the following Wednesday to the striking of Committees and the adoption of the report.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to hear the Government House Leader say that he will reconsider the matter and allow us a normal Private Member's day tomorrow. I thought I heard him say, however, that he may be disposed to carry the notice to concur on to the following Wednesday which, of course, would be just as objectionable. However, we can discuss that.
In any event, I was going to alert the Chair to the possibility of a point of order tomorrow questioning the ability of the Government to displace Private Members' day, now Wednesday, by this device. Quite frankly, I very much doubt that the Government has the prerogative of displacing Private Members' day by the use of this kind of device. While I attribute the best of motives to the Government House Leader in changing his mind, I am very doubtful that it could have been done in the first place and I would have raised that point tomorrow.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I am glad there is a reconsideration for tomorrow, I want to raise-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We are discussing two matters at the same time. I am a little bit uneasy about orderly discussion in the House. I want first to rule on the point of order brought forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. We can then continue discussion of Government business.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, may I be heard on this point of order?


Madam Speaker:: I do not think the House needs to be further enlightened on the point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: It is quite clear in the Standing Order which deals with Statements by Ministers that the Standing Order is permissive, but does not place an obligation on the Government to make statements of Government policies under Statements by Ministers. It is purely permissive.
I appreciate the point of order brought forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. He probably feels very much aggrieved by the situation. However, it is the choice of the Government to make its statements at whatever time the Government feels it must.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Madam Speaker:: Now that we have cleared this particular point of order, I see that it is the desire of Hon. Members to return to the discussion of Government business. In the interest of what appears to be a desire to come to some kind of agreement, I will allow the House to return to that discussion and I will recognize for that purpose the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who had the floor before I ruled.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I had wanted to raise a point very similar to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I want to make one comment, if I may, on the statement made by the Government House Leader.
The Government House Leader said in response to the question about the making of statements that if he could get agreement for a short debate on Statements, he might consider implementing once again the practice of having Ministers make statements.
I consider that to be a direct attack on the Speaker. It is quite clearly the responsibility of the Speaker to determine the length of time to be allocated for reply to statements made by any Minister in the House. It is not the responsibility of the House Leader, it is not the responsibility of the Opposition House Leader and it is not my responsibility to set up in advance some agreement as to how long will be taken. It is directly the responsibility of the Speaker to determine when there has been sufficient discussion on any statement made.
I therefore suggest, in the interests of the people who are most affected by the actions being taken by the Government today, that a Minister of the Crown should stand in his place today and make a statement with regard to the changes to the Crow rate. It should be done now. I have nothing further to say on the other matter.
February 1, 1983


Madam Speaker:: I did want to comment on what the Minister said about possible abuses of the time allocated to Statements by Ministers. I was distracted by the number of Members who were eager to take the floor at that time. I think it is fair to remind the House that the time taken under Statements by Ministers by the different intervenors in the House is determined by the Speaker. The Speaker goes by rule-of-thumb. Depending on how much time the Minister takes, the other statements are more or less related to that period.
The Speaker has interrupted some Members who have taken more time than the Minister had taken to make the statement. If my memory is correct, we have not had any exceptions to that. Questions then follow. That, too, is regulated at the discretion of the Speaker. We have had periods of two hours for questions, including the statement. Depending on the number of Members who wanted to ask questions, I did not think at that time that was excessive. However, if the time to be allocated to these kinds of statements is to be discussed and negotiated between the Parties, I think that would make my job even easier.


Claude-André Lachance: Madam Speaker,
I would like to draw your attention to a comment made during the previous debate by the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), a comment he may wish to withdraw, since it is more or less a false accusation, and I do not think that is in keeping with the Rules of the House. He said that the Members on the Committee had bowed to the wishes of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) in the debate on the number of Members now on the Committees and on the Striking Committee's report. I should like to point out to the Hon. Member and to Members on both sides of the House, that the Committee has decided not to intervene in this difference of opinion between the Parliamentary House Leaders, and if I misunderstood his comments, perhaps the Hon. Member would like to withdraw them.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, in the best interest of the work of that committee, I think 1 should make it abundantly clear that if the Member has that interpretation of what I said, it is quite wrong. I was referring throughout to the Striking Committee and not to the Special Committee of which he is a member.


Mr. Cosgrove:: Madam Speaker, a propos of the discussion between the Government House leader and the House leader for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I would like to point out that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), a Conservative Member, indicated in Parliament today, presumably with the approval of his House leader, the agreement of that Party to deal expeditiously with Bill C-142, which
Business of the House
was introduced in order to bring some security to depositors in organizations covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. It is impossible for this Government to deal with that item and send it on to committee if we cannot even agree to find a forum under which to debate the issue of striking those committees. I would have thought that in the interest of those people looking for additional security-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister is into debate. I think we all realize that the Parties now want to negotiate some kind of solution to that particular problem. I understand the Hon. Minister's desire to have that report debated promptly, but I think it will probably happen if the Parties agree.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in his comments, the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) doubted the Government had the right to put motions on Wednesday, since it is a Private Members' Day. I want to make it clear that we do not agree at all with this view, that a motion can be put on a Wednesday just as on any other day on which Government Orders are dealt with, that there is no basis for this view and especially, there is nothing in the Rules or parliamentary procedure to support this reasoning. Therefore, we reserve the right to put our motions whenever it is necessary to do so. I agreed to postpone the debate on the Striking Committee's report until a later date, probably not later than next Wednesday, because the Hon. Member's reaction took me by surprise. We shall discuss the matter later, and I hope we will be able to agree, and otherwise, we reserve the right to call this motion on a Wednesday, either tomorrow or next week.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member did not raise the question. He said that he was thinking of raising it tomorrow, because he had some doubts as to the Government's right to cancel the Private Members' hour, but he did not really raise the question.


Erik Nielsen: That is entirely correct, and I should hasten also to correct the misapprehension the Government House leader might have with respect to what I said. I do not question the Government's right to give notice on a Wednesday; what I question is the right to allow a Government order of the day, such as that notice would trigger, to displace a private Bill.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Let us not have that debate now. We will have it in due course.


Erik Nielsen: It was not a debate; I was simply correcting him.


Madam Speaker:: Yes. Well, it is a hypothetical situation for the time being.


Erik Nielsen: His statement was not.


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, the Government House leader mentioned it was difficult to find Members who wanted their

Petitions
private Bills brought forward. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that Bill C-628, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning computer crime, has been on the books for almost two years, and I have almost begged the Minister of Justice and other people involved to bring forth this Bill. So certainly there are Bills ready to go on Private Members' day and 1 thought the Government House leader should know that.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: I shall remember that, Madam Speaker. The problem is that the Hon. Member may be ready but not necessarily on the day we want the Bill to be debated. Of course, the Bill is ready to be debated, but when we call Members, sometimes we are told: Yes, I am ready, but not tomorrow, I would rather do it next week or the week after. We had quite a few problems getting ready for last Wednesday, and 1 am told that this has also been the case for tomorrow's sitting. So I repeat what I said, and my statement stands.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader implies I have been called and had turned down the opportunity. 1 have never been called up. I am ready to go any time I am called. I am begging to go; it is an important Bill.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) will take note of that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by 11,000 of my constituents. The wording of the petition is theirs, and is as follows:
To the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled.
The Petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth tha. the Petrochemical industry is in trouble in Sarnia and in Canada because of the federal Government's Petrochemical Feedstock Taxation Policy; and that thousands of jobs are in jeopardy in both the short and the long term; and
That Canada's petrochemical industry-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is hard to hear, what I am saying. The petition goes on:
-is a major manufacturing sector contributing to Canada's economy, and Canada needs it; and
That the Chemical Valley in Sarnia is one of Canada's most important petrochemical centres; and
That Sarnia and all its citizens are concerned for the future of the industry, their community, their families, and indeed the country; and
February 1, 1983
That there is inequality in the costs of petrochemical feedstocks between the industry in Eastern Canada and Western Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the Hon. Member is taking some latitude in what is allowed in presenting a Petition. The title of the Petition should be read out in the House and that is about all.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that censure. The problem I have is that the wording was prepared by them and is not mine. The wording is that of the petitioners who felt they were complying with the rules. I think they might feel they were shortchanged if I had not read it all, so I will just finish up with the prayer.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member, who knows the rules, might have advised them of what they could do.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, I agree that is right, and next time I am sure they will ask me. I thank you for the admonition. The prayer is:
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
[ Translation]


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to table a petition on behalf of the Development and Peace Movement of the Vaudreuil-Soulanges area. It is signed by 3,424 of my constituents who urge the Canadian Government to denounce human rights violations in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras, to develop its own economic assistance policy with regard to Central American countries, and to support the organizations which champion human rights in those countries.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-672, to change the name of the electoral district of Dauphin.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I see the Hon. Member wants to make a brief statement. I am sorry, but we have passed that time and he did not rise. Will the House agree to allow the Hon. Member to make a brief statement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Laverne Lewycky: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I have just a brief comment on the background of the Bill.
February 1, 1983

Both the village and the rural municipality of Dauphin were incorporated in 1898, and subsequently gave their name to the Dauphin federal constituency which was created in 1903. Since its inception, the constituency of Dauphin has sent nine Members of Parliament to Ottawa, and I am honoured to serve the constituency in this the year of its eightieth anniversary.
The former village of Dauphin is now a thriving town of
10,000	people, and given its rich history of representation in Ottawa and its continued role as a major geographic, economic and cultural centre, it is important that the name "Dauphin" remain as part of the title of the constituency. Some 110 miles northwest of the town of Dauphin is the second largest town in the riding, Swan River. In its own right, Swan River is an important geographic, economic and communications centre, acting as both a focal point for the surrounding region and as means of access to Manitoba's North. Incorporated in 1908, the town has since experienced continuous population growth, in spite of the fact that there has been a move from rural to urban areas.
Historically, Swan River has been part of the Dauphin constituency. It is so under the current Parliament and under the new boundary commission proposal, and it remains in the Dauphin constituency. Therefore, given Swan River's distance from the riding's other major centre, Dauphin, and the need to emphasize its importance within the riding as a whole, given its geographic, historical and socio-economic distinctiveness, and given the overwhelming support for the constituency name change from constituents, I introduce first reading of this Bill with the motion that on May 11, 1983, the seventy-fifth anniversary of the town of Swan River, the Dauphin federal constituency henceforth be known as the Dauphin-Swan River federal constituency.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has taken quite a lot of liberty in the statement that he is allowed to make at this time, but I am sure that his constituents will be very happy.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,589, 4,595 and 4,672.


Mr. Mazankowski: Was a study conducted on behalf of the Department of Transport regarding the "assessment of freight and passenger conservation options" and, if so (a) what were the terms of reference (b) to whom was the study contracted (c) what
Order Paper Questions
expertise does the contractor have in rail transportation (d) what was the cost (e) what impact, if any, will the results of the study have on VIA Rail Canada Inc. and on the consideration of changes to the Crowsnest Pass rate?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: A study to assess transportation freight and passenger energy conservation is under way.
(a)	The objective of this study is to identify and analyse all meaningful transportation fuel conservation strategies and assess their limits in terms of socio-economic impacts.
(b)	The Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of Transport Canada, contracted this study to Jouko A. Parviain-en & Associates of Oakville, Ontario.
(c)	The project team includes Mr. R. O. Maughan, of Maughan Railway Consulting Services, Inc. Mr. Maughan is a transportation specialist in Rail Freight.
(d)	The estimated cost is $81,315.
(e)	The study report will be made available to the railways. The study should be useful for the promotion of freight and passenger energy conservation in rail transportation.


Mr. McCuish: 1.	Were the pre-game and half-time shows organized for the 1982 Grey Cup Game sponsored by a government Department and, if so (a) which Department (b) what was the total cost?
2.	Were any of the participating groups or individuals paid for their attendance at the Grey Cup Game and, if so, in each case (a) who were they (b) how much were they paid?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: 1. (a) The
Canadian Unity Information Office sponsored the half-time show for the 1982 Grey Cup on behalf of the Government of Canada, (b) cost: $77,504.
2. (a) The 48th Highlanders of Canada, (Canadian Forces Reserve Unit Band). Totem, an agency involved in co-ordinating native dancers for special events; (b) Highlanders: $5,097 (as a prerequisite to clearance for the band from the American Federation of Musicians), Totem: $1,500 paid to cover transportation and meals for fifty native dancers.


Mr. Kilgour: For the most recent years for which Government records were kept, what was the aggregate cost (a) per day (b) per year to the taxpayer of the Senate of Canada?


David P. Smith: The information requested is available in the Estimates and in the Public Accounts for each year since 1867. In recent years the Senate has been funded by Parliament Vote 1.
February 1, 1983

[English]	specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration,
QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN	namely: the announcement this morning by the federal Gov-


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,101 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,101 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Neil: 1.	In each year 1975 to 1982, how many employees of the Department of Agriculture were given extended absences to attend university to study for either a Masters degree or a PhD and, in each case (a) what was his/her name (b) what were his/her qualifications when he/she joined the Department (c) on what date did he/she join the Department and on what date was he/she given the extended absence (d) for what period is his/her extended absence and which university will he/she be attending (e) what remuneration was paid during his/her period of extended absence?
2.	Is an employee on extended absence under contract with the Department to return and work with the Department after completing his/her studies and, if so, what are the terms of the contract?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I have a notice of motion for an emergency debate by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) to move adjournment of the House under Standing Order 30 for the purpose of discussing a
ernment of its intention to break unilaterally, the historic Crowsnest Pass Freight Rate Agreement; an agreement which dates back to 1896 and which guarantees to grain farmers freight rates in perpetuity and which provides in return to the CPR, material, land and mineral rights; an agreement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had promised a number of times in the House of Commons would not be changed without a consensus among grain farmers. An agreement thus unilaterally broken constitutes a complete breach of trust between the Prime Minister and the Government on the one hand and those affected by the agreement on the other hand.


Madam Speaker:: There can be no doubt that the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Oshawa is important. The Chair must be satisfied that all the conditions laid down by the Standing Order are being met in this case.
Section (16)(a) states that the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency. In his proposed motion, the Hon. Member for Oshawa states that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has promised a number of times in the House of Commons that the agreement would not be changed without a consensus among grain farmers. The matter has therefore been raised before in this House, and indeed in numerous ways. For example, on February 26, 1982, a supply motion was moved and debated which read in part as follows:
That this House condemns the Government for abandoning the historical and statutory rights of western grain producers by proposing an end to the Crowsnest Pass freight rate.
I must also point out that the Hon. Member stated in his notice the matter to be:
-the announcement this morning by the federal Government of its intention to break unilaterally the historic Crowsnest Pass Freight Rate Agreement;
No indication is given in the notice as to when a decision may be taken or implemented. Under those circumstances, the Chair finds no justification for the contention that the matter calls for immediate and urgent consideration. The House, in all probability, will find the opportunity in the near future, as it has, for instance, during the Question Period, to discuss this matter in another context.
Finally, the Chair has serious reservations in connection wth the terms in which the proposed motion is couched. That type of motion is perhaps more in the nature of a non-confidence motion. May I quote in part from a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on June 29, 1971, as will be found on page 7434 of Hansard of that date. It reads:
I would indicate to the Hon. Member that in my view this is not the kind of motion or the kind of subject which ought to be considered under the terms of Standing Order 26. This is essentially a motion of non-confidence. It is a substantive motion. It does not deal with a matter which is a sudden occurrence.
Under these circumstances, it is with regret that I must decide that the matter is not proper to be discussed at this time under the terms of Standing Order 30.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, for technical reasons I am not entirely surprised by your ruling and I respect that judg-
February 1, 1983

ment. However, we did not know earlier today that the Government was going to make such an historic announcement affecting farmers throughout Canada, particularly in the prairies. 1 had hoped that the Government would at least have the courtesy to make a statement on motions, so that we would have a chance to debate the matter. This not having been done, Madam Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House.


Madam Speaker:: I am very sorry, but the House cannot accept the motion to adjourn the House because the House at the present is under an order of the House. There is some order of business that has to be completed before any such motion could be in order.
I regret to have to say to the Hon. Member that I cannot accept his motion to adjourn the House. Standing Order 8.(3) reads as follows:
When it is provided in any Standing or Special Order of this House that any business specified by such Order shall be continued, forthwith disposed of, or concluded in any sitting, the House shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown.
For that reason, and based on this Standing Order, I cannot accept the motion of the Hon. Member. It is out of order.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-131, to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2) as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the motion of Mr. Dantzer (p. 21795).
Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, before the lunch break I was speaking about the amendment to Bill C-131 and referring to the comments made by the Conservative Party, specifically those of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) and the Hon. Member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). The latter Member stated in his speech that his Party considered that the application of the six and Five program to working people was not a problem and that they could support it. He said they were opposed to its application to Family Allowances and pensions. They knew full well from the statements and the "Budget in Brief', that it was tied to the Family Allowance, to pensions, and to the various programs.
The Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have openly attacked social programs for which we have fought so hard
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
over the years. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) fought in the House to gain these programs, and now they are being eroded away with the help of the Conservative Party. For Conservative Members to rise in the House at this time after supporting Bill C-124 is a disgrace to the intelligence of the people of Canada. Canadians know that they supported the basic program, Bill C-124, which created the problem we are having today. This was well spelled out in June when the Government presented the program. Today we saw a prime example of what was taking place in the House. At that time I spoke about some of the things which were happening with regard to the six and five program. I said that the President of CP Rail, Ian Sinclair, had been appointed chairman of the blue chip committee to expound on the virtues of the six and five program. At that time the President of the Treasury Board danced to the tune of the President of CP Rail, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) danced to the tune of that program. Now we have the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) dancing to that tune.
We have a situation where the Government of Canada and the Official Opposition are supporting the kind of structure wherein big companies dictate the policies which are eroding the very basic social programs for which we have fought so hard.
I see Mr. Speaker motioning to me. I thank the House for the opportunity of participating in this debate.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise once again and participate this time in report stage of Bill C-131. I recall very well at second reading the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) telling us that his mother liked the capping of her pension, and the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) talking about whether she was going to kneecap him or he, her. In any event, his mother did not write me. The Bill has been through committee and it is back here for report stage. It is not my intention to talk about my mother. I suppose I could because she is a recipient of the old age pension as well. Rather, I think it is pertinent to talk about the need of Canadian pensioners for this meagre income, if that is all they have, which was promised to them by their Government and is now proposed to be reduced. I use the word "reduced" in its proper sense. The Government says that they will still get an increase, but anyone would know that the purchasing power of these pensions is being reduced.
I heard the comments of the NDP Member who spoke before me. He was critical of the fact that the Progressive Conservative Party opposed this Bill at the same time as it supported the six and five program. I find that to be the most natural coupling of ideas. We on this side know, even if the Party to my left has no idea of any economic realities, that the Government must exercise some restraint.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, when one pricks a balloon one gets a lot of hot air out of it. If they will allow me to continue,

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
let met say that we on this side know that the Government must begin to balance budgets. There are only two ways of doing this. I remember many people coming before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and presenting ways of balancing budgets, eliminating deficits or whatever. There are only two ways. One is to restrain expenditures and the other is to increase revenues. The policies of the Government opposite have given us neither of those two things. They have given us reduced revenues and increased expenditures. How have they done this?
They have gone through and increased estimates all the way along the line, normally far in excess of any reasonable amounts which might have been expected because of inflationary gains or anything like that. Then, because of their other economic policies, they have thrown 1.3 million Canadians out of work. Not only do these Canadians cease to be taxpayers contributing to the general revenues of the country, but they become a serious drain, through unemployment insurance, which has amounted so far this year to $8 billion. That is not a way of balancing budgets.
Now, having succeeded in getting the budgets so far out of whack that there will probably be a $26 billion deficit this year, not counting unemployment insurance payouts, the Government decided to practise more restraint through this Bill by reducing the increase due to old age pensioners. I choose carefully the words-increase due to them. Generally speaking, these Canadian pensioners have been through one depression. Some of them might say that they have been through two or three. They have been through more than one war. Some might have even been through four wars. They have contributed throughout their whole lives to this country. For the most part-and I am not speaking of the well-to-do ones- they are depending on the country now for their very existence through this relatively meagre old age pension. To take away the ability of the pensioners of Canada to keep up is a reprehensible move by the Government.
It is not as if there were no other way to solve the problems of Government. In the recent budget adjustments-and I cannot remember which of the last three since none of them has been fully brought into effect-there was a proposal to reduce the highest marginal rates of personal income tax. From a certain economic or business point of view that is commendable. It is a way of creating more capital pools, which are very important for creating jobs in Canada. It is a better way for the Government to get more tax revenues, because higher tax rates penalize producers and it encourages things like underground economies. If by a simple adjustment they increased the tax rates, not reduced them as much as they propose now, they could have acquired the extra revenue from general taxpayers-and this is a very small amount about which I am talking-including higher income pensioners. I am sure they would not mind contributing a little of their highest-end income in order to save the most needy of our pensioners from this reduction in their purchasing power.
What I am saying is that there were many ways in which the Government could have attempted to balance budgets. We on
this side support its attempts at restraint. This is why we supported Bill C-124. We could see that the six and five program had its attractions and in many ways was a necessary evil. However, to try to balance budgets on the backs of pensioners who have been through wars and depressions and are at the mercy of the Government now for some degree of dignity and well-being in their old age, is a measure which we deplore and with which we do not agree. This is why we have spoken consistently against this unfair and unnecessary attack on Canadian senior citizens.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak at report stage of Bill C-131 and particularly to give support to the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), I want to pay special tribute to his leadership on the entire question of pensions which has enabled the House to take a good look at all the implications of the changing demographic scene in Canada. This has now led to a special study in which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North, will play a very important role.
I am struck once more by how the Government want only breaks its commitments in the name of six and five. Just as in the case of Public Service pensions with Bill C-133, the Government is indulging in the gamesmanship of six and five to breach its obligations arbitrarily and unilaterally. It was nearly nine months ago, on April 20, 1982, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) told the conference on industrial relations:
We have no intention of changing the "rules of the game". We want to maintain the indexing of Old Age Security Pension and Supplement every three months, and to retain the universality of the basic OAS pension.
Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what about the question of credibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the light of that statement? What about the question of the credibility of the Government with senior citizens who only have us on this side of the House to raise their case that inflation and the ravages of inflation must not be fought on the backs of people who are the most defenceless?
This present about face reminds one of 1974 with the "Zap, you're frozen" statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or of the 1980 pledge of cheaper energy prices. We see now how hollow those promises were. Credibility is surely the most essential bond between a Government and its electorate, especially that part of the electorate that is the most vulnerable, our senior citizens. To the very limited extent that this Liberal Government maintains any credibilty with the Canadian people, then Bill C-131 damages it still further.
My second major objection to this piece of legislation now before us at report stage is that it fights inflation on the backs of those who are least able to bear it. It is true that the Government is compensating the least advantaged through the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which brings their income to the level that it would have been otherwise. But that does not
February 1, 1983

help the approximately 1.1 million pensioners who are just slightly above the cut-off or poverty line.
Last summer I went on an extensive door-to-door tour of my constituency of Edmonton South. I spoke literally to hundreds of people, many of them senior citizens. Time and again they spoke of life on the brink of poverty with shoestring budgeting.
It may well be that Bill C-131 will cost the senior citizens "only" $290 over 1983 and 1984 in lost indexation that otherwise would have accrued to them, but I submit that this sum is too much for them to bear. A public opinion sounding which I took in my riding, moveover, revealed that fully 62.2 per cent of all my constituents supported increased, rather than reduced, support for senior citizens.
I also have reservations about the Government using G1S to make up the loss in Old Age Security. Since the Guaranteed Income Supplement is means tested, that suggests we are getting away from the principle of universality. It may be that Bill C-131 is thus the thin edge of the wedge; the beginning of a process by which government pensions will become a privilege and not a right.
Through these measures, the Government claims that it will be saving some $31 million. The figures seem to vary as to what exactly will be saved. I do not think the Government even knows, except that it will be a rather minor amount relative to the totality of the federal budget deficit of some $23 billion. 1 wonder whether it is worth breaking a fundamental commitment to the senior citizens of this country for this sum. Why does the Government not look at cutting the deficit through saving in Government advertising, which costs are now approaching $100 million a year? What about many other expenditures which the Government can cut? Many of them the Government has made over the past decade largely to increase its own political popularity. Why does the Government not take a good, hard look at those kinds of things to try to approach some degree of sanity in the $23 billion deficit level rather than going to the senior citizens first, the most vulnerable people? To make senior citizens an exception to the Government's six and five program might be doubly appropriate as a reflection of the Government's confidence in its own anti-inflation program. If the Government is so certain that inflation will fall, then payouts for Old Age Security will fall correspondingly. Hence, why is this ever optimistic Government breaching a trust and causing hardship to cap pensions which, when inflation falls, will not mean capping in any event?
Above all, the Government is being quite hypocritical in maintaining, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare did on second reading of this Bill, that Bill C-131 is "asking 1.1 million Old Age Pensioners to help lead the way in the fight against inflation"?
Finally, I object to this Bill because it is an ad hoc approach to a basic issue facing our society, which is the caring for the elderly in a manner which is economically viable, and above all socially just. We have spent literally hours of parliamentary time debating public service pensions, and now Old Age Security. Would it not have been more profitable to begin
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
consideration of the broader question on aging and some action following the United Nations Conference on Aging which took place in Vienna in 1982? What about a long-range approach to consider all the implications of demographically changing lines in our society, in which we know we are entering, what is to be called the greying of our society?
To this end at the start of the new session, if there is ever going to be a new session and an end to this interminable first session that has brought such misery to the people of Canada,
I will be proposing a motion to consider the subject of aging in its entirety; to consider all of the aspects of aging today, both demographically and economically. I will make some proposals in a Private Member's motion at that time, Sir.
Once more, 1 urge the Government to reconsider its shortterm palliative Bill C-131. It breaks the Government's word, it creates hardship and it is hypocritical. Against these points, the gamesmanship of six and five is no defence whatsoever.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: It is with a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I rise to speak on Bill C-131. Before I make my introductory remarks, I would like to comment on some of the input from the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke) who spoke previously. He seemed to have some problem in understanding why we ridicule his Party on their position on Bill C-124 before it came into law and on their present position of opposing the legislation relating to civil servant pensions and old age security. I think that most of us are confused about the Conservatives' position on leadership and a number of other matters. The Hon. Member suggested that we do not understand the economics of the issue. I fail to see how anyone can understand their actions after witnessing what they did last weekend and seeing their position on Bill C-124 last summer which invoked the six and five program.
I think people should be very aware of the Conservatives' view of that legislation at that time. There was an amendment moved by the NDP, which the Conservatives voted against, that the six and five legislation not apply to pensions. We are not talking about confusion; we are talking about blatant hypocrisy. That Party cannot have it both ways. They will either have to stand up on principle or put up and shut up. That is about the size of it.
It is rather interesting to see some of the responses that the Conservatives made to this legislation. They had many opportunities to have all their Members turn up and vote against the legislation, but their record is atrocious. As a matter of fact, when their Whip was asked where his people were on many occasions, he stated that they were out at static cling conferences and quilting bees. When the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was asked what his Party's policy would be on some of these economic issues that affect senior citizens, his response, as reported in Maclean's magazine was, "If we told them what we would do they certainly would not elect us in the forthcoming election." I suggest that we are looking at

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
issues that distinguish between truth and hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative Party.
The legislation we are discussing today ultimately deals with the economic policy of the six and five program. Anyone who is evaluating the economy and the six and five policy and who has any integrity will see that this legislation is destructive.
The Liberal Party has failed to instil any sense of direction in the people of this country in attempting economic recovery. It has, instead, imposed its six and five policy on pensioners, those who depend on Family Allowances and others in our society who cannot afford the kind of restraint the Government is imposing upon them. If the Government had imposed that kind of restraint on Michael Pitfield, perhaps its credibility might be somewhat stronger today. I would suggest that the Liberal Government of Canada is probably one of the most discredited groups in the country today. It has discredited itself because of its blatant economic attack on pensioners, retired civil servants and those who depend on the Family Allowance income. It is a totally wrong direction to take toward economic recovery.
The previous speaker mentioned that we are anticipating a new budget and speech from the Throne if this session ever ends. It is amazing that we have not heard one constructive suggestion from the Government in the time that we have been here. It has only caused chaos and conflict in the country up to this time, and this legislation in front of us now is no exception.
I hope that the Government will resolve to find programs that will assist the country so that we may see a new Speech from the Throne and a new budget. Hopefully, there will be measures in the budget that will provide assistance to the senior citizens in this country, instead of hammering the pensioners and retired civil servants as this legislation does.
It has been many years since the Government last introduced any constructive measures to assist senior citizens. At that time the Government added a paltry sum of $35 to the base rate of pensions, and allowed it to increase through indexation. However, that foundation of indexation has been chopped out as a result of the present legislation. That $35 increase was a sham. We should be considering a program to support senior citizens instead of being faced with this legislation in the House.
I find it very offensive that the Government is totally ignoring the diversity of this country. This is evident when one sees the assumptions made in the Bill. Senior citizens who live in rural areas such as the area I represent find the cost of living extremely high. They find the cost of food, housing, transportation and other services extremely high. At this time they need every nickel they can manage to eke out of what is already a very inadequate pension. They do not need their pensions cut back by a six and five program. The Government's assumptions are totally inaccurate when dealing with senior citizens. Instead, we should be considering an increase in pensions to meet the cost of living, and certainly an increase in the base of those pensions.
I would like to deal with housing as it affects senior citizens. There is a great shortage of decent housing for senior citizens in many communities. What housing is available is generally high cost. Provincial Governments, which have traditionally taken responsibility for carrying on senior citizen programs, have reduced revenues, with the result that senior citizen housing programs are in a state of collapse. Therefore, there are hundreds of senior citizens in small communities such as Powell River waiting for access to decent and reasonably priced housing. We should be considering matters such as this, instead of trying to find ways to cut indexing on senior citizens' pensions. They should be provided with additional services. As well, the Government should be considering ways to offset the high cost of living.
Intermediate care for seniors is another area of concern. Many senior citizens do not have access to intermediate and extended care facilities. Many of the facilities in this country are without adequate funds and have very limited programs. Many of these facilities are merely human storehouses where people are put out of sight of the community. In many cases they are the most appalling spectacles I have ever laid my eyes on. Yet the Government sits on its thumbs doing nothing for senior citizens who need those types of services. The hypocrisy is astounding.
We should be considering the provision of better recreation facilities for seniors, instead of capping their pensions at six and five. We should be providing adequate recreation and community support services for seniors so they could enjoy their declining years, instead of worrying about what the Government has in store for them in its next measure.
Most senior citizens are confined because of inadequate transportation services. They are becoming less active and, in some cases, they are in declining health and thereby confined to their homes. They are not able to participate with family and friends in the community. The Government's role, both federally and provincially, is absolutely disgusting in this regard.
Finally, I would suggest that the matter comes down to straight politics. There are three Parties in the House. I believe the Conservatives have clearly illustrated that they are absolutely in bed with the Liberals on this particular issue. They favour the restraint program. It is not Dome, Massey Ferguson or Chrysler who are being told to tighten their belts. It is not Ian Sinclair or the Royal Bank of Canada. Those two Parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, chose to make senior citizens tighten their belts and probably take their belts off and tighten them around their throats. This hypocrisy must end.
Those two Parties have to take their heads out of the sand and recognize that we cannot have it both ways. We have to stand up on this principle and provide adequate funding for these people and abandon this self-destructive approach of the six and five program, especially as it is applied to seniors, retired civil servants and people attempting to live on Family Allowance.
February 1, 1983


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, as I join in the debate today, I suppose we are coming to the end of this trio of discriminatory legislation which the Government has seen fit to bring out. I might just briefly recall the remarks of the Hon. Member who spoke previously. He said that the Tories were in bed with the Liberals on this matter. Certainly we are not in bed with the Tories-with the Liberals on this matter.


An Hon. Member:: We know you are not in bed with the Tories.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: As I said the other day, when there is some noise in this House, it always comes from that small pack of lonesome souls on the left-hand side who are better at making noise than at making sense.
There are three Bills which we sometimes discuss. The NDP have been ostensibly or supposedly speaking on Bill C-131 today and on Bill C-133 a few days ago, but all their speeches have really been on Bill C-124. They like to claim that these are part of Bill C-124. Bill C-124 was the six and five legislation which, for the most part, applied to civil servants who are in the work force, with all that entails. Bills C-131 and C-133, which we oppose, are designed to apply against senior citizens. Some of them are more senior than others. My constituency has several of both kinds.
Bill C-131, which we are discussing today, hits at the old age pensioners and their pensions. The bill which we discussed a couple of days ago, Bill C-133, applied to retired civil servants. However, these are elderly people. Bill C-124 was made to apply against people still in the work force, still with bargaining capabilities, still with flexibility in their lifestyles and their choice of occupation. Not everyone has it, but some have. Of course, it is of interest that Bill C-124 called for a pay cut in the salary of MPs, which would lead to a pay cut in their pensions later on, and the NDP opposed the Bill. We voted in favour of that pay cut for MPs and it was passed. We have cheerfully paid the 5 per cent ever since and will continue to do so.
1 see that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) has entered the House. A little earlier today he spoke on a matter of some interest to me with regard to veterans. Concerning the indexation of veterans' pensions, the Minister has at times used terms which would lead people to draw the wrong conclusion. A matter of terminology is involved which is unfortunate. I am certain that the Minister does not intend to mislead some of the pensioners, but he does.
The Minister included a note with the last cheques sent out from the Department to disabled veterans and their widows and to those who receive the War Veterans Allowance. There may be others, but that is the general group to whom the cheques are sent. To the general public, a "veteran" means someone who served in a war or, I suppose, served in the forces for a long time. Indexation certainly does apply to many people who served in World War II. Disability cheques, not
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
veterans' cheques, are received by those who suffered disabilities during their service, probably in World War II or even in peacetime, although they are the rare exceptions, believe me.
In any event, the message included in those cheques sent out stated:
Dear friend,
Having heard a good deal about the Canadian Government's assault on inflation, you may have had some concern about the effect of the "six and five'' program on your own pension. 1 am pleased to inform you that "six and five" restrictions do not apply to disability pensions or widows pensions.
That is fine, so far. It continues:
Effective January 1, 1983, disability pensioners and recipients of widows pensions will receive a cost of living increase of 11.5 per cent.
It is fine until that point, but then the Minister states:
The Canadian Government considers veterans to be a very special group of citizens.
He does not mention disabled veterans or widows of veterans, but he says that veterans are a very special group of citizens. He states:
It is for that reason the purchasing power of your cheque is being maintained by the addition of a full cost of living increase. It is the Government's way of saying "Thank You" to Canadian Veterans and their dependants for unselfish service when it was needed.
The problem there is that a great number of veterans who draw the old age pension and perhaps a small disability pension believe that they will not suffer from this legislation, but they certainly will, because if they are drawing the Old Age Security payment, they will be limited to the 6 per cent increase throughout the term of this year.
Today, the Minister again rose in response to a speech made by someone in the small group to our left, I believe, to point out that veterans' pensions had not been subject to a capping of indexation. It depends on what kind of a veteran one is. In terms of the veterans' disability pension, the Minister is correct. If he is referring to other pension cheques received by people who are veterans, he is incorrect. I would hope that he, being the gentleman that I know he is, would clear that up, possibly with another memorandum which he could send out with next month's cheques.
I would like to discuss briefly the position now of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). It can only be embarrassing, I assume, because of what she has allowed to happen as a result of this program. The Government has seen the old and infirm as its first target in its effort to show that it knows what restraint means. There is doubt that it knows what restraint means at all. Its intimate knowledge is far removed, I can assure Hon. Members. There is no indication that there will be any restraint in the Government's public attitude toward self-aggrandizement, self-advertising and looking after its friends in a variety of positions. Its attitude is exemplified in a letter issued on the subject a month or so ago which stated:
The people who will have this reduction in living standards imposed on them are single people with current annual incomes as low as $8,640 and coupled with current annual incomes as low as $11,760. These are not the nation's rich who are being asked to pay for the recession and the Government's fiscal problems.

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
I entirely agree with that letter. There is no doubt but that there is a vast area that is left above those rather small incomes, in this day and age. I suppose there are enough people, if there were any justice in this world, to upset the Government. However, I doubt that they will be doing that.
I am glad to see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is entering the House. She has not yet resolved, to my satisfaction, a problem concerning pensions which I mentioned yesterday. If she would not mind dealing in rough figures, perhaps she could outline what would happen to a pensioner receiving Old Age Security payments of, say, $250 a month-I believe it is approximately $253 right now-and also receiving a private pension of $248 a month, bringing the total just below the area in which one would receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. I believe the Minister said yesterday that even if one received a supplement of as little as $2 a month, indexation would apply. I want to know if the indexation would include the indexation of the private pension, because if there is a minimum income which everyone is to receive, it will escalate at the rate of the Consumer Price Index. In order to fill the gap, the example of $2 which the pensioner draws on the Guaranteed Income Supplement would have to increase by perhaps $25, from $2 to $27 in the next month, from $27 to $50, or something like that. I want to know whether that will in fact keep pace with the Consumer Price Index for all of that person's income, not just for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. If so, this would amount to supplementing a private pension, and I feel that that is something the Government should consider and upon which it should make a clear policy statement.
I have completed my remarks, and if the Minister wishes to reply to my question, she will certainly have my concurrence.


Miss Begin:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) rising on a point of order?


Monique Bégin: No, Mr. Speaker. I thought that under the new system with which I am not yet familiar, I had to reply immediately to the Hon. Member, failing which, the official record would show that the Government had refused to reply. When are we supposed to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: No. Order, please! There is no question and answer period provided for at the report stage. With the unanimous consent of the House, however, including, of course, the Hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, the Minister could perhaps entertain a question.
Has the Minister the unanimous consent of the House to reply to those matters raised by the Hon. Member who has just spoken?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer that question because we all care for pensioners. The answer to the Member's question is that if a person receives the basic OAS and a pension from a private source of whatever nature, which is small enough that that person qualifies also for a very small GIS, say $2 or $5 a month, then that pensioner is considered to have a total income so low that his or her full OAS and the small GIS is fully indexed. Do I answer correctly?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. That is the worst possible news I could have received. I had hoped that their income would rise to some level that the Minister has in mind, not just a small supplement to each of them because of indexation.


Mr. Roy:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! I apologize to the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy)-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether on the same grounds that the Minister had an opportunity to put a question, I would like to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I suppose that could be done if there was unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder if you would make some judgment as to whether the Hon. Member's remarks were factual in that he failed to indicate to the House that he had voted against an amendment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I am afraid that is not a point of order, it is debate.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, for several reasons I am pleased to speak to the Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), but since my time is limited due to the fact that the debate will be ending in a few minutes, I must try and clarify certain aspects which have been left in doubt.
The way the two official Opposition parties see it, it is a disaster, but, as the Minister has kept repeating at the report stage, at second reading or in Committee, it is not a disaster
February 1, 1983

but indeed the application of a principle aimed at capping indexation in all sectors at 6 per cent the first year and 5 per cent the second year. But the Minister, the Cabinet and the Government have protected the elderly. Those who benefit from income security will not be affected; therefore, all such elderly people will receive their full pension with no change in the indexation. Spouses as well will benefit from it, Mr. Speaker. If they figure on the list of income security recipients, they will not be affected in any way whatsoever. Members opposite are somehow on a witch hunt if they expect the people to believe that, but they will not succeed. All one needs to do is to meet with senior citizens, as I have done recently. As the Opposition claims, those people were under the impression that they would lose part of their pension and that they would be driven right out of their homes. That statement has been made in the course of the debate, Mr. Speaker. Let us call a spade a spade. 1 read in yesterday's Hansard that the Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) had said that a number of Members had spoken to the Bill, but that in committee, and I am quoting from page 22342:
-we had only four sessions to hear witnesses. Every single witness and every group and organization appearing before us, crowded into those four sessions, violently and strenuously opposed the measures in the Bill.
The Hon. Member is implying that the committee did not sit long enough. In fact, I was responsible for chairing all sessions held by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. When Members so requested, the Minister was always available and always attended Committee sessions to answer questions put by Members. The reason we had only four sessions is that we had no other witnesses who wanted to appear before the committee and give evidence. Mr. Speaker, the list of witnesses shows that the most concern was shown, not by senior citizens, but by the Opposition, who wanted to play politics, because they even invited members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada to fill the room where one of the Committee sessions was held, and all associations and organizations who, through the Clerk, asked to appear before the Committee, were duly received.
In fact, many times the Clerk had to call witnesses on the telephone to get them to appear before the Committee. So if the Member for Kingston and the Islands says that there was a restriction on the number of witnesses, I can inform the House that that is absolutely not true. All witnesses and associations who wanted to appear before the Committee were duly received, all the time normally available was indeed used, we extended the time during which the Committee was supposed to sit and once, when the Minister was appearing before the Committee one evening, Opposition Members said after a halfhour of debate: We have no further questions. The evidence contained in the issues of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs shows that anyone who wanted to appear before the Committee was admitted, and that included any Members who wished to take part in the debate. However, the same issues always comes up. It was implied that the senior
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
citizens were being victimized by the six and five program. Hon. Members opposite have never realized that inflation is the worst problem for people on a fixed income and that this is why we want to curb it. If inflation continues to increase at the same rate as in the past, obviously the gap between have and have-not in our society will widen. We only have to look at the Senate report on poverty to realize to what extent some people become the victims of inflation, and these people are always those on fixed incomes. This is why the Government is attacking this cancer in our economy, namely inflation, and we are now witnessing a reduction in the inflation rate. The gap caused by inflation is closing up.
Mr. Speaker, senior citizens know who is responsible for our pension scheme in Canada. They know that it is the Liberal Government and the Liberal philosophy, the New Democrats spoke about it, but the Liberals acted. Mr. Speaker, you come from a very beautiful area and you certainly have often seen ships going by and gulls flying over them. The gulls think of themselves as captains of the ships, but they simply fly over them and leave their visiting card as they pass. But the captain is the master on board. While the New Democrats talk about pensions, the Liberals act, they pass legislation and for 25 years now have been providing pensions to senior citizens and widows who need them, by amending the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Keeper:: You are cutting down pensions!


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is important for these people to feel secure. We have to consider how far-ranging this debate has become.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands asked the Director General of Planning, Evaluation and Liaison, Mr. Allen, the following question: "What would be the cost during the first month, that is January, for the people affected? I am not speaking about those who receive the income supplement as they will not be affected. I am not speaking about spouses whose income is guaranteed as they will not be affected. I am speaking about those who receive only the basic pension; by what amount will their January cheques be cut?" This was the reply given by Mr. Allen to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands: "Let me qualify my answer. We are projecting a reduction of about 50c. per pensioner in January 1983, that is 50c. for each pensioner who has a sufficient income and does not receive any supplement." I repeat that the figure quoted was 50c. per pensioner in January, but the Opposition has amplified this throughout the debate and has even suggested that some senior citizens will lose their homes.
Mr. Speaker, this shows to what extent the Opposition is willing to play politics on the backs of senior citizens, but we only have to meet with these people to realize how much confidence they have in the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who with the continuing support of

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Government Members, has always protected them and defended them in Cabinet.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Laval willing to accept a question since there is only one minute left to the time allotted to him?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Certainly. This is my reason for giving the Opposition the chance to ask questions, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, NDP Members propose and Liberal Members dispose. NDP Members are now suggesting that the Government should pay full pensions to the pensioners. Why is the Liberal government not withdrawing this bill?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Because the Liberal Government is responsible for running the country in much the same way as the captain at the helm of his ship. While the NDP Members are like seagulls, chirping and taking wing, the Liberal Members are assuming their responsibility of governing the country. Inflation was the main factor limiting the development of our economy and this is why various programs have been set up. Inflation is slowing down from month to month. And when inflation reaches its normal level, if this is still possible, then we will increase benefits to old age pensioners and, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal philosophy will once again be implemented.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in defence of this Bill, the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy) overlooked something which some of us would probably remember a little better than he would. The first accommodation provided for senior citizens or others who might need accommodation away from home was provided by organizations in this nation. They might have been provided by the CWL, The Women's Institute, The Eastern Star, or what have you. I happen to have had some personal experience with them in my Province.
When they were established, the old age pension, so-called at that time, gave the citizen residing in those homes the full cost of his or her resident requirement, including food plus a few dollars, $3, $4 or $5 which might buy some cigarette tobacco, chocolate bars once in a while, or whatever. There was a little bit left over from the pension for that purpose.
No matter how you slice this cake, there is no residence away from home for senior citizens within the price of the old age pension cheque. Not only is that accommodation no longer available as it was at that price, it now requires an additional payment of $30, $40, $50 or $100 a month in those homes which were long since bought and paid for and where there is
no capital cost. They cannot survive on their old age pension. Supplementary payments are required.
The relative value of the old age pension today versus that of its initial conception is below the value that was intended. In addition, it is now proposed to limit the indexing of it to six and five. People now residing in those homes will be even worse off. They will have to get other public support in many instances in order to reside in those homes. That is an utter and complete condemnation of this Government and its management of the affairs of the senior citizens of this land. This is one reason why this concept is so thoroughly opposed.
Of course, they have arrived in this position because they ignored the advice of some of their predecessors, even in their own Party. They ignored the advice of economists who used to say we should have cyclical budgeting, that we should have a surplus when times are good so that we can afford a deficit when times are not so good. That went out the window long ago with the extravagance of Liberal politics.
Budgets have been increased successively to the point that the Government now finds itself so constrained that it cannot index the old age pension. That is the gravest condemnation that this Government could receive.
There has been some discussion about war veterans pensions. I do not think this issue should have been left entirely as it was. I do not criticize anyone who made a comment, but we should point out that those who served in the Armed Forces for a period of years and earned a retirement pension now find themselves subject to six and five in respect of their pension as do other people. Do not try to tell all of those who have been in the army that they are not subject to six and five, because a great many of them are.
So much for the Government's lack of wisdom as it abandoned the cyclical process of financing the requirements of this nation. This is probably the end result of its lack of economic wisdom which has been evident throughout this land. The people of Canada should know this. If they do know, or ever did know it, they should again be reminded.
It was my privilege to sit in this House when John Turner introduced a budget. I can still see him as he defended that budget. As we criticized it, he defended it just like an evangelist. One would have thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. My comment on that budget was that it was the beginning of the step toward an 80 cent dollar. In his budget, he paved the way for the extravagance of Government to this day. In his budget he set an example for successive increments and deficit financing.
I made a remark at a gathering which happened to include some bankers, one of whom was within earshot, a rather responsible senior banking person. I made that remark to him in 1973. He asked me what I thought about the budget. I said, "Well, Mr. Bell, this is the first of the steps that the Liberal Government will take to bring us to an 80 cent dollar." He looked at me and said, "For any Member of Parliament to be
February 1, 1983

as irresponsible as to make a statement like that about the stability of his own dollar is real heresy."
I said, "That might be so, Sir, but my prediction will rest upon what this Government does this year and what it continues to do in successive years". I do not take back my statement that this is the basis for the 80 cent dollar. And the evangelistic Turner stood across the floor of this House and defended that extravagance with a verve that could hardly be understood in view of the way he is presented to the Canadian public today. Those were the budgets which started us toward the position where we can no longer extend to civil servants, old age pensioners or retirees from the army the indexation for which they paid and which this Government committed itself to extending to them. This is unquestionably an absolute reneging by the Government of Canada on its contractual arrangement with those people. It is criminal that we should have to neglect the needs of this nation so badly and that we should have conducted our financing with so little forethought.
But it is even worse than that, Mr. Speaker. We have today a group of farmers who are going bankrupt. We are in a financial position where we are not going to index pensions for civil servants or any retirees. Nor are we going to put enough money into the Farm Credit Corporation to extend to farmers the bridge financing they so badly need. We are, however, going to put billions behind such crummy corporations as Maislin. Where is the judgment of this Government with respect to the needy people of this land? How can we put literally billions into guarantees for outfits such as Dome, Chrysler, Massey-Ferguson and Maislin and then say to our old age pensioners: "I am sorry, but we cannot index your pension"? Does the public not understand the hypocrisy which this Government is practising?
Why am I concerned about this, Mr. Speaker? It happens that the latest statistics indicate there are approximately 8,700 people in the constituency of Carleton-Charlotte who are over 65. These people, constituting 19 per cent of the voters in my riding, are going to be affected one way or another. Now, let us carry that a little further. There are roughly 3,000 who do not get the GIS, which means there are 5,700 who do. So the
3,000	do not get indexation. 1 know some of those people, Mr. Speaker, and they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to get by now. When the Government uses a broad brush in this policy of retrenchment, it is not being equitable. It has not recognized the real and pertinent need of some people.
It would be popular in the eyes of Canadians, perhaps, to say to a retired deputy minister or a retired director general with 35 years of service: "We are not going to index your pension". Of course, no Member of the Government would admit that a deputy minister who retired five years ago is now getting more pay in pension than he drew when he was employed. So he is all right, he is looked after, but the little guy below the poverty line is the one who is going to suffer.
What about the army retirees I mentioned earlier? What about those who have had short service in rather menial jobs
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
and they retired five or ten years ago? They have been struggling to exist and their pension will not be indexed except to the extent of 6 per cent. They have not had the opportunity a retired deputy minister or director general has had to be receiving more in pension than they ever earned. These people are going to suffer because the pension they accumulated over, say, ten years of service does not amount to much.
I see that I have used up my time, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say to you that the broad brush approach of hitting everyone over the head with a club does not work. We need a compromise between the insanity of that approach and the need of many people.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on the report stage of Bill C-131 to express my extreme disappointment that the Government is attacking a certain segment of our society under the guise of six and five. Government Members need to realize right from the start that the only reason that we have these cutback Bills is the years and years of deficit we have had, the years of Government spending more money than it was taking in. Those deficits led directly and inevitably, as they have since the beginning of organized society, to inflation. Inflation, Mr. Speaker, is simply too many dollars chasing too few goods. As societies in the past have learned, inflation impacts upon different segments of society in different and unfair ways. It always attacks people with fixed incomes most severely. Those people, of course, are old age pensioners.
We all know that inflation of 3 per cent to 4 per cent causes the value of a dollar to drop by 50 per cent in maybe 15 or 20 years, so that by the time a person who has retired at age 65 with a pension of $1,000 a month reaches 80, that pension will be worth about $500. Now inflation of 3 per cent or 4 per cent can be coped with, but when you get into inflation rates of 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent, the value of money drops by 50 per cent within three, four or five years. And that is how inflation impacts so severely on the seniors. That is why they need to have the indexation, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, this cutback is totally unfair and clearly the result of deliberate actions by this Liberal Government, backed by Liberal Party policies.
There is no doubt that our friends to the left, the NDP, also support that, because they continually call for more Government spending. So they have to be roped in, and Canadians need to understand that. Every person receiving Old Age Security who votes for the Liberal Party in the next election, is voting for more of the same, and for his own self destruction. Every retired federal civil servant now realizes, the few who voted for the Liberal Party in the past, that he had been sabotaged, and if he votes for the Liberal Party in the future he is going to get more knives in the back. The situation is exactly the same for the youth of this country, Mr. Speaker, because those deficits simply mean that the next generation will have to accept a much lower standard of living in order to pay for our expenditures today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, none of us would do that to our families, we would not impose a debt on the next generation. Indeed,

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
most of us work in order to leave a little bit of capital for the next generation so that they can have a leg up, so that they can be a little bit ahead. It is in that way that we have increased the standard of living in our western society enormously since the times of kings and queens when our ancestors were serfs. But, Mr. Speaker, when the Government has deficits, it is imposing a mortgage on that next generation, just as surely as if it were cutting off their legs. As a result, they are less able to cope in life.
Surely, in times of inflation, 6 and 5 per cent is not a reasonable settlement of the problem. Six per cent of our income of $65,000 means that from January 1 this year all Members of the House, including Members of the New Democratic Party, will accept an increase of about $3,900. Yet we expect senior citizens, whose income may be about $3,000, to take an increase of $180. That is not right, Mr. Speaker, and this is not a Bill that I can support.
While I am a Conservative in terms of the importance of generating wealth and I know that we must have the capital of the nation owned and controlled by individuals, 1 know that millions of individual decisions on capital, whether they relate to small farms or little businesses, will lead to a much wiser result than a decision made by a king, a Prime Minister and a Cabinet, or a bureaucracy. As a Progressive Conservative, I believe that in times of inflation we cannot have percentage settlements in terms of social legislation. The rich get incredibly richer and the poor do not advance.
The Minister could have introduced a flat rate of $1,000 across the board. In that way, senior citizens and those people who are hurt the most could recover the actual increase in the cost of living, and people making $60,000 or $90,000 would get $1,000.
The Minister, with her $100,000 income, cannot convince me that her actual cost of living has gone up by $6,500. That is how much more she will take out of the economy this year, compared to last year. I do not believe that the Minister is working any harder than she did last year. Her productivity has not increased one whit, yet she is going to take $6,500 more out of the Canadian economy, compared to the senior citizen who is living below the poverty line and will get $180 more. That is not what we should stand for in this House, particularly when there is a solution.
In times of inflation we should go from percentage settlements to flat, across-the-board settlements. That would bring the Canadian people closer together and make them more equal in opportunity and the amount taken out of the economy.
I will resume my seat so that the Minister may rise, during my time, and answer that point.
Miiss Begin: I cannot, and you know the rule very well.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Stand up and speak, Madam Minister.


Monique Bégin: Read your book.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has the floor.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) will not rise.


Monique Bégin: I cannot rise.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Stand up if you are going to make a speech.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would grant unanimous consent for the Minister to rise and answer the question I am putting to her. Normally at report stage, if it were not for the fact that the Government has imposed closure, she would have to rise, and she would rise.


Monique Bégin: I cannot. Read your rules.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is only because of the closure motion that she cannot answer. I will sit down now, because 1 want to ask the House for unanimous consent for the Minister to rise and answer the question why the Government introduced percentages rather than a flat, across-the-board settlement during times of inflation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to rise at this point?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be consent.


Monique Bégin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member knows very well that the rules prevent me from speaking at report stage and that I can only answer questions at third reading, but I appreciate the unanimous consent that Members have given me.
I answered the Hon. Member while he was speaking, but he may not have heard. A flat component in the income tax system always plays in favour of the wealthy. I think the Hon. Member is not familiar with the income tax system.
If he wants to be a little more specific and explain in exactly what form that amount of money would reach people, maybe then we could talk business. 1 am not sure if he is doing that or playing politics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills had ten minutes, and that is the normal time allowed. He may continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of my constituents in Burnaby, particularly old age pensioners and those close to pension age. I am strongly opposed to Bill C-131 which, in many ways, constitutes an attack on the standard of living of some of the

February 1, 1983
people of our society who are the most vulnerable to increased
costs.
I want to make it very clear that in my view the Liberal Government and its Conservative allies should hang their heads in shame. They are attacking the victims of inflation in an inequitable and unfair way. I say the Liberal Government and its Conservative allies, because this Bill flows directly from Bill C-124 which the Conservative Party supported vigorously last summer. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-124 and the accompanying documents were very explicit in the reference to pensions and the fact that there would be cuts in real terms, in old age pensions as well as pensions granted to retired public servants, retired members of the RCMP and retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
No one should have been surprised, of course. Indeed, the point was made on many occasions by Members of the New Democratic Party during debate on Bill C-124 that Conservatives and Liberals together were supporting legislation which would ultimately lead to cuts in old age pensions. I can assure, you, Mr. Speaker, that every old age pensioner in the constituency of Burnaby is under no illusion about the fact that it was the Liberals and Conservatives who laid the ground work for Bill C-131.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has fought for many years for improved pensions for all Canadians, has expressed his anger and outrage at the fact that once again the Government attacks old age pensioners and erodes the protection that he and Members of this Party fought for over the years.
The effect of this Bill will be a decline in the standard of living of literally thousands and thousands of elderly people across the country. Some one million Canadians are affected, half of them women. That attack flows directly from the Liberal-Conservative Bill C-124, the six and five guidelines. It is fundamentally unfair by virtue of the fact that the total savings effected are something in the order of $105 million. What is so objectionable about the Bill is that there is no fairness, no equity, no justice whatsoever in the manner in which this sacrifice is demanded.
I could give a number of examples but because my time is limited I will only give a couple. Recently the taxation statistics were released by the federal Government. They show that the Income Tax Act is so riddled with loopholes that over
2,000	people in Canada with incomes of over $50,000 per year paid not one penny in income tax, and over 150 Canadians with incomes over $200,000 per year paid not a penny in income tax.
What kind of nerve does the Government and its Conservative allies have to ask old age pensioners to sacrifice their standard of living without asking for some kind of sacrifice from the wealthiest people-those who make over $50,000 and those who make over $200,000 per year and who are not being asked to make any sacrifice? They do not pay any taxes whatsoever.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
The Conservative Party has been silent when there have been calls for tax reform to close the loopholes and ensure an element of equity. As Carter said back in the 1960s, "A buck is a buck is a buck" and should be taxed as such.
As well I would note that at the same time as the Government is proposing a cut in real terms in old age pensions for thousands of Canadians, it is proposing to spend billions and billions of dollars on purchasing fighter aircraft, F-18s. What kind of priorities does the Government have when it would cut the standard of living of old age pensioners and spend billions of dollars on weapons of destruction which are not needed? Surely these kinds of priorities cannot be defended either by the Liberal Government or by its Conservative allies.
The effect of this Bill is like a direct tax on those who are over 65 years of age in society. If anyone were to suggest that it be done directly, that indeed there be a tax on some one million Canadians who are entitled to the old age pension but not the GIS, I am sure there would be a justifiable cry of anger across the country. But because it is being done in this underhanded way, perhaps it is not quite as clear. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this Party will be making very clear to old age pensioners from one end of the country to the other exactly what is the effect of this Bill.
The fact of the matter is that it reduces incomes by more than $300 over the next two years for the average old age pensioner and, just as important, it reduces the base for future increases of the old age pension. This is a permanent cut in the standard of living of old age pensioners. It has been argued that those affected are those who can afford to bear the burden because they are not receiving the GIS. As the National Council of Welfare pointed out, over 100,000 poor and nearpoor elderly Canadians will have their incomes reduced as a result of the limitation on indexation of the Old Age Security. These are the people who cannot afford this cut in their standard of living.
There is no control whatsoever on prices. As one of my constituents pointed out to me, it would be one thing to ask old age pensioners to take a cut in their standard of living if at the same time there was an assurance that the prices of the goods and services they need would be cut. That is not the case. While old age pensions are being cut in real terms, is there any control whatsoever, for example, on the price of food, on the price of clothing, on energy prices, on the price of transportation or housing? These are the costs which most directly affect old age pensioners. The federal Government and its Conservative allies are doing nothing whatsoever to control these increases in costs.
It may be that because there are no organized lobbies such as those of the powerful and rich Canadian Bankers' Association and others, that perhaps because there is not a vocal or outspoken lobby, the Government thinks it can get away with it. Once again I assure all Members on the Government side of the House who support this legislation that their voters will be

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
reminded of the fact that they took part in a cut in the standard of living of their constituents. These cuts have a particularly devastating impact upon women because cuts in pensions disproportionately affect women.
I see that my time is drawing to an end. In conclusion, once again I emphasize the fact, as many of my constituents in Burnaby have pointed out, that these cuts are unfair. They are inequitable and basically represent an attack on the victims of inflation rather than coming to grips with the real economic problems of the country. Certainly we cannot accept that kind of attack either by the Liberal Government or by its Conservative allies.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have been debating Bill C-131 since November 18. By now we have had ample opportunity to examine its every detail through first reading, second reading, Committee meetings, and now through report stage debate.
At the beginning of yesterday's debate, the Minister said that we had already heard 71 Members speak on the debate of this particular Bill since last November. I would not need to speak if I were not concerned that much of the rhetoric we have heard about the details has effectively buried the basic reason for introducing and passing Bill C-131. I cannot remain silent and let that happen.
We on the Government side of the House must remind the Opposition and the public that we regard the scourge of inflation as a devilish force which erodes the purchasing power of those who can least afford it-those on fixed incomes, the welfare poor, the working poor and the unemployed. That is precisely why we have begun this massive program of six and five to reduce inflation. We are not yet able to say that we can stop inflation, but we have to reduce it because it is ravaging the savings of the elderly and hurting the working poor. Yes, we have decided that even to bring inflation down to 6 per cent would require the efforts of all Canadians.
We on the Government side of the House decided that it would mean an all-out effort on the part of the Government. We decided that we had to begin with ourselves, with our Public Service and with what the Government was paying out of the taxpayers' coffers. It had to apply to all Government programs. Only if we proved our sincerity and determination to apply this to every aspect could we appear to be credible or could we hope to get others to follow our example. We must set the example and appear credible if we are to succeed in calling upon and involving the co-operation of the Provinces to join us in applying six and five to their Public Services and to all their programs where their taxpayers are paying out money. Otherwise, the private sector knows that the war against inflation could not succeed if it alone were left to fight the battle.
There are some people receiving Old Age Security pensions who happily have additional incomes. They can and should and probably want to join in to do their part in the battle against inflation. That is why Bill C-131 exists. It ensures that they
also are included. It is in their interests and the interests of everyone that inflation comes down. We have set our hearts and our minds to the battle against inflation through the six and five program. This is our resolve. Bill C-131 is only a part of that program.
We shall keep faith with all groups, that no one group will alone have to exercise restraint. We are all in it together. We shall not waver and flinch just because of our success, because of political expediency or because of the petty politics played by Opposition Parties.
It is distasteful to me as a Liberal to hear the Opposition lecturing us about compassion for the elderly. I am a Liberal precisely because it was a Liberal Government that brought in Old Age Security in the first place, that brought in spouses allowances, that brought in the Canada Pension Plan, that brought in the Guaranteed Income Supplement and that brought in medicare, all of which have taken away the fear and horror of becoming older that existed in the past. It is rather tragic to hear the Opposition Parties lecturing us, when we have brought in all this concern and compassion, that we should be compassionate for the elderly.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are the ones who are taking it away.


Roland de Corneille: Also it was a Liberal Government which gave full indexing to the Old Age Security pension, to the Canada Pension and to the Guaranteed Income Supplement. We did this precisely to try to shelter the aged from the ravages of inflation.
How dare those Parties lecture us when now, in order to protect the elderly and all other vulnerable people in our society, we say that we must introduce six and five to reduce inflation.


Gordon Edward Taylor: How dare you rob the old.


Roland de Corneille: They conveniently ignore the fact that through Bill C-131 we are living up to our policy and tradition of protecting the vulnerable.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are robbing the hungry.


Roland de Corneille: When they stop shouting I shall continue. It is really getting to them to hear some facts for a change. They are bleating and crying out in agony to hear the policy of the Liberal Government throughout all these decades to protect the aged and those who need protection.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What are you talking about?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Let him tell the truth then.


Roland de Corneille: We do this by making sure that those who are elderly and need supplements will get an extra increase just to make sure that they will be covered to a level of full indexation. That is how much we care. We put a 6 per cent inflation
February 1, 1983

limit for those who can afford it and give full indexation in effect to those who need the GIS. And that is fair.


James Duncan Schroder: That is a fact.


Cyril Keeper: Ask the Bishops.


Roland de Corneille: I hope that I have put Bill C-131 back into the context of the battle against inflation, to protect the elderly who have more to lose from the ravages of inflation than any others in our society.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell the Minister that.


Roland de Corneille: As a Liberal, I am proud of our record, proud of our policies of sincerity, and of our consistent battle to maintain dignity for those who are elderly. I hope that when this legislation on six and five is passed and this battle against inflation is won we shall quickly resume our forward march to new legislation on behalf of the single pensioner, which probably will be received with great disapproval from those on the opposite benches who will not want any further social progress.


Blaine Allen Thacker: You embarrass even the Pharisees.


Roland de Corneille: But we shall carry forward and march to new legislation on behalf of the single pensioner and for a more effective pension scheme for all Canadians.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Who wrote that stuff?


Roland de Corneille: I pledge myself to continue my work on this course.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, when one observes the Parliamentary Secretary who has just spoken one finds him to be very quick to learn from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He said what he thinks the people want to hear, but then he and his Government went ahead and did the very opposite.


Benno Friesen: And that is a fact.


Bruce Halliday: We hear the Hon. Member over there talking about concern for the social needs of the people of this country. And then the very Bill which the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) is talking about is a Bill to take away a social program from the people. It is that kind of hypocrisy with which his speech was laden. 1 hope the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence takes a second look at his speech in the clear light of day and realizes what he has been saying and compares it to what his Government has been doing over the last number of years.
Many things have been said about Bill C-131, but I want to look at it in the context of this Government over the last ten or 15 years. We have a context here of a Government that has been elected and tries to govern on the basis of sloganeering. For instance, we have heard such things as, "The land is strong; we are going to wrestle inflation to the ground"; "the just society", and now we have the six and five program which the Government has chosen to bring forward precisely at this time because the Government thinks it has guessed well. The
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Government thinks it has chosen an opportune time to suggest to the Canadian people that a program of six and five, if it is publicized and marketed enough, will tie in fortuitously with the natural improvement in the economy which is bound to come. The Government has a special committee set up of people in the Prime Minister's office and from the Senate who are pushing and marketing this program of six and five. This is a slogan for the survival of the present Liberal Party.
We were provided a few months ago with a loose leaf document which is two or three inches thick. One extracted from that book, among other things, two pages with the heading "6 and 5 Strategy for the Next Three Months". It is interesting to see what this special committee of the Government proposes as strategy for the next three months. It explains what the Minister should do, what the ordinary Liberal backbencher should do. There are many points on the list, but No. 11 on the list reads:
Continued efforts be made to cut back Government expenditure in the spirit of 6 and 5 and demonstrate commitment to restraint;
That is the priority this Government puts on some type of expenditure restraint. No. 11 on that list is a marketing gimmick to try to sell to the people of Canada the need at long last to have some restraint in government spending. But we know the Liberal Government does not mean that. We have heard just this afternoon about the big gift to Maislin. We know about the $600 million that was spent recently to buy an oil company that will return no new oil to this country at all. It is pure hypocrisy to think that the Government is serious about this. We know the Government's past record does not conform with that at all.
As we look at this whole thing in perspective, not only is this a needle into the senior citizens of this country, just as this phoney issue of six and five is, but we have this problem of closure and allocation of time. In this session we have had 15 instances when the present Government has instituted allocation of time or closure in order to cut off debate. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of this year, every single piece of Government legislation that has come before this House has been cut off by this Government. This Government has limited debate by the Opposition. This Government does not want to hear the truth about this kind of social program and how it is affecting in an adverse way the lives and the ability of our senior citizens to enjoy their lives in their advancing years. This is a double whammy at our senior citizens. This Government attacks them by slogans, trying to convince and con them into going along with this. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary say the seniors want to be a part of this. He actually said that the senior citizens want to be a part of this restraint program for they get less real income. I do not believe that is true. I think he will hear when the next election comes that they did not appreciate his speaking on their behalf suggesting that they want to have less income at this time.


Roland de Corneille: We will see.

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Bruce Halliday: There are a lot of problems with Bill C-131, Mr. Speaker. I want to touch on just a few of them. When the Minister appeared before the committee she made the suggestion that the Government was going to look after anybody who was on GIS. That was very benevolent of the Minister. We appreciate the fact that she is at least willing to show some concern for those who are GIS recipients. She was intimating, although she did not say so in so many words,that the bulk of Canadian pensioners were eligible to receive GIS. Of course, that is not true. With all due respect to the Minister, she was a little bit misleading to the senior citizens.


Monique Bégin: No.


Bruce Halliday: Only 15 per cent of the pensioners in Canada get the full benefit of GIS.


Monique Bégin: Fifty-five per cent do get some.


Bruce Halliday: The Minister says that 55 per cent do get some. That is true. Some get a very little bit. But I was saying that only 15 per cent of all pensioners are provided with the full provisions of GIS. We must not forget that it leaves an awful lot, 85 per cent, of senior citizens who will suffer to a greater or lesser extent from this drop in income which the Minister has provided.


Monique Bégin: That is not true.


Blaine Allen Thacker: They can't hack that over there.


Bruce Halliday: Another thing that bothers me is the refusal of the Government to accept the very reasonable amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). He is our expert critic on the subject of pensions. He pointed out by way of his amendment, which the Government turned down, that the plans of the Government are not to provide this increase in the OAS payments at the end of 1984 as we proposed in our amendment. We felt that we could probably go along with this reduction for a two-year period, as the Minister suggested, if she would agree to increasing it up to the regular level again for 1985 and onward. But the Government and the Minister refused to do that. Therefore, what we find is that our senior citizens will suffer for the rest of their lives from a lower level of payment, no matter what the indexing feature is in future years. Because of what is being done now all senior citizens who are on OAS will receive less.
What concerns me about attacking senior citizens' pensions is that they suffer the most from this Government's penchant to increase various kinds of sales taxes inordinately. Seniors are unable to escape the marked increases in taxation on commodities such as oil, gas, heating fuels and other products which they need. Their expenditures tend to be high because of the increases they are faced with in the various Provinces.
Increases that are based simply upon the Consumer Price Index do not adequately meet their added cost of living which seniors must meet daily.
Another most inequitable factor which the Government has not faced up to is that a large majority of the 10 or 11 million people in the work force in Canada are not susceptible to the six and five program-unfortunately for the program-while the small sector of senior citizens who are not in the work force are included among those who have to submit to that six and five program. It may have been justifiable if they were in the work force.
I do not think I could conclude any better than by quoting a sentence from a statement made by a representative of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada at a hearing of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. She saids:
In the world-wide Christian tradition, in terms of the sinking ship, women, children and the elderly go first to ensure that they may escape any harm. In this sinking ship, women and the elderly are expected to plug up the holes and keep the ship afloat.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-131, I would like to explain briefly my four reasons for doing so.
The first is that I have had an opportunity to observe the work of the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, of which I have been a member for many years, and to look carefully at our objectives and the reasons why we now have to introduce such a Bill, which is clearly unpleasant and politically damaging.
However, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that although many groups were invited to appear before our Committee, all those wanting to express their views have had the opportunity to do so because all those interested in speaking were able to appear. We can therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, that there are more intelligent people than we might think. There are more people who are aware that when a Government takes its responsibilities, it receives public approval. In view of the reactions we heard in Committee, we can see that, while those people might not accept all our reasons, they still understood that we had to do something and that what we did was necessary and urgent.
Mr. Speaker, my second reason for taking part, probably very briefly, in this debate, is that, as Government Members, we are often criticized for blindly following Government policy while not having the courage to approve it publicly, and for not assuming our responsibilities as members of the Government team. I must therefore say that if I have decided to take part in this debate and state that I shall support this Bill, it is because I feel that it is my duty as member of a Government which realizes that, under the present conditions problems have to be faced and we accept the responsibilities that these problems involve. It is therefore as a Government Member that I shall vote for this Bill, probably with regret, as all of my colleagues, because the capping of people's pensions and
February 1, 1983

incomes is not a pleasant thing to do. It would probably be much easier to present the same arguments as my colleagues opposite, but I can understand their position because they have no choice but to say that if they were in our place, they would do something else and choose another solution? It is an easy thing to say when they already know that they will never be in our place, when they were in the past, their major decisions were generally about the same as those of a Government which is trying to act responsibly!
Mr. Speaker, my third reason for taking part in this debate is that I find it absolutely shocking and surprising that some people try to imply that members of the Liberal Party are working against senior citizens. It is simply ridiculous to believe that a Government Member or a Member of Parliament, a responsible citizen, can work against a particular group in society, especially those who have given their life, their health and their energies to build our country. This is an unfair distortion of the difficult and unpleasant decision that we must make concerning this Bill. I certainly do not want to pose as the great defender of senior citizens, but like other people, I realize that if one group in our society deserves better protection and assistance, it is certainly those who have reached retirement age.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that is exactly what we have been doing for several years since this Government took office, and I would like to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) who has shown leadership in that field. She has been working extremely hard to bring additional assistance to the elderly, with the full support of her colleagues in Government and, I am glad to point out, of our colleagues opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that it is unfortunate that we should be forced to limit the increase in the income of the elderly, but our situation is like that of a sick person who goes to see a physician and is told: "I will have to do some surgery. You will feel some pain, but you will be much better off in the end". Would anyone ever suggest that this physician is hurting his patient on purpose? Is it not rather because the physician knows full well he has to do that if he wants his patient to recover? Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the way I look at the situation. We are acting in the interest of the elderly, in the interest of others who cannot cope with runaway inflation, and in the interest of those who have limited incomes. So much so in fact that if inflation cannot be controlled, their predicament will go from bad to worse. That is why we have decided to set a limit on the increase.
I was listening to my colleague from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-who is a Committee Member and who attends our meetings now and then-when he said that there will be a decrease of $300. I would be tempted to tell my friends opposite that their calculations are not always according to the book, and they have just given me a proof of that. Indeed, I have every reason to believe that the Minister of National
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Health and Welfare is quite right when she states that the January cheque will show $251.12 and that the monthly amount will drop by 50 cents down to $250.62 once this Bill becomes law. That means $6 for a full year. I am not a chartered accountant, I have no degree in accounting, but I just cannot understand how anyone would say publicly that senior citizens will be hit as hard as the Hon. Member for Burnaby said they will be, when in fact the loss will be no more than $6. True, the basic pension will not increase at the same rate, but that is a problem we will solve in due time. The important thing to remember is what we have done and why. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that I will vote in favour of this Bill, but I hope that we will not have to take similar action in the future, that inflation will go down as we expect, and that senior citizens will be better off in the long run.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes left to me in the debate at report stage on this Bill which will cap pensions of senior citizens, I would like to make just three short but very important points. I think that the Bill is wrong for the following reasons: first, it is based upon the premise that if one is powerful enough, one can do anything one wants. I remember how, with great fanfare during the last election campaign, the Government announced the extra moneys that it would give to those who required supplementary benefits. As soon as we came into this session, the Government did indeed pass that legislation. But now, almost at the first opportunity, when there is pressure for funds on the part of the Government, what does it do? It takes away. We return to the old adage that if a Government is big enough and powerful enough to give something, it is also big enough to take it away. First, it creates the dependency, and then it creates the withdrawal.
The second reason this is wrong is that it punishes those who follow the dictates of thrift and planning. Here we have a policy which is based on capping the increases on OAS, but not on the supplement. I understand the rationale of the Government in that those who are the poorest deserve to have as much protection as possible. However, one should take into consideration the figures given to the House and to the Minister by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), to which I think the Minister was very carefully listening. I also think she was genuinely surprised by the disparity among people which will be created by this particular legislation.


Monique Bégin: No, I am not.


Benno Friesen: Well, I hope you were surprised.


Monique Bégin: Absolutely not.


Benno Friesen: This group of people who have saved all of their lives and have invested in private pension plans will now be punished because the OAS will be capped, but the supple-

February 1, 1983
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
ment will not. That is wrong in principle and the Government cannot prosper if it does things that are wrong in principle.
The third reason this legislation is wrong is that the role of a government, the first duty of a government, ought to be to protect those who are defenceless. In the past year we have seen the Government protecting the banks and the super corporations such as Dome, Massey-Ferguson and the trucking company, and now it wants to attack people on pension. It is wrong to attack those who are most vulnerable.
Just over a year ago, in November, the Government floated a bond at over 19 per cent interest. Within a year, those interests rates dropped by about 40 per cent. Because the Government planned poorly, it cost the taxpayer an extra $2 billion, and now it will punish the pensioners for it.
Mr. Speaker, it is wrong in principle.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, January 31, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the Bill.
[English)
Accordingly, the question is on the motion of Mr. Dantzer. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion defeated.
Motion (Mr. Dantzer) negatived.


Monique Bégin: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read for the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It being 6.14 p.m., this House is adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.14 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME XIX