1983-01-25

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Smith, moved that Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would I not be correct in thinking that it would be necessary for the motion to be seconded by a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I thank the Hon. Member for his comment, but that is not necessary.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, I said in my speech on second reading-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Yukon is rising on a point of order?


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, without in any way appearing to be critical of the Chair, I seem to recall the practice that a motion of this kind must be seconded by a Minister of the Crown, not by a Parliamentary Secretary and not by any other Government Member. That is why there are always two Ministers in the House at all times. I see the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) is here now, and perhaps for the sake of order and for the sake of the record the motion should be put, seconded by a Minister of the Crown.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The President of the Treasury Board is rising on the same point of order?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Without accepting the correctness of the assertion of the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and without saying this would create a precedent, in order to facilitate the business of the House, I would have no objection to Your Honour calling the motion again.


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


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that reasoning, quite frankly. It is either to be done because it is right or it is not to be done because what has been done is correct. It is of
importance that we establish whether it is necessary for a third reading motion to be moved and seconded by Ministers of the Crown, not whether the Minister accedes to the request. I would ask the Chair carefully to review the Standing Orders and the precedents to determine whether the point of order of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is a legitimate one, and to enforce it if it is.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Chair might reserve its decision on that matter and inform the House later, following the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). In the meantime, for the sake of facilitating debate the motion might be put, seconded by a Minister of the Crown.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I accept the comments of Hon. Members. I find them helpful. The Chair has put the question, in its opinion, properly, but it will take the advice of Hon. Members, doublecheck and notify them later on in the debate. In the meantime I recognize the President of the Treasury Board.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I said in my speech on second reading that I was certain that deliberations on this Bill would raise a variety of questions on the state of the pension accounts, on the means of funding and financing benefits and on the rate of return on pension accounts, just to name a few. I was quite accurate in these predictions. Also at that time I referred to the relationship between fundamental and longterm changes in Public Service pension arrangements, and the impending national pension process. Since then, of course, the long-awaited green paper has been issued and reform proposals can now be debated in earnest.
One of the most positive aspects of the debate on Bill C-133, with its questioning of federal Government employee pension arrangements, is that it has highlighted the issue of ensuring that public servants' pension measures are on a sound financial footing. This is particularly appropriate at a time when we are entering the era of national pension reform.
A second positive result of the debate is that there is a greater appreciation of the issues among all concerned, Public Service pensioners, Government employees and employee associations, Members of Parliament and others, issues associated with the funding and financing of the federal Government's plans for its employees. As well, it is most

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
heartening that there is a willingness on the part of all these groups to sit down and talk about how best we should face these issues.
After assuming my responsibilities as President of the Treasury Board, I said that I would consult on future fundamental pension plan changes, and I intend to do this. I want to see how we can best carry out an orderly review of the existing financial arrangements of the Public Service pension plan and, in doing so, to seek the views of all concerned prior to making any permanent and fundamental changes.
1 want to assure the House of my desire to have addressed within the reasonably near future, bearing in mind their complexity, the outstanding pension policy issues. These include the nature of future inflation protection, the method of financing indexing, investment strategy for the pension fund, the level of employee-employer contributions and whether there should be a change in the averaging period used for pension calculations. Such issues will, of course, have to be considered in light of the discussions on national pension reform. Such a debate will undoubtedly bring under scrutiny other aspects of the Public Service pension program.
Again, possible changes arising from this process should be fully discussed with Public Service representatives. I believe that a review of our Public Service pension plans can be accomplished in the context of national pension reform and, conversely, that these deliberations will be of interest to the other participants in the national pension reform debate.
With respect to Bill C-133, the Government remains convinced of the need for the six and five restraint program and of the role which this Bill and the other Bills on indexing play in the success of that program. Stabilization of purchasing power for all Canadian pensioners will be helped to be achieved by the six and five program and all its elements. I recognize that public servants contribute some of their salary toward the arrangements for indexing of their pensions, and in proposing my amendment to Bill C-133 I have attempted to recognize this concept. However, we cannot overlook a basic fact, and that is that under the present arrangements a substantial portion of the financing of public servants' pension indexing comes directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund; that is, from the taxpayers of Canada generally.
Nothwithstanding that suggestions have been made as to how this situation could be changed, Bill C-133 reflects the present legal framework and state of the accounts, a state which cannot be changed overnight, certainly not in the context of a short-term program of economic stabilization.
I also want to remark on the reference during the debate to a $15 billion surplus in the pension account. 1 have already assured the House that this could refer only to the $15.5 billion balance in the Public Service Superannuation Account, the account for the basic retirement pension. This is not a surplus. The balance in the account is the amount required to pay all the obligations accrued under the plan to date. In other words, those funds are already committed to the payment of basic benefits and cannot be used for indexation purposes without giving rise to a deficit in the basic account.
The Opposition has attempted to argue that the Government has broken an unalterable contract with its pensioners. However, there is no formal contract on this matter. It has not come from an agreement reached in the collective bargaining process between the Government, as employer, and the unions representing Public Service employees. In fact, by law pensions are excluded from that collective bargaining process as a subject to be considered in it. Nor has there been any other kind of formal agreement on this matter. In fact, coverage under the pension plans is a condition of employment in the federal Government and employees are required by law to participate in them.
I am told that the decision to provide full indexation was made unilaterally by the Government and Parliament in 1973, and while the advice of the advisory committee of the day, and others, was sought, ultimately the decisions were taken by Parliament on request of the Government. Other changes in the indexing concept have also been made unilaterally by Government and Parliament in the past. For example, a $2,400 ceiling was placed on benefits for 1976 as part of the Anti-Inflation Board program. Contribution rates were increased in 1977. All this was done by Parliament unilaterally on recommendation of the Government.
There were also changes proposed in 1978 under Bill C-12, which would have altered very significantly the indexation provisions for Public Service pension plans. Under these arrangements, future indexation levels were not guaranteed in law but were to be subject to triennial review. The House gave second reading, approval in principle, without opposition, if I am not mistaken, to those proposals and they were considered in committee and again recommended unanimously to Parliament. The Bill was not dealt with, as we know, because not long afterwards the House was dissolved for an election. My point is that this House agreed, including Hon. Members opposite of that day, to what would have amounted to a unilateral fundamental change in the then existing system of indexing. I have also heard comments from Members opposite on what they have referred to as the lack of morality or social justice in Bill C-133. I would ask them where they find the morality or social justice in high levels of inflation, with the accompanying problems of unemployment and high interest rates, a serious situation which the six and five program, including the elements capping indexing, is designed to deal with.
It is likely also that deep down Hon. Members of the Conservative Opposition recognize the validity of the case we are making in support of Bill C-133. If that were not the situation, why would the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on behalf of his Party have presented his amendment to limit the capping of superannuation indexing under Bill C-133 to one year? If what the Hon. Member and his colleagues have been saying is correct, why would he have been willing to accept something he considered so wrong, so immoral, only for one year? Deep down, Mr. Speaker, the Hon.
January 25, 1983

Member and his colleagues, on behalf of whom he was speaking, recognize the validity of our case. Otherwise, why would they have presented that amendment to cap indexing for one year? If what we are doing is wrong, it is just as wrong for one year as it is for two years. In moving that amendment, the Hon. Member and his colleagues recognize that what we are doing is right for one year and right for two years, as part of a basic program of economic stabilization to get our costs under control, to bring down inflation, and to help strengthen the basis for economic recovery in the interests of superannuates and all Canadians.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize my willingness to review and consider carefully all of the suggestions for changes in Public Service pension arrangements which have been put forward thus far, and to discuss them with my Cabinet colleagues.
This Bill is part of a broad temporary program of economic recovery, which includes the restraint measures of which Bill C-133 is one. This Bill deals, as I have said before, only with the limitation of that portion of the indexing of Public Service pensions which is paid for out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, that portion paid for by the taxpayers of Canada generally, with the resulting funds being available for reallocation to job-creation programs for the benefit of all Canadians.
I therefore urge this House to support this Bill and the six and five program as part of an effort to rebuild the Canadian economy, to protect the purchasing power of superannuates and all Canadian retirees, and to provide a basis for maintaining and creating jobs for all Canadian workers.
I ask this House, Mr. Speaker, to support third reading of this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I see the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rising to put a question to the Hon. Minister. According to the provisional orders under which the House is presently operating, it is the Chair's understanding-and we have taken this matter under deliberation with the Table Officers just recently-that there is no provision for the putting of questions to the Minister and the Member immediately speaking after him. It is the Chair's understanding that the question period would be reserved for Hon. Members who have a right to 20-minute speeches. That is, Members other than the first and second speaker on a motion on third reading.
I see that there are Hon. Members who served on the Committee here present in the House. If this is not the correct interpretation of the intention of the Committee, it would perhaps be useful to clarify the matter further before we proceed. Otherwise, if the House accepts the interpretation of the Chair, I would then proceed to recognize the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carletpn):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I should make myself clear. Naturally, we are completely opposed to this Bill. If there was any place that any Member thinks I would rather be in my own constituency today rather than debating this Bill, I wish my Hon. friend would suggest it.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
This has been a long and bitter fight. It has been a fight that will not be forgotten by public servants, or by others far beyond the Public Service. I have a file of letters in my office which is as thick as the Minister's head from people from all walks of life, in all parts of the country, who have shared a great concern about what has been proposed.
I know that if you went to the serving Public Service and the retired public servants, those from all walks of life, all activities within the federal jurisdiction, they would say this: "Surely it would have been the decent thing to have at least consulted us before you moved in this way".
The Minister has admitted that there was a consultation process of some kind which took place before Bill C-12. In a letter I received from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), dealing with the surgical and medical insurance plan of the Public Service, he talked about the increases and the National Joint Council. He said the National Joint Council is a consultative body created in 1944 to promote regular consultation between the Government and bargaining agents. The NJC consulted on matters in respect of which it is desirable to have the same policy throughout the Public Service. If it was desirable to consult with respect to medical plans, is it not equally fair to say that it would have been more desirable to consult with respect to pensions for persons who are unprotected?
The utter hypocrisy of the position of the Government was demonstrated when the Minister said today; "We did not consult about this but we will consult future changes in the plan". Humbug, I say. The Government moved unilaterally without consultation. If there is to be an opportunity for consultation, then something has to happen.
This Bill ought not to be taken to its final decision today, even with closure or allocation of time, or cutting off debate, or whatever label the Government wants to put on it. It should not be taken to its final decision today. But that is the position we are in-unless something is done.
There are two things that could be done, Mr. Speaker. I do not expect that the Government would look kindly on any Liberal backbencher rising in opposition to third reading and I appreciate that. It makes me appreciate even more the courage of the four Liberal Members who have indicated that they intend to do that. Perhaps there will be some abstentions as well.
The other aspect is that if there are some who believe that there should be a period of consultation, then we should give time to the Government for this. I say to my friends that that would not be a matter of confidence in the Government; the Government would not fall if it were given that opportunity.
I wish to present a motion, Mr. Speaker, and I will present it now because an affirmative vote would allow time for consultation to take place, as it did before Bill C-12 which the Minister now says he was committed to-after he has put the
22172

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
screws to the federal superannuates. 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor: "Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence".
This will allow time for consultation to take place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The amendment is acceptable; therefore I shall put it to the House immediately. It is moved by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton), seconded by Mr. McKinnon:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor: "Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence".


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just so that I understand the procedures and Members know what we are doing, I take it that we are now discussing the amendment of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He is the first speaker on that amendment. We are not speaking to the motion of the Minister on Bill C-133. Is the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton going to be allowed to answer questions when he has finished his remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is the responder to the Government motion. Speaking immediately after the Minister, he is entitled to unlimited time. The fact that he has presented an amendment to the motion does not, in the Chair's opinion, preclude in any way his right to speak for an unlimited period of time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, therefore I take it your answer is that there will be no questions put to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That would be the Chair's understanding of the new Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I hope when I am finished that the Hon. Member will not have any questions to put to me. I believe he and I are ad idem with respect to this Bill. I repeat that the purpose of it is to allow the kind of consultation which ought to have taken place with respect to the Bill in fact to take place.
Before Mr. Speaker rose, I was about to say that if one reads the evidence before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, one would support this motion. One should consider the evidence of the interunion people who appeared before the Committee representing a large number of Public Service unions, the evidence of postal workers and of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. They put briefs in on the merits of the Bill, certainly, and disputed the merits of the Bill. The common thread through all briefs was that the period of consultation should have taken place but did not. If anyone in the House really believes that consultation is a good thing,
whether he is a Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat, I hope he will support the motion because it is important.
We have talked about what happened in the community and about the forces therein separating one interest group from the other. This is true, and our country suffers from it. We are seeing evidence of it right now.
I want to move on to another matter. I suggest that it might be appropriate if I put on the record a sampling from the thick file I have mentioned of the views of people with respect to the Bill, and why making the widest possible period of time available for consultation is important. The first letter to which I will refer was written by a retired public servant and is directed to the Minister. He wrote:
-have you considered the spirit of this, one of our laws that we elect a Government to protect? Have you considered how such flouting of a Government contract could affect the image of a democratic Government ... Whenever the Government decides to cut costs, however, it appears that its own lowest level workers and pensioners are the first, if not the only ones, to become the scapegoats, and bear the brunt. A good many of us, now superannuated, were red-circled some years ago when the Government decided that such action was warranted.
He put the following question:
Did it really help our economy or reduce our debt?
I put that question to the House. Did it? Is the deficit any lower as a result of this? I ask my colleagues to think about it.
I refer to another letter from one of my constituents which was directed to the Minister. He wrote:
I respectfully ask you to give this proposed legislation your sober second thoughts-
In other words, he was asking that we accept my motion. He continued:
-and take appropriate action to prevent it from passing.
I have recently completed 35 years of pensionable service in the Public Service of Canada and was quite prepared to manage in retirement on my reduced income under the existing pension plus indexing legislation.
I strongly object to this proposed legislation by the Federal Government to chisel an additional 5 per cent from my income.
The Prime Minister in his television address stated that we should trust one another. I retired trusting that the Government would honour its existing legislation.
He speaks for a legion of people in that sense. Another letter which was directed to me read:
We ask for your support in opposing this piece of legislation and in particular the breach of agreement which it represents if passed into law. We are pensioners with 35 years of service in the Public Service of Canada and because of this ill-conceived proposal now feel threatened financially. The indexing of pensions we suggest was a legal agreement which was paid for by the individuals concerned, and for the Government of Canada to now partially withdraw from this agreement is in effect a breach of contract.
Another letter from a constituent read:
It was always my understanding that, while on full salary as a federal public servant, I was paying for indexing which I was to receive at a later date. Now we are told that the Government is to cut the indexing to 6 and 5 per cent... Is this legal? And again more recently we hear that the Government ... the elite Cabinet... is contemplating weird and wonderful things with our pension funds. Is it not the sitting Members of the House of Commons who enact the law of the Government and not the "four horsemen" of the Cabinet? These people have nothing to lose as their fortunes are protected. But what about us, who with
January 25, 1983

inflation, barely make it through the month. Why should we, the Public Service pensioners, be denied what we have paid for.
Mr. Baker, I am sure that you will agree that those in the same situation as I am should get more consideration than the bailing out of Maislin Brothers Transport. In my opinion, their loyalty was always to the almighty dollar and not the Canadian public. I honestly believe that the Government has a moral and financial obligation to us the pensioners. Don't you agree?
The answer to that question is yes. I should like to refer to another letter respecting the difference between a pensioner and a serving public servant in terms of the six and five program. This correspondent wrote:
This would be an unjust default on the Goverment's obligation to index pensions at the cost of living. I have contributed to my military pension since its start in 1946 to my retirement in 1977. For the last five years I have been an employee of the RCMP . .. civilian member . . . and have again contributed to the indexing.
If the 6 per cent-5 per cent indexing is allowed, I feel that our pensions will be open to attack at any further date once the precedent is set.
Then he says what so many working public servants have said:
I am not against the 6 per cent-5 per cent formula for my salary, but because 1 have paid for indexing for many, many years it should not be altered.
That is what they have said. They do not like it, but that is what they said. For whatever reason, just on the grounds of ordinary, common decency, I say to the Minister that it would be best, if he thought about it for a few minutes and perhaps a little longer, to withdraw the Bill and consult. I do not know what would come out of that consultation, and neither does he. But he and Members of the House know that it would be the honourable thing to do. This is the only way that this legislation can be stopped.
I ask my friends in the Liberal Party, such as the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) who represents a large number of public servants, and I ask Members of Parliament from all over the country, not to vote on Bill C-133 right now, today, but to remember the obligations that we have as Members of Parliament to the Public Service of Canada, just as every other Government has an obligation to its public servants who cannot take part in politics and cannot speak for themselves. We have an obligation to them to ask that this Bill be withdrawn, remembering as well that all of us, including public servants, have obligations to the country and those obligations can best be met through what was the thread of argument throughout the Public Service submissions to the Committee-consultation. Do not do it on an ad hoc basis- consult.
What happens if we do not consult? The House is going to be participating in a confiscatory measure that will confiscate money from one group of Canadians, joined soon by old age pensioners and joined now by those who receive the Family Allowance. It will in effect be an increase in taxation. This Bill will cause an increase in taxation based on the difference between what is to be a 6.5 per cent and a 5.5 per cent increase and whatever the inflation rate is. This year there will be an increase of 5 per cent in taxation for senior citizens and retired
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Public Servants. That is what this Bill will do. That is why I ask my friends to consider what this Bill will do.
This Bill is dishonest. It is a dishonest piece of legislation because it is designed to capture a mood in the country to the detriment of a certain group of citizens. Public servants are not popular in the country. If one listened to the distortion that Bruce Phillips gave on CTV last night, one would know that he made the assumption-and assumptions are made all over- that all public servants have a $50,000 a year pension. The fact is that the average public servant and widow is on a pension of $6,900 or less. Public servants are an easy target and the Government has chosen an easy target. 1 do not know if that is politically right or not, but I know the Government is morally wrong.
The Government is moving with almost indecent haste with respect to this legislation, which is an indication of how wrong it is. As I said, it is a dishonest piece of legislation. However, if Hon. Members on the other side think the concern relates just to public servants, I indicated earlier that is not so. In the evidence which was presented before the committee by the private sector actuary, he said in terms of the morality of the administration of pension plans that the private sector looks to the public sector for leadership. This man, who is experienced in his field, said to me that many private sector people will say: "If they can get away with this, why not us?" I believe there will be a ripple effect from this legislation which perhaps the Government needs time to consider, apart from whatever political ripple effect there might be.
If any Member of Parliament believes that the interest and the sense of fairness has gone from the Canadian people and that this is purely a national capital issue, I want that Member of Parliament to know that that is not so. Let me quote from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star on December 27, 1982. Members on the other side have heard of that newspaper. This editorial reads:
Unlike Canada's working population, pensioners can't negotiate increases to their incomes to help them cope with rising prices. That's why indexed pensions are so valuable: They enable men and women on fixed incomes to keep the purchasing power they had when they retired.
That is what indexing does. It maintains the same purchasing power a person had when he or she retired. This editorial continues:
So it's decidedly unfair of Ottawa to expect pensioners to give up this measure of their security, as it is doing in two bills now before Parliament. The federal government proposes limiting the indexing of two types of pensions-the Old Age Security payment that goes to all Canadians age 65 and over as well as the retirement benefits of former civil servants-to 6 and 5 per cent in the next two years.
The writer then dealt with the effect this would have on senior citizens:
-when the restraint program comes off and full indexing is restored, it will be calculated in a lower base.
That is with respect to whether we are dealing with public servants or senior citizens. Make no mistake about it, these two years will be lost forever to that exposed category of senior citizens in this country, Mr. Speaker.

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Then the writer goes on to deal with the Public Service matter, and we read the following:
Retired civil servants have an additional reason to be unhappy. During their working years, they made extra contributions from their wages in order to help pay for indexed pensions. And they planned their retirements and their savings plans with the legitimate expectation of fully-indexed pensions.
By imposing limits, the government breaks faith with these retired workers. And most of them are not high-income mandarins who have gone on to second careers as consultants. They are former clerks and secretaries who earned modest salaries and retired on correspondingly modest pensions. If those pensions are no longer fully indexed to inflation, some retired civil servants will undoubtedly have to make painful cuts in their day-to-day budgets.
Then the writer refers to the pension document, the green paper on pensions. He writes as follows about the tabling of that document in the House of Commons:
It contained numerous cogent arguments for protecting all pensions-public and private-from the inroads of inflation.
The green paper argued against the very band-aid approach which this Bill is and which the former President of the Treasury Board, speaking on behalf of the Government before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, indicated would not take place. The editorial in the Toronto Star concludes with this paragraph:
Lalonde and Begin have shown that they recognize how important indexing is for the majority of Canada's elderly. What they should do now is restore that full indexing to the old-age security payments and the retired civil servants' pensions.
To that I say amen. That is what should be done.
What the Government is doing with this Bill is causing a permanent loss of purchasing power of old age pensioners and retired civil servants.
The cost saving of Bill C-133 is worth noting. According to the figures supplied by the Treasury Board, Bill C-133 will save the Government $60 million in 1983 and about $105 million in 1984. Do you know what that amounts to, Mr. Speaker? It amounts to $4 a taxpayer in 1983 and $7 a taxpayer in 1984. It would cost retirees an average of $400 in 1983 and $700 in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and every other year until that retiree dies. That is what this Bill means. Anyone on the other side who thinks this Bill is for only a two-year period, and anyone who is telling people, constituents or otherwise, that this Bill is to be for only two years, is at best, and putting it most charitably, pulling the legs of those people. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in this matter.
Someone argued that there is no written contract. Isn't that wonderful, Mr. Speaker? The last refuge of the knaves is that there is no written contract. There is not, Mr. Speaker? There is no written contract? Is the Government saying that it does not have a moral obligation and does not feel bound by its moral obligation as it would if somebody had put it down in writing? Is the statute that we are amending not written? You bet it is, Mr. Speaker. It is part of the statute law of Canada. Are the statements of Ministers of the Crown in the House on this and other occasions, before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee and before other committees not written and are they not undertakings on which we should be able to rely?


Mr. Wise:: What about the Prime Minister's statements?


Walter David Baker: Does the Prime Minister's word mean anything?


An Hon. Member:: Apparently not.


Walter David Baker: There are people in the country who would say that.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: There are many more now.


Walter David Baker: Many, many more are going to say it.


Mr. Riis:: His Party Members will say it.


Walter David Baker: I do not want to lay this completely on the Prime Minister. 1 want to lay the burden for this where it belongs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Where does it belong?


Walter David Baker: It belongs on the Liberal Party which has backed off from the undertakings it gave over the years-


Mr. Darling:: With the exception of four.


Walter David Baker: -with the exception of four courageous people; and my motion will allow others to join them, so to withdraw the Bill.


Mr. Murphy:: We need 50 more Liberals because the Tories will not show up.


Walter David Baker: I ask whether the word of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) means anything. What did he say? What have we heard in election campaign after election campaign in Canada? We have heard the essence of the letter he wrote to Mr. Power of the defence component of the PS AC on October 12, 1977. This is what he stated:
I have noted your concern that the indexation of Government pensions be maintained.
It is much more than a concern. Here it is, the Prime Minister at his best:
In our society, pensions provide a means of sharing risk so that we can retire in reasonable security and dignity without fear of the future. Protecting pensions from inflation by indexing them to increases in the cost of living should be an integral part of our pension schemes.
And it was, in all of them. He went on to state:
Indexing does not give pensioners an increasingly larger share of our economy's production, that is, more money to buy things that they could not earlier afford. Rather, indexing merely enables pensioners to maintain, roughly, their same standard of living.
That was a statement of simple justice, applied to them all. He went on to state:
Even a modest rate of inflation destroys, at a devastating rate, the buying power of people on fixed incomes.
January 25, 1983

The Prime Minister is a marvellous wordsmith. Pensioners are out of the workforce and cannot bargain or strike for larger pensions. That is the truth. They are not part of a bargaining unit, whether public or private. Therefore, they must look to others to protect them, and those people are here in this Parliament. That is why we are here.
"They are not the cause of inflation", the Prime Minister said. That is recognition of the truth. They are not the cause of inflation, yet the Government is putting senior citizens, retired public servants and others-


Donald W. Munro: And their widows.


Walter David Baker: -and their widows in the trenches of its fight against inflation.
Finally, the Prime Minister said that these pensioners are the victims of inflation. To quote him exactly, he said "they are its victims", and he is right.
Then came the clincher which was meant to convince Mr. Power and everyone who received the letter that the leader of the Government was a compassionate man leading a compassionate Party which was thoughtful about those senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, what was the clincher? This is what he stated:
We have an obligation to protect them.
He did not say that the obligation had to be in writing. He did not have to tell anyone that it had been discussed over the years and settled that there would be no unilateral change in pensions without consultation.
There cannot be one right-thinking Member in the House of Commons who honestly believes that the Government has the right to ride roughshod, without so much as a "fare-thee-well", over any person out of the workforce, whether that person is a Public Service pensioner or anyone else. That is the issue- trust. Do not let the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) hide behind the weasel words that there is nothing in writing. What a shameful position that is for him to take!
I do not argue that the pension plans of public servants ought not to be examined with other pension systems to ensure that there is justice, but I do not believe that, in order to build one's own house, one should take the bricks from the house of someone else. But that is what is happening today.
As long as there is breath in me, I intend to fight what I believe to be iniquitous legislation and I am proud that my Party joins me in this battle today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Thacker:: How many tens of millions for the Hilton Hotel in Windsor?


Walter David Baker: One should consider the amount of money that the Government has spilled-


Mr. Tobin:: Spill some my way.


Walter David Baker: -and the contracts that it states it cannot break. I was reminded by a retired public servant today that the Government did break the contract with its public servants or retired people. However, the Government
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
says: "We cannot break the contract with Judd Buchanan concerning that parkland out in Banff. We cannot do that; that is a sacred contract. That is an agreement we cannot touch; but, of course, we can deal with the public servants." By golly, that is a written agreement, that is right.
A letter written to the Editor of the Ottawa Citizen presented the case as well as it could ever be presented, and I will read it. It states:
The refusal to honour indexing commitments for public servants would reduce the government deficit by less than $60 million in the present fiscal year (based on an average contribution per pensioner of approximately $450 less income tax). That is a substantial sum, but placed against a budget deficit of $23 billion, it will not do much to reduce inflation.
What is really at stake is public trust and confidence in the government. While it may be politically opportune for the government to make public servants and public service pensioners "whipping boys" to divert attention from much more serious matters, the question is, who will be next? Will the Government decide to default on other contract commitments?
In the conduct of affairs, whether they be public or private, the "broader principle" is that there must be some rules for the game. Neither governments nor individuals should be allowed to change the rules to fit personal convenience. In that direction lies chaos and anarchy.
If every Member is present when the House votes on Bill C-133, it will pass. However, it can at least be delayed in order to consider the case appropriately as part of pension considerations as a whole in the country. My motion to delay for only six months is to allow for that appropriate discussion to take place. As I believe it is morally wrong for us to attack pensioners, I also believe it is morally wrong for us not to allow that consultation to take place.
Much has been made of the position in which the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) finds himself, and he finds himself in a pretty bad position as a result of loyalty to his Party. I suggest that he would not be in such a bad position if he and Hon. Members opposite would join to support this motion. I am confident that we will be joined by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis); I am confident the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will stand against it; I am confident that the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) will stand against it; I am confident the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) will stand against it. I am confident of that. It does not detract at all from the principle of the Bill if other Members also stand against it. It is reasonable.
The Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) not a Member for the National Capital area, said in the House the other day that it was appropriate that this matter be integrated into the overall pension review, and I believe that that is so. This matter has not been debated or dealt with as merely a matter for the National Capital Region. I invite the public, as I invite my colleagues, to review the list of speakers at second reading, at committee stage and in our debate at report stage yesterday and in our debate today. They will find when they read it that the speakers against this bill are not confined to

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
the National Capital Region because public service pensioners, the people who are concerned about their pensions, are not confined to the National Capital Region. They will find that speakers from every Province in Canada spoke against this Bill.
I suggest, with respect, that there must be some people over there who would like the opportunity for sober second thought. I think we do have an obligation here; I believe that firmly. We have an obligation to look after the disadvantaged in society, wherever they are. We have an obligation not to distort the position of any group in society, whoever they may be, and there have been a great many distortions in this debate.
I ask my friends in the House to set aside the question of whether or not they are going to be dealing with Bill C-133. I would like to suggest that they would not be dealing with Bill C-133, but would be addressing the question in my motion, that this Bill and its consideration be delayed, that the appropriate consultation take place. Lord knows there are groups that want to do it, that would have liked the opportunity not to have this sprung on them in a budget, and that want to do the right thing in the process that ought to exist between the governors and the governed.
It should be possible to consult and see if on something of such importance there could be a consensus. I think this issue demands that and I invite all my friends, not just those who spoke on the other side of the House, but men like the Liberal Whip who has served many years with distinction in another occupation before coming here, to consider how important consultation is, and therefore how important this motion is.
This motion is not going to delay dealing with this Bill today. If it were dealt with affirmatively, that consultation would take place. The Bill is still there. It is important that this happen. It is just simple, plain justice. That is as plain, as simple and as succinct as I can put it.
I ask my friends on the other side of the House to think the same way. Do not rely on that little argument of "no written agreement". Nobody buys that. It is so patently dishonest it stinks. I say to my friends on the other side, if, after the kind of consideration that ought to apply to Public Service pensions as well as to others, legislation comes forward in the broad sense that would not attack one group for the sake of another, then that legislation may very well be supportable. But this legislation is not. It is confiscatory. It is a tax on seniors. It is dishonest and it ought not to pass this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before recognizing any other Hon. Member the Chair could perhaps be allowed at this time to clarify the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, the Hon. Member for Yukon and others with respect to the seconder of the motion made by the President of the Treasury Board.
I should first of all draw to the attention of the House that our Standing Order 49(1) reads as follows:
All motions shall be in writing and seconded.
Standing Orders do not provide for the seconder necessarily to be a Minister of the Crown.
Further to that, the Chair has in its hands precedents which clearly establish that on a number of occasions private Members, Parliamentary Secretaries-in other words, Hon. Members other than Ministers of the Crown-have from time to time moved motions presented by the Government. One of the most recent examples of this practice occurred on November 18, 1982, and I refer to Votes and Proceedings for that date, where the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was seconded by the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner) when she moved that the Bill be read a second time.
The Chair also has a number of other examples. In fact, I have one in which a member of the Opposition moved a motion made by a Minister of the Crown on at least one occasion. Therefore, it is the Chair's considered opinion that the motion, as put, was in order and that the debate should proceed as usual.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier rising on this point of order or on another point of order?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: With all due respect, the Chair has ruled.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Twice you said a Member of the House may "move" and I think you meant to say "seconded".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It could well be that I may have unintentionally said that but I shall clarify. With respect to Government Orders only Ministers of the Crown may move such motions; but any Member of the House may second such a motion. That is what I intended to say. I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, commencing my remarks I might address the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) which would in fact give a six months' hoist to the Bill so that consultation could take place. While this may be commendable and we will support that amendment to allow that kind of consultation to take place, I want to make it very clear that regardless of what takes place we oppose this Bill in the strongest terms possible. We do not agree with the concept of what is taking place and there is no way we can support this Bill at any time, whether now or six months down the road.
I want to talk about the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party for putting forward a motion with such a plea, because less than six months ago that same Party supported the Government which had carried out no consultation with the workers in the Public Service. Those are workers who in many cases are lower paid than workers in other areas. There was no consultation with railway workers either. Yet the Conservatives came into this House and supported legislation which
January 25, 1983

broke those contracts. Not only were they in writing, they had been negotiated through free collective bargaining. The Conservatives say they believe in the concept of free collective bargaining. In that instance, however, they came into this House and voted in favour of reducing the wages of public servants and railway workers across Canada. It is the height of hypocrisy when they stand in the House today and say they will not stand for it. They have stood for it, and that should be made abundantly clear. I remember an election campaign when the Liberals were using the slogan "A leader must be a leader". Trudeau, with his gunslinger image-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I must draw to the attention of the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members that it is against the rules to mention another Member by proper name. A Member should refer to his colleagues by their portfolio, the office they occupy or the name of their constituency. Members may not do indirectly what is not allowed directly.


Sidney James Parker: I stand corrected. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), with his gunslinger image, our Prime Minister, the tough guy. This legislation makes it clear who the Prime Minister is getting tough with-the retired public servants, Old Age Security recipients and families with children. That is not a tough guy; that is a schoolyard bully.
The Government says it will bring about economic recovery by picking on the poor. With this legislation, it is playing Robin Hood in reverse. It is attacking retired female public servants who have always received low pensions, retired long-service veterans who have served their country well and retired police officers. It must be clear that this is a real attack, not just a public relations ploy.
Retired public servants face a 10 per cent cut in their standard of living. To some, that is pretty important. As of 1982, average pensions were $6,900, pensions of widows $3,200 and pensions of new retirees $8,100. That is not an awful lot of money. A real 10 per cent cut in living standards will push many of these people into poverty. This is especially true because there is no guarantee on prices.
Canadian Pacific raises its rates, energy prices are going up, as is home heating fuel and gasoline. The Government will try to argue that its programs will protect these people, but it cannot deny that many pensioners will fall below the poverty line.
A pension of $8,200 might sound good to many Canadians, but we must remember that that is an average. For every one receiving a pension above that, there is someone receiving a pension below it. This legislation will do a great deal of damage. No way can it be called a public relations ploy. It is an attack on retired public servants in the same way that Bill C-124 was an attack on working public servants.
I have estimated that railway workers in my riding will each lose in the area of $3,000. It is clear that the purpose of the Government is deliberately to try to reduce the wages of
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
workers and their living standard. It is doing this for two reasons. It believes that if wages are lower, we will export more. Also if wages are lower, there will be higher profits and business will invest more. In other words, the problems of unemployment, inflation and recession will be fought on the backs of the working people and the poor.
What about the well-to-do in this country, the many people who earn over $100,000 and do not pay a cent in income tax? What about the suggestion in the June budget that some investors might not have to pay tax on returns that are lower than the cost of living? What about those companies that have taken billions of dollars out of this country over the years? How does all of this compare with the people this Bill deals with?
Bill C-133 is a tax measure. The effect on Government revenue is the same as a special tax aimed at retired people. The Government could not get away with calling it a tax measure, so it calls it an anti-inflation measure. This Bill will cause more, not less, unemployment. Low-income people spend their money and that creates jobs in the communities, particularly in small businesses. Government grants to business do not create jobs unless business decides to invest. Why would any business invest when it is not now operating all of its equipment?
In the riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke, with railway workers on the six and five program, public servants reduced to six and five, municipal and provincial governments getting in on the six and five program, as well as the tremendous number of lay-offs throughout the riding, consumer spending will go down and there will be more unemployment. The Minister has indicated that this measure will create employment. It is not creating employment but unemployment, and that is occurring in areas that can ill afford it.
There are 700 railway workers in Revelstoke. Because of Bill C-124, each will lose $3,000. That is $2,100,000 that will be lost in that community alone; lost to the small stores, car dealers, home builders and so on. Cutbacks in pensions will have the same effect, only it will not be concentrated in one community but spread right across Canada.
There is a more direct way in which this Bill will cost jobs. With lower pensions, fewer people will retire. Those who have retired may think about re-entering the workforce as their standard of living falls. This will mean fewer jobs available, particularly for untrained young people who make up such a large part of our unemployed.
Just as serious is the damage being done to the morale of those public servants who serve the people of Canada. These people believed they had a contract and were assured of a decent life in their retirement. After this legislation, they will never again trust the Government.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) states that there is no contract. He knows full well that when an extra 1 per cent a year was being taken from public servants that that was a contract. They were getting the money and they were

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
expected to deliver. The President of the Treasury Board now has the audacity to stand in this Elouse and say it was not a contract. He did not tell the House that an advisory committee had been set up which was supposed to be available to advise on pension changes and so on. Neither the President of the Treasury Board nor the Government had the decency even to talk to the advisory committee to find out their thoughts with regard to changes they were contemplating.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I certainly did meet them.


Sidney James Parker: The Minister says he certainly did. Representatives of various groups came before us. I specifically asked whether they were a part of that advisory committee. They said they were and that they had had no consultation. Therefore, I can only say to the President of the Treasury Board that from the information we have from Committee, that is not so.
It was very interesting at the report stage to hear the Conservatives complaining about the Government breaking contracts. I could not believe what I was hearing when they talked about the importance of contracts and the need to keep those contracts. It was the Conservatives who set the precedent by breaking contracts. Do they really believe the Government would have broken this contract so easily if the Conservatives had not gotten away with breaking contracts with their own people? Where were the Conservatives when the clerks had their contract broken after they had been driven to go on strike for the first time in their history? They were right there, lined up behind the Government saying, "Yes, sir, right on".
The Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Clark) said the Government had not gone far enough with Bill C-124. That was the only complaint. I wonder if the Government has gone far enough now to make the Conservatives happy? Are the Conservatives happy now that the Government is not only rolling back the wages of workers but is stealing their savings? Pensions, after all, are nothing more than savings. They are deferred wages. Instead of receiving the money now, workers agree to have it put away for their retirement. They might just as easily take the money and use it to buy Canada Savings Bonds. With this legislation, the Government is stealing their savings. It is the same as retroactive wage controls. It is saying, "We are going to cut your salary yesterday so you cannot save much money". There is no difference between this and having the Government confiscate savings bonds which someone has put away for his retirement.
The Government is arguing that it is not the same, that the program is being paid for out of taxes. From presentations in Committee, I do not believe that. I believe that is a phony, trumped up excuse the Government trotted out to help sell this program. That will not wash. If the Bill is just an anti-inflation program, then the Government will have to admit that it is stealing money from pensioners and breaking contracts. If it is a program to correct deficits in the pension plan, why did they not go to the unions and representatives to discuss it? The reason is that there is nothing wrong with the pension plan and under an expert challenge before unbiased judges, there is no way the Government could prove there is.
Beyond the fact that the Bill is immoral, it is an action which would not even be legal if it were taken by the private sector. The CLC told the Committee that the Canadian Superintendent of Insurance will normally reject amendments to private pension plans which reduce benefits earned prior to the date of amendment. This Bill would not even be accepted by the standards which judge private pension plans.
This Government has made a lot of promises over the years. The Prime Minister told the Pension Conference in 1981 that it had to protect pensioners against inflation, that without this protection their incomes would dwindle. Last year the President of Treasury Board said his Government was dedicated to maintaining indexing of Public Service pensions. That was less than a year ago. In 1977, the Prime Minister said in a letter to Public Service unions that pensioners were not the cause of inflation and Government had a duty to protect them. The Government lied in each of these statements. It lied in the same way it did in 1974 when it ran an election campaign against wage controls.
Like all schoolyard bullies, our Prime Minister is afraid of the truth, and the Conservatives are just as bad for helping the Government get away with this. Why did the Conservatives not speak out when the Government began to break contracts? Why did they not even bother to show up for the Committee which was discussing this Bill? The Conservatives were entitled to have seven Members on that Committee but many times there were as few as two present.
Why did the Conservative House Leader promise to help the Government pass this Bill on November 16? It is a matter of record in Hansard that the Conservative House Leader in this House stated that if the Government brought the Bill forward, they would see it was speedily dealt with. Both Liberals and Conservatives have a lot to answer for in this contemptible legislation and, Gallup polls or not, we will make sure that people remember this in the next election.
I feel it is a sad day for this House, Mr. Speaker, that we have to deal with this kind of legislation and take up the time of this House to deprive Public Service pensioners, retirees, families with small children, many of them having unemployment problems as well, and Old Age Security recipients. We should instead be dealing with the major problem in Canada, which is unemployment. We are not going to create one job with the kind of program which the President of the Treasury Board is talking about in this legislation; make no mistake about that.
With respect to the railways, Mr. Ian Sinclair of Canadian Pacific was used as our chief spokesman on the six and five program, and the day after the Government adopted the recommendations of that group which expounded on this six and five track the Government got on, that group announced lay-offs right across Canada. After literally saving hundreds of millions of dollars in wages which they should be paying out, they announced lay-offs across Canada. It has in fact created more lay-offs than employment.
January 25, 1983


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that 1 am particularly happy about speaking to Bill C-133, a very controversial piece of legislation which has raised considerable debate on both sides of the House and, I may add, has perhaps been misunderstood by the Canadian people. This Bill modifies the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. Since the Bill passed second reading, my office has been deluged by telephone calls and mail. There is a great deal of discontent, not only among pensioners but also among public servants and their families. There is also a lot of dissatisfaction among Hon. Members on both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, and I must say that I personally am not terribly happy about this legislation. However, the fact remains that life is not always a matter of doing what one wants to do but what one feels one must do. Before making a decision, a Member of Parliament, whether he is on the opposition side or the government side, and whatever his party affiliation, must always weigh the pros and cons of the legislation or program under consideration. Will it be detrimental or beneficial to his constituents? Will it be beneficial to all his constituents? Will it be beneficial or detrimental to Canadians?
The role a Member has to play is basically threefold: First of all: A Member represents his constituents and must always keep their welfare in mind, whether they are employed or unemployed, young or not so young, retired or still working. Second: Parliament is Canada's legislative assembly, and a Member must also bear in mind the interests of Canadians living beyond the boundaries of his constituency. And last, Mr. Speaker, but not least, a Member belongs to a political party, to a team. Of course, some members of the team will differ in their views, but I respect the opinions of others just as I expect them to respect mine.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in team spirit. All my life 1 have belonged to some kind of team, in sports or as a member of service clubs. I also feel that loyalty to one's leader, one's colleagues and to fellow members is very important, and that is all part and parcel of my list, Mr. Speaker.
In the richest countries in the world, the great industrial democracies, 30 million people are out of work, and in Canada, 1,500,000 are unemployed. It is a national and international tragedy, and we are living in difficult times, Mr. Speaker. Here in Canada, we did not want to live with the status quo. Something had to give, and hard times demand decisions. This Government has acted responsibly by making a decision in the best interests of the Canadian people, and taking specific action to enforce that decision. We must not forget that. The government made this decision on June 28, 1982, when the then Minister of Finance asked for a two-year national effort in order to bring this country out of a recession situation with 12 per cent inflation and put it on the road to economic
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
recovery by bringing inflation down to 6 per cent. The main objectives were to reduce inflation and interest rates, to increase investment and to create jobs.
For the first time since 1977, the rate of increase in the price of food in Canada is down below 10 per cent. Statistics made public on December 31, 1982, show that food prices have gone up 7.7 per cent in 1982, which is an indication that we are doing well in this fight against inflation.
Interest rates in early 1982 stood at anywhere between 18 and 24 per cent. Last week, on January 19, they were down to 12 per cent. There again we are doing well, but nobody is rushing to congratulate the Government. People did severely criticize the Government when interest rates were very high, but now that these rates have come down significantly, it seems that the Government had nothing to do with that.
With respect to increasing investments, I would suggest there is a psychological barrier. No one seems willing to take a chance, yet that is the key to success in any endeavour. Mr. Speaker, we must have confidence in ourselves, in our neighbours and in the potential of our country. Bill C-124 was the starting signal in our fight against the recession, against inflation, and against unemployment. That was the legislation on compensation restraint in the public sector, including Crown corporations. This Bill does provide for an increase, not a decrease: 6 per cent more on January 1, 1983 and 5 per cent more on January 1, 1984. When times get hard a responsible government has to take harsh decisions which are likely to alienate the public, but we are convinced that Canadians prefer and will always prefer any policy to the lack of policy which is the hallmark of Members of the Official Opposition.
It has been stated that half a million people will be affected by Bill C-124. Capping the increase at 6 per cent will enable us to recoup $250 million, not to mention another $550 million in 1984 to create jobs. We are asking public servants to tighten their belts a little in the next two years to help needy Canadians and others who are anxious to work. But we need money to do that and it has to come from somewhere: either we increase the deficit or we raise taxes. The Government has chosen to cap indexation and set a ceiling on public sector salaries to give an example to the private sector, keeping in mind the fact that we must reduce inflation and be more competitive on international markets. I have already pointed out that either the deficit or the taxes would have to be increased but whose taxes Mr. Speaker? In the city of Gatineau in my own constituency, the world wide recession resulted in the loss of over six weeks of work at the CIP company which has 1425 employees. Newspaper production was reduced during that six week period. On December 7, the Maclaren company announced that its plant would close down for 12 days with 300 to 350 employees being temporarily laid off. The Thurso Pulp and

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Paper Company has announced a plant close-down which will stop production for five weeks, and this for the fifth time in 1983; 250 employees are temporarily laid off. Erco Industries Limited in Buckingham announced 25 permanent lay-offs and Vilas Industries Limited of Thurso, a furniture manufacturer, 125. These people who have worked 5, 10, 15, 20 and perhaps even 25 years are now unemployed. They have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and must rely on welfare. It is not easy for someone who has worked in a plant for 15 years to go on welfare because he is no longer entitled to unemployment insurance.
On January 17, 1983, Masonite Canada Ltd. announced that 130 employees in its plywood division would be laid off around mid-April. How many other people have been and will be affected when these 130 plywood employees become unemployed in April? As a second measure, we have Bill C-131 to amend the Old Age Security Act. The basic pension was S246.92 as of October 1, 1982, and it was increased on January 1, 1983, to $250.62. The principle of universality is therefore maintained, and pensions were increased by 6 per cent instead of 11 per cent because these people have other sources of income. As for the income supplement, the indexation will be doubled. The benefits of those who receive part or the total amount of the supplement will be indexed at double the rate. People 65 and older who have other sources of income will not have their pensions reduced in January. They will receive 50 cents less in February, 50 cents less in March or $29 less for the entire year in 1983, and by the end of 1984, are expected to have received $52 less. About 1.1 million people should be affected at the end of the year, and this will make $30 million available for job creation the first year and over $50 million the second year. To create jobs, maybe not for the same people but for the children of these people who are 65 or over and perhaps for their grandchildren. To create jobs for people from Vilas who are now unemployed because of the shutdown, because of the slump on the market. Jobs for 130 employees at Plywood where in April they are all going to be laid off permanently, because the factory is being closed. We have therefore asked our pioneers to contribute once more to the economy of their country. We are asking them once more to make sacrifices, and I am sure that although they are probably not very happy about this situation, and it certainly is a bitter pill to swallow, they are willing to go along with it, because helping others has been part of their whole lives. Based as always on the principle that all Canadians have an obligation to make some sacrifices in order to help this country on the way to economic recovery, we have Bill C-132 as a third tool for fighting inflation and creating jobs.
Briefly, the Bill says that people whose needs are the most urgent will get more and others will get less. I feel that here, the spirit of charity and of sharing should prevail. Mr. Speaker, we must bear in mind the objectives of the 6 and 5 program, which are to bring down inflation, find money to create
jobs without having to increase the deficit or increase taxes, bearing in mind the increasing number of bankruptcies in Canada, decreasing corporate profits-a drop of 50 per cent in 1982, salary freezes and even reductions in some companies. Let us not forget that as of December 12, 1982, the Canada Employment Centre in Buckingham registered 3,041 people drawing unemployment insurance benefits, and the CEC in Gatineau, as of January 12, 1983, had 6,418 people on unemployment insurance, not including those who have exhausted their benefits and are now on welfare. The 6 and 5 program also applies to pensions in the public sector.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like Bill C-133 today any more than I liked the Government's statement on June 28, 1982 regarding its intention to cap indexing of pensions. Today, however, the problem has changed because the situation has changed. From the outset, I have expressed my doubts as to the legality of the Government's intentions in wanting to manipulate the portion paid by the pensioner in order to provide for an indexed pension. The question was, did the Government have the right to legislate in this area, since the money belonged to the pensioners? That has been argued since the very beginning. In fact, the arguing goes on today, Mr. Speaker. Those who are opposed to capping indexation of retirement benefits argue that they have paid for full indexation by contributing 1 per cent of their salary in addition to the 6.5 per cent for the basic pension, both contributions being matched by the direct contribution by the Government as employer, a total of 15 per cent.
This direct Government contribution is paid for by all Canadians through their taxes, and this is something we must not forget. Nor should we forget the contribution of those who are now unemployed but were paying taxes when they were employed full time. We must not forget their contribution.
Therefore, it is wrong to say that public servants have paid for full indexation. Public servants or retired public servants who keep repeating this are wrong, because the Canadian taxpayer has also made a contribution. Ninety per cent of the indexation benefits paid to public service pensioners are currently charged directly to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. In other words, paid for by the taxes of all Canadians, taxes paid by people at Villas and Plywood who are going to be laid off in April, by CIP employees who were laid off for a period in 1982. Only 10 per cent of the current indexing benefits comes directly form the supplementary retirement benefits account which receives employee and employer contributions to provide for pension indexation.
The 6 and 5 capping will not affect the indexing charged against employee credits in the supplementary retirement benefits account-that is, coming from direct contributions by employees and by the employer, specifically for indexing. Hence the 0.5 per cent this year, which makes 6.5 per cent, and the 0.5 in 1985, which makes 5.5 per cent.
What the Government is proposing is to cap increases in indexing financed out of general tax revenues for the duration
January 25, 1983_____________________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________________________________22181
of the restraint period. In other words, taxes paid by businessmen, by all the people I just mentioned, by employees of the Town of Gatineau and of all the municipalities in my riding, taxes paid by the employees of each company, all this tax revenue has helped to pay for the pensions of public servants and the indexing of those pensions.
Mr. Speaker, do not public servants also pay taxes? Of course they do. If they pay taxes, then they have also paid for their indexation. Of course they have. A public servant contributes two amounts, namely, 6.5 per cent for his basic pension and 1 per cent to provide for indexing. The total amount is matched by the government. There are two separate accounts in the name of the public servant. Both accounts bear interest, and public servants are arguing that it is their money. Retired public servants are saying that sufficient funds are being generated by both accounts, but there we have a legal snag. According to law, interest or income from the basic pension fund may not be transferred to the special indexing fund. That is why public servants are accusing the Government of "playing around" with their money. However, without wishing to contradict this statement, since it is their money, the fact remains that by law, no transfers may be made. If we want to proceed with a transfer, we will either have to change the law or, as one of my colleagues suggested, increase individual contributions according to specific recommendations, to prevent the same problem from occurring again.
The other argument, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government had a contractual agreement to pay this indexation, and indeed, I find this very unfortunate, since our retired public servants had already calculated how much they would get and made plans accordingly. As I said before, hard times demand unpleasant decisions, which are not popular but are necessary in the circumstances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member will allow me a question. He touched on the 1 per cent of salary paid for indexing by public servants and claims that it is the taxpayers who back that. Does he recognize the fact that taxpayers also back Canada Savings Bonds? When a commitment is made and people buy a bond, they expect a return. When the pensioner paid 1 per cent for indexing-not partial indexing-he also expects a return.
What is the Hon. Member's rationale for his statements? How can he say, on the one hand, that pensioners should not get that indexing when they have paid for it, but on the other hand that the buyer of the bond should? Would he say it is fair that the Government should take it away from the buyer of the Canada Savings Bond?
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2) [Translation]


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could provide some further clarification. I did say that perhaps there was a way to resolve this problem, either by changing the law, so that income or interest is drawn from the basic pension fund, which is one solution, or by increasing individual contributions, and in that case, the B.C. federal contribution would be increased accordingly.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, an agreement was made to pay 1 per cent in order to get something in return. Now, without any discussion whatsoever, the Government is going to cut that in half. I know the Hon. Member is trying to say that this is taxpayers' money, but the people who signed this agreement are also taxpayers. If changes are to be made, I am sure the Hon. Member does not think they should be made without consultation or without agreement on both sides. I should like to hear his view on that.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the situation just as much as the Hon. Member, but hard times require decisions. We took a decision-the whole package, Bills C-124, C-131, C-132 and C-133. We cannot isolate any of them; that is the reason. I do not like this Bill any more than the Hon. Member does, but the fact remains that when it is a necessity we do what we have to do. This is the way I see it. It is as simple as that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question which I should like to put to the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau). Having listened to the Hon. Member's comments and his support of the six and five program as it relates to retired public servants, he would presumably also support the idea of having retired personnel, let us say, of the Bank of Canada under the six and five program. Is this something which he would support?


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, since this is not a matter under discussion, I do not think I should answer it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will try putting a different question to the Hon. Member. If someone such as Governor Bouey, who is obviously a strong advocate of restraint and a strong supporter of the six and five program, limited the employees under his jurisdiction, does the Hon. Member not think that would be fair? In other words, retired personnel of the Bank of Canada would be limited to the six and five program, or should they be receiving 11.5 per cent on their pensions?


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I mentioned the Bank of Canada in my speech. I think we are discussing Bills C-l 24, C-131, C-132 and C-133-


Mr. Fulton:: We are discussing equity.

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


René Cousineau: -and therefore I do not see how this question can be put.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. The Government, through several of its Ministers and Members, pleaded with the private sector to follow the six and five program. They have stated that the program would not be fully or wholly successful without the private sector following it. In view of this, how does the Liberal Party justify giving its President an increase of 120 per cent?


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-133. I do not understand how my good friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), with all his experience, could think about asking a question such as that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Of course, the Chair does not wish in any way to enter into the debate, but since we are in a trial period under the provisional rules, perhaps I could draw again to the attention of Hon. Members the comments made by Madam Speaker, as reported on page 21873 of Hansard for January 17, 1983. In relation to questions and comments, Madam Speaker said:
The period is to be reserved for questions and comments about the speech preceding this period. I believe that in this connection, the Chair will probably have to take a stricter approach as far as the principle of relevance is concerned. The Chair has always been fairly flexible in this respect, but when only ten minutes are allowed for debate, it is clear that both the questions and the speech itself must be relevant in the strict sense of the word.
I offer these comments for the reflection of Hon. Members.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but the Hon. Member was speaking-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I apologize to the Hon. Member for Bow River, but the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) is rising on a point of order.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the explanation of the new rules which you just gave, can Hon. Members ask questions based on answers given to previous questions? For instance, the Parliamentary Secretary, I believe in answer to a question by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), stated that his support for Bill C-133 was based upon his support for the whole package, the principles of the six and five program and of restraint. I think he referred to Bills C-124, C-131, C-132 and C-133. Within the parameter of the new ruling, are subsequent questioners able to ask questions in response to an answer and dealing with the facts brought out in an earlier response of the Member?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. As all Hon. Members including himself will appreciate, this is a trial period. It is also a trial period for
the Chair, with all the discretion given to it in the application of these provisional procedures.
Again, if I may be allowed, the question and answer period following an Hon. Member's intervention should not be an occasion to bring forward new issues or new aspects of the issue, if I may put it that way, raised in the Hon. Member's speech. The questions and answers should as much as possible, if not strictly speaking, apply to the comments made by the Hon. Member in the course of his speech. Of course, in a sense questions and answers would be part of the time allotted to the Hon. Member, so it would be up to Hon. Members to discipline themselves in this respect. The Chair does not wish at this time to say that questions will or will not be allowed. The best discipline is self-discipline, and I appeal to Hon. Members to adhere to the spirit of the report.
Again I apologize, but the Chair is now put in a position where it should normally close the question period. Points of order were raised in connection with the Hon. Member's speech, therefore, it is my understanding and my intention to take these points of order as part of the ten-minute period allowed for questions, comments and answers. Therefore 1 recognize the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) to make his speech.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, I think we should have this point clarified. If we may only ask questions about what the Member said during his speech, what is the use of asking questions? We have heard what he said. Surely if we are talking about the six and five program we can apply it beyond just what the Hon. Member said. Otherwise the Member will simply repeat what he said before and there will be no purpose in the question period at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member for Bow River. Debate on third reading is rather far-ranging. It is not as strictly limited as it would be, for example, at report stage. This is a matter for Hon. Members to decide. They are in the best position to decide how far-ranging they really want the debate to be, but I suppose questions could be allowed on the broad principle of the Bill. However it is the privilege of the Hon. Member who is receiving the question to answer or not to answer. The Chair is not the best arbiter of that.


Dave Nickerson: May I call it one o'clock, Your Honour?


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

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.
January 25, 1983



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, as the Government is well aware, there has not been an increase in the yield on Government annuities, I believe, since 1976, despite assurances by the Government that increases would be reviewed from time to time to reflect the ongoing increases in the cost of living. This problem has been under study by the Department of Employment and Immigration for some years, and still no decision has been made.
The people who invested in these annuities did so in all honesty, and I believe they have the right now to demand that the Government should at last take the necessary measures to introduce some relief for annuity holders, who purchased Government annuities in good faith, to supplement their incomes and retirement funds.
An over-all review of the annuity situation, as well as a review of other kinds of Government investment portfolios, are long overdue and badly needed. I believe that low yielding annuities purchased some 25 to 30 years ago should be redeemed at full value to eliminate this unfortunate problem. It is my sincere hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in his new budget expected soon, will bring forth the necessary solution and legislation to do just that.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, most Canadians are aware that the potato industry has provided my home province of Prince Edward Island with the livelihood that has made our Province famous. Prince Edward Island is blessed with a climate and soil well suited to agricultural production. Service industries, processing industries, and retailers alike, are dependent on the agricultural industry. The success of agriculture has a great influence on Islanders and so is of great importance to me.
Many months ago Bill C-85, a Bill of great importance to farmers across the country, was introduced to the House. This Bill will allow the establishment of a Crown Corporation called Canagrex. All of Prince Edward Island's Members of Parliament are aware of the outstanding support shown for this Bill by such organizations based in P.E.I. as the P.E.I. Potato Producers Association, and Cavendish Farms, which have come out in favour of the passage of the Canagrex Bill.
As well, P.E.I's executive members of organizations such as the National Farmers' Union and the Horticultural Council have indicated their support for this legislation.
It is my sincere hope that the Members of this House will show their support of the agricultural industry on Prince Edward Island through strong support of Bill C-85 when it again returns to the House.



INDUSTRY AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, some communities have been more hard hit by the effects of the recession than others. Many towns which have only one major industry are devastated when that business shuts down. The Government has made provision to assist such areas under ILAP, the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program.
As the Member for Erie I am acutely concerned about certain areas in my constituency and the regional municipality of Niagara, which are suffering from massive unemployment due to slowing down and the closing of key industries. With unemployment estimated to be 19 per cent in some areas of my riding, I feel it would be very appropriate that these communities be aided under the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program. If only 12 areas have been designated so far under ILAP, surely there must be funds remaining for distribution to communities such as these in my riding and others.
When I look at regions with less unemployment than Erie riding receiving funds under ILAP, it raises doubts as to the equitable distribution of money available through this Program. It has become increasingly evident by the placement of ILAP designations that ILAP is being misused and seems to be little more than a promotion scheme. I say either the Program must be directed where the need is, or it should be dropped altogether before we become totally disillusioned with what appears to be blatant patronage.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, many economists differentiate between short-term deficits and longer term or structural deficits, the latter being far more dangerous than the former. Thus when a national deficit is adjusted to remove the effects of a recession, we can determine whether the deficit is short-term or structural and whether it is deemed dangerous or not.
A study done by a group of economists at the University of Toronto, Institute of Policy Analysis, indicated that, when one

January 25, 1983
applies the no recession scenario to the federal Government's accounts, one finds a small federal surplus in this fiscal year, indicating that our federal deficit is short-term.
According to figures supplied to The New York Times by Morgan Guaranteed Trust, a no recession scenario would show a deficit of $60 billion. Other estimates run as high as $90 billion, "a figure deemed dangerous." Given the nature of our deficit short-term, there is no reason, therefore, that Canada's federal short-term deficit should prevent expansionary measures.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the House will recall that last year the Conservatives held up the House of Commons for 15 days on behalf of their friends in the multinational oil companies. And during the course of the last year they have held up the passage of Canagrex on behalf of their friends in the multinational grain companies.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Last August the Conservatives hurried with obscene haste to support the Government in its six and five legislation, and in the process voted against an amendment put by us which would have protected the pensions of senior citizens who worked for the Government.
On Thursday last we gave the Conservatives an opportunity to stop the Government dead in its tracks as it attempted to pass legislation which affects senior citizens and families all across the country. They, however, could only muster 15 minutes of support for senior citizens. Yesterday we had a vote in the House and, had the Tories been present, we could have defeated the legislation which most affects senior citizen pensioners and the civil servants, but they had only 54 Members present, just slightly more than half of them. I want to say to you and to the House, Madam Speaker, that it is clear to see where the Tory priorities lie.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PRICE OF GASOLINE

Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to follow a comedy routine, but I will do my best.
In 1980 the Liberals promised the Canadian people lower energy prices. Since that promise, gasoline prices have risen 17
times, adding some 84 cents a gallon to the price of gas. Canadians are now paying $2 a gallon, or 44 cents a litre, for gasoline.
Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mr. Chretien, tried to blame provincial sales taxes for high-gas prices. That is nonsense. In Ontario the provincial sales tax is 15 per cent while the federal sales tax is 35 per cent of the price consumers pay. What bothers us on this side is that while Americans are paying less because OPEC prices have dropped and consumers everywhere welcome that, the Minister of State (International Trade) (Mr. Regan) is quoted in Saudi Arabia as saying, "If the price of international crude oil should go down, Canada would face very serious problems."
On behalf of the consumers of Canada we demand that the price of gasoline in Canada, which has followed world prices up, follow world prices down just as quickly as OPEC prices decrease.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, the House is aware that at the present time, the North Shore is going through one of the most difficult times in its history.
I should therefore like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) to reconsider the choice of Becancour as the site for the Pechiney aluminum refinery. Madam Speaker, I wonder whether instead of investing in the construction of new facilities at Becancour, we should not ask the Province of Quebec to invite Pechiney to establish its refinery on the North Shore where all services already exist and where we have accommodation for over 8,000 people in Port Cartier and Sept-Iles. Considering the availability of large quantities of cheap energy and the existence of deep-water ports on the North Shore, I think Quebec would do well to urge Pechiney to reconsider its choice of site and opt for the North Shore instead. This industry would revitalize the region, which certainly deserves the assistance of both provincial and federal governments. Madam Speaker, it would be unreasonable, to say the least, to spend millions of dollars in the Becancour area on site preparation and access roads, when on the North Shore, the same facilities already exist, were paid for ten years ago and are not being used at the present time. I would therefore ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to get in touch with his Quebec counterpart to make sure that we-
January 25, 1983

[DOT] (UlO)



THE ECONOMY


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, with two million Canadians out of work and 500,000 Canadians on welfare, the breakdown of Liberal economic policy has produced a crisis of fear and despair in Canada. The social disruption, broken homes, alcoholism, and acute anxiety caused by Liberal economic policies have moved concerned churchmen to express their indignation on moral grounds at a deliberate policy of placing monetary considerations above the welfare of individuals.
The depression which we must endure is totally unnecessary for Canada. It was caused by years of deliberate Liberal Party policies, such as high deficits, inflation, centralization and state control. The Liberal Party policy of "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die", is now coming true.
On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians who are not, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), "skiing at Whistler" or "snorkeling in the Caribbean", this Party urges the Government to cease frittering away time in a vindictive pursuit of old people, widows and mothers, and to come up with effective and realistic policies to restore confidence and provide jobs.



PENSIONS


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21. Although Canada's pension system is one of the best in the world it still requires some improvement. One of the major problems is that many pensioners receive an insufficient income. Many live below the poverty line.
One of the changes proposed in the Green Paper on pensions is the introduction of a Registered Pension Account, RPA, an account wherein savings could be locked for use during retirement. This would be one means of ensuring that increased access to tax assistance is used as intended, that is, for retirement savings. This change, the report points out, would create an improved vehicle for individual retirement savings which, in conjunction with the vesting and portability measures, would enable individuals to have truly portable pensions.
During one's lifetime the average individual changes his or her job more than once. Because of this, improving the portability of pensions is of the utmost importance.
I urge that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) accelerate the establishment of a parliamentary committee to look into pension reform. I also urge the committee to consider seriously the establishment of a Registered
Oral Questions
Pension Account as a viable proposal to improve the pension system.
Madam Speaker, we hear heckling from Members of the NDP. They are not interested in pension reform. We on this side of the House are.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



BANK OF CANADA


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, where does Governor Gerald Bouey of the Bank of Canada really stand on the Government's six and five program? Does he really believe in it? Does he support it? He presumably advised the Government to proceed with it. He says he supports it, but his actions betray his true position. One would expect him to follow the six and five program with regard to his own retired personnel if he really believed in the six and five program, but he obviously realizes that the program is a farce, since, while most retired Canadians must live within a 6 per cent hike in Old Age Security benefits this year, the pensions of 484 former employees of the Bank of Canada have been raised by 11.5 per cent, fully covering the rate of inflation and more. It would appear that Mr. Bouey has now joined the rest of Canada and has pulled even his support of the six and five program.
Perhaps we should ask Mr. Ian Sinclair and his blue chip committee to approach Mr. Bouey to check if Bouey, too, along with them, believes the six and five program is not the avenue the Governor should pursue, which would hopefully encourage the Government to pull its six and five legislation currently before the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, perhaps I could direct my question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: There he is!


Harvie Andre: Oh, here comes the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Walter David Baker: Bolt the door behind you!

January 25, 1983
Oral Questions


Mr. Crosbie:: Good old swinging door!


Mr. Hees:: Close the door, John!


Harvie Andre: During his recent junket to Saudi Arabia, the Minister of State for International Trade was quoted as saying that a drop in world crude oil prices would have disastrous consequences for the Canadian economy. Ele could have been thinking about a number of things, but he was undoubtedly concerned about the effect of dropping crude oil prices on offshore exploration, particularly on the East Coast.
Given the fact that oil and gas exploration, particularly East Coast offshore exploration, is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal economic outlook, what steps is the Minister planning on taking to ensure that this new hope for the future is not lost as exploration slows down in an inevitable response to crude oil prices, prices much less than were predicted by the Minister's predecessor and much less than are economic under current fiscal and regulatory regimes?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, at this time we have an agreement with some oil companies to do some drilling off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Of course, in order to achieve the goals to which the Hon. Member referred, it would be very useful to be able to come to an agreement with the Government of Newfoundland. We were supposed to meet today, but, unfortunately, they have not shown up.


Walter David Baker: They did not show up?


REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN LEGISLATION
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the legislation governing offshore frontier exploration is the Canada Oil and Gas Act which, like the rest of the National Energy Program, was based on assumptions which are turning out to be totally wrong. Surely if the Canada Oil and Gas Act was appropriate for the assumptions that underlined it, it must be malappropriate or inappropriate for the actual real world situation which exists today.
Will the Minister wait for a curtailment on East Coast exploration prior to acting, or will he give a commitment to the House to act now, to put in the changes now, before East Coast exploration joins the long line of casualties, such as the tarsands plants and so on, which are a result of government mismanagement? Will he not act now, before we see that curtailment of this bright hope?


Walter David Baker: Open the door.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have not received any indication from anyone that the agreement which we have signed with the industries drilling off the coast of Nova Scotia, for example, will not be kept, that they will not follow up with the commitment they made to both Governments. There is no reason for me to believe that they will not fulfil their obligations because of the present OPEC situation. As I say, the best tool in ensuring development off the coast of Newfoundland
would be to have an agreement with the Province. I have worked very hard in the last three months in order to achieve it. I am very disappointed, considering the agreement that we were to meet this afternoon in Montreal, that they have not come up.


Erik Nielsen: It is the weather.


PRICES PAID BY CONSUMERS
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the disaster of falling crude oil prices predicted by the Minister of State for International Trade could be accurate with regard to the effect on Governement revenues which will be disastrously short of predictions. It could be right in terms of its effect on exploration, particularly offshore frontier, if the Minister does not act. However, it is an ill wind which does not blow some good, and at least the consumers should expect to pay less for gasoline and heating oil if world crude oil prices decrease.
In the United States, Americans, whose Government does not claim to protect them from high prices, are paying less for gasoline and heating oil than are Canadians, whose Government claims to be protecting them from high world prices. When can Canadian consumers get the benefit of this international situation? When will the Government live up to its election promises?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to reply to the question by saying, as I said yesterday in the House, that there is a break, a variation in the price of oil in Canada, depending on the Province where one lives. In some Provinces, like Alberta, there is no sales tax, while in Quebec, for example, and other Provinces, there is a huge provincial sales tax which makes a big difference in the price.
The Hon. Member is proposing some change in the agreement with the Provinces at this time, but he should check with the authorities in his own Province of Alberta, who stated yesterday they are not interested in any change at all.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, concerns the heavy water plants in Nova Scotia, operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources listening? Are you there?
I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about the heavy water plants operated by Atomic Energy of Canada in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. The Minister
January 25, 1983

knows what havoc would be wrought by the closure of this plant-
[Editor's Note: A disturbance having been created in the Public Gallery.]


Madam Speaker:: Order! Order!


Howard Edward Crosby: Does this count on my time?
[Editor's Note: And the disturbance continuing.]


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order!


Howard Edward Crosby: One thing we must make clear in this Chamber is that if we are allowed to function as parliamentarians without outside interference, aided and abetted by the group to my left, nothing will happen in the name of democracy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as he now knows, concerning the heavy water plants in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. If the plants are closed 700 people or more will be thrown out of their employment and havoc will be wrought in Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will see that these plants will remain open, but if they are to close, does the Government have a program or plan for alternate employment for those persons directly or indirectly affected?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that we are very much aware of the problem that the closing of these two heavy water plants might cause in this area. That is why the Government is looking at some other sort of solution than closing them. At this time we are having discussions with Atomic Energy of Canada to see what are the prospects of selling more heavy water, which would permit them to keep these plants open and, if we cannot keep them open, to try to find some alternative. We are taking the problem very seriously, as the Hon. Member is, and we will do our best to find an adequate solution.


USE OF COAL TO PRODUCE OIL
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, on the question of alternative employment for persons whose employment might be lost through the closure of the heavy water plants in Cape Breton, may I ask the Minister is he aware of a program or project by Scotia Coal Synfuels which would result in using Nova Scotia coal to produce oil, with the assistance and use of natural gas? Is the Minister aware of that project, which I understand is headed by Alastair Gillespie, and will he assure the House that the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who partly caused the energy problem in Canada, will not be called upon to correct it, and be the source of this alternate employment in Nova Scotia?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am certainly aware of the project. My Department is paying for it.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well. In the fall of 1981 the Government's budget clearly pinned the whole fiscal future of the country on OPEC's continual increase of energy prices. The Government finally admitted last spring that its calculations in terms of anticipated revenue were out by some $25 billion. The disarray demonstrated by OPEC the other day clearly means that these calculations are out by many more billions of dollars. Will the Minister give the House a carefully worded and accurate update on the calculation of the revenue loss to the people of Canada? Is it now $30 billion, $35 billion, or what is the figure?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it would be entirely premature to try to answer the question put by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, because as yet, not all the consequences of yesterday's decision-or the lack thereof-by the OPEC countries are known. In the weeks or months to come, we shall see at what level the world oil price will stabilize, and at that time we shall be able to make our estimates accordingly. I believe last year's figures are still valid today, because the world price has been fairly stable during the past eight months.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it seems that everyone in the oil business but the Minister knows that the most recent estimates that he has made are wrong, that he is out by many billions of dollars once again, and that he has an obligation to this House, to explain soon just how many billions of dollars the Government has miscalculated.


DECREASE IN OPEC OIL PRICES
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to go to my
supplementary question. It is quite evident that if prices remain stable between now and July 1 the agreement entered into between the federal Government and the Provinces will mean that the anticipated increase of $4 per barrel on July 1 will not be taking place. Given the needs of Canadian industries and Canadian consumers at this time, will the Minister guarantee to these groups that they will obtain exactly proportional benefits from declines in price increases by OPEC? Will he make sure that we get a reciprocal decline in prices for Canadian consumers and Canadian industries if the price goes down?

January 25, 1983
Presence in Gallery
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, with respect to the price of oil in Canada, the policy is well known. For imported oil and new oil the price is based on the international price. For old oil it is 75 per cent of the international price. Everything is based on the fluctuations in the international market, and the prices will have to be adjusted accordingly.


John Edward Broadbent: I take it that means there will be a direct relationship between the decline in OPEC prices and the decline in prices to Canadian consumers and industry.


THE ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: My last question is for the Minister of Finance. His predecessor abandoned the Liberal commitment to an industrial strategy in the fall of 1981 when he put all his fiscal expectations into the OPEC basket anticipating revenue increases in Canada virtually exclusively being dependent upon oil price hikes by OPEC. We have now seen the disaster of that miscalculation, the disaster of abandoning the commitment that was made to an industrial strategy.
In the forthcoming budget will the Minister assure the House that this mistake will not be repeated, that we will not continue to lose the thousands of jobs and suffer the loss of revenue that came from that OPEC miscalculation, and will he live up to the 1980 election promise made by the Prime Minister and give to this country, at long last, the industrial strategy that we need?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I cannot agree with the statement by the Leader of the New Democratic Party as it applies to my predecessor. In the November 1981 budget, my predecessor did not base his entire economic strategy on a given projection of oil prices. As far as the contents of my upcoming budget are concerned, I would ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party to be patient, and I am sure that when the budget is brought down, he will be pleased with what is in the budget and will support it wholeheartedly.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF YUKON MINISTER OF JUSTICE, HON CLARKE ASHLEY
Madam Speaker:: 1 would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Clarke Ashley who is the Minister of Justice in the Yukon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Minister responsible for the Status of Women stated in this House that it was her view, and I quote, "that the unemployment figures for women have not risen substantially". I am sure the Minister is aware that last year the unemployment rate for women went up 41 per cent, the highest since the Depression of the thirties. Does the Minister agree with his colleague, and is that unemployment rate unacceptable to the Government?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, it is my reading of Hansard that the Minister of State responsible for the Status of Women did not say that it was acceptable. She simply pointed out to the Members of the Opposition that, in fact, the rate of unemployment for women has not risen as dramatically or as drastically as in other groups. It has remained relatively stable. As we have pointed out in this House many times, the fact that there are high rates of unemployment is unacceptable to this Government and that is why we are working very hard to change this.


RETRAINING OF WOMEN
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, if the Minister again consults Hansard he will see that the quote is clear. It says:
-the unemployment figures for women have not risen substantially.
That is actually the quote. The Minister will also recall that recently there was a report from Heather Menzies with respect to "CHIPS" and "Future Work for Women". Ms. Menzies in that report indicated, by the way, that by the end of the decade we would have close to a million women unemployed unless we paid attention to our training programs. In the face of that, the Minister of State responsible for the Status of Women said yesterday:
Many unemployed women can't learn new skills because they aren't educated enough to be retrained-
Is it the view of the Government that these women cannot be retrained, or are we again being treated to more uninformed and insensitive remarks from the Minister responsible for the status of women?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, I should like to clarify that statement and elaborate on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: From my conversations with a great many people, including the head of the task force, Dr. Margaret Fulton, and all of those very much involved in the retraining of
January 25, 1983

women, the problem is very fundamental. The teaching of math and sciences in the elementary and secondary schools has not been followed as it should be in the training of women. They are, therefore, unable to take advantage of the training programs that we, the federal Government, offer to them. The provincial Governments have failed in their responsibilities to women.


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, is the Minister actually saying that because in an earlier period of their lives these women, not having proper math and physics training, are not able to have retraining programs from the federal Government, and that they will be written off?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, it is not what I am saying.


David Edward Crombie: It is what you are saying.


Judith A. Erola: What I am saying is that it is impossible for women to take advantage of the training programs that are available to them because they have not had the proper educational background. I suggest the Hon. Member look at the Science Council of Canada's recently released report "Who Turns The Wheels". It states specifically the very real problems of women in this country.


REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN RETRAINING PROGRAMS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State responsible for the status of women.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of State said that the state of preparation of unemployed women, and I use her words, prevents those women from taking advantage of federal programs. What changes does the Minister intend in federal programs to allow those unemployed women to take advantage of the retraining programs and not simply be written off as uneducable, as the Minister of State tried to do yesterday?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister of Employment and Immigration to answer the second part of the question. The first part of the question is very real-how do we address the fundamental problems of women in this country? I appeal to the women of this country to go their Provinces and their educators and say to them, "Give us the proper training in the beginning", and then we will finish the job at the federal level.


PROVISION OF RETRAINING PROGRAMS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State cannot have it both ways. She cannot say that there is a problem caused in the past by provincial education systems that can only be solved by the federal Government, and then go to say that the refusal of the
Oral Questions
federal Government to solve that problem is the fault of the Provinces. She cannot have it both ways. Since she has now asked the women of Canada to set her policy and said that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will announce it, will the Minister of Employment and Immigration answer two questions.
First, the Minister of State responsible for the status of women said that a 41 per cent increase in unemployment among women is, to quote her, "not substantial . What in the name of God is substantial if 41 per cent unemployment is not?
Second, will the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell this House of Commons what the Goverment is going to do, and precisely when it is going to do it, to make its retraining programs deal with the problems of women who are now prevented by the Government's own policy from taking advantage of those programs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition has been so distracted by his political problems in his own caucus that he has not been aware of what actions this House and this Government have taken. I would like to point out, for example, that when this Government came into office the Government of Canada offered something like 14 Outreach Programs directed toward the needs of women. We now have 32 programs available. We have more than doubled the number of programs that his Government offered to enable women to get into our training programs.
Further, he may not be aware of this, but last year this Government passed a National Training Act which provides special allowances for women to move into non-traditional work. It provides special grants to non-profit, community and business organizations to offer special training programs for women in non-traditional work. Just last week it provided $41 million to modernize the training facilities across the country in order to provide for those new training places. I think the Leader of the Opposition is in desperate need of retraining.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT PLANS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as one of my colleagues pointed out, I will do considerably better in Winnipeg than the Minister will.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I regard the matter as being very serious when the Minister of State responsible for the status of women says that 41 per cent unemployment among women is not substantial and when she admits that the present arrangement of her policies, and I use her words, "prevents women from taking advantage of retraining programs". In other words, the status

January 25, 1983
Oral Questions
quo of yesterday prevented those women from taking advantage of retraining. What is the Government going to do about that? Obviously the changes the Minister referred to are not enough. According to his seatmate, they prevent women from retraining. What is the Government going to do to provide retraining to those women so they can get back into the work force and play a role as equals in the growth of Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it again strikes me as exceedingly strange that the Leader of the Opposition, who in the past has prided himself as being the great defender of federal-provincial jurisdiction, is not aware that in this very critical area we share jurisdiction. The provincial Governments have responsibility for providing basic education for their populations, and the federal Government, through its direct grants, through the National Training Act, provides for higher skilled training. By the way, to clarify the statement made by his colleague yesterday, we provided over a million additional hours of training this past year in the high-skill trades in order to provide for the kind of concentration and focus in those areas of training that are required to make a more productive economy.
This Government is taking action. We are concerned about the problems of women. That is why we have introduced a number of direct employment programs in which women participate up to 40 per cent or 50 per cent, unlike his Government which cancelled all the direct employment programs.


REQUEST FOR RULE CHANGES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 would like the Minister to take his responsibility seriously. He knows that his Government designs the training programs. He further knows that his colleague said yesterday that the rules of the Liberal Government prevent women from being engaged in those training programs. The Liberal rules prevent women from being retrained. That is what the Minister of State said yesterday. What is the Liberal Government going to do to change the Liberal rules?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would again ask the Leader of the Opposition, does he not understand what this Parliament has passed? He seems incapable of reading Hansard one day after it is printed. The Minister of State did not say that Liberal rules prevent women from taking training. What she was saying is that the lack of proper grounding in the vital areas of mathematics and science, during their primary and secondary school education, makes it more difficult for them.
What we have introduced in our National Training Act are the kinds of programs which will enable women to get the remedial training and the kind of counselling and guidance which will allow them access into our programs. I would be very glad to provide the Hon. Leader of the Opposition with
full information on that program so that he can bring himself up to date.


PRIVACY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the protection of privacy now lags far behind available computer technology and that an unprecedented amount of information about Canadians using electronic banking, home shopping services, computerized home security services, and so on, will shortly rest in computer banks, will the Minister say whether he is giving consideration to ways of preventing misuse of that information? In particular, will he say whether the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner are under active consideration?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I can indeed confirm that this is the case. As a result of the recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner last year that a new offence be created for the misuse of personal information, we have engaged in a very serious study of this issue. This is part of the general review of the criminal law process which is taking place. 1 hope to be in a position, perhaps even sometime later this year, to announce our policy in that respect.


BROADCASTING
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. The Minister is aware that the CRTC has been asked to amend the broadcasting regulations to give the same protection to women as is accorded to members of racial ands religious groups. It has also been asked to see that the same guidelines are applied to pay television as to radio and ordinary television broadcasting. If the CRTC will not act to prevent this kind of abuse, is the Minister prepared to introduce an amendment to the Broadscasting Act to see that Members of racial and religious groups as well as both sexes are protected against abuse?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the CRTC has very specific responsibilities under the Broadcasting Act. As the Hon. Member knows, these representations were made by her to Members on this side of the House and, obviously, to the CRTC only a few days ago. The concern of all Parliamentarians was conveyed to the CRTC by myself. I expect the CRTC is considering these matters at the moment and will be in a position to state its own position in the very near future.
January 25, 1983


INVITATION TO ATTEND SHOWING OF PLAYBOY TAPE
Lynn McDonald: So far, Madam Speaker, the CRTC has not seen fit to act, although asked to do so on many ocasions, and a number of months ago.
I can certainly assure the House that my Party would be prepared to support swift passage of an amendment to the Act. We can amend the Act, the CRTC can only amend the regulations.
Will the Minister attend a showing at 3.30 this afternoon in the West Block of a tape of what is now available from Playboy network in the United States? I have invited all Members of the House and the press to see this tape because I think it will show most clearly that what we are talking about is not simply adult movies so-called, not simply erotica, but really severe abuse of women, and a great deal of cruelty and brutality toward women.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, a number of Members on this side of the House have indicated a very real concern to me on this important issue. I met with a number of them last night and 1 know they do indeed share the type of concerns expressed by the Hon. Member, and intend to assist this afternoon.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. As the Minister knows, the Supreme Court of Canada today rendered its decision in the Westendorp case, striking down Calgary's by-law dealing with solicitation for the purposes of prostitution. In that judgment the Minister will know that the Chief Justice of Canada has made it clear that municipalities under the present constitutional arrangement from Halifax across to Vancouver have very little room to manoeuvre in the fight against soliciting. Now that it appears by virtue of this Court ruling that the ball is directly back in the federal Government's court, is the Minister prepared to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code to make effective the laws against solicitation for the purpose of prostitution?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member will recall, because I believe he supported it, this issue was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for their guidance to the Government last year. We are, of course, eagerly awaiting that guidance. I may say our hope had been that this Calgary by-law would be upheld. We did not oppose the by-law. And since the judgment has been rendered today 1 have asked my Department to investigate any ways that may exist to enable us either to delegate such kind of power to municipalities which wish to have it or through some
Oral Questions
other way to make available to the municipalities this type of control over the use of streets.


DEFINITION OF SOLICITATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister will be aware, by virtue of reports from his colleagues on his side of the House, that the conclusion of the Standing Committee at this point is inconclusive. Only one Member of his Party, the Hon. Member for Sarnia, was in favour of amendments to the Criminal Code. The New Democratic Party was in favour of legalizing prostitution. We had anticipated the decision here, and said that we wanted to have amendments to the Criminal Code to make it effective.
The Minister cannot avoid his responsibility any further. I woulld like to know whether he is prepared to make amendments to the Criminal Code in terms of a new definition of solicitation, including customers as well as the prostitute, making both males and females subject to charge, and redefining "a public place". Will the Minister not take action now to aid the municipalities across the country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I find it very strange that the Hon. Member, who has responsibility as a Member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for this advice to the Government, would now be asking us to make a decision without reference to the views of the Committee. The Committee has presented no report. He may rightly indicate the Committee Members are divided in their views. So is the country, Madam Speaker, and it was precisely because of this that we asked the Committee members for their best views. The responsibility is theirs; it is not ours.


INDUSTRY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. The Minister will know that the petrochemical industry is having severe difficulties. He also will know that this industry uses only 5 per cent of the total oil and gas resources in Canada, but adds up to 27 times their value in finished products. Is the Minister aware of the difficulties that are persisting, and is he aware of the fact that the revenue and taxation policies which have been implemented by the federal Government have already exceeded those levels which were expected in 1985, which has made many of the companies non-competitive? If he is aware of these things, what is he prepared to do about it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, questions with respect to the petrochemical industry are normally handled by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but there is a component of my Department which deals with that. I suppose what I can

January 25, 1983
Oral Questions
say at this time is that the Government is studying the problem. We are aware of the problem, and it is not an easy one.


REQUEST FOR TAX CUT
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. Understanding the revenue and tax policies on energy of the Liberal Government, the Minister will understand that the petroleum compensation charge of about $7 per barrel, and the natural gas and gas liquids tax which are being imposed on this industry now, are the reason that they are non-competitive and face real danger in terms of survival.
If the Minister would eliminate those two portions, the petroleum compensation charge and natural gas and gas liquids tax, on just that 5 per cent of the energy resources which Canada uses for petrochemicals, then he would lose $125 million of tax revenue, but he would achieve an additional $300 million in increased personal income tax, and another $200 million in retail tax, sales tax, and unemployment insurance benefits which he would not have to pay. In addition to that, there would be corporate taxes. There would be a net benefit, therefore, of at least $400 million. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would consider removing those taxes on just that 5 per cent of the energy resources which are used for that industry, thereby helping the industry to survive, creating jobs, and reducing the federal deficit by $400 million?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, a number of factors are involved in the difficult situation now facing the petrochemical industry. According to the Hon. Member, the gas-based petrochemical industry is not facing the same difficulties as the oil-based industry. International factors are also involved, at this time, and I think the Hon. Member was somewhat hasty in his analysis of the situation.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure many Members of this House noticed some of the headlines the Minister got yesterday, such things as "Leakage Turns Water into 'Toxic Brew'", "Ottawa Starts Study of Poisons in Water", and "5 Million Lives at Risk". However, I do not think too many Members of this House are aware of the fact that these same kinds of headlines have been coming out as the result of studies since 1973, particularly in relation to the S-Site Dump and others along the Niagara. It seems to me that adding another volume to this coroner's inquest is just a
continuation of the kind of criminal negligence with which various corporations are treating the Great Lakes water supply.
Will the Minister tell the House whether or not he has received one shred of evidence from the U.S. adminstration that they intend to spend one dollar in the coming year on cleaning up S-Site, or are we once again doing all kinds of scientific work on behalf of a bankrupt administration in the United States?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the information which I announced yesterday is relatively new information which is coming to us-the studies of the S-Site Dump in terms of the potential migration to Canadian territory from fill on the American side. This is new and disturbing information.
As far as the second part of the Hon. Member's question is concerned, yes, through the Niagara Toxics Committee, established well over a year ago and which includes the Consultation and Liaison Committee, there are indications that the American Government is taking this issue very seriously. The whole matter of cleaning up the S-Site, as perhaps the Hon. Member knows, or certainly should know, is now a question which has been looked at in terms of negotiations preliminary to the court process in the United States.


REQUEST THAT DELEGATION APPEAR BEFORE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, there is a real question of credibility here. Just recently the Environmental Baseline Study on the Niagara River came out and Dr. Berkes, who teaches environmental studies at Brock University, had the following to say concerning that:
Assurances that drinking water meet government standards are misleading and irresponsible.
Almost two years ago an NDP Committee travelled to New York State and were the First people ever to meet the responsible New York legislators. We know it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up the S-Site Dump. I would like the Minister to explain to this House why Canada is spending millions of dollars doing studies on this carcinogenic and mutagenic material going into our drinking water? It is from U.S. chemical companies, it is on U.S. soil, and Reagan will not do anything about it. Why are we spending the money? Why don't we send an official delegation down before Congress and tell Congress how we feel about being poisoned?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Perhaps if the hon. gentleman had listened to my first answer he would realize it is not a phenomenon which is occurring entirely on United States soil, but it is now invading Canadian territory as well. That is why we are doing research on Canadian territory, to assess the impact so we will be better able to respond.
January 25, 1983

The hon. gentleman claims his Party was first off the mark on that, and that is simply not true, Madam Speaker. There are Members in this House-I could cite the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls-who, long before the NDP became interested in this matter, were exploring it with officials in the U.S. The NDP is jumping on a bandwagon which has long left.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence who stated in the House yesterday that almost half of the new fighter aircraft work would be allotted to the Province of Quebec and the remaining 50 per cent would be spread amongst the other nine Provinces. Can the Minister justify such a discriminatory arrangement?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman ought to have followed the dossier a bit more closely. Had he been able to read the French press in the Province of Quebec he would have seen that the criticism from that Province is indeed that Quebec is not getting the number of offsets from the F-18 Program that the Quebec aerospace infrastructure would justify according to the allegations. I point out to the hon. gentleman that I would be pleased to provide him with the full figures relating to the projected offsets, including those for the Province of Manitoba which is doing well under the F-18 Program.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I have studied the Minister's answers of yesterday, and that is why I am asking the question today.


REQUEST THAT MANITOBA GET PERCENTAGE OF WORK
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, as 10 per cent of the aerospace industry is in the Province of Manitoba, would the Minister give us a firm commitment that 10 per cent of the NFA work will go to the aerospace industry in Manitoba?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the Government has never indicated, or at least offered any guarantees for regional distribution of the offsets of the F-18 to any region of the country. What the Government has done is included two terms within the contract, one involving the Blade and Vane plant that has gone into Bro-mont; the other was with reference to a numerical controlled machining centre that is going into Eastern Quebec as well. Those are the only undertakings that were contractually provided for by the Government.
The balance of the offsets will be determined, Madam Speaker, based upon the ability of individual companies within
Oral Questions
Canada to compete not only with other companies in Canada but indeed in North America.


CLOSURE OF SATELLITE ICE TRACKING STATION AT ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the Minister tell the House why the Government has taken a decision to close the satellite tracking station outside St. John's which will leave a very serious gap in our search and rescue capability in terms of, for example, tracking ice and getting immediate data on ice movements which seriously impact on the safety of our offshore workers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, there was a problem of costs involved in that. I am informed by the officials that the system we have will be adequate for the supervision needed, but we are looking into the problem at this time. There is some discussion about alternative solutions to the problem and I will advise if we can change the decision. So far the decision was made because of much higher costs to operate than before.


JUSTIFICATION FOR CLOSURE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, is the Minister aware that a senior official of Petro-Canada has described that station as "a necessary element to the safety and efficiency of frontier exploration"?
Can the Minister also explain to the House, when he talks about cost efficiency, how the Government can justify closing down this very important tracking station while at the same time planning on spending over $1 million to build a tracking station in Thailand?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, the Shoe Cove installation was designed originally to receive signals from SEASAT. The SEASAT installation has disappeared, and it is in fact obsolete, to be replaced by a better system which will provide better services.


Charles Joseph Clark: In Thailand.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who will recall answering a question of mine some six weeks ago by stating that the S-Area does not constitute a threat to the quality of the drinking water of some four million Canadians.

January 25, 1983
Oral Questions
On what basis would the Minister make such a statement to this House, and then yesterday issue a press release indicating that this S-Area is somewhat of a new and pressing problem which should be eradicated almost immediately? This is also in view of the answer he has just given, since he has had knowledge of it for some considerable length of time.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I would have to check exactly what I did reply to the Hon. Member but, as far as I can recall, the answer I gave him then is still accurate. There is no evidence whatsoever that the standards of drinking water in the Niagara River or Lake Ontario are beyond those which are established as being safe. There is no indication in the present situation of any conflict with the existing safe water guidelines. That does not mean we should not be concerned about leakages or the migration of fill. There are problems which should concern us. The question the Hon. Member posed, if I remember correctly, was in terms of safety levels, and I think the answer I gave to him is one which I would repeat now.


REASONS FOR MINISTER'S POSITION
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister who said that the information he received from his officials was that there was no danger to quality supply in this situation. If he is not serious about the problem why did he make this expression yesterday in his press release? If he is serious, then why did he say that he would simply express his concerns to American authorities so that they, in turn, will keep his concerns in mind when they negotiate a settlement with the contaminators, knowing full well that we have had little benefit from U.S. actions in the past?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, that is not what I said yesterday. We indicated that not only are we going to continue our representations to the American authorities in a diplomatic way, as we have in the past, but we are going to continue to deal with the International Joint Commission on these affairs. We are using the Niagara Toxics Committee and the consultation committee to bring our concerns to the attention of the United States. We are increasing our own spending in terms of the Departments of Environment, in terms of Health and Welfare, and in terms of fisheries and Oceans to examine the problem. What is new in this situation is not changes in the quality of water; what is new is the evidence of migration, underground, of potentially dangerous products to Canadian territory. That is the new element of the situation which I discussed yesterday. I brought forward an action program which will help us deal with that.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, January 24, 1983 and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege following certain events which took place during Question Period. It is my understanding that recently photographers were allowed into the House of Commons for the purpose of taking pictures of what takes place on the floor of the House. It is my understanding that photographers are restricted to taking pictures for that purpose.
Today, a group of young Canadians individually voiced their anger and outrage over Canada's complicity in the testing of the Cruise missile. Following that peaceful protest, which I at least, as an individual Member, support-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -the photographer turned his camera up to the gallery and started to take pictures of members of the public in the gallery. I would ask-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Of course, the Hon. Member knows that this is not a question of privilege; it is a matter of the administration of the affairs of the House of Commons. I can assure the Hon. Member that if he is right in saying that the camera was turned toward the galleries and such photographs are published, then as Speaker I will make any disposition that may be required. The photographers are sufficiently warned of their latitude in the House. Until now they have adhered strictly to the rules we have set down for them.


POINT OF ORDER
Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the proceedings of this House were interrupted during Question Period today. I think it is more unfortunate that one Party in this House applauded this kind of disruption.


Walter David Baker: Which Party?
January 25, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. At no place in the Standing Orders does it say that Members cannot applaud at any time during the course of debate in the House. The Hon. Member must realize, therefore, that he does not have a point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I consider that my rights as a Member were breached during today's oral question period. I feel that an unfortunate precedent has been created here. I shall explain.
During oral question period, Madam Speaker, an Hon. Member, possibly with an interest in a cablevision company, was distributing in the House invitations to all Members for a special meeting at 3.30 when a television screening would be held. Following distribution of this written invitation, the Hon. Member put a question to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), who is responsible for the CRTC.
Madam Speaker, Government Members have commitments, since we are involved in running this country, and we cannot attend a meeting on a few minutes' notice. However, I would not want the press to interpret the absence of some Liberal Members as a lack of interest in the problems raised in the message contained in the invitation.
I fail to see how the desired objective could be attained by this action, and I am therefore registering this complaint. In my opinion, this is a breach of the rights of the Members of this House.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, on the same point, it would certainly be possible to arrange other showings of this tape for people who are not available at 3.30.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I understand the point made by the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy), but unfortunately he is factually incorrect. To begin with, the suggestion that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), distributed the material is incorrect. I distributed the material.
Second, I did so after consulting the House Leader for the Conservative Party and the Whip for the Liberal Party to ascertain whether they had any objection to making the invitation available to each Member during the time that the
Macdonald Commission
House was sitting. Both indicated their willingness to have the material distributed.
The invitations had previously been sent out in the in-House mail but we were afraid they might not reach each of the offices in time. 1 suggest to the Hon. Member that he should check his facts.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: I want to make it clear to the Hon. Member that the Chief of the Distribution Office had warned the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) that he would not be able to have her invitations distributed by the services of the House. However, as was pointed out by some Hon. Members, the invitations were distributed by Members themselves, and I think I saw one of the pages putting them on some of the desks. Now I understand that all of this is the result of consultation among the party whips.
I must warn Hon. Members that the only way to reach Hon. Members and distribute documents is through our mail services, and I would ask Hon. Members from now on, despite any consultations that may take place among party whips, to refrain from making use of the pages and House services and also to refrain from distributing messages in the House themselves.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, in both official languages.


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table the names of three new commissioners of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada.

January 25, 1983
Petitions


PETITIONS
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on behalf of nearly 4,500 petitioners from the riding of Labelle and the general area, who are outraged by North American military intervention in Central America and are demanding the liberation of the people of these countries. Although I do not necessarily agree with some of the terms used in this petition, I believe it is my duty as the Member for the riding of Labelle to provide a forum for the views of my constituents in this assembly, the highest court in the land.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting to the House a petition on behalf of 80 constituents who are members of the Bruce Peninsula Sportsmen's Association. The petitioners have serious concern that the proposals signed by the Ontario Government and Indian Bank representatives might limit the future of sports fishing in Ontario. The petition requests of the federal Government that:
The upcoming agreement for native fishing rights not be signed until full disclosure of the agreement to the public is made. Also that reasonable time be allowed for public input.
I hope that the petition is in order and that the Chair will see fit to refer it to the appropriate standing committee.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition from the constituency of Grey-Simcoe and surrounding area, signed by 52 individuals who are deeply concerned and distressed by recent actions of the Government of Canada to try and prevent the reorganization of a new parent company for the Bell Canada group called Bell Canada Enterprises Incorporated.
The petitioners have correctly stated that such an undertaking has been approved by Bell shareholders and the Superior Court of Quebec. They point out as well that it has been acknowledged by a wide range of Cabinet Ministers and senior Government officials that it is a move in the right direction to provide the corporation with an improvement in its structure. The petitioners are vehemently opposed to the Government's appeal of the Quebec Superior Court decision and call for the withdrawal of the inappropriate, unnecessary and costly delay resulting from a CRTC inquiry.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 22 citizens of the Winnipeg area. The purpose of the petition is to express the clear and strong opposition of the citizens of the area to Bill C-85, the legislation to establish Canagrex. In
particular, the petitioners protest the buy and sell provisions of Canagrex, as well as its wide-ranging powers.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,169, 4,536, 4,538, and 4,590.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	For each calendar year since 1977, how many Canadian residents with landed immigrant status, formerly citizens of Czechoslovakia, availed themselves of the offer made to them on March 16, 1977 by the Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and applied to Czechoslovak authorities for "regularization" of their legal relationship towards Czechoslovakia?
2.	For the same period, how many of the residents were, at the time of their applications to the Czechoslovak authorities (a) Canadian citizens (b) employees of the Canadian Government (c) employees of provincial Governments (d) employees of Crown corporations and Crown agencies?
3.	For the same period, how many applications by Canadian residents to the authorities of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic for "regularization" of their legal relationship towards Czechoslovakia were approved by the Czechoslovak authorities and how many Canadian residents were (a) released from Czechoslovak citizenship (b) issued Czechoslovak passports?
4.	For the same period, how many Canadian residents who were issued Czechoslovak passports were (a) Canadian citizens (b) employees of the Canadian Government (c) employees of provincial Governments (d) employees of Crown corporations and Crown agencies?
5.	For the same period, how many Canadian residents with landed immigrant status, who were formerly citizens of Czechoslovakia, travelled to Czechoslovakia and (a) how many used Canadian passports (b) how many used Czechoslovak passports for travel to Czechoslovakia and how many used Canadian passports to return to Canada?
6.	For the same period, how many Canadian residents with landed immigrant status, formerly residents of Czechoslovakia, were formally and unilaterally deprived of their Czechoslovak citizenship because of their activities against the regimes of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, its representatives and its allies?
7.	For each calendar year since 1975 (a) how many Canadian visitor visas were issued to citizens of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (b) how many visitors actually came to Canada from Czechoslovakia (c) how many of the visitors (i) applied for (ii) were granted landed immigrant status?
8.	For each calendar year since 1977, how many visitors to Canada from Czechoslovakia were visiting Canadian residents who had "regularized" their legal relationship with the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic?
9.	Is there any evidence of foreign diplomatic representatives manipulating members of Canada's ethnic communities by threats of reprisals against relatives or friends in the country of origin, as referred to in the McDonald Commission 1981 Report, 2-1, pp. 66, 415 and 432 and, if so, in each case (a) on what date did the event take place (b) what foreign diplomats were involved (c) what was the disposition of the case?
10.	Did the Solicitor General state in the House of Commons on November 19, 1981, that he was aware "of particular cases where Canadians of dual nationality have been pressured by foreign governments in one way or another" and, if so, in each case (a) what was the nature of such pressures (b) on what date did the pressuring take place (c) what foreign governments were involved (d) what steps were taken by the Canadian Government against such practices?
January 25, 1983

11.	Does the Canadian Government negotiate with the Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic about the problem of dual citizenship and, if so (a) on what date did the negotiations start (b) what are the concrete results to date (c) on what date does the Government expect the negotiations to be concluded and in what form?
12.	Is it now or was it the policy of the Security Service of the RCMP to keep track of Canadian residents' travel to Eastern European countries and, if so (a) on what date did the policy start (b) what countries of Eastern Europe are or were the subject of such policy?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	This information is not available. Under the terms of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which both Canada and Czechoslovakia are party, Czechoslovak consular officials are free to communicate with and to have consular access to individuals who are still deemed to be citizens of Czechoslovakia on matters which fall directly under their consular jurisdiction. This implies that in so doing, Czechoslovak consular officials are under no obligation to notify the Canadian Government of their legitimate contacts with Canadian-Czechoslovak dual citizens. At the same time, Canadian-Czechoslovak dual nationals are not obliged to notify the Canadian Government of their contacts with Czechoslovak consular officials. Therefore, unless the information is volunteered, which it usually is not, it is not possible for the Canadian Government to compile data on those Canadian Czechoslovak dual citizens who wish to comply with the Czechoslovak regulation.
2.	See reply to part 1.
3.	See reply to part 1.
4.	See reply to part 1.
5.	All Canadian citizens and residents are free to leave Canada at will, and no person is required to inform the Government of his destination on leaving the country. No data on the movements of departing persons are maintained. It is therefore not possible to know accurately how many Canadian residents of Czechoslovak or other origin visited Czechoslovakia in any given period. It should be noted, however, that a landed immigrant in Canada who has not been granted Canadian citizenship does not have the right to obtain or travel on a Canadian passport.
6.	This information is not available because neither the Czechoslovak Government nor the individual being deprived of his citizenship has any obligation to inform the Canadian Government when such an event occurs. Although the Government is aware of a small number of such cases where the individual involved has advised the Department of External Affairs, no reliable estimate can be made as to the total number of persons affected by such decrees.
7.	(a) Visitor visas issued to Czech nationals:
1975-	figure not available
1976-	3,757
1977-	3,395
Order Paper Questions
1978-	3,027
1979-	3,114
1980-	3,312
1981-	3,425
(b) Visitor entries to Canada:*
1975-	4,046
1976-	4,481
1977-	3,864
1978-	3,887
1979-	4,007
1980-	4,109
1981-	4,597
*Visitor entries for the years 1975-1981 are higher than the number of visas issued because visas were not required for visitors entering Canada from the U.S.A. until 1978 and because persons entering Canada in transit do not require
visas.
(c) (i) and (ii) There is no specific tabulation maintained of the number of persons of a given nationality who seek landed status after entering the country as visitors. Instead, landing statistics reflect only the total numbers of persons in a given nationality who were granted immigrant status in each calendar year. Landings of Czech nationals for the years 1975-1981 are as follows:
1975-	161
1976-	145
1977-	136
1978-	86
1979-	89
1980-	172
1981-	1,078*
*The increase in landings in 1981 is a reflection of the SelfExile Designated Class Regulations created in 1979 which enable larger numbers of East Europeans to qualify for immigrant status.
8.	As noted in the reply to question 1, it is not possible for the Canadian Government to compile data on those Canadian-Czechoslovak citizens who choose to "regularize" their status vis-a-vis the Government of Czechoslovakia, and it therefore is not possible to determine the answer to this question.
9.	The Government recognizes that some members of Canada's ethnic communities, particularly those who have relatives in Communist countries, may be vulnerable to pressure from representatives of their native countries. When such cases come to the attention of Canadian authorities, appropriate action is taken. However, to reveal specifics of such cases could jeopardize the security of these individuals and their families.
10.	Yes, the Solicitor General made such a statement in the House of Commons on November 19, 1981. The Government considers, however, that to reveal the specifics of these cases

January 25, 1983
Order Paper Questions
could jeopardize the security of these individuals and their families.
11.	Yes. (a) October 27-29, 1980, (b) discussions are at a preliminary stage, (c) the second round of Consular discussions is likely to be held in the course of this year and it would be premature at this time to predict the outcome.
12.	In the Second Report of the Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Commissioners noted that "the Security Service has been known to collect systematically, information on all persons who travelled to Communist bloc countries" (p. 471). The Government considers that the disclosure of additional details would not be in the public interest.


Mr. Mazankowski: Did the Government organize the IMF Conference held in Toronto during September 1982 and, if so (a) what amount did it spend (b) how many Government employees or consultants were involved in organizing the Conference and for what period of time (c) how many persons attended the Conference on behalf of the Government and, in each case, what was his/her name and in what capacity did he/she attend?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
Government in co-operation with the secretariat of the two institutions organized the joint annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Toronto during September, 1982.
(a)	The total costs of the meetings to the federal Government are not yet available but are expected to be less than $6 million.
(b)	A total of 12 Government employees were involved in organizing the meetings: one person for two years, three people for 22 months, and the other eight people for six months, of which two months were on a full-time basis. An additional seven were seconded for periods of two weeks or less. In addition, nine local personnel were hired in Toronto for periods ranging from three to six weeks and one secretary was hired for six months. A total of 24 hostesses were hired for eight days during the meetings.
(c)	The official delegation was composed of the following people: the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance; the Hon. Mark MacGuigan, Secretary of State for External Affairs; the Hon. Pierre Bussieres, Minister of State for Finance; the Hon. Ed Lumley, Minister of State for International Trade; Mr. Douglas Fisher, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance; from Finance: Mr. Ian A. Stewart, Deputy Minister; Mr. Bernard J. Drabble, Associate Deputy Minister: Mr. G. E. Shannon, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Trade and Finance; Mr. Michael G. Kelly, Director, International Finance Division; Mr. John C. Coleman, Director, International Programs Division; Mr. Robert Pattillo, Press Secretary to the Minister
of Finance; Mr. Michael Gillan, Assistant to the Minister of Finance; Mr. Alain Dudoit, Senior Departmental Assistant to the Minister of Finance; Ms. Laurette Gauthier, Legislative Assistant to the Minister of Finance; Mr. D. Blake MacKenzie, International Finance Division (Delegation Secretary); from Bank of Canada: Mr. Gerald K. Bouey, Governor; Mr. D. J. R. Humphreys, Deputy Governor; Mr. Jacques Bussieres, Advisor; Ms. Dorothy Powell, Assistant Chief; from External Affairs: Mr. W. J. Jenkins, Assistant Deputy Minister, Sectoral and Economic Relations; Mr. Philip Somerville, General Economic Relations Division; Mr. Roy Culpeper, Development Assistance and Export Financing Policy Division; from CIDA: Mr. Marcel Masse, President; Mr. Jean-Marc Metivier, Director, Financial Institutions; Mr. Howard Smith, Multilateral Programs Branch. Not all of these delegates were present for the entire period of the meetings. In addition eight people from Ottawa served the delegation as assistants and secretaries. These figures do not include those participating in the Conference organization mentioned under (b) nor a number of officials who were involved in trade promotion and similar activities but did not attend the annual meetings.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Did the Government provide hospitality and entertainment during the IMF Conference in Toronto in September, 1982 and, if so, what was the total cost?
2.	For each event, such as a reception, dinner or party (a) for whom was it held (b) how many persons were in attendance (c) what entertainment/hospital-ity was provided (d) what was the cost?
3.	Were any events catered and, if so (a) by whom and at what cost (b) were tenders requested?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1.
The Government did provide hospitality and entertainment for the delegates to the joint annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development held in Toronto. The total cost was $288,359.
2. The events were as follows:
	Estimated	
Event	Attendance	CostPer Jacobsson lecture and reception Luncheon for spouses of all delegates	500	$ 5025(with fashion show)	673	22689Luncheon for governors' spouses Canadian gala and reception (variety	30	1273show of Canadian artists)	2000	131205Tour program for spouses	1993	49840
In addition gifts were provided to delegates and spouses at a cost of $55,303. Floral arrangements at the various receptions cost $1,763 and printing of programs, invitations, signs cost $21,261.
January 25, 1983

3. The luncheons were catered by the hotels where they were held. No tenders were sought; locations were selected on the basis of available facilities. The Per Jacobsson reception was catered by the University of Toronto where the lecture was held. The reception following the Canadian gala was catered by Winston's which submitted the lowest bid among several offered through the Thomson Hall administration.


Mr. Mazankowski: For (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) each month in 1982, how many Canadians received (i) unemployment insurance benefits (ii) the Guaranteed Income Supplement (iii) welfare payments to which the Government contributed?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and Statistics Canada as follows:
(i)	For 1980, 1981 and for each month in 1982 the unemployment insurance beneficiaries were as follows:
Unemployment Insurance Beneficiaries, by Month
1980	1981	1982January	824,885	873,775	1,077,960February	854,386	880,888	1,134,543March	840,173	862,962	1,150,537April	813,931	800,412	1,178,335May	719,000	687,617	1,100,538June	622,965	582,456	1,032,909July	604,488	576,201	1.038,373August	612,082	596,895	1,071,436PSeptember	557,925	568,591	1,042,39 IPOctober	579,515	621,756	November	649,362	711,643	December	753,876	880,164	Monthly average	702,716	720,280	
Notes: (1) Beneficiary date cannot be totalled as each month represents a count of those receiving benefits for a specific week each month.
(2) Beneficiaries include those receiving regular, sickness, maternity, retirement, fishing and training benefits.
(P) Preliminary data.
(ii)	(a) In 1980, on average 1,190,964 persons per month received the Guaranteed Income Supplement, (b) in 1981, on average 1,231,871 persons per month received the Guaranteed Income Supplement, (c) the monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement caseload of each month in 1982 was as follows:
January	1,257,997
February	1,257,434
March	1,256,813
April	1,138,001
May	1,186,341
June	1,209,454
July	1,224,222
August	1,228,881
September	1,234,952
October	1,245,387
November	1,247,146
Order Paper Questions
(iii)	(a) For 1980, a monthly average of 1,321,957 Canadians received welfare payments, (b) for 1981, a monthly average of 1,377,539 Canadians received welfare payments, (c) for each month in 1982:
January	1,456,946
February	1,481,590
March	1,503,856
April	1,515,356
May	1,524,273
June	1,538,657
July	1,551,066
August	1,561,108
September	1,581,503
October	1,605,198


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 4,480 and 4,539 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fretz: 1.	Which nations receive the MINISIS System from the International Development Research Centre at no cost to the Government agencies in (a) Africa (b) South America (c) the Far East?
2.	What does it cost the IDRC to provide the system at no cost to the government agencies per country in (a) Africa (b) South America (c) the Far East?
3.	Which Canadian consulting firm is licensed to sell the system to commercial organizations and what is the fee?
4.	(a) How many were sold and to which (i) commercial organizations (ii) countries (b) what were the amounts involved?
5.	Which other nations take advantage of Canada's technology transfer in (a) Africa (b) Asia (c) South America (d) Latin America?
Return tabled.


Mr. Mazankowski: In the fiscal year 1982-83, are projects being funded under the Department of Agriculture's Energy Research and Development for Agriculture and Food Program and, if so (a) what are such projects (b) in each case (i) what is the cost of the project (ii) who is doing the research?
Return tabled.

January 25, 1983
Order Paper Questions


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


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


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about starred question No. 4,641 which I placed on the Order Paper on December 20. I thought that the Government would have provided an answer over the Christmas break. My questions were:
Will the Government be launching a comprehensive environmental study to determine the effects on the water quality of Indian Bay and Shoal Lake in the event that the proposed 350 cottage lots on the northwest corner of Shoal Lake in Manitoba are developed and, if so (a) what will be the starting date (b) on what date will it be completed (c) will it determine the degree of risk of increased algae production, oil spills or other major forms of pollution (d) will it include an examination of the effects of using the sewage lagoon located across from Winnipeg's drinking water intake on the shore of Indian Bay?
Will the Government permit the use of motorboats for recreational purposes on Indian Bay?
We are talking about the water supply to a city of 600,000 people. This is a matter of great importance and concern to the citizens of Winnipeg. 1 feel that over a month is a long enough time to provide an answer as to whether or not a full environmental study will be conducted.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not know offhand what progress we have made in answering that question, but I will be happy to look into it on the Hon. Member's behalf.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, I welcome back the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Would he be good enough to check once more, since this matter was raised earlier, question No. 4,502 which was placed on the Order Paper on October 27, 1982. It relates to the receipts and expenditures of the federal Government from the Provinces under the lottery agreement, as well as two related questions, Nos. 4,531 and 4,544, all of which were referred back to the Parliamentary Secretary earlier on the basis of obtaining some information for us.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 will be happy to look into that matter and find out what progress we are making on providing those answers for the Hon. Member.


Mr. Stevens:: Madam Speaker, now that I see the Parliamentary Secretary back in the House, I should like to remind him that the question 1 asked on January 29, 1981, not 1982, is still unanswered. It is the question dealing with the Prime Minister's December/January world tour at that time. Now that we have the Prime Minister back after another jaunt of holidaying time, would the Parliamentary Secretary zero in and try to obtain some answers as to what these trips are actually costing Canadians? It is time they were told.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would have been disappointed had the Hon. Member not asked about that question upon
my return. Needless to say, it was not a holiday that the Prime Minister undertook; it was a hard-working trip.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With no results.


David P. Smith: I will be happy to look into the question on behalf of the Hon. Member. 1 would be very pleased to do so.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray that Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), be read the third time and do pass; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton).
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my presentation proper, I should like to make some comments on the new rules, especially as they apply to the ten-minute question period after a Member has made his speech. I found this procedure most useful in the case of the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) who finished speaking before lunch. He gave what on the face of it was a presentation that made a certain amount of sense. He was well-rehearsed and it was well-written, but he was devastated by a few simple questions put to him by Hon. Members on this side of the House. He did not know what was up or what was down. If we are to follow this procedure, it means that Hon. Members will have to think out their positions much better than at the present time. I am sure when the Hon. Member for Gatineau returns to the House that he will be much better prepared than he was earlier this morning.
Another surprising thing about the Hon. Member's presentation was the fact that it was diametrically opposed to an earlier speech in the House by a colleague of his in the same Party, a gentleman who is, to all intents and purposes, his next door neighbour, the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). This goes to show that a Member's views in the House are influenced by the type of constituency he represents. In the case of the constituency of Hull, it is one with very many public servants. The next door riding of Gatineau is an industrial one suffering from very high unemployment at the present time.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the last views on Bill C-133. The guillotine is poised, as it has been



January 25, 1983

some 14 or 15 times in this session. It is ready to drop on the heads of the public servants who will have their pensions decapitated. 1 am pleased to reiterate my Party's point of view and to state that we will vote against Bill C-133. Of course, we will vote in favour of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
We are pleased that our point of view is supported by some Hon. Members in the benches opposite. These gentlemen are acting according to the dictates of their consciences and the wishes of their constituents. I hope they will not be chastised by the Party brass, as was the case in past dissent within the Government Party. We have seen examples of Members of the Liberal Party who have dared speak out against the Government. They have been stripped of their privileges and removed from positions of emolument within the Government system. But in spite of this, there are at least four and and probably more Members on the other side who will vote tonight with the Progressive Conservative Opposition.
Despite protestations to the contrary by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) this morning, the action which has been accomplished by Bill C-133 is indeed a breach of contract. That is the view of the pensioners who will be affected and it is the view of this side of the House. It is, as the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton said this morning, a contract, an agreement enshrined by virtue of the statute law of Canada, and it ought not to be changed in the manner that it is now being changed. This type of change is probably worse because, as the President of the Treasury Board said this morning, public servants have no option but to become members of the Public Service pension scheme. They do not have an option to shop around. They cannot look at who might be a better manager of pension funds; they have to embrace the Government's scheme. For that reason we should be very careful how the funds are managed and how the legislation which affects that scheme is dealt with in this House.
During the debate on this issue there has been a great deal of input by associations of pensioners and by Public Service unions. I and I am sure many other Members of this House, found that input to be very valuable. In particular, I would like to single out the Professional Institute of the Public Service. I think its presentations were of a most professional nature, as might be expected of that body, and under the circumstances 1 found its representatives more than restrained.
The effect of the Bill we have before us today will make it very difficult for pensioners to plan ahead. They will not know from one year to the next what their pensions provide for them. If they are to plan at all, they will have to plan for a declining standard of living as time goes on. For example, if someone retires at age 65 with a reasonable standard of living, he or she will have to face the fact upon reaching age 70 that that standard will decline. By the time the person is 75, instead of taking taxis he or she will have to ride a bus, and by the time that person is 80 years of age it will mean walking, if that is possible, because he or she will not be able to afford the bus fare. I think Canadians want and deserve a better deal for their elderly than has been put forward by Members opposite.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Pensioners and Public Service pensioners have a feeling of betrayal. I doubt whether public servants in the employ of the federal Government will ever trust their employer again. One of the reasons public servants dislike what is going on is that they now find out that the Government has been very selective in the application of cutbacks. For instance, we learned this morning that Bank of Canada employees will have an 11 per cent increase, or slightly more than that, in their pensions whereas other people in the employ of the federal Government will be restricted to a 6 per cent increase, or little more than 6 per cent, with inflation still raging at 11 per cent per annum or better.
In my opinion, the Public Service of this country has been used as a political pawn. When the Government wanted the electoral support of the public servants, it made all kinds of promises to them. The Liberals said: "We are going to increase salaries; we are going to give indexed pensions and there will be increased pensions". But now, when times are a little tougher because of mismanagement and ineptitude on the part of Liberal Governments, this Liberal Government is desperately seeking a scapegoat and it has found it in the public servants.
The same thing is happening in the Province of Quebec. In fact, if anything the situation is worse in that Province. Public servants in the Province of Quebec were at one time the greatest supporters of the PQ Government, for the sort of reasons I have just cited. But now the financial situation in that Province is extremely bad. It is probably the worst of any Province in Canada. Unlike the federal Government, the Province of Quebec does not have access to the printing presses, and the Government of the Province of Quebec is having to take desperate measures and cut back its provincial expenditures. But guess who is getting hit, Mr. Speaker. It is the public servants in that Province, with the exception of the police. The police have to be excluded because no doubt they will have to be used for certain purposes.
Had there been a federal Progressive Conservative Government over the last few years, it is my submission that the situation would have been much different than it is today. We feel that the Public Service should not be used for political purposes. The Public Service should be beyond political partisanship. We have the concept of honesty in our dealings with public servants. Of course, the Public Service unions would find it fairly tough bargaining with a PC Government, of that there is no doubt. But when an agreement is reached and a contract signed, sealed and delivered, the unions could be absolutely assured that it would not change and that it would go for the term of the agreement.


Donald W. Munro: Remember how badly Michael Pitfield did.


Dave Nickerson: A broken contract is bad enough for people who are still working, but when it comes to pensioners, people who have no leverage, who are unable to withdraw their

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
services, either collectively or individually, then it is a terrible thing. These people have nobody to protect them except Parliamentarians. It would appear to me that the majority of Parliamentarians in this House are not up to that job and are not doing the job of protecting people who are unable to protect themselves.
Why we get into these types of situations is a question I have asked myself. But one of the more philosophical points would be the difference in strategy, outlook or concept between the Liberal and NDP Parties, on the one hand, and the Conservatives on the other. The Liberals' view of the national economy is that it is a zero sum game. They view the wealth of the nation as being a fixed sum. They are preoccupied with the distribution of this fixed sum. They like cutting the pie in different ways.
What we have in Canada is a gigantic Government, a giant maw that has to be fed more regardless of what happens to the private sector, the pensioners, or anybody else. The amount of funds required to feed that mouth are fixed. When the economy declines and public revenues are not coming in, then somebody else has to give; somebody else's slice of the pie has to be smaller. In this case, the Liberal Government has decided that it is the Public Service pensioners who will have to get the thinner slice of pie and subsist on less.
The Progressive Conservative view of the national economy and the way things should be run is that we should have an expanding economy. Instead of concentrating on dividing a fixed sum, we should be concentrating on releasing the shackles that tie up business enterprise.
I will not go into this matter. We have explained many times in this House how that might be accomplished. For instance, on many occasions the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) has put forward the concept of productive economics. If this were to be followed, then the pie would be expanded and everyone's slice would get larger day by day. We could afford to have the type of indexed pensions that public servants have now. Hopefully, we would be able to expand and allow other Canadians to have the same types of benefits.
With the Conservative approach to the economy, we would be able to afford decent pensions that we would like all Canadians to have. We could have pensions which would have a fixed real value in time instead of a declining real value.
One of the most painful aspects of the debate, I am sorry to say, has been the participation of the New Democratic Party. Its Members have apparently chosen this issue as the one by which to put some distance between themselves and their erstwhile friends whom they normally support-


Some Hon. Members:: The Tories!


Mr. Althouse:: We vote with you guys most of the time.


Dave Nickerson: I am sorry to say that this tactic on their part has backfired. They have been utterly incapable of preventing passage of the Bill and they have revealed to the public at large their utter toothlessness. They have flailed their arms in the wind and blamed everyone for the plight of pensioners in whom they apparently now have a feigned interest.
In fact, I was listening very intently to the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) yesterday, and this hon. gentleman even went as far as blaming that old NDP bugbear, the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not see the connection, myself. Undoubtedly, that hon. gentleman can.


Dave Nickerson: All that the Members of the NDP have suceeded in showing is that if their policies were to be followed, they would be in precisely the same position as the Liberal Government. In fact, to all intents and purposes, their policies are the same. The pensioners, under such a regime, would be in even worse shape than they are today.
Let us reconsider this issue. Let us take advantage of the opportunity offered to us this morning by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) by way of his amendment which would put off the day of reckoning for another six months and would allow for the process of consultation between representatives of pensioners and people who will be pensioners and the Government of Canada. Let us take that extra six months which has been offered to us before finally dealing with the issue. 1 am sure that we can come up with a better deal for Canadian public service pensioners than we I have today.	I
For these reasons, then, I wish to support the amendment	I
with the majority of Members of my Party-all of the Mem-	I
bers of my Party, as far as I know.	I


Dave Nickerson: I wish to support the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton and register my opposition and our opposition to the passage of third reading of Bill C-133.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) rising to ask a question of the Hon. Member?


Sidney James Parker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a short question. My question is with regard to his comments on the six month heist. Could he explain why his Party did not recommend this same heist when the initial six and five program-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Heist or hoist?


Sidney James Parker: -was brought into being?


Mr. Ellis:: He blames everything on CP.


Some Hon. Members:: Majority.


An Hon. Member:: Well, 54.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: -the Liberal Party.

January 25, 1983


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is the Government which is engaging in a heist.


Sidney James Parker: The President of CP Rail, and this identifies the reason why CP Rail was brought into this dispute, headed the blue chip committee which recommended the six and five program and was selling it across Canada, while the Conservatives voted in the House to break contracts which were fully negotiated through mediation and so on.
Now we have a system and we supported the idea of the six month hoist and we will support the request of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) but we will not support the change in indexing, regardless of whether it is six months down the road. Therefore, my question is: how can the Conservatives, on one hand, ask for a six month hoist for one proposal while, on the other, they stormed into the House and voted with the Liberals to bring in the very program which is now hurting the pensioners of Canada?


Dave Nickerson: 1 thank the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke for his question. It appears that at least I listen to his speeches and he listens to mine. That is quite an improvement. I would be very pleased to explain to him what happened over the last two or three months with regard to the general process of restraint.
We on this side of the House agree that, wherever possible, the Government should restrain its expenditures. We dislike an ever-increasing deficit because we feel that that leads to inflation and, in the long run, to a lack of jobs. Therefore, when the Government, in its wisdom-and I say that advisedly-first put before the House the general concept of restraint on Government expenditures, we voted for that particular idea.
If Hon. Members will recall, Bill C-124, one of the first pieces of this companion legislation, was a Bill which reduced the salaries, indemnities, of Members of Parliament and their expense allowances and pensions, and we thought that if there was to be restraint, then we as Members of Parliament should take the lead. Therefore, we were in favour of the reduction in our own salaries. However, when it comes to public service pensioners, many of whom live on $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 a year and really cannot afford to take that decrease, whereas we are receiving $50,000 a year or better, we feel that it is incumbent on us to protect their interests and not to let them be cut down by the Liberal Government opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sidney James Parker: 1 would like to ask a supplementary question, if I may. That appears to be the rationale, and my next question is: if the Conservative Party believes in free collective bargaining, why did they not, during that process, request that consultation or negotiation take place with these groups so that they could also be heard and understood? Then we probably would not be facing the very dictatorial way in which the Government is dealing with our Public Service pensioners.


Dave Nickerson: I am very pleased to answer that question. The view put forward by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act {No. 2)
Revelstoke that there should have been consultations and negotiations at that time was, in fact, the substance of an amendment moved at that time on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, who is leading this side in the debate.


Mr. Mazankowski:: He has memory lapses.


Dave Nickerson: And I remember speaking in strong support of that amendment myself. That was precisely the view taken by this side of the House, by this Party, that there should be negotiations, that the matter should be resolved in consultation with representatives of the public servants. Unfortunately, we were outvoted on that matter.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a brief comment and ask a question of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic. The Hon. Member has indicated his Party's longstanding opposition to interference with the rights of pensioners. The Conservatives, in general, have stated that they were opposed to taking action which would in any way limit the pensions of those who are in receipt of them. I wonder if the Hon. Member could explain something on behalf of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, who has been extremely noisy concerning this matter. Some kind soul referred to him as the Houdini of the Conservative Party. I wonder if he could explain why, when Bill C-124 was before the House in August, on August 3, and it was pointed out to them that the legislation would include pensionable income and would adversely affect the pensions of the employees of the Government, in the face of a motion put by this Party to exclude pensions from the six and five program, the Conservative Party joined with the Liberal Party to defeat our motion? Is it possible to explain why the Conservative Members joined with the Liberals on that particular action, to defeat our motion to protect the pensions of civil service pensioners?


Dave Nickerson: The preamble was so long that I hardly got the question, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


Dave Nickerson: I must admit I am not fully familiar with the technicalities the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is placing before me today.


An Hon. Member:: Neither is the Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Dave Nickerson: I would be very pleased to review the debates and those things that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain mentioned. I would have to admit that there were certain things in Bill C-124 that go against the grain when you have to vote on it. That happens with practically every Bill of any length that is placed before this House. There is a Bill about three inches thick and one can maybe agree wholeheartedly with two and one half inches of it, and perhaps one can live with another quarter of an inch, but perhaps dislike very
22204

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
much the remaining quarter of an inch. Sometimes you have to vote in favour of the majority of what is contained in a Bill, while at the same time accepting something you may not really like that much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Member for Hamilton Mountain is rising on a brief supplementary question.


Ian Deans: Following directly on his answer, the Member says that frequently a Bill is complex and covers a variety of things and that in general you may disagree with certain of them but on balance you support the majority of things. Let me put to the Member that what I am talking about is the following: let me read it to the House. I am reading from the record. It was moved by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) that:
For the purpose of calculating pension benefits payable under any Act of Parliament to employees to whom this part applies, subsection (I) shall be deemed to increase wage rates proportionally to increases in the Consumer Price Index for the calendar years corresponding most nearly to the periods referred to therein.
Now what it did was to make sure there would be no reduction in pension, and we pointed that out to the Conservatives as they stood to vote. Why did the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and why did the other Members of the Conservative Party rise on August 3 and support the reduction in pensioners' incomes, and now why are they standing up and pretending that somehow they are defending pensioners?


Dave Nickerson: My memory has been refreshed on this issue, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dave Nickerson: I was talking to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), whose memory is a little better than mine. It appears that what happened is that during the report stage on Bill C-124-and you ruled earlier that we should not speak about past Bills, but this matter was brought up by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain so I feel obliged to reply to it-they introduced the motion that he just read out, and in fact at the report stage a very similar motion was introduced by the Progressive Conservative Opposition. It was the finding of the Chair at that time that those motions were out of order, and they were not put before the House. Therefore, of course, there was no vote on these matters, and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, I am afraid, is rather in error. His memory of these events is no better than mine initially was, before I was put right by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: I was talking about Bill C-133.


Ian Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is rising on a point of order.


Ian Deans: My point of order is that the Member has mistated what is factual on page 523-


Some Hon. Members:: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, every sector of our economy, indeed our society, is facing an extremely difficult time. The private economy has serious problems, business profits have fallen over 50 per cent in the last year from an already low level, the number of bankruptcies is higher than at any time since the Great Depression, wage and salary increases in the private and the public sectors alike have fallen dramatically to the 5 per cent and 6 per cent range and, indeed, in many cases there has been an absolute reduction in compensation.
The over million and a half unemployed Canadians represent the highest number of unemployed since the 1930s. The youth unemployment rate is in the range of 25 per cent, Mr. Speaker, and it is estimated that even with full employment a budgetary deficit in the range of $5 billion would continue. All major economic organizations agree that we are facing a world economic crisis, a battle for our very economic survival. Governments all over the western world, irrespective of political stripe, are realizing and acting on the necessity of restraining expenditures, even social expenditures.
Governments must act to restrain all outlays of the taxpayers' dollars because the taxpayer cannot bear more. At the same time we simply cannot borrow more against the future for this would place even heavier burdens on future generations.
I have personally fought long and hard to have this attitude of fiscal responsibility adopted by the Government, and I will continue in this effort. An economic crisis such as the one we are now facing requires not only that real restraint be achieved but that the remaining Government spending be refocused on those areas which promise to contribute the most in the fight to restore economic growth. We will not have rising standards of living without economic growth; we will not provide opportunities for our citizens without growth; we will not be able to support social expenditures, even at present levels, without restored growth.
The Government has responded and will respond further, Mr. Speaker. This is the concept within which the six and five program was introduced. The Government has acted to restrain the increases in program expenditures to no more than 6 per cent and 5 per cent. The Provinces and municipalities have followed suit, in the main, and all areas of federal outlay, including administered prices, have fallen under the restraint program. Where it can be shown that expenditure of taxpayers' dollars is involved, six and five must apply, as much for the
January 25, 1983

credibility of the program as for the effectiveness of the program.
With these comments in mind, let me turn my attention to the public servant pension issue. The Public Service pension plan is a private plan, as opposed to a public plan, and is comprised of two parts, the Public Service Superannuation Account established in 1924 and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account established in 1970. These are independent accounts under the current structure, and funds cannot be transferred from one account to another. The Public Service Superannuation Account provides a basic pension for retired public servants. This basic pension is calculated at 2 per cent per year of service multiplied up to a maximum of 35 years times the average of the six consecutive years of highest salary, usually the last six years. This type of plan is commonly referred to as a final average plan. This calculation determines the pension one receives at the date of retirement and is an amount which remains constant thereafter. It does not increase over time.
The SRBA provides for all increases in pensions beyond retirement, that is, indexation. Such increases are based on changes over any given year, from October to the following September, in the Consumer Price Index, specifically the average of the previous 12 month figure for the CPI. Each public servant has an individual SRBA account. Funds may not be transferred between the accounts of the individual members. Indexation is thus funded from a Member's account until it is exhausted. Thereafter, it is funded out of general tax revenue.
With regard to the funding of the plan, public servants make contributions to both of these accounts. Contributions to the PSSA are made at a rate of 6.5 per cent of salary, less required contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. Contributions to the SRBA are made by an additional 1 per cent of salary; from 1970 to 1977 this was one-half of 1 per cent of salary. Both of these amounts are matched by an equal contribution by the employer with a one-year lag in the case of PSSA contributions, and interest is paid on the balance in each account.
Interest earned by the PSSA is calculated as though the funds were invested in 20 year Government of Canada Bonds. New contributions plus interest on the fund, which are not required to pay current benefits in any quarter, are invested at the then current rate on such bonds. For the year 1982, the rate of return on investment of the PSSA was over 10 per cent.
Interest is also paid on the balances in the SRBA. It is calculated quarterly at the rate of interest for five year Government bonds, less one-eighth of 1 per cent. As of September 30, 1982, the rate being paid on the SRBA was 16.1 per cent.
What are actuarial assumptions? The contribution rates for every pension plan are based upon a set of assumptions as to life expectancy, interest earned on account balances, levels of benefits to be paid, and so on. Since the Public Service pension plan is a final average plan, in other words benefits are calculated on the basis of the average of only the six highest
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
consecutive years of salary and also involves inflation adjustments, there are certain key assumptions which should be mentioned. These relate to the rate of inflation, the rate of interest to be earned and the rate of increase in salary levels.
These assumptions have been established by the Chief Actuary of the Department of Insurance, who is independent from the administrators of this plan, and are not significantly different from those employed by the actuaries for most other private pension plans. This fact was confirmed by Mr. Murray Segal of the firm of Eckler, Brown, Segal and Co. when he was appearing before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee on behalf of the Professional Institute of Public Service and, with regard to the last report of the actuary, Mr. Segal indicated that he did not dispute any of the significant conclusions that had been reached in that report. I will refer to that later on.
The actuary in setting up the contribution rates to the plan is assuming that real interest rates will be 3.5 per cent, that is, interest rates will exceed inflation by this amount over the long term and salary increases will likewise exceed inflation by 2.5 per cent. These assumptions are then used to determine contribution rates to be paid during a plan member's working life so as to fully fund one's retirement pension. So long as these relationships hold, and proper contributions are paid, the funds should be available to pay the anticipated pension until death.
The actuarial rate of interest should not be confused with the interest rate actually earned on the invested fund. As was indicated earlier, the actual rates are determined by the rates applicable on Government of Canada Bonds in the marketplace. The relationship between the actuarial rate and the earned rate gives rise to the term "excess interest". Much has been said about excess interest and the use to which it is and should be put.
As a general rule, excess interest is used in private pension plans, especially those whose benefits are based on a final average of salaries, as the PSSA is, to offset what is termed unfunded liabilities. An unfunded liability arises when salaries increase at a rate faster than assumed in the actuarial assumptions. This means, of course, that the contribution rates which are based on these assumptions were too low in the earlier years of one's working career. This shortfall is magnified when the pension is based on the average salary during the last few years of employment.
However, at the same time, and generally for the same reasons, as salaries grow at a higher rate than assumed, interest rates should also exceed the rate assumed. On average then, the shortfall of contributions should be offset by the excees interest earned on invested funds. Therefore, the unfunded liability for current and past service is logically and properly reduced by the excess interest, and the plan remains fully funded.
This same analysis should apply in the case of inflation adjustment of pensions after retirement, assuming that contribution rates were adequate. Again, as I said, this assumes the adequacy of the plans funding. If contribution rates had been too low, or if the real interest earned is less than the 3.5 per

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
cent assumed, then the plan will be under-funded and chronic and rising long-term deficits will occur. Let me now turn to this subject.
Is our plan fully funded? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is no. There are two reasons for this. First, contribution rates have been too low in the past, particularly contributions to the SRBA. Second, the rate of interest paid on balances in the two accounts has been below that which was assumed, and will continue to be inadequate so long as interest is credited at the rate paid on Government of Canada Bonds. Historically, the real rate on these bonds has been from 2 to 2.5 per cent. In fact, the period from 1800 to 1977 showed that Government bonds interest rates were around 2 to 3 per cent real during that entire period. You will recall that the rate assumed by the actuary is 3.5 per cent, so there has been a 1 per cent shortfall.
These facts have been clearly established. The actuary of the plan indicated in his 1977 report that to fully fund the PSSA/SRBA as a combined entity, contributions would have to be increased from 15 per cent of salary, less CPP as the case is today, to around 18 per cent of salary, less CPP, which would be required. In other words, employee-employer contributions, or some combination of both, would have to be increased by a total of 3 per cent. This conclusion, as noted earlier, was supported by Mr. Segal of Eckler, Brown, Segal actuaries, an independent witness before the Standing Committee of Miscellanious Estimates.
Finally, the latest report of the Auditor General indicated that the unfunded liability of the combined Public Service Superannuation Account and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account is currently $7.5 billion. Mr. Thompson, Principal of Public Accounts, of the Office of the Auditor General, stated in a letter to me:
-the unrecorded part of the pension liability does represent a shortfall between pension entitlements and contributions to date.
The liability for the combined PSSA, CFSA and RCMPSA, which are the Canadian Forces and RCMP equivalents, is in the range of $12.5 billion, as reported by the Auditor General. In other words, these pension plans combined should have an account balance of $40 billion, as opposed to the current $27.5 billion which is on the account books, if all pension liabilities accrued to date were indeed fully funded. The equivalent for the PSSA/SRBA alone is around $23 billion in the account as opposed to the current balance of $15.5 billion. Clearly, there is no surplus in the PSSA. To claim that the $15.5 billion itself is a surplus is absolutely incorrect and misleading.
Other claims were made during the committee hearings and the debate. First, there is the claim that there is a surplus in the PSSA in the amount of $15.5 billion. This statement, as I have shown, is simply untrue. I stand on the reports by actuaries and by the Auditor General.
The second claim is that public servants have themselves contributed more than the total of all pensions paid to date. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant since our plan, thankfully, is not a pay-as-you-go plan. It is a funded plan. This
means that each person's pension is paid for by that person's contributions, employee plus employer plus interest.
There have been primarily two reasons for the growth of the fund over time and the fact that the fund does now stand at $15.5 billion. First, the rapid growth in the size of the Public Service during the 1970s resulted in more people making contributions. The second, of course, is the rapid increase in the level of salaries due to inflation which greatly increased the dollar value of contributions that were paid.
There is another claim, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-133 is precedent setting in that it alters an agreement which has previously been unchanged. Neither is this correct. The plan has been changed after consultation, admittedly, by the Government alone on several occasions. Initially, indexation was capped at a maximum of 2 per cent per year up until 1972. Full indexation came into effect only thereafter. During the AIB in 1976, the maximum dollar amount of indexation was capped at $2,400. In 1977, the rate of contribution to cover indexation was raised from one half of one per cent of salary to 1 per cent of salary. In 1978-79, Bill C-12 was introduced, received second reading, and was reported unanimously by all Parties back to the House from committee. It would have provided indexation only to the extent that it could be paid for by the plan itself. There would have been no guarantees and no further claim on general revenue. For the three years from 1979 to 1981, for example, it was estimated that full indexation could have been paid only on the first $7,000 of pension. Greater amounts would have been indexed by only about 7 per cent. And I believe the facts were that in 1979 it would be 8 per cent, in 1980 it would be 7 per cent and in 1981 it would be 6 per cent. As stated above, of course, this legislation never became law.
Another claim, Mr. Speaker, was that the six and five program will result in a permanent loss for pensioners, whereas working public servants can catch up for reductions in salary increases. This is an extremely tenuous proposition at best. It has not been supported over the period since 1975 when average Public Service salaries increased by less than did Public Service pensions, which was 96 per cent as compared to 102 per cent. Certainly, any public servant retiring in the next six or more years will suffer a lower pension as a result of the effects of the six and five program on salaries, and the consequent effect this has on the basic pension determined by the average of his or her best consecutive six years' salary. Further, the very difficult times we face now, and will probably face over the medium term in the employment area, will undoubtedly act to hold down future salary increases. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that such conditions will allow any widespread "catch up" to occur.
Another claim, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government's actions in Bill C-133 are a single-minded attack on retired public servants. I disagree. Every Government program, save those directed at people in greatest need, which would include the GIS and the Child Tax Credit, for example, is subjected to
January 25, 1983

the six and five program. All these actions change what we had come to expect would occur, and in some cases modifies existing arrangements. To some degree, implied or actual commitments have been changed in all of these cases. None of us is pleased that such measures have been necessary. They can only be justified by the depth of the overriding national economic crisis, and the broadly accepted urgent need to assist those suffering most from the recession and to pursue fiscal restraint to promote economic recovery.
If our pension plan is not fully funded, if pensioners under the plan are indeed being partially funded out of general revenue with regard to indexation, is it realistic to expect that such funding can be excluded from the over-all restraint plan? Is it realistic to expect the representatives of the people from other parts of Canada to support our appeal for exclusion from the restraint program? With all honesty, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not believe so.
Where do we stand now? Given the information provided above, could we have expected Bill C-133 to be withdrawn? I think not. But we can try to achieve certain other objectives. Specifically, we can attempt to ensure that only the portion of indexing paid by taxpayers' funds is subjected to restraint. Moneys flowing from the contributions and earnings should not be subjected to restraint, and Mr. Gray has agreed to amendments which would include that principle. More important, we can demand that the plan be put on a sound basis once and for all to prevent future political incursions. Mr. Gray, today, has agreed to seek-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. He still has a minute left. But I should remind him that he should refer to his colleagues in the House either by their portfolio or the name of their riding.


John Leslie Evans: Thank you. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I should have said the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). As indicated earlier, the six and five program is terribly important to the economic recovery program of the nation, if only because it has provided a concrete basis for the establishment of a national consensus for Government action. My caucus colleagues are of the strong opinion that no exception can be made to the principles of that program. Within the context of six and five, I have fought the case of Public Service pensioners, but I could not win the day since my appeals violated my colleagues' perception of what was fair and necessary in the national interest. My colleagues are willing to see modifications to Bill C-133 in this context, and are prepared to support my demand for modifications to put the plan on a sound footing and remove the possibility for future political manipulation. But to receive support in this effort it is incumbent upon me to provide support for the over-all six and five program. 1 cannot expect other Members to deal fairly with my appeals if, when all the facts are in, I am not prepared to accept the facts and support the results.
If I could have one more minute, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward the proposals-
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I must inform the Hon. Member that his time is up. He may only continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent. Is the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) rising to question the Hon. Member?


Sidney James Parker: Yes, I have a question for the Hon. Member. He has mentioned that he would like to see the pension on a sound basis. He has also mentioned the possibility of the principle of the six and five. I would like to ask the Hon. Member what his views are on the Government's policy of not consulting with the advisory committee of the pension group, not consulting with the unions involved, not consulting with the pensioners' groups before this action was taken. Does he agree with that process?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, since the proposal was brought in as part of the six and five program, which was part of a budget, I absolutely agree with it. There is no way that a Minister of the Crown proposing a budget can discuss budgetary proposals in advance, and that Party would be the first one to condemn the Government for violation of budget secrecy, if the Minister intended to do so. In addition, the Hon. Member's question referred to proposals, so I would like to put on the record exactly what those proposals are.
First of all, I am calling for an integration of the two funds currently comprising the pension plan. Second, a conversion of these plans to "Fully-funded/excess-interest" system of inflation protection, with the necessary modifications to contribution rates, the provisions for dealing with existing unfunded liability and the rates of interest which are paid on those account balances. Third, the establishment of an independent representative third-party body to act as a board of trustees empowered to oversee and administer the major features of the plan, to include pensioners, employees as well as the employer. 1 would ask that the Minister consider these modifications at the earliest possible date, and that these be brought forward for implementation no later than January 1, 1985, when full indexation is to be restored.


Sidney James Parker: My supplementary is to the same Hon. Member. Is he aware that the business sector was contacted and a chairman was selected to expound on the six and five program to the business sector, and yet the Government did not see fit prior to its budget to consult with the workers or the pensioners involved in the program. I see a little bit of contradiction here, and I wonder if his executive people have given him the answer to that one also?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I do not need any help answering any questions from that Hon. Member. The fact is that no one was notified or indicated what was in the budget prior to budget night. After the budget, certainly an advisory committee on six and five was established, but that was done after the

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
budget was presented in this House of Commons, as is proper and traditional in British Parliamentary practice.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to participate in this new enterprise of asking questions. 1 must say it is difficult because 1 have to sit through the speeches in order to ask the questions. But 1 have done that, and I have been sufficiently punished in having to listen to that Hon. Member try to rationalize. My question to him is: does he, as a Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, think that the Canadian Government has the right, legally or morally, to unilaterally change the pension plan for the Public Service retirees, those people who are already retired, as proposed in the legislation that is now before the House? That is the question, not all of these specious rationalizations which the Hon. Member has engaged in. This is a question he is being asked by people who live in his district and which he has failed to answer. He sends out form letters which do not answer the questions which he is asked.
1 have a letter here which asks a simple question. Does the Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), where many thousands of pensioners live, think that he has the right to support the Government, legally or morally, in unilaterally changing this pension plan for people who are retired? Yes or no. It is a simple question which his constituents deserve to have an answer to, not all this mish-mash of this fund or that fund and amalgamate the fund. He is putting the blocks to those pensioners and they want an answer.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I stood on my voting record at second reading, and I will stand on my voting record on third reading, in answer to that question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to blackguard the hon. gentleman unnecessarily because he is so easy to blackguard by just using the truth. Did the hon. gentleman vote for the principle of this legislation, and has he voted for it continuously since it came into the House? Because if he did, it means he believes the Government has the right, legally and morally, to change the pension plan unilaterally. His constituents want to know that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Before allowing that question, the Chair should perhaps caution Hon. Members that the question has to relate to the topic at hand. Questions relating to previous votes, it seems to me, stretch the matter of relevancy a great distance.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: If the Chair may suggest, Members' votes are one the record for all Members and the public to see. I would appeal to Hon. Members to adhere as much as possible to the rule of relevancy and not refer to something which happened in this House at some previous time in the course of other stages of the debate. But in any
case, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) for the purpose of answering the question as put.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question as put. As I have said from day one on this, as long as taxpayers' dollars are being used to pay, then the Government has not only the right but the obligation to see that those taxpayers' dollars are properly used. If a restraint program is going to be applied to the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, then it should apply globally to the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) because I can see how he is torn between his duty and loyalty to the Government which he supports in the House of Commons and his loyalty and duty to his constituents who in many cases are currently employed in the federal Public Service and in other cases are retired members of that Public Service. I want to help him along with his difficulty by pointing out to him that when the so-called six and five program was introduced in the House of Commons on June 28, 1982, by the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), the indication was that the Government was promoting a restraint in the Government spending program to bring inflation into line, and possibly to bring it down to the level of six and five. That was the goal as announced by the Government in the House, and I can see why the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre might be prepared to support that program in the interests of his constituency which includes both retired and working federal public servants.
However, the problem I now see for the Hon. Member is that seven months have gone by, we are now at the end of January, the inflation rate is 9.3 per cent and nowhere near the six and five. Is he not now faced with revising the view he took months ago in support of the Government's program? Is he not now faced with his duty and loyalty to his constituents in that the Government has been proved to be wrong in its prognostications, there will be no 6 per cent or 5 per cent inflation rate and in fact his constituents are faced with a 9.3 per cent inflation rate?
Is he now prepared to revise his view, abandon the position he has taken in the past, and now vote against this terrible Bill?


John Leslie Evans: No, Mr. Speaker. The Government's six and five program, in conjunction with other economic policies, is indeed working. Inflation has gone down from over 11 per cent in the early summer to 9.3. If we look at the last three months of the year it is down to 6.5 per cent; indeed, there was no change at all in the price index during the month of December.
On this issue, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a long Public Service tradition, with which I was raised when I was working in the Public Service, that you give the best possible advice to your Minister and then when the Minister makes a decision, you stand behind your Minister. That tradition is alive and well in the Liberal Party of Canada and, I would expect, in the New Democratic Party as well. I tell the Hon. Member that he
January 25, 1983

would have a lot fewer problems in that Party had they followed that tradition as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The time for questions is over.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate because it is an important one and, of course, another nail in the coffin of this Government. What is happening here, Mr. Speaker? The agitation for indexation of Government employees' pensions only came about in order that they could keep up with the cost of living, which resulted from the negligence and failure of the present Government to deal with the problem of inflation. There would be no need to have Government employees' pensions indexed if there was not the threat of inflation. Why is there this threat? Because we have had a group of incompetents in charge of the economy of this country since 1968. The same group whose Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that he had stomped inflation into the ground, that inflation was overcome and conquered. That same gentleman is now introducing legislation into this House, asking us to take away the indexing of civil servants' pensions, not because inflation has been overcome, not because last year inflation was only 5 per cent or 6 per cent; he is asking us to do this because the battle against inflation has not been overcome, because his Government has been such a failure and has gone back on its sacred word to the electorate of Canada in the 1980 election. Then, Mr. Speaker, after having proven it can no longer be trusted to control inflation, and having agreed to give civil servants and pensioners the right to have their pensions indexed, people who paid for that indexing, this same Government which has shown it is monumentally incapable of controlling inflation because it went over 12 per cent just a few months ago, now brings in legislation to take away the protection its public servants had against inflation. It is not because the Government thinks it now has the answer to inflation. It does not. The Government is now proclaiming victories because the inflation rate is down, in the last year over year, to 9.3 per cent or 9.6 per cent or whatever it is. Here we have in today's paper, The Toronto Sun, the Finance Minister saying "Inflation is on the Ropes". This is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said: "The war on inflation is almost won". How often have we heard that said by this degenerate Government, by this incompetent Government, by this inconsequential and fraudulent Government? How often has it proclaimed these victories? Then today we see the Minister of Finance saying that inflation is on the ropes. He has legislation before this House right now so that pensions next year will not be indexed in excess of 6.5 per cent. That is not 9.3 per cent year over year, and not what the Government's own agencies are doing. Here is another selection from today's paper: "Bank of Canada's pensions up 11.5 per cent". Why are they up 11.5 per cent? The Bank of Canada, by the way, is the Government's agent which is supposed to control inflation. Why are the pensions of employees of the bank going up 11.5 per cent this year? Because the bank had no choice, they say, under the bank's staff pension plan. In a statement, Mr. Bouey
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
said that the bank felt bound to grant the increase because it was required under the rules of the bank's pension plan and that because of the rate of inflation and the increase in the cost of living last year the bank would give an increase of 11.5 per cent this year-not 6.5 or 5.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker. The Bank of Canada could ask the Government to do for its employees exactly what the Government is doing for its own former employees and that is, bring them under the legislation that is now before the House.
If the Government was concerned with equity and fairness, it would not allow the pensions of people who formerly worked for the Bank of Canada, which is the main institution that is supposed to fight inflation along with the Government-and they have both failed-to increase its pensions by 11.5 this year while the rest of Government retirees receive an increase of only 6.5 per cent, even though they suffer the same inflation rate as the pensioners of the Bank of Canada. There is no justice in that, Mr. Speaker.
We are dealing with pension pulverizers, actuarial arsonists, Mr. Speaker. When I listened to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) give specious arguments to cover up the fact that he was turning his back on federal Government pensioners who live in his riding of Ottawa Centre, I thought he was trying to justify the tearing up and burning down of the solemn commitments made to them by the Government. He is an actuarial arsonist, Mr. Speaker, and all his speechifying and qualifying and the details and nonsense he offers is not going to obscure the fact that he is going for the long trip. When the next election comes, he will need his Member's pension. He is on the skids; he is on his way out. He is going to get the flick, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lang:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If the Hon. Member opposite has a conscience he will not be able to vote for the Bill when I am through. He should just listen to what I am saying and stop bleating. The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) continually bleats, Mr. Speaker, and I want him to stop bleating and to let his heart start beating.
I have in my hand a document with the heading "Notes for remarks by the Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau to the Campaign College, Toronto, January 12, 1980." This was the election platform of the Right Hon. Prime Minister and his Party. I shall not read it all, naturally, because it would sicken the people across the country who are listening to me today. They would have an automatic attack of flu if they listened to it all.
He said this:
The Liberal program seeks to provide stability, equity, and security for the 1980s.
Security, Mr. Speaker! Is this the security that the Prime Minister said he was going to provide for the 1980s-jackbooting, blackjacking the old age pensioners and the pensions of the federal Government retirees? Is this the security he was going to provide? Then he said this:

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Canadians want to cast their vote for a party which can bring some order and policy and programs. They want a party that knows where it's going.
That is not what they got, Mr. Speaker. The Government and the Party opposite does not know where it is going. It has no order or policies or programs. The public only knows that that Party is going down, that it has stabbed the public in the back and has gone back on every one of its solemn commitments.


Peter Joseph Lang: There will be some stabbing in the back going on in Winnipeg.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the Hon. Member for Kitchener will listen, he will discover why he will be defeated so abjectly in the next election.


Peter Joseph Lang: You said that in the last election and yet I am here.


John Carnell Crosbie: At the bottom of page 2, the Prime Minister said:
Our program for the 1980s consists of five major commitments:
This was from the gentleman leading the Liberal Party who had said that our budget and our program was so dastardly for the Canadian people. Looking back now, the Canadian people remember that program with fondness. All over the country statues are being put up to me, in honour of my budget. As I go around the country 1 am ashamed to see so many of them.


Mr. LeBlanc:: It is a shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: That was the Hon. Minister, formerly of fish, now of public works.
There were five major commitments, Mr. Speaker. The first was:
(1)	to manage more rigorously the nation's finances in order to make more
effective use of the taxpayers' money.
The deficit is now $23.5 billion so I will not go into that. The second one was:
(2)	to achieve energy security at a fair price for all Canadians.
Ugh! A fair price for all Canadians? The price of energy has doubled in the last two years. The next one reads:
(3)	to develop industrial policies that will provide jobs-
Imagine! With 1.6 million out of work the Government is going to provide jobs. That one goes on:
-spur growth, and increase Canadian ownership and control of the economy.
What is left of the economy, Mr. Speaker? That is the one thing they have done-increased Canadian ownership and control of the economy. There is damn little of the economy left. What is the good of an economy that is all Canadian owned when there is no economy left? We are reduced to building popsicle sticks. Number four reads:
(4)	to build greater economic strength in each region of that country as the
basis for overall Canadian prosperity.
They put the boots to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, they pushed Newfoundland down to its worst unemployment rate yet.
Point five is the relevant point, Mr. Speaker, I know you are cringing in your chair because you think I am not being relevant enough. It reads as follows:
(5)	to enhance the security of the individual by helping those who most need
assistance.
This was the fifth great point of the Liberal platform of January and February, 1980-"to enhance the security of the individual by helping those who most need assistance." There it is, people of Canada. I fool you not. It is in black and white, right on your TV screen. That was the promise. What are we doing today? We are voting on a Bill to take away indexing from former public servants and employees of this country who were promised it and who contributed to it. This is called enhancing the security of those individuals by helping those who most need assistance.
Let us go further with this six page document. I cannot go over it all because I do not have the time. On page five this appears:
This party will not simply stand by and let the recession come. We will fight it and overcome it.
They even knew the recession was coming. They promised to fight it and overcome it. I ask backbenchers opposite who meekly and blindly vote for everything this Government proposes, if they have seen any recession being fought and overcome during the last two and a half years. They have not. The worst recession is raging in the country since the 1930s, and it will be worse than that shortly, in my opinion. The Prime Minister claimed that the Liberals were going to lower unemployment and would use every economic tool to do so. Every day we can see on the benches opposite the economic tools the Government is using. On page six of this document this appears:
Fifth, the Liberal Party commits itself to enhancing the dignity and security of individual Canadians.
Hon. gentlemen opposite will get up and cheer and clap at the next Liberal convention when the Prime Minister says, "We commit ourselves to enhancing the dignity and security of individual Canadians". That is why there are 1.6 million unemployed. We do not give a continental damn about them, now that we are in power. We think they are going to forget it before the next election. That is why we put the blocks to the people who are on old age pensions. That is why we stopped indexing their pensions. That is why we have done the same to the crowd who get the Family Allowances. It is all because we are dedicated to "enhancing their dignity and security", and they cannot have dignity and security as long as they have incomes.
That is the new Liberal reasoning, Mr. Speaker.-you cannot have dignity and security as long as you have income. That is the principle of the legislation that is before the House.
Listen to this, Mr. Speaker, although I will excuse you if it makes you heave. On page six we find this:
January 25, 1983

2221 1
We must set out sail firmly against this Tory tide of reaction and make the pledge that this party will put people first.
The people of Canada believed the Prime Minister and now they want the Tory Party back. They know that with us they will see real progress and will hear the truth. They know that they will have a Party that will carry out what it promises, not a Party that says it is committed to enhancing the dignity and security of individual Canadians but does not do anything about that except bring in legislation which flies in the face of that promise.
In the next paragraph he said:
We must endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job.
How can Members opposite stand in this House after having made that kind of commitment? How can they look at the figures for Newfoundland where unemployment runs at over 30 per cent, or at Sudbury? How can they stand the situation there? It is only because they are so used to being in power that they are beyond feeling anything. How can they say that they endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job when 1.6 million Canadians are out of work? Finally he said:
And most important of all, we must guarantee the income security of our older citizens. Retirement should be a time of peace rather than a time of fear. All this we will do. And more.
You can just see the Prime Minister in Toronto, all emotional and excited, telling the press that, most important of all, they must guarantee the income security of our older citizens and that retirement should be a time of peace rather than a time of fear, and that they will do all this.
He did not say that they were going to bring in legislation to stop people getting an indexed pension. He did not say to the tens of thousands of civil servants retired from Government employment and that he was going to cap their pensions. He did not say to the people who were getting Family Allowances or Old Age Security that those things were not going to be indexed any longer. He said that they must guarantee the income security of our older citizens.
It makes one sick to see how a Party can turn its back on its pledges and commitments and still carry on. This Party opposite will carry on right till the five years are up, right till they are forced out by the letter of the law. We will have to get writs of mandamus, injunctions and call out the army. The Governor General will have to act to get them to call an election because they are afraid to face the electorate. This is why I am voting against this legislation. I am voting against the legislation because it flies in the face of the Liberal program about which we were told in January and February 1980. These lies, deception and deceit inveigled the Canadian people to put us out before we had a chance to show what we could do, and put back in this bunch of cynics, hypocrites, defrauders and fraudulent misrepresentators. They fraudulently misrepresented their position to every old age pensioner. They promised them income security.


Peter Joseph Lang: You should be ashamed.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


John Carnell Crosbie: You should be ashamed. You should vacate your seat. You should be the first to show some decency. The Hon. Member for Kitchener should show some decency. He should stop staying here bleating and get out. His finest moment will be the day that he resigns his seat.


Peter Joseph Lang: It is your blood pressure that is going up.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want to get excited, Mr. Speaker.
This legislation enables the Government to break an agreement into which it entered with public servants who are no longer there. They served their time and they are gone. This is the difference between all the other things they have done. Public servants are being-screwed is not the right word, not the polite word; what is a better word than screwed-screwed, blued and tattooed. The old age pensioners and Government pensioners are having that done to them. These people are now retired. They gave their services. They thought they had a commitment from the Government. Now they are told that they must bring down inflation by having the indexing removed from their pensions.
First the Government captures their votes, or tries to, by saying, "We are incompetent; we do not know how to overcome inflation, but we will protect you, the public servants of Canada, the Armed Forces personnel and so on, by giving you indexed pensions. Therefore, you do not have to worry about our economic incompetence. No matter how incompetent we are, if the cost of living goes up 100 per cent, your pensions will go up 100 per cent". That is what they said to those people. Many of them went out and voted for them on that condition. Then in 1980 they said what I quoted. Now they turn around and say, "It was all make believe. You will be better off if you do not get this additional income. Why, your security in your old age and your golden days you will enjoy much more if you have a Government which breaks its commitments and promises to you". That is what they have said to them. This is what the Prime Minister said when he stated that platform from which I read. He said, "We have an economic program which will enhance dignity". This is part of the program of the Prime Minister to enhance dignity-cutting back on Government pensioners. This is creating opportunities for whom? For the scoundrels that inhabit the Government like maggots in a piece of old fish. They are creating opportunities for them. They are not creating opportunities for anyone else. Yes, the patronage opportunity is there, but not for the ordinary person, not likely. "To provide security", this is what the Prime Minister said.
Where is that program? His backbenchers do not revolt. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre does not go into or come out of caucus saying, "I will make our leader stick to the promises or, by God, I will leave the Party". No, he is the Indian rubber man. He has no backbone, no gumption. He rises in the House with these silly hypocrisies which we heard today, the slipshod nonsense about how, after all, they are not indexing the 1 per cent which employees contributed toward the indexing, that they will only limit the indexing on the part the Government contributes.

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
It is a major piece of treachery. It is an act of disdain and contempt for the Canadian people, particularly pensioners. This is why I am so delighted I am here today. I was off on business and I was not able to be here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I was not able to be here last week. I am sorry I missed last week because I would have had the chance to speak three or four times to see if I could get anything across to Hon. gentlemen opposite. They are breaking faith. This is trickery. They talk in international affairs about confidence-creating measures; we must have confidence-creating measures. How can the economy ever come back with this kind of confidence-destroying tactic? There is no confidence in the business community. There is no confidence in the investor. They have all been betrayed. Now there is no confidence in the Government by the old age pensioner. There is no confidence in the Government by the person who receives Family Allowance. There is no confidence in the Government by the 1.5 million people who are unemployed.
How can the Government lead us to an economic recovery? It cannot. It can only lead us to further treachery, trickery and skullduggery. They are breakers and enterers. They should be charged with break and entry, destroying the trust and confidence which people normally have in Government. They have broken and entered peoples' minds. They are worse than the criminal who breaks and enters an ordinary home.
I am coming toward the end of my time. I say that I am voting against this legislation. It is uncaring, unheeding, unknowing, unwholesome; it is treacherous and contrary to the program which the people of Canada were promised. I hope to be around when we come marching back to try to restore some of the things Canadians deserve and should never have had removed from them.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with three matters which arose in the debate today. The first one is the question of the motion of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


John Carnell Crosbie: I want a question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You do not deserve any questions.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why am I being discriminated against? They will not ask me questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If I may give good advice to the Hon. Member, he has to be relevant and he has to be non-repetitive. He was not very relevant and he was very repetitious.
Dealing with the motion to hoist or to put off the vote on this motion to six months hence, I regret to tell the House that I cannot support it because I want the Bill to be disposed of today and beaten, if possible. I do not think the realities of the political world will allow that. Therefore I do not see any virtue in putting the hoist on this Bill so that it will be taken up six months hence, souring relations even more with public
servants and making it very difficult for valid consultations to go on with the Bill over their heads.
I would like to join with the Minister and with other Members of the House in trying to make the consultation process work better in pension matters. I say to the Minister that I think there has to be a fundamental review of the issue and that there are several important issues at hand which must be looked at. In the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and all other pension accounts, there are important technical and fundamental issues which have to be addressed at this time and quickly. To that effect I recommend an approach to the Minister. In light of the statement this morning that we should look at this in the context of national pension reform, and because of the specificity of the matter of Public Service pensions, the Minister should consider setting up a task force-and he should give serious consideration to this without delay-to canvass the views of Public Service pensioners and organizations on the future of the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and all the others, respecting benefits, funding, financing, investments, administration, the role of employees and pensioners in determining these matters in future, and the long-term issues which are of concern to the Minister, to many employees and pensioners at this time.


Walter David Baker: Six months would give him time to set up a task force.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Of course the members of the task force would have to be credible to employees and pensioner organizations. Such a task force would be given full access to all pension data and records other than confidential policy papers between the Minister and his advisers. It would need staff assistance in carrying out financial and other propositions or projections. Finally, to achieve maximum credibility, I believe that it would be necessary for the report of the task force to be made available to employees, pensioners and their organizations when it is submitted to the Minister. If the Minister follows this course of action, it would enable him to make good on his promise that employees and pensioners should and will be consulted on important long-term pension matters, particularly if he moved to set up such a task force at this time and without delay. Such a task force, as I see it, would parallel basically what the Government is proposing to do by setting up a parliamentary committee to get the opinions of all interested Canadians on its Paper entitled "Better Pensions For Canadians."
My second point is with regard to a statement made this morning and repeated again by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) to the effect that there is no formal agreement with respect to Public Service pensions. He said that the present pension system, and I noted that down, does not form part of any agreement arrived at by collective bargaining.
January 25, 1983

Some have said to me that the Minister is implicitly suggesting that everything should be in writing. This would lead to bargaining on pensions. I have not heard in the last few months any unions suggest that we should bargain on pensions. If we came to this, I feel it would be admitting failure on all parts. If the government persists in arguing that gentlemen's agreements, hand shake agreements, and other unwritten agreements are not binding, Public Service unions may reluctantly conclude that they have no other choice but to formalize their pension arrangements, agreements and undertakings with the Government by putting these into collective agreements. As I have said, to me this would be to admit failure.
Since second reading debate on Bill C-133 started about a month and a half ago, a growing recognition has emerged that the fundamental issues faced by this Bill are one of credibility and trust. More specifically, can employees and pensioners believe the Government when it makes a promise, and can they trust the Government as an employer to keep its end of the bargain or agreement? When public servants retired or left the labour force they were told that their pensions would keep up with inflation. They were also told that their pension rights would not be altered without prior consultation. Bill C-133, if enacted, will break faith, in my opinion, with our pensioners on both these counts. Breaking faith or trust for that matter is rightly regarded as a very serious offence in most democratic societies. Trust and faith owe their existence to a structure that is made up of such things as mutual trust, respect and confidence; a sense of fair play and adherence to a comprehensive code of values that, for the most part, is not enshrined in any written document. When these elements permeate the fabric of our society, our social and human relations can withstand great pressure and testing.
The fact that pensioners are protesting the enactment of this Bill is to be expected. What I find surprising, though, is the strength of their protests and the deep sense of grievance, betrayal and outrage that they harbour over the Bill and the effect the Bill has had in creating a spreading atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion in the minds of many pensioners and employees of the Public Service. This, in part, 1 feel is due to the fact that Bill C-133 was sprung on them like a bolt from the blue, and so their reaction of complete surprise and shock is easy to understand.
To gain a better appreciation of this shell-shocked reaction of employees and pensioners, it is necessary to cast our minds back to 1975 and 1977 when the indexing of Public Service pensions was a highly controversial and emotional issue. Most of us who sat on the committee dealing with the issue remember how hard we had to work on that very, very important issue of indexing of Public Service pensions. At the height of this controversy, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that:
-pensioners are out of the work force and cannot bargain or strike for larger incomes. They are not the cause of inflation, they are its victims. We have an obligation to protect them.
It is important to remember that this statement and others in a similar vein that were made by the late Robert Andras and the Hon. Judd Buchanan, were not made when controversy had died down, but when controversy was at its peak. In
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
addition, the Government in these statements was not making a back-pedalling defence of indexing, but was proclaiming for all to hear that it was a fair and just measure and that it advocated such measures for its pensioners. These statements played a major role in giving pensioners a real sense of security about the future of their indexing.
In the last five years, a good deal of the heat and emotion over indexing has abated and increasing numbers of leaders in the private sector have been calling for better inflation protection for pensioners in the private sector, and the Government, by tabling its document entitled "Better Pensions for Canadians", took the same position and encourages, in its Green Paper, better inflation protection for all Canadians.
Another worry that employees and pensioners have is that if the Government feels it has the right to change unilaterally or abandon its commitments and undertakings with respect to indexing, what assurance do employees and pensioners have that the Government will not do the same thing to other pension commitments and undertakings? Much of the worry here is centred on the broad understanding that underlies the many measures the Government has instituted over the years for budgetary reasons, to limit the amounts it puts up for Public Service pensions. These measures have saved the Government and taxpayers billions of dollars and were measures that could not be taken by employers in the private sector. The unwritten agreement involved here is the understanding that if the measures taken to accommodate Government budgetary requirements, as distinct from pension requirements, undermined the financial viability of Public Service pension programs, the Government would step in and meet the shortfall. Perhaps it would be helpful if I described a few of the ways in which the Government over the years has managed to reduce its budgetary requirements for Public Service pensions.
The pension accounts earn interest at rates that are determined by averaging interest rates over the last 20 years in Government bond borrowing. Answers provided by the Treasury Board and tabled in the House on April 21, 1982, in response to a question that was placed on the Order Paper, indicate that by using this formula instead of current interest rates like the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account, public debt charges that must be met by taxpayers have been reduced by over $5 billion to the end of 1980. I am told that one of the unions wrote the President of Treasury Board last spring seeking an update of this figure, but has not yet received a reply. Considering the level of interest rates in 1981 and 1982, I would not be surprised if the current figure showed that these public debt charge savings have now passed the $10 billion mark.
Government budgetary requirements have also been reduced because of the fact that Government matching contributions to the pension accounts are always made one fiscal year in arrears, while employees are required to make theirs every two weeks. This means that Government contributions are perpetually in arrears by amounts varying and ranging up to $500

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
million or more. It is worth noting that one year's interest on $500 million is just about equal to the amount the Government expects to save in its first year's implementation of Bill C-133.
Employees and pensioners have a deep concern and worry about this rate of interest which their pension accounts will earn in the future. The interest rate on the main accounts, as I have said, is determined by averaging interest rates on longterm Government securities over a 20 year period. As a result of this formula, the Government has for many years been able to use Public Service pension funds at rates of interest that have been well below current rates of interest. This situation will change though when rates of inflation come down to more realistic levels. When this happens the interest rate lag that is built into the formula will cause the pension accounts to earn interest at rates that will be well above current rates of interest. The question put to me by many pensioners and Public Service employees from time to time is, what assurance do employees and pensioners have when this occurs? Will the Government not then change the formula to suit its own purposes? This concern, in my view, is not easily dismissed as the current formula is not prescribed by statute but, rather, is determined by regulation.
Frankly, I do not know how to go about putting the minds of employees and pensioners at ease when they ask, "If the Government does not consider itself bound by commitments that are enshrined in statute, why should we believe that the Government will have a stronger attachment to commitments that are contained in regulations, particularly when these regulations can be changed without seeking the approval of Parliament?"
Of all the things that have transpired since Bill C-133 was introduced, I think nothing has perplexed employees and pensioners more than the tendency they have witnessed on the part of the Government to underestimate grossly the pension savings of its six and five proposal. When Governments embark on restraint programs, they are not usually inclined to hide their light under a bushel when it comes to telling the public about the savings they have achieved. If anything, they are usually accused of overstating the savings of their restraint initiatives. "Why", employees ask, "is the Government in this instance underestimating the financial impact of its Public Service legislative proposals?"
Another question I am asked is why the Government has said nothing about the pension savings which will result from the enactment of Bill C-124. As most Hon. Members are aware, the Government is required to credit large amounts to the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act each year to cover the past service pension costs of salary revisions granted every year. When salaries are restrained, these amounts, which are called actuarial liability adjustments, are greatly reduced. Estimates which were provided to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee by one of the unions indicates that the pension savings which the Government will realize through the enactment of Bill C-124 will run between $900 million and $1 billion. I expect that this
figure might run as high as $1.5 billion if we included the Armed Forces and the RCMP.
The Government, to date, has not been particularly reluctant to publicize the savings in salaries it hopes to realize from Bill C-124, but there has been not one word on the pension savings. This is difficult to understand, particularly when pension savings are bound to exceed salary savings from Bill C-124.
During second reading debate on Bill C-133, the Minister stated that the Bill, if enacted, will produce pension index savings of $165 million in 1983 and 1984. The Bill, however, would affect pensions after 1984, but no figures were provided by the Minister on the effects of the Bill on pension incomes after 1984. Estimates which were provided to the committee by some of the pensioner's organizations indicate that Bill C-133 will, over time, reduce pensioners' incomes by about $500 million.
My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the $500 million figure is much too low and that we are likely to find a pensioner income loss of between $1 billion and $2 billion to be closer to the mark. I arrive at that figure by multiplying the life expectancy of pensioners who, on average, are 70 years old, by the life expectancy of 12 years, and multiply the savings of the Government in 1984, which is $105 million, by 12. One can easily understand that my projection of $1 billion is very conservative, to say the least, and is twice the amount given by some of the witnesses who informed the committee during its hearings.
Some employees and pensioners are more than perplexed by the tendency on the Government's part to play down the impact of its six and five proposals on pensions and pensioners. They feel that if true and proper figures were published, it would clearly be demonstrated that the sacrifice pensioners are being required to make is neither minor nor temporary but, rather, is substantial and permanent.
In the limited time available to me, I have not been able to carry out a comprehensive review of the claims, charges and apprehensions which have been raised with me over the past few weeks. It was necessary to read all the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee reports to try to inform myself of the aspects which were put forth by letter and telephone and in personal contact with hundreds of public servants in my riding and elsewhere. I have noticed that most of the issues which have been raised were contained in the very briefs or representations made to the committee, but they sometimes went unanswered because of the structure of the committee. Many of the points and representations made by employee unions, pensioners' organizations and others were not answered in a comprehensive manner. This may, of course, have been due to the hurried nature of the committee's proceedings and examination. Accordingly, I would like to suggest to the Minister that he carry out a detailed review of all the briefs which were submitted to the committee and that he send a comprehensive and detailed reply to the organizations and individuals who
January 25, 1983

submitted them. I am concerned that if this is not done, the organizations and individuals involved, the taxpayers, those constituents of mine who have written letters, will assume that silence denotes assent, and this cannot help but exacerbate future relations with these organizations and individuals.
One thing is crystal clear: when there is a breakdown in trust, an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion quickly develops, which, if left unchecked, can poison a broad range of employer-employee relations for a long time. It was with this is mind that I concluded in my speech during second reading stage that this is a Bill which makes everyone a loser. The taxpayer loses, the pensioner loses and the Government loses by its presence.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have no questions to ask of the Hon. Member who has just spoken. I listened carefully to a very thoughtful speech by a very thoughtful person. Certainly, there are few people in the House who could match his knowledge concerning the problems of senior citizens and indexation. Also, I suspect there is no one in the House who has more clearly seen what the Government is doing. The Government is breaking a pledge to civil servants and to the Armed Forces, and I understand that next week or sometime in the near future it will be the turn of the old age pensioner.
This morning we listened to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) while he gave us his excuses for what was going on here. He made a few statements which absolutely astonished me. I simply cannot understand them. Perhaps he will enter into another debate next week on the Old Age Security Act and explain how he could say such things. I took down what he said at the time, and he said, "The payments to the pensioners come from the taxpayer, generally". This is very difficult for me to accept from a Minister of the Crown or from anyone else, for that matter. Another opinion was stated by Bruce Phillips, the commentator on the CTV National News last night. He is usually much more sensible. I do not know how he could state such an opinion, which I know Hon. Members opposite hope is a popular opinion, as to how people felt concerning indexed pensions, without mentioning the Superannuation Fund or the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Fund. He implied, as did the Minster this morning, that that money comes entirely from the taxpayer.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), placed a question on the Order Paper a few weeks ago and received an answer on January 21. Question No. 4,486 asked, in part:
For each of the past ten Fiscal years, what was the amount of (a) interest earned (b) employee contributions-
Statistics were given for several different funds, starting with the Public Service Superannuation Account. Employee contributions, which the President of the Treasury Board likes to completely ignore, as did Bruce Phillips last night, amounted to $126 million in 1972. Pension payments amounted to $121 million. Therefore, starting in 1972, more money has been paid in by employees than paid out in pensions, to say nothing of the employer contributions or, as the President of the Treasury Board would like the general public to believe,
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
the amount derived from general public taxation. In 1973-74 the employees contributed $141.5 million and pension payments were $139 million. In 1974-75 the employees contributed $168 million and the pension payments were $161 million.
How the Minister can go on with this kind of "Gray's Elegy" as he did this morning, and I hope it will not be read hundreds of years from now as the other "Gray's Elegy" has been, but how he can claim that the payment out to the pensioners comes from the taxpayers generally, in view of the figures I have just read out, is beyond comprehension.
As well as that, the Public Service Superannuation Account receives interest which is credited, additional interest which is earned and employer contributions.
If I could skip to the year 1981-82, which is the last one mentioned in this answer to the question from the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the interest credited was $837 million; the additional interest earned was $355 million; the employees contributed $403 million and the employer contribution was $606 million. That is a total of $2,201,000,000, and the pension payments were $459 million.
There has to be something wrong about these figures and the statement from a Minister of the Crown that the general taxpayer is paying this. Does that mean that all these figures are just a figment of the imagination of some clerk somewhere, that they mean nothing? One would assume so, if the Minister actually believes that the pension payments come generally from the taxpayers.
I would like to mention a few figures for the Canadian Forces Pension Fund, which provides on a per capita basis for those involved, a somewhat larger amount per person. They had receipts into their fund, the interest credited, of $618 million; additional interest earned was $262 million; employee contributions, $91 million, and the employer contributions $198 million. This was in the year 1981-82, and the payment out was $291 million. From this it can be seen that the payments in far exceed the payments out, in fact that is true in almost each category. Yet the Minister had the nerve to say that the amounts in the superannuation accounts represent the amounts required to pay future benefits. Does that mean that in the answer to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, when he mentioned employee contributions, the Department officials also made that up, either from their imagination or from their computers, because, believe me, civil servants know where some of that money comes from? It comes from their pay cheques and it comes out of the servicemen's pay cheques. They have no doubt at all as to where it comes from. The servicemen and the civil servants may consider that they are the only ones putting money into it, and that may be so, from these figures. Certainly if the Government has not exactly cheated them, it has given everyone in the country the wrong impression of what is going on with the civil service pensions.
The subject was dealt with at some length by my distinguished colleague from Nepean-Carleton this morning when

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
he rebutted the statements of the President of the Treasury Board about a contract. The President of the Treasury Board seemed to think he was on firm ground because there was no written contract with civil servants, the Armed Forces or the RCMP signed by the appropriate Minister of the Crown, I suppose-that would be the President of the Treasury Board- and signed by every one of the hundreds of thousands of people involved, an agreement that would say, "Yes, I will pay you an indexed pension".
1 have here a copy of a few pages out of the Statutes of Canada, and one part says, "This Act may be cited as a Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act". In this it defines what a pension index is. With respect to any year it is the average for that year of the Consumer Price Index for Canada as published by Statistics Canada.
What does the Minister mean when he says the Government does not have a contract? Of course it has a contract; it is spelled out in the Statutes of Canada. If he is trying to say that the Statutes of Canada are really meaningless when it comes to whether it has a Contract to fulfil or not, then I think we must take a new look at the dealings between this employer and its employees. If he can say that about pensions, the Government can say that about employees' pay, their terms of service, terms of employment and so on.
What is sad about this legislation is that the Government, with the need for restraint that has become obvious to everyone in the last year-except that it may have become obvious to the Liberal Government a little later than to others-has looked at a class of people, a group of people that will suffer. This group of people is going to be moved, from the position they now hold in our social fabric, down 5 per cent. That is what it means. Instead of that group being able to buy the kind of groceries they were able to buy last year, and expected they would be able to buy this year, they are to be moved down 5 per cent, and they have to stay there forever. No longer will they be where they were this past year or the year before. They are down 5 per cent. There is no way they will ever get that money back, nor ever return to the base on which their annual percentage increase will be computed. Down they go, and this is pretty hard to take for this class of people who mainly have in common the fact that they work for the Government and that they are elderly. Some are wealthier than others and those it will not hurt as much as others, but there are quite a few who will be hurt quite considerably.
I think with some affection of the gentleman who appeared in front of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and spoke to us about his pension. His name was Mr. Aplin and he was an ex-serviceman. I was questioning him about the 85 rule. I sometimes think I am the only person in the House who understands what the 85 rule is about, but I know about that because I am an ex-serviceman. It is that your age and your service must together add up to 85 before you can become indexed. One of the reasons this is particularly important to servicemen is that they are not allowed to serve until they are 65 or 60. They are turned out much earlier. When I questioned Mr. Aplin, I asked him "So the 85 rule is particularly savage on servicemen where it is not on civil
servants, in that they have this compulsory release age. How old were you when you were let out of the forces?" Mr. Aplin told me "forty-five". I said, "Age 45. And when will you be indexable, or are you now?" Mr. Aplin responded, "I am not indexable until January 21". That was four days ago. Congratulations Mr. Aplin, you made it. I then asked him, "And how long have you been out?" I meant out of the service. He said, "Ten years. No, 12 ... 13 years". I said, "Might I ask how much your pension is?" His reply was, "$277.55". I said, "And has been for ten years." He said, "It has been for ten years".
That is the kind of person that we should be thinking about, a person who has been on pension for 12 years at $277.55, yet the general public thinks that immediately a person gets out of the service they retire on a fat pension. They certainly do not.
Another question is whether or not a person should lay up an income for their old age. That is a conflict between the wish of the Government for people to make their own preparations for their golden years and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. When a person is thinking of buying an annuity or working for the Government for a sufficient time to get a pension of, let us say, $250 a month, that simply means that if that is all one has when one reaches the age of 65 and retires, one might as well not have any pension at all. All it means is that it prevents one from drawing the Guaranteed Income Supplement. This is the odd conflict that we have got into by the mismanagement of the pension funds and the pension terms in this country.
In closing 1 would just like to say that we have participated at great length in this debate. It has been interesting and has presented quite a challenge, I would expect, to the morality of some of the Members in the Liberal Party and, I hope, they will make the right choice when the vote is taken in the next half hour or so.
I am much encouraged by the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) who last night said, "Therefore, it is with regret that I state now that I cannot support Bill C-133". I looked for him last night when we were voting on Bill C-133. There must have been some earthshaking, cataclysmic event of about seven on the Richter scale that kept him from coming here to vote. We look forward to him and others making their decision in half an hour or so from now. I hope enough Members on the other side will think of the debt they owe to the senior citizens of this country and show an example that will encourage the old age pensioners whose turn will come in a few days or week, giving them hope that they will be treated in the just manner to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was so fond of referring in his election campaign.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in favour of the motion for third reading of Bill C-133, as modified by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) to grant pension
January 25, 1983

increases under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act of 6.5 per cent this year and 5.5 per cent in 1984. 1 speak in favour because the modification to the Bill will give Public Service pensioners more than they otherwise would have received under the original proposal without violating the spirit of six and five.
The modification recognizes an important principle of not capping contributions made by the employees, matched by the employer, without upsetting the integrity of the six and five program. The modification to the Bill will not upset six and five because it follows on the principle that money set aside in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account as a result of prior contributions to pay for indexing should continue to be used for indexing. In this way the principle is recognized that the capping of Public Service pensions should not apply to the portion of the indexing being provided for from the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account.
Those from the private sector who have been most active in their endorsement of the six and five program, it is understood, concur with the Government's view that modifying the pension increases in the manner indicated would not be a breach of faith with the program. Furthermore, the modification was only embraced after extensive review of all suggestions received by the Government, Members of its own caucus as well as from other sources. These representations reveal that some modification to the original proposal for restriction of Public Service pension increases to six and five could be made within the spirit of the six and five program.
The main reason for restricting pension increases to the new proposed levels dictated by the six and five program is, of course, to support the present policy for achieving price stability. There can be no sound and lasting recovery in the economy without price stability. It is something fundamental and basic that any economist will indicate to someone who inquires about this.
Price stability is sought and is desirable, not only for its own sake, but because it is necessary to re-establish growth in the economy and, with growth, to promote jobs. This is what the six and five program is all about, reducing inflation for an economic recovery and producing jobs. Thus, any breach in the program at this time could jeopardize importance national economic objectives.
It has been questioned by some whether it is now necessary to carry forward with the pensioner's part of the program since the goal of price stability is within reach. This is to overlook the role of inflationary expectations. Anticipation of the six and five program being implemented has been sufficient to start moving the inflation rate down. That is, prices move on thought; when there is conviction, the thought will be followed by implementation. To interfere with the implementation is to break the conviction. Not to carry through now is to break the very favourable expectations of lower inflation set in motion with the announcement of the six and five program. To back away at this time from the original intent and the basis of the initial success would be to jeopardize that very success. It would lead to renewed speculation of more inflation to come.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Other critics of the motion have taken a different tack. They rally around the cry of not fighting inflation on the backs of pensioners. This is to argue that while it is desirable to dampen inflationary expectations, it is not for some reason desirable to dampen the inflationary expectations of pensioners. These critics go on to maintain that it is unfair to force a reduction in living standards on pensioners. This is to ignore, however, what happens to the relative economic position of Public Service pensioners when their pensions are fully indexed for inflation when wages are not.
When Public Servants are asked to take a reduction in living standards, they suffer a loss in economic position vis-a-vis pensioners whose standards are maintained by full indexing. It seems only elementary justice to ask pensioners to share in the same reduction as active workers when this is necessary for the national good. Pensioners are not being asked to share a loss in economic position relative to active workers, only to share in a common restraint with workers that keeps the relative position of the two groups unchanged.
To keep any group at its previous level of real income at times when others are suffering a loss of their real incomes through restricted wage growth or, worse, through unemployment is to enable the protected group to gain in economic position relative to the others. This is hardly the way to have us all pull together in support of six and five and a better economic recovery.
Much has been made of the fact that there was no consultation with regard to this legislation. The answer is simple. The legislation was part of a budgetary process and at that time budgetary processes involved no prior consultation due to traditions of Parliament. However, the President of the Treasury Board when appointed to this position immediately initiated consultations with the Public Service unions. These consultations played an important part leading to a respect of the principle of not capping contributions made by the employees and matched by the employer. They played an important part in leading to the amendment that increased the cap to 6.5 per cent in 1983 and 5.5 per cent in 1984.
I now want to turn to some of the comments by Members in the Conservative Party, particularly the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He talked of hypocrisy. I find it difficult to understand the Hon. Member who supports restraint in general, but when it comes down to the specifics is not willing to support it. It is easy to espouse motherhood and easy to espouse restraint when you do not have to name what you are going to restrain, when you do not talk about who will get hurt. That is easy.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West is a supporter of Reaganomics. He has indicated that publicly. The major basis of Reaganomics in terms of social programs is to slash them and slash them hard, not just slashing at indexing, but cutting away at the very foundation of the program. To be a supporter of Reaganomics and then come here and try to pretend that you have a greater social conscience than the NDP is a little hard to swallow.

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
We then come to the comments by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and his amendment to have 6 per cent apply in 1983 but not 1984. Somehow the Conservative Opposition, represented by the Official critic, in that amendment finds that it can accept the principle of six and five for one year but not for two.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the Hon. Member using my name if it is in order, but I think it is inappropriate to comment on a vote in this House.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not commenting on the vote in this House. I am commenting on the Hon. Member's amendment to limit indexation to 6 per cent in 1983 but not in 1984. If it is okay to cap the pension in 1983, why is it not okay to cap it in 1984? You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask Hon. Members from the Opposition who have endorsed some Hon. Members from the Ottawa area on this side, who, in good conscience, are voting against this legislation, to recognize and respect the right of other Hon. Members from the Ottawa area who have the personal and political courage to vote in support of the legislation. The people of Canada are looking for politicians who have integrity and courage. I would really encourage Hon. Members opposite to recognize that kind of personal and political courage from those people who, in good conscience, are voting in support of this Bill, and who believe in putting the national interest first.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this stage, the Hon. Member is rising to put questions to the Hon. Member who has spoken. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, actually I have only two very short questions for the Hon. Member, if he will permit. One question is about his reference to the necessity of Canadians to share in this fight against inflation, with the implication that people should be volunteering to restrict their pension increases to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year.
In light of that fairness and sharing concept, which in principle, of course, one has to support, could the Hon. Member attempt to explain how the man who advises the Government on fiscal policy, Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada, would not go along with this sharing concept and ask his retired employees to share in the six and five program, as opposed to giving them an increase this year of 11.5 per cent, which is more than the rate of inflation? Could he explain that, please?


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that less than 1 per cent of pensioners in the private sector have fully indexed pensions. Therefore, the Government has no necessity to ask private sector pensioners to volunteer for six and five. They are not receiving six and five. I believe that is part of the equity here. We are asking Public Service pensioners to share in the burden in the same way private sector pensioners are already. They do not have a chance to volunteer.
With respect to Governor Bouey and the Bank of Canada, the fact is that the Bank of Canada is not covered under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Bill C-133 amends the Public Service Superannuation Act. That is one point. It is not possible, therefore, to do that through this legislation.
Second, the setup of pensions in the Bank of Canada is such that it is fully contributory, not only for the basic pension plan, as it is for Public Servants in general, but also for the indexation part of the plan. So taxpayers' funds are not being used in any way to index the pensioners of the Bank of Canada, as opposed to the pensioners covered under this Act where 90 per cent of the funds to pay for that indexation are coming from the taxpayers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I accept the Hon. Member's very diligent response. I must say, though, Governor Bouey's call for restraint at six and five has a relatively hollow ring after today, when he deals with his employees one way and asks others to deal with their employees in quite a different way. I notice the banks as well have been very vocal in encouraging the six and five program. Looking at the annual statement of the Royal Bank of Canada I note they gave their pensioned off employees an increase of 16.5 per cent for this year. Again, while certain leaders are saying one thing, their behaviour is demonstrating quite another. We have now heard from the Chairman of the blue chip committee, Mr. Ian Sinclair, who has advised the Government on the six and five program and has been their spokesman across the country, saying virtually that now is the time to stimulate the economy. I have a newspaper clipping in which he does not refer to millions and millions of dollars, but says, Mr. Speaker, we must stimulate the economy to the tune of billions of dollars.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the Hon. Member that a question should be short and to the point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question to the Hon. Member is this. It would appear now that Ian Sinclair and his blue chip Committee have abandoned this six and five course and are now asking for an incredible amount of stimulus. Would that not weaken the Hon. Member's position on Bill C-133, and perhaps even encourage him to vote agains it?


Peter Joseph Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. Mr. Sinclair has been a strong supporter of the six and five program. He also recognizes, as does the Government, that six and five is not the total answer, that there are other economic measures which have to be taken to bring about an economic recovery and to deal with the serious problems of unemployment. That does not say, Mr. Speaker, it is inconsistent with reducing inflationary expectations to modify and moderate income expectations. Clearly the Hon. Member who is the finance critic for the New Democratic Party understands that in an inflationary recession, inflation is not being driven by too much total aggregate demand, but is being driven by cost-push inflation and by inflationary expectations. I do not find it inconsistent to have a program of six and five dealing with

cost-push inflation and inflationary expectations, and at the same time to advocate measures to increase investment in the private and public sectors, when we know that investment is down dramatically because of the effects of recession on corporate balance sheets. Therefore, I find no inconsistency in that at all and support what Mr. Sinclair has indicated.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, can I speak on the amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: An Hon. Member is rising to put questions? I recognize the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member opposite would agree that the retired federal civil servants paid an extra contribution into their pension fund, some 7.5 per cent, that the superannuation account has almost $16 billion in it, and they should be allowed to use that up before having to take a cut like the rest of us? Second, who or what caused the original inflation? Would the Hon. Member agree that it was really the federal Government deficit, rather than the ordinary civil servant working faithfully at his desk?


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the Hon. Member's question in my speech when I indicated that 90 per cent of the funds which go to pay for Public Service pensioners' indexation is coming out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, originally from the taxpayer.
With respect to the Hon. Member's second question as to who caused inflation, I find it a little difficult to even start to answer that question, knowing that I have one minute. If the House would like to give unanimous consent to me taking 15 minutes, I would be happy to answer it.
I think it is safe to say we all had a part in creating the inflationary environment in which we find ourselves. There were not only domestic causes but also very dramatic international causes. Probably the major cause, Mr. Speaker, was the 1,500 per cent increase in the last ten years in the price of oil, which led to a 1,500 per cent increase, basically across the board, in the cost of the energy which fuels our economy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: One last question, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) made it very clear in his presentation a short time ago that he justified the application of the six and five program to retired public servants on the grounds that taxpayers' dollars were involved. To paraphrase, he said that because taxpayers' dollars are involved, the Government has an obligation to impose this program of restraint. We have heard the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and others analyse the funding of the Public Service Superannuation Plan, the fact that there is $14 billion in the various funds, and the fact that contributions greatly exceed the amount being paid out in Public Service pensions.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) if he believes that taxpayers' funds are being used to
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
pay these benefits and that is the justification for application of this six and five program and the provisions of Bill C-133, or does he agree with me that there are no taxpayers' funds involved?


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I just answered this in my answer to his colleague's previous question. But, yes, 90 per cent of the funding which goes toward indexation of Public Service pensions comes from the taxpayer. The Hon. Member refers to $14 billion; it is actually $15.3 billion. That money is there to pay for the basic pension plan as well as 10 per cent of the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The ten minute period of question and answer having expired, the Chair now recognizes the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the amendment to Bill C-133 which would prevent the passage of this Bill for six months, and also speak on the Bill itself. Before that, however, I would like to respond to a remark made by one of the Conservative Members who spoke earlier this afternoon when he said the NDP had a new-found interest in pensions.
There is not one person in this House, Mr. Speaker, who would deny the fact that our colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has been the spokesman for people who receive pensions throughout this country, whether they be men, women, veterans or any other Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Our record on pensions is consistent and stands by itself. I think some people should really research the record before they speak in this House.
When we look at this Bill before us, Mr. Speaker, we find there many objectionable features. One of the concerns we have is that the Government is breaking a trust. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) said earlier today, there is nothing in writing. There is no written contract between the Government and the pensioners, the Public Service unions or the association representing the superannuants. That is what the Minister said. That was the Minister's justification for doing what he is doing. But there is much more to keeping your word than having a written contract. As has been referred to in a number of briefs which came before the Committee studying this legislation, there is such a thing as a gentleman's agreement and the Government giving its word to its employees and pensioners. This Government, and the one which preceded it under the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, promised that no changes would take place in the Public Service pension without consultation. The Government did not say, "Without consultation; however, if it is a budget we will not talk to you." They did not say that. Prime Minister Pearson and Presidents of the Treasury Board-for the most part Liberal Cabinet Ministers-said, "This is your pension plan". The Government put out a pamphlet saying that there would be no changes without consultation. And this Bill breaks that trust.

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Earlier this afternoon the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) got up and asked those same pensioners to put their trust again in this Government. He said that he had a promise from the President of the Treasury Board, one that the Minister did not make in this House, that there will be changes to the Public Service pension plan prior to 1985. Well, anyone who is quick with mathematics-I sometimes wonder if the Liberal backbenchers are-will realize that there will be an election before that time, and it is again a situation where the Government does not really expect to have to live up to the promises it is making. This legislation is a betrayal of trust, and the Government has the nerve to come to this House, the pensioners and people who are working for the federal Government, and say: "Trust us again. We broke trust today but that is only because it is a budget item. Trust us because sometime in the next three or four years we will do something different and try to make amends". 1 do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the pensioners trust this Government. I do not believe we can expect that because trust has to be based on action and the action of this Government is to betray trust.
In the last few minutes I have heard some heckling from my right in the Conservative Party. In the last few days they have been getting up and talking about the Government breaking trust and contracts, and they made all sorts of fancy speeches. Not as many as they should have, but that is to be expected because they do not really defend pensioners when they have the chance. Well, Mr. Speaker, those same Conservatives who talk about this Bill breaking trust should remember that when Bill C-124 was before this House they voted with the Liberal Government, as they do on most pieces of significant legislation, and that legislation broke collective agreements the Government had signed with hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers. That was not just a gentleman's agreement, that was an agreement the Government had negotiated and signed. And the Conservatives, with the exception of two of their Members, stood up and supported the Liberals in breaking that trust. That set the stage for breaking trust with old age pensioners, people who receive Family Allowances and Government pensioners affected by this legislation. Then, Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, when there was an opportunity to fight the Government, the Conservatives have not shown that much strength. We talked about the fact that they only stayed out of the House 15 minutes and defeated our effort to prevent the Government from making a closure motion at that time. They spent 15 days protecting their friends in the oil companies.


Donald W. Munro: Protecting Parliament.


Rodney Edward Murphy: They spent a number of days protecting their friends, the export companies, over Canagrex, but they could only spend 15 minutes protecting the Government's pensioners.
Last night when we were voting on the amendments to Bill C-133, how many Conservatives showed up for the last vote? Fifty-two showed up and 49 were absent, Mr. Speaker. If half of those Conservative Members had been present last night,
the Bill would have been defeated. Where were those 49 Conservatives? There were not that many Liberals absent. I do not know how they pair-is it one Liberal for four Tories? If their excuse is that they are paired with the Liberals, they are admitting that they have co-operated on every vote that the Liberal Government survives.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Who sold out property rights?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has some concern about relevance in the debate at this point. It is a difficult matter, but I would call the attention of the Hon. Member to the Bill that is before us for debate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I can understand why the Conservatives in the House-not the 49 who were absent-would be sensitive about this.
Earlier I heard the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) ask that more than four Liberals vote against this legislation. We need more than four on that side to support us, Mr. Speaker. We need those 49 Conservatives in the House tonight to support us and defeat this legislation which breaks the trust of Civil Service pensioners.
We have fought against this Bill because it breaks that trust. We have fought against the Bill because we know it is the result of a public relations exercise on the part of the Government. That was evident in a leaked document that came to my Leader early last year. It showed that a Public Service restraint program would be a public relations effort. It said that the main value of such a program would be that the Government would be seen as doing something to fight inflation.
We need a job-creation program in the country. We need an industrial strategy in the country. We need a lot of things to get the Canadian economy going. Something we do not need is a program to fight it on the backs of Government pensioners. We do not need to fight it on the backs of those who receive the old age pension. We do not need to fight it on the backs of the women and children who receive Family Allowances. We need the fat cats in the Liberal Party and the silent and invisible Members of the Conservative Party to support Canadians in need. What we do not need is the hypocrisy we have seen in this debate.
This Party has been consistent in the debate and we have been consistent in fighting the six and five legislation. We have been consistent in calling for a job-creation program. We have been consistent throughout the debate on six and five. The Tories cannot claim that. They supported the Liberal Government under Bill C-124 and now they hop on in the other side of the bed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: There seems to be some sensitivity among Conservative Members, and I can well understand that.
Let me speak on behalf of old age pensioners and the others affected by this legislation. We will continue to fight despite the fact that it upsets some Tory backbenchers, despite the
January 25, 1983

fact that it has upset some Liberal backbenchers, because we believe in fighting for adequate pensions for Canadians. We will keep doing that despite the heckling of some people in this House who do not give a damn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to the order made on Thursday, January 20, 1983, to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill.

The question is on the amendment of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment 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:: I declare the amendment lost.
Motion (Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)) negatived.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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

January 25, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Messrs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members, and let us dispense with the bell.
Pepin	Rompkey	TousignantPeterson	Rossi	TrudeauPinard	Roy	TurnerPortelance	Savard	VeillettePrud'homme	Schroder	WatsonRegan	Smith	WeatherheadReid	Tardif	Whelan(Kenora-Rainy River)	Tessier	Yanakis-132.Roberts	Tobin	Robinson	
(Etobicoke-Lakeshorc)
++NAYS


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: It now being 6.25 p.m. 1 do now leave the Chair until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.25 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Wednesday, January 26, 1983