1983-01-18

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 17, 1983, consideration of Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; and the motion of Mr. Gray (p. 21886) and the motion of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (p. 21889).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: When the House adjourned last night the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) had the floor.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) is rising on a point of order.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my intervention 1 was reasonably assured that there was unanimous consent for the tabling of a document from which the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) had read. I see from this morning's Hansard that that document does not appear. It was a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1977 to a correspondent who had been inquiring about the application of the CPI to Public Service pensions. In that letter every assurance was given to the correspondent and to anyone else-because it was an open letter-that the cost of living index would be applied to Public Service pensioners. I would refer Your Honour to page 21908 of yesterday's Hansard, where it appears that unanimous consent was granted. Therefore, I should like to urge that the omission be remedied in today's Hansard.


Mr. Bussieres:: Mr. Speaker, to avoid prolonging the debate, I shall be very brief. If I remember correctly, first of all, the Chair did not ask for unanimous consent and second, when the Hon. Member said that he thought there was unanimous consent, I clearly heard one of my colleagues on my left say no, he did not agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I thank the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich for raising the point. First of all, private Members are not allowed to table documents in the House, unless, of course, unanimous consent is given. This has been a long-established practice. I understand that unanimous consent was refused yesterday. Even though it might not have been heard by the official reporter of the House, a "No" was stated yesterday. A refusal was stated to unanimous consent, so therefore we cannot proceed at this time with the matter raised by the Hon. Member.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, there was no sound of a dissenting voice. As reported in the second column on page 21908 of Hansard, I said:
I think that by unanimous consent we will have it appended to Hansard: that is very good.
There was no sound, there is no record in Hansard of any dissenting voice having been recorded. I would assume-and I think it is a fair assumption for anyone reading Hansard-that unanimous consent was given and that therefore the document should be appended.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Again I should draw to the Hon. Member's attention that the only way for private Members to table documents or letters is through the means of unanimous consent.


Donald W. Munro: That is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The record also shows very clearly that the Chair did not seek unanimous consent. The Hon. Member may have rhetorically asked for unanimous consent in the course of his speech, but formally we never proceeded to seek unanimous consent for the tabling of those papers. Those are the facts as they unfolded yesterday. Therefore, even though the Hon. Member feels he has a personal grievance, it is not possible to correct a situation which did not occur in the first place because unanimous consent was not sought.
Is the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) seeking the floor on the same point of order?


Mr. McKinnon:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will not delay the proceedings of the House for long. It might resolve this matter if you were now to ask for unanimous consent and, if there are some Hon. Members opposite who do not want the letter of the

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to be tabled in the House of Commons, they could then say so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Then I will put the request to the House. Is there unanimous consent for the tabling of the document read by the Hon. Member for Victoria in the course of his speech yesterday?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


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


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-133, an amendment proposed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) to change from 6 per cent to 6.5 per cent and from 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent the indexing of pensions of retired public servants. I am opposing the motion and my Party is opposing the amendment because it is wrong.
Yesterday evening when I was speaking on the Bill I pointed out that a deal is a deal is a deal. The deal which was made between the public servants of Canada, their pension fund and their pension future, with the Government of Canada was a deal. When the deal was finished both sides believed that it was sincere and true. Unfortunately, we find out now that the Government did not accept it as a deal and has decided to change it. We are speaking against that kind of thing because it is wrong.
Public servants have paid into this pension fund in all good faith and with the good will that when their time came to retire they would be receiving the pensions which had been prescribed to them by the negotiations and the deal made with the Government. Unfortunately, that deal has been broken. This brings to the fore of my mind one of the most serious problems that we as Members of Parliament face in the House of Commons. That is, who are we to believe and who are the people of Canada to believe? I stand here and people judge me for my credibility; do I speak or do 1 not speak the truth? My colleagues on all sides of the House have the same responsibility. They stand before this House of Commons and before the people of Canada. They do so whether they are credible or not. I have talked to many people in Canada and I believe that many Canadians are losing their faith in this House and in the value of this House of Commons. One of the reasons for that is broken deals.
All of us must ask ourselves the question: "Are we credible?" I have to do that, Members of my Party must, and so must Members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal
Party ask themselves. That question must be asked by Members of the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We must ask ourselves whether we are credible; are we telling the truth; are we doing what we say? If we cannot answer yes to those questions, then I have a moral responsibility to myself, and others in this House of Commons have a moral responsibility to themselves, to do something about it.
Unfortunately, the people of Canada, the voters out there, do not have the force of power to come here and argue their case in the House. We have to do it for them. But 1 know when I speak about the broken deal on the civil servants' pension fund that I speak what they are saying and what they are thinking.
We have legislation before us now that has been so easily summarized under the catch phrase "six and five". This six and five program is a sort of direction or thrust that was thrown out to the Canadian people as a solution to their problems. My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, by supporting that direction, should stand up now and say that having supported the direction they therefore support this amendment, because that is the truth. If you buy a principle, then you buy what the principle says you have to do.
I am asking the President of the Treasury Board to reconsider seriously what he has proposed. I am asking the Government to reconsider seriously what it has proposed in these Bills that are now being bound around the six and five principle.
I think it is important as we debate this particular Bill to remember that as people get more power and more financial strength they have a more difficult time speaking the truth all the time. I believe that poor people who tell you that they are hungry, that they cannot look after themselves in their old age, that they are sick or that they do not have a job, will speak the truth more clearly and more frequently. That is easily understood. It is not a new idea; it is as old as the biblical traditions that we have. Those who become powerful and rich-I speak of governments, of the House of Commons, of business people, of labour unions, of anybody who becomes powerful and rich and gets away from the poor-have a great deal of difficulty in speaking the truth all the time.
Today, as I throw in my few words on this important amendment and Bill, I ask that the Government seriously reconsider what it has done. I ask Members of this House of Commons to consider seriously what they have done. We should cancel those Bills. If that does not happen, I can say very clearly that what is going to happen in the next election in Windsor is that the campaign slogan will be "Goodbye, Herb".


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks at the report stage of Bill C-133, which amends the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and adversely affects public servants' pensions, by underlying the massive implications of this measure for Canadian pensioners and public workers.

January 18, 1983

First, the 6 per cent and 5 per cent cap on pension increases directly affects 200,000 public servants who can rightly claim that they bargained and paid for this benefit. The fact that this employment agreement was entrenched in the statute law and can only be changed by a parliamentary Act is evidence of this social contract.
Second, there are 500,000 public servants employed by the Government of Canada and its agencies, including the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, who view this legislative change as adversely affecting their pension rights and benefits.
Third, this Bill, C-133, involves a breach of faith for every Canadian because every Canadian who receives a benefit under the statute law of the Parliament of Canada cannot rest assured that that benefit will be continued in all circumstances.
The Government has taken the position that if it considers it necessary in the interest of its financial responsibility to remove benefits without consultation, without prior discussion with the beneficiaries, it can do so by simply introducing an amending Bill in the House of Commons. That is a breach of faith which should concern not only the 700,000 public servants who are particularly affected by this Bill, but it is a breach of faith which should concern all Canadians.
I am certain that every one of the 700,000 responsible and socially conscious Canadians who are represented by the retired public servants and by those now in the Canadian Public Service would accept a limit on their statutory pension rights if that limit was based on reality and principle. However, the Government has substituted fiction for facts. The Government has replaced principle with prejudice.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Cabinet colleagues have systematically and maliciously created a false impression of the federal public servant and, in the case of Bill C-133, the retired public servant. That perception first projects a retired public servant as one who is given pension benefits as an unearned reward by an overgenerous employer. Second, this fictional public servant was overpaid for most of his or her working life, yet the retirement benefit was a substantial percentage-as much as 70 per cent-of that bloated salary. Third, the overpaid and undeserving senior citizens scoff at high inflation rates because, in fact, according to the Government, senior citizens benefit from that inflation rate because the pension income they receive is increased in line with the cost of living.
To suggest to the Canadian people that retired public servants benefit from inflation and therefore can accept a cap on that benefit is ridiculous. What a tragedy it is that well informed Canadians would accept such a false and deceptive description of the retired public servant. What a tragedy that our Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues would, with malice aforethought, create such a perception for the public to accept. This is moral bankruptcy at its lowest level.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues who hold a majority in this House will make Bill C-133 the law of this land, but
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act {No. 2)
they will not suceed in convincing Canadians that their action is right and just.
Why is this Act not right? Because the whole six and five program is a fraud and a sham. It is a public fraud on the Canadian people. The Government continues to spend at the rate it has spent over the last decade. It continues to build up a deficit which is now at $23 billion. We were told this very week that it is going up to $30 billion.
Why is Bill C-133 unjust? Because there are 200,000 pensioners who have an average income of $6,900 a year. When one adds the old age assistance to this income, a retired public servant 65 years of age or over, if he has a wife, is below the poverty line of $10,400.
Let me look at the specific problems that are encountered by aging Canadians. In some cases they require care in a nursing home or a similar institution. There is no way that a retired public servant whose income averages $6,900, even with the old age assistance benefit, can pay for nursing care in a nursing home institution anywhere in Canada. Our retired public servants who have spent their working lives trying to provide for their old age are deprived of the financial ability, in most cases, to pay even for nursing care in an institutionalized setting. Therefore, to call the action being taken in Bill C-133 fair or just is to defeat the purpose of those expressions.
I question whether the measure is necessary. The saving to the public purse, as I understand it, will be $15 million in this fiscal year and $85 million in the subsequent fiscal year because of the change which will be brought about by the provisions of Bill C-133. I have already pointed out that the Government continues its spending at an alarming rate and is piling up an even greater deficit than that projected in the June, 1982 Budget which created the six and five program. However, let me give some other examples of Government spending, which are in excess of $100 million, which will be saved by the provisions of Bill C-133.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is in the House and I am sure he is about to approve the construction of a vessel to ply between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and span the Gulf. The estimated cost of that vessel is $122 million and the project was first rejected by the Government. It is now apparently being reinstated, not to help the poor people in Newfoundland or in Nova Scotia but, rather, to help the company that will build the vessel, a subsidiary of Dome Petroleum, the Davie Shipbuilding Company. So there is $122 million which will be spent.


Mr. Pepin:: Everybody is in favour of that.


Howard Edward Crosby: We have the continuing luxury of the Mirabel Airport piling up a deficit of $50 million a year. Over a two-year period, we could save $100 million there. I will not mention the Canada Post Corporation, with its $500 million deficit year after year. What about the assistance the Canadian National Railways generously gave to the CAST Shipping group, over $60 million to help a foreign company build ships

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
and create activity offshore? I could go down the list and very quickly come up with literally thousands of examples of wastage in the area of $100 million over the last decade, but I will content myself with those examples. If there were other Ministers in the House, I could display for Hon. Members some of their financial sins in the past decade.
I want to speak about the attitude of the New Democratic Party, which Your Honour has just seen evidenced in this House by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: Its thesis before us is always that the Progressive Conservative Party supported the six and five program.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me ask you, let me ask New Democrats and let me ask every Canadian, why would the Progressive Conservative Party not support the six and five program when it was first announced? When it was first announced, it was tied to a cutback in Government expenditure in the name of restraint. It was intended that the six and five program would save the public treasury funds, and that the savings would result in a better economic situation in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Finance, who no longer is the Minister of Finance for that very reason, deceived the House when he brought in his June, 1982 Budget. He was not interested in restraint at all. The six and five program has since been proved to be a public fraud.


Mrs. Mitchell:: You voted with us!


Howard Edward Crosby: There was no intention to cut back on spending. So what happened was that the Opposition, in its loyal duty to Her Majesty, to the Crown, accepted the Government's good intention to restrain Government spending and to apply the six and five program fairly to accomplish that purpose. We were the victims of the Government's fraud when it comes to federal public servants and retired federal public servants.
This is not to justify the action of the New Democratic Party, because we know that it was not sincere in its opposition. We know from its action time and time again in this House of Commons that its Members simply stand up and take whatever position their whim of the day desires, as they did in this House the other day in support of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Canada. They supported the Roman Catholic Bishops of Canada because it served their purpose. However, I would ask them if they support their stand on abortion, on birth control or on other moral issues. I want the New Democratic Party to stand up in this House and support the stand of the Canadian Roman Catholic Bishops on moral issues as they have been announced.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I must inform the Hon. Member that the time allotted to his speech has expired.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to take part in this debate for a moment or two and to support my colleague from Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), who so aptly put the case for our Party in this matter. I did not have an opportunity to speak in the earlier debate because of the rush to judgment that was precipitated by the Government.
Simcoe North does not have a very great civil servant constituency so this issue is not in my riding, as it is in several of the Ottawa ridings, an issue upon which an election can be won or lost. I regret that the Member for my public servant constituents in Ottawa, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), I guess it is, has seen fit to support the Government on this particular issue.


An Hon. Member:: Ottawa Centre!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Ottawa Centre, I am sorry. My apologies. I appreciate the Hon. Member would not want to be associated with the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) in this matter because of the way-


Mr. Epp:: Ottawa-Vanier!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has had the courage of his convictions in this matter. As a matter of fact, I want to commend him for having the courage of his convictions as opposed to his fellow sheep on the back bench of the Liberal Party who have abandoned their constituents on this particular issue. I have had several of my constituents write to me or call me, both civil servants and non-civil servants, asking that I put forward their views on this particular amendment.
There are two points that I wish to make briefly. One is that the people of Simcoe North, my constituents, believe that a deal is a deal, that an agreement, once made, should not be broken unilaterally. That is exactly what the Liberal Government has done in this Bill. They have broken an agreement which they made with the civil servants of this country. Secondly, the people of Simcoe North believe that the Government should not fight inflation on the backs of those who cannot fight back.
What I want to do for a moment is to elaborate on both of these points. Several years ago the federal Government agreed to index civil servants' pensions to cover the effect of inflation. That meant that each year there would be an increase in the pension paid to a civil servant to allow for the inflation of the previous year, if any. The theory was that the recipient would always be in the same position as he or she was guaranteed under the agreement made with the Government. Pensions would be indexed to inflation.

January 18, 1983
What the Government is doing in this Bill and what our amendment attempts to correct, or stop for a period of time, is to index pensions only so much as the Government wishes; in other words, to index only to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984.
The Government entered into an agreement collectively, with the union-and I suggest it entered into it individually with each and every civil servant-to index pensions to inflation. On the other side of the agreement, the union agreed, and each individual member of the union agreed, that they would pay a premium for that indexing. As I understand it, that is 1 per cent of salary.


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


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not want unintentionally to mislead the House. There was no negotiated contract between the unions and the Government on this particular issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should inform the Parliamentary Secretary that that is hardly a point of order; it is a point of debate. The Hon. Member for Simcoe North has the floor.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. 1 appreciate that the Government may want to differentiate between breaking its word and breaking an agreement. As far as we are concerned, if you give your word as a Government and people act on the giving of that word, that makes it the type of agreement that should not be broken. I believe that is what is at issue here. The Liberal Government did not give its word but it was awfully glad to brag about it.
Let me read from the Treasury Board booklet of 1974 entitled "Your Superannuation Plan". It says:
There is no means test and all in receipt of pensions, whether former employees or their widows and dependants, benefit from the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act's provisions. In any year where there is an increase in the cost of living, pensions will be increased in an amount directly related to the increase in the Consumer Price Index, without limit.
I emphasize, "without limit". It goes on:
The percentage increase payable each January represents the increase of the average of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve-month period ending on the preceding September over that for the twelve-month period of the previous year.
There is no footnote saying "Provided that the Liberal Government does not change its mind", or "This is not a firm agreement, just our word", or "This is a one-sided agreement; you pay and we will decide whether or not we will uphold our side of the deal". That is what we are concerned about; a deal is a deal.
My second point is the fight against inflation. Over the years we have had promise after promise by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when he was in town, to wrestle inflation to the ground. He has gone to Japan perhaps to improve his Samurai wrestling, or some other type of wrestling, but he has failed to
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
wrestle inflation to the ground. In 1980 it was 10.1 per cent and in 1981 it was 12.5 per cent.
There are obvious reasons for that. We are now in a recession that the Government has provoked with the National Energy Program, with its economic policies, with its Budget of 1981 and its addendum, which has created something which is called unemployement; and inflation has begun to come down because companies cannot sell their inventories. Stores cannot sell their merchandise. That does the best job of all in fighting inflation. The Government has come up with a plan to take full credit for the depression. They are calling it "fighting inflation".
So six and five is designed to restrict the salaries of civil servants, and we agreed with that. We had no difficulty in agreeing to that. The NDP had a lot of difficulty in agreeing with that. As 1 have said before in this House, I spent a lot of time this summer answering questions from my constituents who asked: "Why did the NDP vote to increase their salaries to the rate of inflation?", and "Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for voting to hold yours back. There is no restraint at all on the part of the NDP. They just want that big, fat salary."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Really, it was embarrassing, explaining this to them. We are fighting this Bill because the Government is determined to fight inflation on the backs of families, on the backs of civil servants and on the backs of pensioners, all people who cannot fight back. Civil servants working now have an option. If they do not like the 6 per cent they have the option to go and find another job.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) will tell you that he is creating job after job. The Minister creates jobs by the thousands. The point is that there are no jobs. This Government is not creating them. The Liberal Government is taking the coward's way out to fight these people who cannot fight back. That is why we are supporting the amendment of my colleague and are fighting the Government on this Bill.
I urge all Members of this House, including those on the other side, to support this amendment and to vote against this Bill. I would like those opposite to show the courage of their convictions, if they have any. I do not want to see the Liberal Government shaft the public servants or public servant pensioners or any others who cannot fight back. I see that my Member of Parliament is here. I am pleased to see him in the Chamber. Oh, he is not all here!
In conclusion, I ask the House to vote against Bill C-133 and support this Party. Vote against the Liberal Government's attempt to fight inflation on the backs of Civil Service pensioners.

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a few comments on the record respecting Bill C-133 and the matter of the superannuated pension. It was previously asked whether the six and five program should have been supported originally. My answer is yes. It not only gave a signal to both the public and private community that inflation was a major problem in the economy, but the Government had to recognize it and come to grips with it. As has been mentioned, because of recessionary factors and pressures there is no question that the reduction in inflation has been influenced largely by that rather than any government program.
Bill C-133 is quite different from Bill C-124 which was a capping of salaries of public servants, 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. That was the essence of Bill C-124. The merit of those two proposals is evident and I do not have to make further comment on that.
When we get to deal with Bill C-133, we are in a different situation. I will explain it in this way. On the one hand, Canadians through their tax dollars pay money into general revenues at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Those moneys are used to provide services which those Governments, Parliament or the legislatures decide to be important for the well-being of the general population.
We as Opposition Members and as members of society generally might argue that the Government is not using those funds in the best way possible. Through the methods in this House, namely by debate and eventually by the electoral process, the Canadian people give their verdict as to whether the Government of the day has prudently spent the tax dollars collected by Government over the course of the years.
That is a process we all understand. The question of accountability is central. However, when we look at money which has been received by individuals, money deducted at source when people receive their salary cheques or money directly paid to a pension plan, that money is very different from general revenues. General revenues are moneys used for the general well-being of society. When an individual Canadian pays a premium for a pension to be received at the time of retirement, that money is held in trust by the Government to make it work to the best advantage of those who initially contributed to that pension plan. It is a trust fund. Therefore, that money should be seen by Governments differently from the general pool which is often referred to as the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The Government has an obligation to fulfil the terms of the pension agreement. What we are dealing with today is a pension agreement between the Government and every public servant who has contributed his or her pension premium to a pension plan. They do not know what the pay-out will be at the time of retirement. It depends on the salary earned and the number of years of contribution and, until the passage of this Bill, on the so-called escalation which is related to the cost of living increase.
Because of the power it has in the House of Commons, the Government says it will now change that agreement. I believe that is wrong. The people who contributed to the pension fund
are now being told that the other partner, the Government of Canada, is changing the rules. Ironically it is only one partner that can change the rules because of the power that partner has in this House of Commons through the legislative process. Previously the rules were changed through the collective bargaining system by agreement. What we are dealing with today is an agreement between the Government and the public servant.
Over the past number of days all of us have had experience with people who are concerned about their investment. As I spoke to my constituents during the Christmas break, I found a certain attitude. They were willing to invest and have the money to invest, but they had great fears along the following lines. First, would the Government change the tax rules again if they made an investment today? Would the rules again change at the time of the next Budget? That creates real confusion in the mind of the average person who wants to invest, create jobs and make the economy go.
Second, and I found this interesting, they were concerned about the viability of Canada's financial institutions. The average person was asking whether his money would be safe and secure. I do not want to comment today on what is happening in the Ontario legislature relative to mortgage and trust companies, but it has not helped that attitude. It has created even more confusion and fear. Fear is not too strong a word in this regard. The average person wants to know whether his investment will be secure. For example, in Winnipeg there are some branches of the Ontario companies that are involved. Average people stood in line in the cold of winter in Winnipeg to see whether their investment was secure, the financial future in which they had invested.
When dealing with Bill C-133, we must also touch on the human factors. Individuals believe that if they work and do their job properly and contribute at a certain rate, they will have a certain pension not only for themselves but, more important, for their families when they pass on. These people have contributed an extra percentage point to buy escalation in pension equal to the cost of living increase. Nowhere in the legislation are these people given the option of not having to pay the extra 1 per cent.
I find it very difficult to understand how the Government can say: "Well, we are not going to escalate in to the cost of living; and, secondly, we still expect you to pay the premium which bought that protection". I do not think a private insurance company could get away with that. It they said, when one bought either a life insurance policy, superannuation or whatever, "Look, those were the conditions but we have decided to change them even though you signed a contract", I would think the Government would step in very quickly and say very specifically: "You have a contract, fulfil it". There might also be a question from the general public as to whether the fund is solvent. But I think if you look at the surplus in the fund, that question is answered as well.
January 18, 1983

The last point I want to make, from my constituents' point of view, is this. It is generally regarded that there are not that many public servants in my riding, active or retired. Well, that is simply not the case in a riding where there are five border crossings or where there is a community, Whiteshell-Pinawa, which has an atomic energy research station. I have before me, Mr. Speaker, a petition signed by some 200 people from communities such as Pinawa, Beausejour, Whitemouth, River Hills, Lac du Bonnet, Seven Sisters Falls, Winnipeg, Elma, Seddon's Corner, Tyndall and Transcona who said: "We paid in, signed a contract and we are living up to our contract; members of the Government, live up to your side of it as well". That is the message they have given to me and that is the message I have given to the House.
The reduction of inflation is a valid national goal, but when you have a contract and you expect other Canadians to live up to their side of the contract, I suggest the Government, for its own integrity, do the same thing.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, welcome the opportunity of being able to participate in this most important debate. It is something 1 really do not enjoy, however, because of the fact that I find Bill C-133 to be one of the most repugnant pieces of legislation to be introduced in the House since I have been here.
As speaker after speaker from both opposition parties has indicated, this Bill is breaking a contract between the Government and its past and present employees. It destroys an agreement, something which would not be allowed in the private sector. It is morally and economically wrong. Essentially what it does is cap at the 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent level the increase in pensions of some 154,367 retired public servants who receive an average pension of some S6,900 a year. They will receive an increase in their pension of 0.5 per cent more than mothers or people on Old Age Security because of a sense of guilt by the Government over the fact that these people have paid into a fund and are indeed entitled to full indexation because they won it in contract negotiations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government can claim that the net effect is not going to be all that great because inflation is going to be down next year, perhaps even to 6 per cent. We all hope it will be, but that is not the point. The point is that retired civil servants have fought for and won the right to some protection in periods of rapid economic change. They have paid for it. There is no guarantee, Mr. Speaker, of what the inflation rate will be during the next two years. When we look at the economic forecasts during the last two years, what sticks out is that nobody knows what in heaven's name is going on. All the predictions have been wrong-predictions as to what is happening with the economy, when the recovery is going to occur, what Government deficits are going to be, what inflation or unemployment is going to be. Economists, both in the private and public sector, have been unable to make any accurate, long-term predictions. No one can tell us with any degree of certainty what the inflation rate is going to be next year, yet Bill C-133 removes the protection against inflation for the very people who need that protection the most. The
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
only protection people such as mothers or the retired have is what they have legally gained through institutions such as Parliament. But the Government removes this protection in the name of fighting inflation. That is insanity and cynicism from the Government opposite which just amazes me. It is wrong economics.
The Conference Board of Canada stated last week, and I quote from The Globe and Mail of January 13, 1983:
-the recovery will continue to be hampered by the weak growth expected in real disposable income in 1983.
Essentially the Board says that while consumer confidence is high in Canada, the ability of Canadians to purchase the goods and services they want and need is hampered by the fact that they do not have the purchasing power, and the cutbacks introduced by the Government and massive unemployment are preventing economic recovery. This proposed legislation, Mr. Speaker, further aggravates the basic problem. We are not going to get on the road to economic recovery with legislation like Bill C-133. In fact, this Bill further slows down the economy. I am not certain that there is an explanation for why the Government cannot see or understand this. Perhaps it does. Perhaps it is quite willing cynically to say: "This is the price we are prepared to pay to wrestle inflation to the ground. We are prepared to see old age pensioners, mothers, and retired civil servants squeezed even further in order to fight inflation to the ground."
We in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, have maintained from day one that this type of Reaganomics will not work. The amount of human suffering is too great to make this an acceptable cure for inflation. In fact, this type of Reaganomics will lead to economic disaster, bankruptcies, massive unemployment and, perhaps, to the very ruin and crash of our present economic system.
I was definitely encouraged to hear Members of the Conservative Party denounce this legislation because it broke contracts. They spoke in terms of the importance of understanding and of gentlemen's agreements on contracts. They are absolutely correct, but I sense a bit of a double standard there because they supported Bill C-124 which capped salaries of public servants. That Bill broke a lot of contracts that had been negotiated between public servants and their employer, the Government, yet we only heard two Members of the Conservative Party protest that obnoxious Bill C-124.
I think the Conservative Party still has a chance to show how sincere its opposition is to Bills C-131, 132 and 133. Members will meet in convention next week. I challenge them to introduce and pass a resolution at that convention that would denounce Bills C-131, C-132 and C-133. If at that convention they pass resolutions condemning those pieces of legislation, then some of the faith that I used to have in that Party will be restored. I challenge its Members to introduce such a motion and to marshal it through the convention next week.

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act {No. 2)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. J regret I have to inform the Efon. Member that his time has expired.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I also regret that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, we are now engaged in what has become the longest parliamentary session in Canadian history, and this so shortly after a Christmas recess when one might have thought Members of the Government, if they had listened to their constituents, would have returned with fresh, new ideas about how to fight inflation. But they have not, so we must continue our opposition to their approach to the battle against inflation.
Bill C-133 is more than just mean-minded. It comes at what is perhaps the blackest moment in Canada's pension history. Goodness knows what will follow. Should Government backbenchers see fit to fall into line and vote for the legislation, they will be playing a major role in this blackest moment in our history.
In the name of restraint, the Government has chosen to launch a stubborn and determined attack on senior citizens, mothers and Public Service employees while it just as steadfastly refuses to put its own house in order and curtail Government expenditures.
Who are the people who are being asked to make sacrifices as a result of Bill C-133? It certainly is not Senator Pitfield or Edmund Clark. Some 70 per cent of the people affected by this Bill are receiving pensions of less than $10,000 per year. Better than 80 per cent of widows and survivors of public servants receive pensions of under $5,000 per year. Are these the people whose inflationary expectations must be brought into line? Are these people to be made an example of for the Canadian people?
It was suggested at second reading of the Bill that the Government could be sympathetic enough at least to exclude pensioners in the lower income brackets. The response was that pensioners in the lower income brackets could not be excluded because there were too many of them. That response speaks volumes about the insensitivity of Members across the floor.
These are tough times, the Government says. Tough times, indeed, Mr. Speaker, for those persons who cannot bear the brunt of this inflationary attack. Do Members across the floor not realize that never in Canadian history, not even in the darkest hours of the depression of the thirties, has a Government altered pension arrangements as is proposed now? That has never happened, Mr. Speaker. This action is totally unprecedented. It is disgraceful, it is shameful and it should not take place. It breaks trust and it certainly destroys confidence. It is bad enough that a Government should attempt to build a restraint program on the backs of pensioners without taking them into consideration and the fact that it is establishing a bald-faced precedent.
1 was raised to believe, and my children have been brought up as well to believe, that my word is my bond. A deal is a deal. As a lawyer, I was persuaded many times to put a deal
into writing. What does the Government propose? It does not matter that the Government's agreement has been reduced to a convention and an understanding that public servants could retire on a contributory pension which, they were told in 1974, would be indexed. This Bill not only unilaterally breaks that deal, but it does so without prior consultation and without prior notice. Such action, whether it be in the Public Service or the private sector, can only lead to bad relations between management and labour.
In trying to resolve all the issues that arose in the formulation of the Civil Service Staff Relations Act, the Public Service unions and associations agreed to forfeit the right to bargain pensions in return for an agreement on the part of the Government of the day that it would never tamper with Public Service pensions without full and meaningful consultation. This agreement obtained through 1971, when partial indexing was adopted, to 1974, when full indexing was introduced, and onward until June, 1982 when the Government broke it without notice and without consultation.
Throughout the period from 1967 to June 1982 it was understood that it was the Government's responsibility to administer the pension fund and, from 1981, the indexation account, in an actuarially sound manner. The Government was to set the contributory rate in consultation with the staff associations and unions; it was to match that rate and, most important in the context of Bill C-133, it was to make up any deficiencies that might result. Public servants, in turn, were to pay that which was agreed upon, namely 1 per cent of gross earnings, for indexation. How the Government chose to invest the pension and indexation funds was the business of the Government, not of the unions or associations.
Now, out of the blue, the Government is breaking the agreement made 15 years ago with respect to changes in the area of pensions and it is making a mockery of the 1974 promise to provide full indexation. To add insult to injury, the Government is justifying this by pointing to its own less than satisfactory investment and accounting practices and to the good faith and trust extended by the unions and associations of the Public Service in not insisting upon a formal contract.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-133 is a contemptible and repugnant piece of legislation. It attacks those who have no way to defend themselves, those who are in no position to fight inflation themselves. They are being asked to bear the brunt of the Government's attack on pension legislation. These pensioners are not only going to lose, on average, some $1,200 over the two-year period that the program will be in place, but they will see their pension base eroded by an estimated 10 per cent for the balance of their pension life.
The amendment put forward by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) is not only inadequate, it is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of Public Service pensioners. The honourable course, Mr. Speaker, is to defeat the Bill or to withdraw it.
January 18, 1983


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have this opportunity today to rise and speak on this aspect of Bill C-133, not because it is a good Bill, but because it provides one with an opportunity to speak on this very dark day in Canadian pension history. It allows a person to raise on behalf of tens of thousands of Canadians a number of issues which they would dearly love to raise before the Government of Canada themselves. They have requested that the Members of Parliament who represent them do it on their behalf.
Over the last number of weeks, during the Christmas recess especially, 1 had the opportunity to meet with retired public servants, retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and retired members of Canada's Armed Forces. They approached me both formally and informally to ask just what on earth the Government of Canada was doing. These three areas of Canada's Public Service were under the impression that they had entered into a contract with the Government of Canada, that they had made an arrangement or a deal, and that there was a clear understanding.
I am referring, for example, to those public servants who had really committed themselves and dedicated their lives to being public servants in the most positive aspect of that term, those who had literally established careers and dedicated their lives to serving Canadians and Canada. I am referring to such people as those who for years and years represented us as a country in our Customs houses and immigration offices here and abroad, those who represented Canada in weather stations both in the settled parts of Canada and often in very remote areas of the country, those who dedicated their lives to assisting the unemployed through UIC offices, those in Parks Canada who served the public, protected wildlife and made more inaccessible areas of Canada a welcome part of Canada's heritage. They welcomed people into those parks and introduced them to the finer elements of our environment and Canadian ecology. Also I am referring to people in fisheries who often risked their lives working for that very critical resource industry. One could go on and on referring to people who dedicated their lives to serving Canada.
Retired members of the Armed Forces have come to me and said, "Mr. Riis, as my Member of Parliament, I want to tell you that 1 have dedicated my life to this country." They say that in a way different from other Canadians. In fact, they served in World War II and literally laid their lives on the line on many, many occasions. They were prepared to risk their lives for Canada. They served Canada in Korea and in a number of peace-keeping missions around the world. When they got up in the morning and went out on the job, they were prepared to give their lives for Canada as a result of a contract into which they had entered between themselves and the Government of Canada. Also I refer to those members of the RCMP who daily, year after year, decade after decade, risked their lives to protect Canadian citizens in whatever part of Canada they were found. From the largest metropolitan areas to the most remote coasts, RCMP members were prepared to
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
dedicate their lives and in many cases risk their lives frequently on Canada's behalf.
These people had an understanding. In many cases they virtually had a contract that their service would be recognized in their pensions. The pension is not excessive; a typical retired public servant receives today $6,900. They recognized that there was a factor of inflation which would jeopardize that pension. They were given the opportunity to pay into a fund which would protect them in the case of inflation. The Government of Canada indicated that that should be included as part of the understanding of the deal being made, that not only would they contribute 6 per cent toward their pension but they would add another percentage point to protect them against the ravages of inflation. Many of them decided that they would retire early for two reasons-to allow access to their career for other Canadians and because they knew they would be protected in the case of rapid inflationary growth.
Now they have learned through one source or another that the Government has turned its back on them and has decided to change the contract, to renege on the contract, to break the contract. They are puzzled. They really cannot believe that the Government for which they worked for many years-people who had literally dedicated their lives to serving Canada, Canadians and the Government of Canada-was now turning its back on them.
We have heard other speakers refer to the crisis in leadership confidence. I read with interest in The Globe and Mail this morning one of Canada's best columnists, who identified that our critical problem today was that Canadians had lost confidence in their leadership for good reasons. The article indicated that they cannot trust the leadership of the Government of Canada any longer, that the leadership says one thing and does another. An example of that is that the Government of Canada entered into a contract with its public servants and now it has broken it.
Also the columnist referred to the Progressive Conservative Party. I suspect many people are perplexed when Members of the Progressive Conservative Party rose and said that they supported the six and five principle and were prepared to break contracts with tens of thousands of Canadians. Now they rise and say that they do not like breaking certain contracts with certain aspects of the Public Service of Canada. Then the people of Canada ask, "What on earth does the Progressive Conservative Party stand for; where is its integrity? It is prepared to break some contracts but is hesitant to break this one."
I must say that there are some Members of the Progressive Conservative Party who have a heart, a conscience and integrity. Those are the ones who stood in their places and said, "We will not participate in this hypocritical move in which the rest of our colleagues in the Conservative Party are participating." They had the courage to stand up and say that.
I believe it must be said very clearly that there is a crisis of leadership confidence in the country, and that the Liberal Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party of

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Canada are providing ample fuel for that speculation. Canadian public servants are truly confused when they find the contracts into which they had entered being broken and in principle supported by the Conservatives as well.
The disappointing aspect of Bill C-133 is really twofold. One is that it fights inflation on the backs of those people who are really the victims of inflation. If there is one group in Canada feeling the pinch of inflation, it has to be those on fixed incomes, especially those who are retired. The Government says that those who are suffering the most and are paying the greatest penalty will be those people on whose backs it will fight this war as well. They are the casualties of the war. Simply, this Bill will add to the casualty list in terms of people who are suffering as a result of the six and five program. Most important, we must recognize that Bill C-133 breaks contracts. When they start breaking contracts, confidence begins to erode and any support which the political leadership had created in the months previous quickly evaporates, and I suspect it has been totally evaporated at this point.
I call upon all those Members of Parliament in this House to stand up and be counted when the vote comes. I say to Liberal backbenchers: "Have the courage to represent not only your constituents but have the integrity to represent those people across this country who have literally dedicated their lives to the service of Canada". I am thinking of those people in the Armed Forces, in the RCMP and those dedicated public servants who have given up their lives to serve Canada. The least we can do now is to give them a fair pension.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Simiikameen):: Mr. Speaker, much has been stated here in the House and during sittings of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee as it heard witnesses who appeared to give their reaction, almost universally adverse, to Bill C-133. Much has been stated that reflects very poorly on the Government of Canada breaking trust with its employees and retirees in the matter of indexation of pensions.
Certainly of all the witnesses who appeared representing the many elements of the Public Service in Canada, the breaking of a trust relationship dominated their testimony. In addition, we have all received letters and communications from constituents whose interests are adversely affected by Bill C-133. Typical is a letter received recently from Mr. William Hitchen of Victoria, B.C., who is chairman of the Organization for Indexed Pensions. In his letter he writes:
The Prime Minister has recently made a plea for trust between Canadians. Pillaging the funded Public Service pension accounts does not improve trust.
Please help to defeat Bill C-133.
Mr. Hitchen also wrote:
Bill C-133 is designed to limit the indexing of Public Service pensions to 6 per cent and 5 per cent over the next two years. Its purpose obviously is to enhance the Government's "six and five" program, although in actual fact its implementation would contribute practically nothing to our fight on inflation.
On that point I believe it is clear we have to take issue with what our colleagues to my left have repeatedly been saying about the Progressive Conservative Party's position concerning
Bill C-124. Bill C-124 was the first indication that the Government of Canada took the damage that inflation was doing to our citizens seriously. It was on the basis that Bill C-124 was the first move by the Government of Canada to do something about it that we supported Bill C-124. Up to that point the Government had not taken seriously the damage it was inflicting on the economy of Canada and to individual Canadian citizens. The Government was then seen to recognize what was happening. Because Bill C-124 was the first step toward bringing Government activity under control, we supported it. But we have been offended by the repeated actions of this Government that have gone against the spirit of Bill C-124. Canadians right across the country have been offended by what is seen as the failure of the Government to live up to its commitment which it gave to the Canadian people when it put the problems that inflation were producing before them and produced as a first step toward resolving those problems Bill C-124.
I asked a witness who appeared before the Committee whether that person would be ready to accept the implication of Bill C-133 if an awareness was reflected in Government action day by day that it, the Government, was the prime producer of inflation in Canada, a problem that could only be brought under control by trimming its own voracious appetite for spending. The witness's response was: "Yes, indeed, it would be more palatable if the burden were shared right across the spectrum of society".
The problem is unequal treatment. That is what offends Canadians. For example, the generosity extended to Mr. Pitfield stands in marked contrast to the treatment of pensioners whose average pension is less than $7,000 annually. Naturally, they are offended when they read of the generous spirit shown to a public servant who has served Canada well, I am sure, but whose situation stands in marked contrast to that of the ordinary pensioner and superannuate.
The generosity of this Government to its friends, as demonstrated by the Maislin trucking bail-out and by the selection of Mr. Erikson to design the embassy in Washington, by-passing the expensive and thorough selection committee recommendations, offends Canadians. These actions stand in contrast to the way superannuates are being treated. All those things offend me and they offend the Canadian public.
What about the $17 million grant to the Holiday Inn to build a hotel in the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce's riding in the city of Windsor? It is interesting to note that Minister is now President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and has responsibility for Bill C-133. That action stands in marked contrast to what the Government is asking, which is a denial of a privilege that was guaranteed to superannuates and is now being taken away from them through Bill C-133.
What about the several hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on Government advertising? I see the Government's present information budget is $235 million. The federal Government has risen from being the seventeenth largest advertiser in Canada to being the largest advertiser in Canada.
January 18, 1983

Surely if we are looking at places to trim Government spending we can point the finger to more productive sources of saving. We should not be looking to the pensioners and superannuates, the people who have contributed far more funds than have been taken out. Surely we can look to those sources. The traditional role of Government spending has been to provide information but it has gone far beyond that process now. It is not information that the Government is providing, it is soliciting support for programs and Government initiatives, many of which are not worthy of support.
You have indicated to me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. 1 just wish to say on behalf of those who appeared as witnesses before the Committee that the Government can make all people appreciate the effect of restraint by demonstrating restraint itself. This would bring all the people on the side of the Government in the matter of restraint. We will not be supporting this Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago at an earlier stage in this debate I made my fundamental objections to this and the other pieces of legislation quite clear. Over the years the question of my parliamentary responsibility has never been a complicated one for me. If a piece of legislation is good law, then it should be supported. If it lacks that qualification, it should be opposed. I have always believed that good laws were simply those which the people in fact wanted to support and embraced as being for the betterment of themselves, their community, the country and the world.
I do not have any difficulty in deciding upon this series of legislation which has been introduced in support of the principles of the six and five program. I have opposed it since the beginning. While the particular measure in front of us now could be improved with the Government's acceptance of certain amendments, I am somewhat amazed to believe that the Government would continue in the perpetration of this hoax.
Our economy is in a serious recession. There is a growing consensus, from what I have read, that it is just such measures as this which effectively take spending money out of the market place that will, in fact, prolong the very recession that the Government claims measures such as this will cure. I believe the Government has admitted this fact to some extent, perhaps simply to smooth over the objections of some of their more thoughtful supporters. The Government has admitted its error in this legislation by sneaking in this amendment for 5.5 per cent and 6.5 per cent. However, it makes no impact at all.
The Government should be determining ways to inject real dollars into the economy which will provide the capital pool for those manufacturers, processors and developers in this country to sell their goods and services and therefore enable them to rehire workers and get the industrial effort in this country back on track. This is poor legislation, if for no other reason than that. However, the problem is much more complex than this simple test for what a responsible Member of Parliament
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
should do with respect to the principle of what is good or bad legislation.
One can consider this legislation from the point of view of being a very personal attack on the retirement capacity of people to live with some degree of dignity. We are aware that the savings to the Government are immeasureably small. The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) cited only two or three examples. He is quite right that there are literally hundreds of examples which could be cited. The average pension income is still under $7,000 and Old Age Security is still under $3,000. The total income which pensioners receive presently is below the poverty line. This is a fact which is acknowledged and accepted by everyone.
If this program was to result in the recovery of sufficient amounts of money to restore economic activity in the country, there would then be some basis on which to listen to the arguments of the Government for support for this program. However, this is not the case. The Government is taking money from an already hard hit group of people. In Nova Scotia, we have 15,000 retired federal public servants. In Halifax-Dartmouth alone there are 37,000 public sector employees. What will they live on when they retire? The domestic electricity rates in Nova Scotia have just risen by 28 per cent. You know in your own Province, Mr. Speaker, how domestic electrical costs compare to the national average. Despite this one increased item alone, the Government will remove even more funds from these people.
I reject this legislation because I believe we should be in an expansionary mood in the House instead of a contracting posture. We have seen a bleak year in 1982 which we may wish to forget. However, when we look ahead in 1983 the picture is not much better and this type of legislation will do nothing to help that forecast.
The employment rate has fallen for 16 consecutive months, with 492,000 fewer identifiable jobs than there were a year ago. We know there are 1.5 million people unemployed and I am sure there are another 750,000 unemployed people who cannot be identified or counted. This legislation does nothing to address the problems faced by them.
Some 10,000 businesses have been pushed into bankruptcy in recent months. It is no wonder that inflation is dropping, since there is theoretically no money while national productivity is running between 60 per cent and 65 per cent in terms of efficiency. We know what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said in this respect. Perhaps we will soon have 100 per cent efficiency with no firms operating at all. If that is the direction in which the Government is heading, it may be able to produce some good statistics from that.
This is poor legislation which should not be supported. The difficulty with the legislative process in this place is that, once there is a commitment to a particular course of action, there is no fundamental sense of responsibility to change direction. We simply forge on with it, whether rightly or wrongly. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" The Government is torpedoing a whole segment of Canadian society which, the good Lord knows, are presently facing enough difficulty in making ends meet without having this further burden imposed upon them.

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
There are amendments which should be made to this legislation, the very least of which should be a sunset law to bring it to an end. These things are apparently not acceptable to the Government. I do not even know for sure whether it has even considered them. If in fact inflation does not come down, does the Government hold out any hope to these people that money taken away from them by this measure can be given back to them to help restore them to a level at least approaching dignity?
Indexing is a principle which was introduced in this Chamber by a former leader of ours, the Hon. Robert Stanfield. Actually, it was the then Minister of Finance, John Turner, who, after thinking about the wisdom of Bob Stanfield's comments, introduced it. It is interesting that some Hon. Member on that day wondered whether the real Bob Stanfield would stand up.
What the Government is doing is wrong. It seriously affects thousands and thousands of Canadians. If the Government in fact wonders about the view of retired public servants, I suggest that it ask the 15,000 retired federal superannuates and members of the Armed Forces in the Province of Nova Scotia. There would be no misunderstanding at all on their part.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the so-called compromise amendment to Bill C-133. To start off, I would like to tell the rest of the story about the Conservative support for Bill C-124. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) spent a considerable amount of his ten-minute speech explaining how the Conservatives had been tricked into supporting Bill C-124, but they could not follow through on that support in the Bills which came to follow. In speaking against the Bill, they argued that it is wrong for the Government to break contracts and that deals which have been made are deals which should be kept. How hypocritical can one get, Mr. Speaker?
Bill C-124 broke many negotiated, signed contracts established by recognized unions which had fought long and hard for the benefits which those contracts gave to them. The Progressive Conservatives supported that Bill. Now for the sake of political expediency, they are against this Bill. We accept their support. We are glad that the superannuates have their support and that, in the process, if Hon. Members across the way are able to get up the courage and vote as they would probably like to vote, we may be able to defeat this Bill. However, let the people of Canada realize that the Conservative Party here is being selective as to what contracts it will support and what contracts it will break. Let there be no suggestion that just because its Members supported Bill C-124, they have good reason to vote against Bill C-133.
The Government has presented a number of Bills, the six and five Bills, and has said that it does not really need these
Bills. What it is trying to do is to work on the psychological impact of inflation. That sounds like a pretty good idea, but who contributes to inflation? It certainly is not the superannuates. It certainly is not the workers, farmers, or small businessmen. These people are now receiving less to live on than they did a year ago or even five years ago. They are not the people who are contributing to inflation. Farmers from my district are receiving 17 per cent to 25 per cent less income this year than they did last year. Superannuates are receiving real wages or real retirement benefits which are comparatively less than they were two years ago, and this 6 per cent does not increase them to a level which is equal to inflation.
We should take a good look at who contributes to inflation. There is a story which all of us know, the story of Alice in Wonderland, where the Queen tells Alice: "Look, you must run as fast as you can so that you can stay in one place". That is what the superannuates are trying to do. Here we have the Government stating that although it did make an agreement a number of years ago, and although there was a handshake on it and everyone accepted the fact that the Government would support indexed pensions, suddenly it is in the position where it will no longer keep the agreement.
The Government is almost symbolic of one which will go ahead and break contracts and break the law in the process of attempting to put before the people a rather unacceptable point of view. Let us consider the record of the Government in breaking contracts. This particular Bill would break contracts with civil servants and the amendment is a compromise. What a compromise! It amounts to an increase of .5 per cent, or $39 a year for the average civil servant.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is present in the House. He has proposed before this House, before the people of Canada, the breaking of a contract which was established in 1925.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Only reactionaries oppose that.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That contract is the Crow rate agreement, an agreement between the people of western Canada and the Government of Canada. The Government, so the Minister tells us, will break that contract. It is a contract-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Replace it with a better one.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: -which the farmers have already paid for many times over.
The Government also signed a number of treaties with the aboriginal people of Canada, treaties which guaranteed health, education and a number of other benefits which the aboriginal people expected to have for the rest of their lives, or into perpetuity. Just last month the Government withdrew support for post-secondary students across Canada, support which would have allowed them to break out of the poverty in which they exist and become university graduates who would contribute more to this country's economy and future than has been possible in the past. That is the kind of Government which is in
January 18, 1983

power, one which has no compunction at all about breaking contracts or even about breaking the law.
Right now one of the Members of this Party is proceeding with a lawsuit against the Government with regard to the prebuild of the pipeline. That is a portion of the pipeline which was not authorized by law. The legislation passed in this House instructed the Government to build the whole of the pipeline from Alaska to the United States. By building only part of it, this Government is breaking the law.
The Government is now breaking the law in this particular Bill because we are told-maybe we will have to wait for the answer-that it is going to send out superannuation cheques before the end of the month, even before it is sure that this Bill will be passed, or before any of the other six and five Bills will be passed. This is the kind of Government that we have.
Therefore, we should be looking not only at what the Government is trying to do with this particular Bill, but looking at it as a Government which is breaking down and eroding the credibility of this Parliament. It is doing it so well that all one has to do to find out what the public thinks about the Parliament of Canada is to go out into the streets and ask. People will ask you, "What are you guys doing in that House that you cannot even keep a contract that you made a number of years ago?" Unfortunately, those of us on this side of the House are painted with the same brush because we are part of this Parliament. Whether the Government does that or not, this Parliament-


An Hon. Member:: Not this Parliament, the Government.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: They are the ones painting us with that brush. What do you expect? Members on this side of the House must object to this kind of legislation, and therefore this Party will again be voting against the six and five legislation.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendments before us is to cap the amount of the increase under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act at a level substantially less than the present rate of inflation would require. I think the very fact that this objective has been set out so clearly would be an incentive for every Member in this House to oppose this measure. As we look at it a little further, we realize that those affected are federal Public Service superannuates, including members of the Armed Forces and the RCMP.
We are all aware of the tremendous contribution these individuals have made to Canada and Canadians. Federal public servants have served in a very effective and commendable manner throughout the past years. Members of the Armed Forces have shown their ability and willingness to sacrifice everything in the interests of our country. The RCMP have a record that is not surpassed by any agency in the world. Yet the Government states that this is the way in which we are going to reward them for their contribution toward the welfare of Canada and the benefit of Canadians.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
To my mind, this is one of the most reprehensible proposals that has ever been made in this House of Commons. Is this the way to treat those who have given the very best of their lives to serve our interests? I would say it is a jolt to the faith of all those who are affected by it. They believed that in rendering this service to Canadians, and in view of the agreements and understandings which had been entered into, they could trust the Government, that they could trust those in authority to see to it that their remuneration or their superannuation was at least a reasonable amount, and they believed that the commitments made would be honoured. This is a real jolt to their faith in Government, which actually constitutes their employer. It is a jolt to their sense of security because they have no doubt considered, as we all have, the days when our participation in the active labour force will come to a close. They were depending on their pensions and they believed their future was guaranteed. With the introduction of a Bill such as the one before us, their confidence has been shattered, their faith has been severely jeopardized and their confidence in their employer and in their country has suffered a real setback.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), placed on record yesterday an excerpt from a letter signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I just want to read the relevant section here. My colleague quoted this letter as follows:
In our society, pensions provide a means of sharing risk so that we can retire in reasonable security and dignity, without fear of the future. Protecting pensions from inflation by indexing them to increases in the cost of living should be an integral part of our pension schemes. Indexing does not give pensioners an increasingly larger claim on our economy's production, that is, more money to buy things they could not earlier afford. Rather, indexing merely enables pensioners to maintain, roughly, their same standard of living.
I think this states very clearly the attitude that the Prime Minister had when he wrote that letter and made that commitment, but now we find a complete reversal of ethics. It is hard to believe that the Prime Minister, the leader of this nation, would promote or subscribe to a policy that we are facing at the present time where that very principle has been eroded and destroyed by the introduction of this measure.
This is but one of three Bills which have been brought before this House and have occupied a considerable amount of time. The one presently before us deals with public employees, the second one with Family Allowances, and the third with Old Age Security. In presenting these Bills the Government is not claiming-or I do not think they are-that this legislation is going to have a great monetary effect on their financing of Government operations, but it is apparently its idea of equalizing participation in an economic recovery program. Rather than equalize it, it does just the opposite. To some it may have slight consequences, but to those to whom we are making reference today, it could mean a reduction in their income and in their ability to face the future in their retirement years. As far as those in the other parts of the six and five program are concerned, it means they are not able to meet the challenges facing them at this present time.

January 18, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, ASA, acetylsalicylic acid, is the active ingredient of Aspirin and many other products taken for headaches and colds. A series of American studies have suggested that, for children with flu and chicken pox, the use of ASA can lead to a rare and often fatal brain disease called Reye's Syndrome.
In the United States, in one group of children with Reye's syndrome, 97 per cent had been given ASA when they had flu or chicken pox. In another group of children who had the same illnesses but did not develop Reye's Syndrome, only 61 per cent had taken ASA.
In the United States official public health warnings on stickers for ASA products are already in place which state:
Do not give this product to children under the age of 18 with chicken pox or flu. It contains an ingredient associated with Reye's Syndrome-an often fatal disease.
In Canada the responsibility for this kind of thing lies with the Department of National Health and Welfare. Although this Department sent a warning about ASA to doctors, there were no public warnings. There has not been a formal and systematic way of informing the vast majority of Canadians. It is unfortunate that, with the flu season already under way, no such warnings are yet in place. It is my hope and expectation that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) will make this a priority issue as soon as possible.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications regarding the deregulation of air space should be made the
subject of a study immediately, for the benefit of all Canadians. Unfortunately, the present policy of Transport Canada officials does not encourage Canadians to travel within their own country, since as you know, it is often cheaper to travel from Montreal to London than from Montreal to Vancouver.
Even more incredible, Madam Speaker, is the fact that at the present time, one of my constituents, after a half hour's drive to Dorval, where he has to pay to park his car, and if he travels with Air Canada from Montreal to New York, will have to pay $125, or $277 from Montreal to Miami, and that is one way, while if he goes to Burlington, which is an hour by car, he can park free with People's Express, and he can travel from Burlington to New York for $19 and from Burlington to West Palm Beach for $49.
So once again, Madam Speaker, deregulation has very definite advantages. In the case of our aviation policy, it seems to me that the principle of free competition should prevail. Regulations should be eliminated as much as possible. If there is a demand, there will be people who are prepared to meet that demand, and in that case, Madam Speaker, prices will stop being artificially high, carriers will get the equipment they need and travellers will have a choice of airlines and Canadian industry will benefit-


Madam Speaker:: Order!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the postal service of this country is in a mess. The swiftness and reliability of delivery have become a sad joke. Since becoming a Member of Parliament I have received as many phone calls and letters of complaint about postal service as on all other topics combined. There was a time when Canadian mail delivery was the envy of other nations. It was then the Royal Mail and it was given royal attention. Thanks to this Government, we no longer have the Royal Mail. What we have instead is a royal foul-up.
Problems in my riding are typical of what is happening right across the country. Recently, because of the method of rural tendering, more than 800 residents of RR 4, Barrie, were without mail delivery service for more than two weeks. Because of other postal policies, residents of Susan Place and Oakridge Drive in Barrie are still without home delivery.
Canada Post should spend less time trying to define a letter and devote itself to delivering one, on time and intact. In the United States postage is 20 cents and there, as in Great Britain, the service operates at a profit. 1 would strongly suggest it is about time for the Government and officials at Canada Post to cease spouting platitudes and start doing
January 18, 1983

something for Canadian mail service, which is so richly deserved.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, according to the Canadian Council on Social Development, 50 per cent of Canadian families would be living below the poverty line if wives were not working outside the home. This clearly indicates what the situation would be in Canadian families if a spouse decided to stay home to raise the children. One of the consequences for women who did stay home is that 75 per cent of Canadian women over 70 are now living at or below the poverty line.
[ English \
1 cannot over-emphasize the fact that children are dependent on us for their future and we are dependent on them for ours. Yet child rearing is associated with poverty. It is also related to women, and 41.5 per cent of all female-led families live below the poverty line. The incidence of poverty varies according to the size of the family. Until the changing reality of our society is reflected in our tax system, women will continue to be perceived as dependants and families will continue to be penalized.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my statement arises out of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is winding up an Asian visit and the fact that the Liberal Party promised, during the election campaign of 1980, to implement an industrial strategy.
I raise this now because the Prime Minister was told the other day in Manila by the Asian Development Bank that we sell very little to Asia because we as a country do not have an industrial strategy. In fact, they said that we do not even bid on public works projects put forward by the Asian Development Bank. The Prime Minister's reaction was to rest content with being an exporter of raw materials to Japan.
Also on the weekend a very distinguished American economist, an adviser to the Democratic Party, told an Ontario Liberal convention that Canada does not have an economic strategy. We do not have any national economic goal or national dream.
Also, on January 5 the Bishops said that we need an industrial strategy, both regional and national in scope. Because of that I call upon the Government to implement a promise it made in 1980, namely, that we need an industrial economic
strategy so that we can put Canadians back to work. I want ministers to keep their word and their promise to the Canadian people.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, Pay TV is no doubt a permanent part of our future in telecommunications. 1 was delighted when the CRTC approved several licencees for national and regional Pay TV systems. The competition will result in much more flexibility and creative programming in order to obtain public support.
The proper role for Government, however, is to set the minimum standards for Canadian content and morality. Unfortunately the Government has passed that responsibility to an appointed regulatory agency, the CRTC. It is surely ironic that the CRTC is currently addressing sex stereotyping in the media, yet has failed to set minimum standards for Pay TV as to pornography.
As a private Member I do not believe that it is necessary for any of the Pay TV systems to market pornography in order to obtain viewers from its competitors. Solid Canadian programming of our history, our culture and our role in the world, will result in massive numbers of viewers. Surely we, as a society, have not sunk to the level of having to promote human degradation, especially that of women, as the means of financing Pay TV.
In my opinion the Government should immediately refer the whole subject matter to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture so that Canadians can give their views before pornography is made available in all of our homes where our children's minds may well be distorted as to values and morality.


PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO SOUTHEAST ASIA
Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made an important trip to Southeast Asia to open up new trade opportunities and business contacts with those countries. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister and his officials that they make arrangements to report fully on all trade opportunities made known to them during this trip so that Canadian businesses can take full advantage of them, and that appropriate follow-up meetings with Canadian industry and other business organizations be arranged as quickly as possible.

January 18, 1983


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Act provides for payments to a woman giving birth to a child, and properly so. But the same Act denies any payment to a woman who adopts a child. Most, if not all, provincial Governments require a woman who adopts a baby to remain in her home with the child for a period of six months. In other words, a working woman must leave her job for six months in order to adopt a child. Under the Act, UIC officials reject such claims, which otherwise qualify, on the basis that the mother is not available for work, or is not looking for a job.
A woman who adopts a child is a mother in every respect except that of giving birth to the child. She gives the child a name; she gives the child love and kindness; she gives the child a hope for the future. The task force report on unemployment in the 1980s recommended that the special conditions surrounding the payment of maternity benefits be removed, and that those benefits be extended to adoptive parents. The Human Rights Commission also supports such action. Canada owes much to the hundreds of parents who are adopting babies and children, rearing them in homes filled with love and understanding, and making them happy and useful citizens. The present law is discriminatory and unfair and should be changed now, giving adoptive parents the same rights accorded to natural parents.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to note that in his annual report, the Minister of Labour announced an additional thirteen quality of work-life programs. Since the riding of Montreal-Mercier is very industrialized, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out the availability of these programs to all labour-management organizations, and I would urge them to make use of these programs during the coming year. I believe that the quality of work-life programs encourage communication, help increase productivity and improve labour-management co-operation, and I hope that 1983 will be known as a year of co-operation among all economic partners in this country.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise to question the morality, indeed the legality, of the Government's assault on family allowance benefits. Families across Canada are receiving their allowances this week and finding their cheques have been tampered with. We have an Act in place, the Family Allowances Act, passed in 1973. We have regulations, written by this Government. We have provisions to index family allowance payments to the consumer price index. That, Madam Speaker, is the law, and this Government must uphold the law as all other citizens uphold the law.
Bill C-132, the Act to cut back family allowance cheques, is still only a gleam in the Minister's eye and is not yet law. People are entitled to family allowance benefits and they are being ripped off by the Government. Until legislation is given Royal Assent-and I want to make it clear that we intend to do what we can to make sure that that never happens-the Government has a moral and legal obligation to respect the laws of Canada.
It is not new to witness the Prime Minister and his Cabinet disregarding Parliament. In fact the Hon. Member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is currently before the courts challenging the legality of this Government's action with regard to a pipeline. It is not new to see the Government break legal contracts, supported by the Conservatives, as was the case in Bill C-124.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Nielsen:: I knew you could not make it.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, northern Alberta wheat producers are being denied delivery opportunities due to the fact that, as of this date, the Canadian Wheat Board has not assigned a "C" quota to the region. This means that the area north of Red Deer remains on a six bushel per acre quota while the balance of the Canadian Wheat Board designated area has a nine bushel per acre quota.
I therefore call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to prevail upon the Canadian Wheat Board to correct this inequitable situation so that the producers in northern Alberta will be treated equally with producers in the rest of the Wheat Board designated area.
January 18, 1983



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, dealing with a situation in the city of Windsor where approximately one in every five of the labour force are already out of work.
Would the Minister indicate whether he has consented, as Chrysler announced yesterday, to Chrysler's plan to discontinue production at its Windsor spring plant at the end of the 1983 model year?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the answer to that question is emphatically no. We have not consented to the closing of any operations by Chrysler anywhere in Canada.


DUTY REMISSION ACCORDED TO CHRYSLER CORPORATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that in the existing agreement signed in the early part of 1981 with Chrysler, which was referred to in a press release from the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, it was stated that the undertaking not to close any Chrysler facilities in Canada without the prior approval of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had been retained, would the Minister indicate whether he in fact has a request from Chrysler to close down this plant, and are there any circumstances where he may agree to such a closure? Finally, has he considered that Chrysler has a duty remission in its favour of approximately $250 million between the years 1981 and 1982, and does he intend to use that as another lever to have Chrysler live up to its contract?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I received the executives of Chrysler Corporation, 1 think it was on the afternoon of December 23. I had confirmed to me in a letter in the early part of January from Chrysler officials that they did indeed want to close the spring plant as well as change several other items in the two agreements previously negotiated.
I have indicated to Chrysler that unless they provide some alternatives to the proposals they put forward, we are not prepared at this time to make any changes. The Government of Canada has fully lived up to its obligation under those agreements, and the Chrysler Corporation at this point in time has violated the agreement on a couple of occasions. I think the Hon. Member will agree with me it would not serve the purpose of those people employed in Chrysler's operations to carry on negotiations in public, but I will admit to the Hon. Member that we are very conscious of the points he raised.
Oral Questions


QUERY ON SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, bearing in mind that another 300 people may be thrown out of work if the spring plant is actually closed, and there is a serious suggestion that Chrysler may intend to phase out much of its production in Canada in favour of its home country, would the Minister indicate whether in fact the agreement, referred to in a press release of the then Minister in August of last year, was signed by Chrysler, or is the report that Chrysler did not sign the agreement, as represented by the then Minister, in fact true?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, not having that particular press release the Hon. Member has referred to I cannot clarify the question he asked. The Chrysler Corporation did sign an agreement in the early part of 1981. Then when they asked for some specific changes in the agreement, the major one being the diesel engine plant in exchange for the K-Car, there was a memorandum of understanding signed, but no new detailed agreement, to my understanding, Madam Speaker.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CLOSING OF PLANT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, can the Minister tell us whether it is the Government's view that Chrysler is free to close the spring plant without the Government's approval?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the Chrysler Corporation would violate the agreement, and leave the Government open to change its obligations under the agreement, if it makes a decision to close the spring plant. We have said that we have an agreement with the Chrysler Corporation. We are intending to hold them to that agreement. We have fulfilled our obligations under the agreement and we expect that Chrysler will honour their undertakings under the agreement as well.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, that is an incredible response. Chrysler announced today that it is closing the spring plant. That is in violation of the agreement. What is the Government going to do?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, Chrysler has announced that it is going to close the spring plant but 1 have not noticed that the spring plant has actually closed yet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: Of course I could expect the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to ask that question. I am not aware

January 18, 1983
Oral Questions
that the Government of Canada can stop the Chrysler Corporation from closing any of its operations.


Erik Nielsen: The ironclad guarantee!


Edward C. Lumley: However, I am aware that the Government of Canada is not compelled to fulfil its obligation signed in 1981 if Chrysler does not fulfil its side of the obligation.


RESTRUCTURING OF AGREEMENT WITH CORPORATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, that was precisely my question. What is the Government of Canada going to do now that it has been served notice that Chrysler intends to breach the agreement that was signed with the Government of Canada? What is it going to do?
While I am on my feet let me refer the Minister to the press release issued by his predecessor, the Minister from Windsor, which reads as follows:
The Honourable Herb Gray, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion, announced today that the federal government has agreed to restructure the agreement of February 1981 -
That release says that the federal Government had agreed to restructuring that agreement. Did Chrysler agree to the restructuring, or was this an agreement that only Herb Gray signed and that Chrysler did not sign?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the memorandum of understanding that was signed at that time was signed by the Chrysler Corporation and, if I am not mistaken, also by the Province of Ontario, and by my predecessor for the federal Government. It was signed at the request of the Chrysler Corporation in order to make changes in the original 1981 agreement. The major change was that they decided not to go ahead with the K-Car operation and to institute the diesel engine project in its place. The memorandum of understanding was signed by the Chrysler Corporation and the Government of Canada at that time.
The request that Chrysler Corporation made in January of this year was to change the second agreement that was negotiated by my predecessor and by the Chrysler Corporation.


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 ask the Minister, is that memorandum of understanding an agreement?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, it is not an agreement-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: -in the same sense as the first one. It is a memorandum of understanding. If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition does not know the difference between a memorandum of understanding and an agreement, T am sure some of
the legal people on his side will be more than happy to explain the difference to him.
The Government of Canada is going to do whatever it can to ensure that the Chrysler Corporation fulfils its obligation to employ fully the 11,000 plus people in Chrysler Canada at the present time.


COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Minister is presumably aware of the public concern about the licence to First Choice and its plans for pornographic programming. I presume the Minister is aware of the enormous influence of television, especially on children. My question is about his remarks to the effect that, if First Choice had made its intentions clear about this problem, it would never have received its licence in the first place.


An Hon. Member:: Take it away.


Lynn McDonald: Precisely; take it away is what I want to get at.
Will the Minister agree that the pornographic programming advertised by First Choice is contrary to the Broadcasting Act, both in the general provisions to strengthen, enrich and safeguard the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada, and the provision against obscene, indecent and profane language and pictorial representation? If the Minister is in agreement, will he undertake to communicate this view to the CRTC and to support a move to institute proceedings to revoke the licence of First Choice if it is not willing to change its plans for pornographic programming?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I indicated my position quite clearly yesterday in response to the question put to me by the Hon. Member for Trinity. It is quite clear that the licence issued to First Choice, and the licences issued to other Pay TV operators in Canada, contain conditions which are appended to them. It is quite clear also that if any one of these channels had applied for a pornographic Pay TV licence, that licence would have been refused by the CRTC, and certainly would have been refused on appeal to the Governor in Council.
It is not our intention to launch, with Pay TV, a pornographic film industry in Canada. It is our intention to see to it that Pay TV helps the Canadian program production industry to develop world-class programming.
As far as content is concerned, the Hon. Member knows that Parliament in its wisdom has given authority over content to the CRTC and that the CRTC has the necessary powers to examine the whole question. As I indicated yesterday in
January 18, 1983

answer to the Elon. Member for Trinity, I spoke to the Chairman of the CRTC about this and registered my concern with him.


PROVISIONS OF BROADCASTING ACT
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, it is of course true that the Commission has the power to proceed, but the Commission listens to the Minister of Communications very carefully. I suggest that it is his duty to uphold the law of Canada. The Broadcasting Act is very specific. The Minister did not answer my question.
Let me quote from the advertisement for First Choice. An article in The Globe and Mail of January 14 reports as follows:
First Choice has been advertising itself as "The Playboy Channel" and promises to show "the most adult of adult entertainment... TV like you've never seen before. Sizzling entertainment . . .And that's the bare truth."
Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister whether, in his view, this is consistent with the Broadcasting Act. May I also remind him that it is not necessary to repeat the Broadcasting Act in the condition of licence. It is assumed that the station, network or whatever, will abide by the Broadcasting Act.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, once again the Hon. Member has asked me to say whether I am in favour of the development of a pornographic industry in Canada. I have already indicated quite clearly that pornography has no place on Pay TV or on regular broadcasting stations in Canada. The laws of the land are already in place. Parliament in its wisdom has given the courts jurisdiction over the definition of obscenity and pornography and has not given that discretion to the Minister of Communications. Parliament has also given the necessary powers to the CRTC to monitor the situation and to take corrective action.
If the Hon. Member is asking me whether I have confidence in the Chairman of the CRTC and in the CRTC itself, the answer is yes.


REQUEST THAT BROADCASTING ACT BE AMENDED
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I should like to quote from Chapter 381 of the Consolidated Regulations of Canada regarding the Broadcasting Act. Section 6(1) provides as follows:
No station or network operator shall broadcast
(A)	anything contrary to law;
(B)	any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation on any race, religion or creed;
I would ask the Minister to explain why it is wrong to abuse members of a race, religion or creed, but it is perfectly all right to abuse women? Will the Minister undertake to introduce an amendment to the Broadcasting Act to include sex as one of the prohibited grounds of broadcasting?
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to read the law and read the regulations, perhaps I could quote back to her Section 6 of the CRTC's Television Broadcasting Regulations which prohibits any station or network operator from broadcasting any obscene, indecent or profane language or pictorial representation.
Quite obviously, I am on the same wave length as the Hon. Member as far as the principles of the question are concerned. I have stated my position quite clearly. We do not see Pay TV developing in this country as pornographic delivery mechanisms. We are definitely against that.
In its conditions of licence and in the over-all powers given to it under the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has all the powers necessary to enforce this.
What the Hon. Member is asking me to do is to intervene personally. Obviously the second question then is whether it is the job of the Government to intervene in such cases, or if Parliament was correct in saying that questions of content should be debated and handled in front of an independent organization such as the CRTC, all powers in this matter having been given to the CRTC by Parliament.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question on precisely this point. The Minister was not so careful to hide behind the independence of the CRTC when he chose to change the content requirements of Pay TV on appeal. Is he now saying that is wrong and that, "I cannot do anything about pornography on Pay TV?" Will he tell the House precisely what he has asked Dr. Meisel and the CRTC to do, if he has in fact asked that anything specific be done? If that is in writing, will he table it in the House?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is confusing the issues. When the Government modified the subsequent decision of the CRTC concerning conditions of licence, it was acting under powers conferred on it by Parliament. In this case the question of control over content is clearly given to the CRTC by the Government.
As Minister of Communications I have indicated my very real disappointment at the way various Pay TV companies in Canada, particularly First Choice have gone about marketing their product and at the type of product they want to offer Canadians. I am telling First Choice now that if indeed they intend to continue in this type of programming, and if they intend to present pornographic programming to the Canadian public, then the Criminal Code applies and the CRTC has the power to take whatever action it believes is necessary.
21948

January 18, 1983
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


EFFECT OF TAX ON PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns another troubled industry, namely, the petrochemical industry, which is plagued by the effects of the National Energy Program and the prospect of further job losses in that important sector. Considering the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated, "the Government is prepared to adjust" the natural gas and gas liquids "tax if the development of the international oil price should require it", may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether that assessment has been made and when we can expect an adjustment to the natural gas and gas liquids tax which would have the effect of maintaining the 65 per cent price relationship with the price of crude oil at the Toronto gate?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that the Minister of Energy has made that specific statement, but the petrochemical industry is under discussion right now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Might I advise the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the Minister of Energy made that statement in a letter dated December 14 which was directed to me.


TASK FORCE ON PETROCHEMICALS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, considering the fact that discussions are taking place with members of the petrochemical industry and that there are two important sectors, namely, the natural gas based sector and the oil based sector, could the Minister explain to the House why he has refused to meet with provincial government officials in connection with the discussion of the task force on petrochemicals in relationship to the difficulties in which the natural gas based petrochemical industry finds itself? Why has he refused to meet with Alberta Government officials in connection with this very important matter.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member check his facts. As a matter of fact I had a meeting about four weeks ago with my counterpart from Alberta on this very issue. I assured him that no decision would be taken by the Government of Canada until such time as we had further consultations. I would suggest that he call his provincial colleague and verify the facts.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask him whether he can confirm today to the House that at long last the Treasury Board has been given approval for appointment of architectural designers for the combat training centre complex at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown? Will the Minister indicate when it is intended that this design stage will be completed and when construction will start, so that we can have this badly-needed facility on line and also the badly-needed jobs in New Brunswick where unemployment is very high right now? I hope the Minister might be able to give some indication that we might get some work done there this winter.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I understand the interest of the Hon. Member in this project which is one of the most important ones in the area of Gagetown, New Brunswick. In regard to this training centre, we have asked Treasury Board to approve the architects to carry out the design and feasibility study. It should be approved any time now. I can assure him that we will give it top priority considering the unemployment down there. I consider the interest of the Hon. Member very important.


APPOINTMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. When this vital and important project was first announced two years ago, and since the approval for appointment of the design architects has been before Treasury Board for approximately four to six months, does the President of the Treasury Board think that he might be able to get his staff to take a look at it and get this approval through so that we can get some badly needed jobs in New Brunswick? Alternatively, will he consider transferring some of his staff to the Post Office where they might be more at home?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to check into the status of the submission. It has not come before any meeting of Treasury Board since I became President of the Treasury Board. I would be very happy to see what could be done to expedite the matter, and 1 will assure the Hon. Member that I will not send the answer by mail.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
January 18, 1983


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the decision by Provincial Court Judge Paul Belanger of Ottawa that writs of assistance can no longer be used by the RCMP in Ontario, is the Minister considering the forbidding of such writs in the rest of the country?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the writ of assistance has been a valuable operational tool used by the RCMP and approved by all courts until the recent decision to which the Hon. Member referred. We are now seeking advice from the Department of Justice about the possibilities of appeal and, as soon as that decision is made, the matter will be dealt with in court.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I remind him that had it not been for the federal Government bail-out of Chrysler Canada Limited, the U.S. corporation would have gone down the tube two years ago. Also I remind him that in the auto parts industry there is a cumulative net deficit of $41 billion, and that last year alone the deficit was $5 billion. In view of this despicable situation and that the Government has already recognized that it has no industrial strategy in the auto industry, because it set up a special task force last fall to look into this whole area, will he promise the House that he will not enter into any agreement whatever or make any deals whatever with any auto industry, especially Chrysler, until the task force reports to him and to Parliament?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, what I can assure the Hon. Member is that we will do whatever we think is in the best long-term interest of the automobile workers in Chrysler plants here in Canada.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The Minister appears to be admitting that he has been had, that the Government has been had, and that Chrysler Canada can do any damn thing it pleases-it can shut down and go home. This is another example of the branch plant mentality of the Government.


TASK FORCE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister if he would expand the terms of reference of that special task force to include its right to investigate any and all violations of the automotive agreement, and to include that in its report to him and to Parliament.
Oral Questions


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I did not quite hear the latter part of the question, whether the Hon. Member was talking about the agreement with Chrysler or the auto agreement with the United States of America. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that with our automobile situation in Canada, with our auto manufacturing plants in better shape than the U.S. situation, now is an appropriate time to renegotiate the auto pact-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No.


Edward C. Lumley: -I think he should go back and think about what he is recommending to the Government of Canada.


PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I direct my question to the Acting Minister. In a highly publicized report yesterday by two former Governors of Alaska, Walter Hickel and William Egan, it is now proposed that gas from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska be piped across Alaska and then exported to Japan in liquefied form, rather than through the proposed Alaska gas pipeline, which was indefinitely delayed last April. Unemployed Canadians desperately need the some quarter million man-years of real work associated with the Alaska gas pipeline promised by the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the present Minister, through his second in command, confirm the iron-clad guarantees given by his predecessor that the Alaska gas pipeline will be constructed in its entirety?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I will accept this question on behalf of the Senator in the other place who is responsible for the Alaska Gas Project. The Hon. Member is correct when he refers to the report being tabled by two former Governors. There is a second report, I understand, in the course of preparation which was commissioned by Governor Hammond, the former Governor of Alaska, who was very supportive of the Alaska Highway route.


Erik Nielsen: He is only a Governor.


Donald James Johnston: I understand there is a third report as well that is being prepared by the General Accounting Office in the United States. Other information that I have received is to the effect that there does not seem to be much support in Congress for the report to which the Hon. Member makes reference.

January 18, 1983
Oral Questions
Moreover, the producing companies in question, I understand, have favoured the Alaska Highway route for some time as opposed to the LNG proposal to export gas from Alaska to Japan.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, the amount of support in Congress for these proposals, I would suggest, has yet to be determined. But a report by a gentleman of the stature of the two I mentioned is not to be taken lightly.


POSSIBLE GAS EXPORTS TO JAPAN
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, 1 think it is ironic when the Canadian Prime Minister is enjoying his vacation in Japan that trade opportunities with that country have been snatched from under his very nose by the Americans.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: Will the Minister guarantee that the proposal to export shut-in Alberta and B.C. gas through B.C. ports to Japan will not now be lost, together with the thousands of jobs involved, to the U.S. because of government inaction and delay?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I will take that question simply because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not here. But it is clearly a second question completely unrelated to the report that was tabled yesterday by the two former Governors, on the project in Alaska.
I suggest that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will indeed respond to the question which the Hon. Member raises, but to the knowledge of all Members on this side of the House he is very dedicated to bringing onstream whatever opportunities for jobs and further development in Alberta that are possible.


Mr. Jarvis:: You sound like Lalonde now.


Donald James Johnston: Therefore, the question is simply without foundation, and it is sheer speculation. It is also quite unfair, I might add, to the activities of the Prime Minister who is vigorously selling Canadian exports abroad during his mission.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with the recent irresponsible statements attributed to the Minister responsible for the status of women who proposes the elimination of the married tax exemption for those persons who choose to stay at home, for those persons who, because of circumstances beyond their control, must stay at home and cannot enter the work force, or who have retired from the work force, and for those who are part of the large constituency of the volunteer work force, will the Minister put to rest the unnecessary alarm and fear that have been generated because of these statements, by assuring this House that no such action at this time will be considered by Cabinet?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I thought yesterday I had put to rest any alarm and fear that might have been alleged by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Wilson:: You have changed your mind before, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Speculation surrounding tax changes is always bound to occur before a budget. The Minister of Finance probably will be asked in the House very frequently before a budget whether he is contemplating any particular tax action. If he takes the usual approach he will say, "Wait to see the budget." But to my knowledge there is no suggestion anywhere within the Government to implement specific tax proposals that would have the effect the Hon. Member fears.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I trust that the Hon. Member will cooperate with me in putting to rest the alarm and fear which she alleges exist in the country.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In March, 1981, the Minister told the Standing Committee that "the mobilization planning task force is expected to report later this year". In January, 1982, the Minister told the Conference of Defence Associations that he expected to "be able to present my recommendations to cabinet later this year." In January, 1983, the Minister did not say whether or not the plan had been completed. Would he now tell the House whether or not the long promised mobilization plan has been completed and, if not, when does he now expect it, if ever?
January 18, 1983


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, as I said at the CDA meeting last week, the mobilization plan has been more or less completed by our own Department-


Miss MacDonald:: Is it more or is it less?


Mr. Lamontagne:: May I state that it was taken into consideration when we presented the strategic overview of the Defence Department to the Cabinet and to the Cabinet committee on external affairs and national defence. This is currently being studied by my Department and by this Committee.


DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of National Defence. The Minister told the CDA that the Department of National Defence will be receiving an extra $20 million in 1984-1985. Considering that in the last seven months the various Ministers of Finance have taken $200 million from him in June, and $230 million is to be taken away in 19831984 and 1984-1985, for a net loss of $410 million, can the Minister explain how the Government has-and I will quote the Minister, "backed up its decision to provide specifically for increased readiness and sustainability"?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Victoria appears to ask questions with a great sense of humour. At the CDA meeting 1 did, in fact explain why this reallocation had taken place. We were able to do it as a consequence of the inflation rate being reduced due to the six and five wage restraint policy of the Government. That some money from the Defence Department was then reallocated to other Departments for job creation. That also was explained to the CDA, and the 200 people who were there seemed to have understood that, very well. I said that in 1983-1984 the Government, in principle, decided that sustainability was as important as the regular force, that we would take steps in 1984-1985 to see that some funds would be made available, to begin implementation of the specific requirements of sustainability, the Hon. Member should understand that as the other people at the CDA meeting understood it.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In 1977 an agreement was signed between the CNR and the railway union which cut Blue Cross premiums for Quebec CN pensioners in half by averaging the claims experience of three groups, active union members, management, and pensioners.
Oral Questions
On January 1, 1983, 6,000 CN pensioners in the Province of Quebec were informed that their Blue Cross premiums have more than doubled because the Railways have agreed to insure their active employees as a group with another insurance company, while CN management and supervisory personnel dissociated themselves from the pensioners in order to obtain a cheaper rate.

I am therefore asking the Minister of Transport to check what happened to the 1977 agreement signed by CN and the union, in order to find out who is responsible for this new devastating measure which excludes pensioners. Could the Minister also inform the House whether CN could examine, with the Minister, ways and means of resolving the problems of CN pensioners who appear to have been abandoned by both management and the union?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, without wishing to accept the premises of the question, I am quite willing to look into the matter with CN authorities.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the Minister knows, last week a number of charges were laid against native people in the Province of British Columbia in connection with the alleged selling of fish illegally which were caught by the native people. But at the same time, and quite unnecessarily, these people's vehicles were seized. Can the Minister tell the House whether any consideration is being given to releasing those vehicles to the families? In asking this question I am not taking the position that there is any sympathy for the charges if they are proved. But it seems a very great hardship on the families of native people to have these vehicles seized and held.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, there is no question that it is a very great hardship to the people concerned. If the Hon. Member's comments just now are to be taken as a representation, and I think that they are, I certainly would add my representations to his with respect to the legal officers of the Crown and the RCMP.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his answer. Do I take it that he

January 18, 1983
Oral Questions
will immediately contact his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and convey to him what he has told the House, and perhaps to the Justice officials who are involved?


John Carr Munro: They certainly will be made aware of the comments made in the House today.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. 1 want to quote one sentence to him from the 1964 Royal Commission Report on Banking and Finance. It is the Porter Commission. It says, "We have found considerable variety in the quality of supervision of other institutions across the country and think it is essential to act before there is a repetition of the unfortunate experiences of many chartered banks prior to the establishment of good supervision in the 1920s."
My question concerns Seaway and Greymac, the mortgage companies, and all the ordinary people who are investors who have their lifesavings, in some cases, in these mortgage companies. In view of the fact that the Government has basically ignored this Royal Commission for all of these years and has really taken no action, and has now put some of these people in jeopardy by not sufficiently reviewing or controlling these companies, would the Minister be prepared to commit the Government to complete protection for the legitimate investors in those two mortgage companies? In view of the Government's negligence in the past to do anything, will it commit itself to complete protection of these people?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I would first remind the Hon. Member that the actions announced by the Government yesterday, whereby it moved to bring the insured deposit in line with inflationary pressures and the economy, were designed to do exactly that. 1 really do not understand his question. The motivation of that move was to protect the very people whom the Hon. Member has pointed out.
It is encouraging to have the Hon. Member, presumably representing his Party on this issue, take part in the debate and become interested. It is obviously a departure from their practice of dissociating themselves from the very serious work conducted by the Finance Committee in the House which looked at all aspects of the banking system. It is a pity that Members of his Party did not continue and that they walked away from that study and presumably dissociated themselves from any concern with banking institutions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me tell the Minister that one reason why we have a lack of credibility in these studies is that nothing has
been done in nine years. This is the exact situation that was predicted in the Commission report.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL INQUIRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let the Minister assume that he was a renter and that he had to pay his rent money to a company of which he did not know the owners, a numbered company, with a Liechtenstein account, comprised of some people about whom some serious questions are being asked. To top it all, it was announced yesterday by his colleague in the House that the landlord is being investigated by the RCMP.
Considering that these are the first real financial companies in trouble in Canada, two of which concern the federal Government, will the Minister be prepared to consider a federal inquiry into this issue?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I was in the House of Commons yesterday. I did not hear the Minister responsible for the RCMP indicate that any particular landlord was being investigated. Second, the other premise on which the Hon. Member posed his question is totally erroneous. He says that the Government has not acted. The Government did react very quickly to the report of the Finance Committee on Banking, dated July 27 of last year. We responded to Members of the House, for example, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre who represents the constituency close to the one referred to by the Hon. Member, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, and the Hon. Member for York-Peel. We responded to them. We moved quickly to increase the amount of protection to ordinary Canadians involved in deposit corporations.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of State (Mines).
The Minister is aware that Gaspe Mines in Murdochville have further reduced their staff by 380 workers during the last months, owing to the depressed prices for copper on the international market, and that the mine will no longer be able to operate for at least the next two years.
The management of Noranda Mines is prepared to carry out operations on a section under the town, at a cost of $85 million, with the assistance of the provincial and federal Governments.
Could the Minister inform the House whether she has received an official request from the management of Gaspe Mines regarding the continuation of operations and hence the survival of this town in the Gaspe?
January 18, 1983


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Yes, Madam Speaker, we have had discussions with Gaspe Copper. As a matter of fact, they have had numerous discussions with my departmental officials and are looking at proposals that would qualify under Section 38 and the NEED Program.
It is my understanding that their proposal is now being refined. It also requires the approval of the Quebec Government. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that with co-operation from all parties we will see these people back to work soon.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday, in answer to a question from my colleague from Etobicoke Centre, the Minister stated that there is presently no claim against the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation from any trust company, to the best of his knowledge. Could the Minister advise the House whether or not all claims made against the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation by certificate holders in Astra Trust and Re-Mor Mortgage Corporation have been settled, and whether any claims subsequently launched with the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation as a result of still unsettled lawsuits or appeals presently before the courts would be considered under the higher limits announced yesterday?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member who asked the question incorrectly quoted from my answer in the House yesterday. I did not say that there was no outstanding claim of any trust company. As a matter of fact, claims are from individuals who have deposits with companies. They are not by companies at all. In that vein, my answer was that at the present time there are no current claims, no claims that have not been disposed of by the Corporation, outstanding against the Corporation.


POSITION OF ARGOSY TRUST DEPOSITORS
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, 1 just want to know whether or not we will have some claims settled at the $20,000 limit and some settled at the $60,000 limit. As well, I want to know whether claims that may arise as a result of the bankruptcy of Argosy Trust, which is still under investigation, would be adjudicated under the lower or higher limits?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, to answer that question I would have to prejudge the outcome of appeals to which the Hon. Member refers, and of course I would not entertain trying to make that type of decision in the House of Commons.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


DEFENCE DEPARTMENT JOB-CREATION PROGRAM
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister may recall that the Minister of National Defence indicated yesterday, in response to a question, that he would be willing to work out a program to increase the recruitment levels in the Armed Forces in order to alleviate the unemployment levels for those Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24. He said, "The Department of National Defence has put forward different programs and has told the Minister of Employment and Immigration what we could do and how we could do it. We could do something fast and efficiently." Does the Minister have the same feeling and, if so, when will he bring forward the program that has been put to him by his colleague, the Minister of National Defence?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that in fact a number of proposals have been made by different Ministers in their own Departments to alleviate the problems of employment for young people, and not just the Department of Defence. The Secretary of State's Department, the Housing Department, and a number of other Departments, including our own, have put together a number of ideas.
I want to point out that last Friday, when we presented a number of these proposals for the provincial Governments to consider and assess as well, in the spirit of co-operation that we are trying to establish, we established a working group with the provincial Governments to assess how we can combine our efforts in the area of providing youth programs for youth employment. Once we are able to co-ordinate what we can do across the board federally and work it out with the Provinces, we will be able to establish a type of program that will give a significant and serious response to the serious issue of youth employment.


REQUEST THAT PROGRAM BE BROUGHT FORWARD
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister understands that we all appreciate that the other Ministers who have their particular programs are forwarding their ideas to the Minister. We also appreciate that the Minister works out those programs with the Provinces. Of course, my question had nothing to do with that.
The Minister of National Defence, by his own words, has forwarded a program to the Minister of Employment and Immigration to increase the recruitment levels of the Armed Services in order to alleviate the problem involving 21 per cent of young people in this country between the ages of 15 and 24 who are unemployed, and it is a specific program from that Minister to this Minister. I am asking whether the Minister of Employment and Immigration will accept the proposal from the Minister of National Defence to increase employment

January 18, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
levels and, if so, when will he bring that program forward? There are 25,000 applications from people who want to join the Armed Services to get a job and get training. It is a specific program, and you can do it-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I thought that I had explained to the Hon. Member the fact that the Government is looking at a number of approaches which can be used to deal with the problem of youth unemployment. The proposal put forward by the Minister of National Defence is one proposal. There are several other proposals also being put forward. I think that what is important is to balance out each of those recommendations with the kind of money which might be available so that we get the maximum use of our resources, and target where the need is most severe. That is a very useful and very constructive solution, but so are others. I think that what we must do is to attempt to provide-


Erik Nielsen: You have to answer the question.


Lloyd Axworthy: -a comprehensive approach and not do it in a piecemeal fashion. That is what we are engaged in at the present time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why are you ignoring it?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the response given to a question directed by myself to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley). Your Honour will recall that I asked the Minister a question concerning a certain agreement to which reference was made in a press release of the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Gray, on August 12, 1982. Further to my response, the Minister, in response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), informed the House that there was no such agreement. There was, in fact, a memorandum of agreement signed or initialled in that period.
My question of privilege arises from the fact that I have in my hand a press release which was issued by the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on August 12, 1982, and repeatedly misleads those who read the release into thinking that an agreement had been signed and existed between the Government of Canada and Chrysler Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) realizes that he might want to have further clarification on matters which he has wanted to discuss with the Minister, and that is quite legitimate, but he has no foundation for a question of privilege. I would urge him to seek such clarification during Question Period on a subsequent day.


Erik Nielsen: Misleading the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my purpose in rising on this point today is, first of all, to give you the needed notice and, second,to-


Madam Speaker:: I need not have notice in the House. The Hon. Member may give me a notice in writing and send it to my office, and then we will consider his question of privilege, if he has one.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in addition to suggesting that I would like to give notice, I am attempting to comply with the requirement set out on November 1, 1962 at page 201 of the Journals of this House, which state that "should a question of privilege be based on published material, the article in question must be submitted and read at the Table". In view of that provision in the Journals, I was simply asking for consent to submit the written material, upon which I hope to base my question of privilege subsequently, to the Table so that it may be read.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member does not have a question of privilege at the present time. He may quote those papers and legitimize his arguments to those documents if he wishes, if and when he has the basis for a question of privilege. If the Hon. Member wants to send me a notice, I can recognize him tomorrow.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, based on what the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) said, I just want to clarify something for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. If I allow the Minister to clarify something, he will be engaging in debate, I think, as was the Hon. Member for York-Peel, so I must stop it at some point, and I guess this is the point.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It happened that during the Question Period I quoted from the document in question. I wonder if I might have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document from which 1 quoted.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Member may not table documents.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Without unanimous consent.
January 18, 1983


Madam Speaker:: He may quote from documents. Only a Minister, if he quotes from a document, should table the document.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, you would know that the House can do anything with unanimous consent, and so can any Member. What I had sought was the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to table the document, the news release issued by the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, from which I have quoted. I would seek that unanimous consent now from the House of Commons.


Edward C. Lumley: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Perhaps the Minister would allow me to deal first with the particular question. 1 read Citation 311 from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
Under no circumstances may a Member merely table a speech for printing in Hansard. With minor exceptions, what appears in the record of debates has actually been spoken in the House. On rare occasions a Member may receive the consent of the House to have printed as part of his speech long lists, statistics or similar material. Such consent should rarely be asked for and is rarely granted.
That is why I did not ask the House to give unanimous consent. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is right; one can do anything with unanimous consent. However, this particular situation is clearly not customary in the House and that is why 1 did not ask for unanimous consent. However, we can solve the matter very easily. 1 will ask, does the request of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition meet with unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the document to which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition refers is press release which is already-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members are obviously debating.


POINT OF ORDER
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that I have set the record straight in connection with the response of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) to my last question, I wonder if he would be prepared to make a modification to the
Order Paper Questions
answer that he gave me to the last question which I presented to him in the House.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow that. The Hon. Member for Vegreville will have to ask for supplementary information at another time.


PRIVILEGE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege which is also related to a question I put in Question Period today to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley). In the question, I referred to a task force committee-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I did not quite hear the Hon. Member. Was he rising on a point of order or on a question of privilege?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: All right.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I directed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with reference to a task force to look into violations of the auto pact. The Minister, I think deliberately, twisted my words around to make it look as though I were asking him to review the auto pact with the United States. That was not the question. I want the Minister to clarify that.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is continuing debate under the guise of a question of privilege and 1 cannot allow that.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,225, 3,331, 3,487 and 3,958.

January 18, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Are certain sections of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission being moved to Bathurst, New Brunswick and, if so (a) to date, does this only include the Annuities Branch and the Central Index (b) does the government plan to move the Wage Loss Registration Branch and, if so (i) for what reason (ii) would this involve approximately 60 employees (iii) has deep concern been registered by the employees?
2.	Have representations been made to the Minister to move the Wage Loss Registration Branch and, if so (a) by whom (b) were representations made by the Hon. Member for Gloucester?
3.	Will the Government clarify the situation and, in particular, will it consider not moving the Wage Loss Registration Branch?


Lloyd Axworthy: As of the date of the question, plans were under study. The information has now been provided as of November 2, 1981. 1. Yes. (a) Yes, (b) yes. The announcement was made on November 2, 1981. (i) As part of the Government's policy of relocating components of federal departments and agencies to parts of the country that have high unemployment rates and a low rate of economic activity, (ii) No. Approximately 50 employees are involved, (iii) Concern has been expressed by some employees in respect of job security. Many have already been placed with other branches of the Commission and it is anticipated that all those remaining will be similarly placed.
2.	Yes. (a) Representations have been made by numerous organizations including the City of Bathurst, the Bathurst Board of Trade and the Chaleur Regional Industrial Commission. (b) Yes.
3.	See 1(b) above.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was a report prepared in the past five years to examine staffing, appointments and training in the Public Service and, if so. was the report made public?
2.	Did the report recommend any changes in the Public Service Employment Act and, if so, was any action taken on the recommendations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. Two
reports were prepared in the last five years to examine staffing appointments and training in the Public Service: Report from the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. (Employers-Employees' Relations in the P.S.) February, 1976; Report of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle. Guy D'Avignon September-1979.
2. Yes. Each report recommended changes in the Public Service Employment Act. No amendments to the PSEA have been approved by Parliament since July, 1975.


Mr. Murphy: 1.	Did the actuarial reports on the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) prior to December 31, 1977 examine the PSSA using economic assumptions that reflected a zero inflation scenario?
2.	Did the actuarial report on the PSSA as at December 31, 1977 examine the PSSA using economic assumptions that reflected a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario and, if so, what windfall gains were realized by the PSSA with respect to the (a) amount required to finance PSSA benefits earned to December 31, 1977 (b) employer contribution rate required to finance all PSSA benefits in respect of current service after December 31, 1977 solely because the 1977 PSSA valuation was carried out in a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario?
3.	To what extent would the windfall gains realized by the PSSA through the move to a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario in the 1977 PSSA actuarial report have been reduced if the calculation of PSSA benefits after December 31, 1977 were made on the basis of a PSSA contributor's best consecutive (a) five (b) four (c) three (d) two (e) single year annual salary?
4.	What windfall gains would have been realized by the PSSA with respect to the amount required to finance PSSA benefits earned to December 31, 1977 and the employer contribution rate required to finance PSSA benefits on account of current service after December 31, 1977 if the 1977 PSSA actuarial report had moved to economic assumptions reflecting annual inflation scenarios of 6 per cent and 9 per cent respectively and if the calculations of PSSA benefits after December 31, 1977 were made on the basis of a PSSA contributor's best consecutive (a) six (b) five (c) four (d) three (e) two (f) single year annual salary?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The
following replies are based on information provided by the Department of Insurance.
1.	Yes.
2.	The actuarial report on the PSSA as at December 31, 1977 used economic assumptions of 6.5 per cent annual interest and 5.5 per cent annual salary increases. While no explicit assumption was made with regard to inflation, an implicit assumption of 3 per cent annual inflation was included in the two economic assumptions used.
Previous reports were based on assumptions of 4 per cent interest rates, zero per cent for salary increases and no inflation assumption. In the most recent report, the real interest rate could be said to have changed from 4 per cent to 3.5 per cent and salary increases related to productivity were assumed to be 2.5 per cent.
The effects of using an implicit inflation assumption of 3 per cent, and therefore raising the interest and salary increase rate assumptions from 3.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent, respectively, were as follows: (a) with respect to benefits earned to December 31, 1977, a decrease in liabilities of $3,648 million; (b) with respect to the employer current service cost for service after December 31, 1977, a decrease of 5.1 per cent of contributory payroll from 11.6 per cent to 6.5 per cent.
3.	The effect on the amounts shown in question 2 of lowering the number of years over which public service salaries are averaged for benefit calculation purposes would be as follows:
January 18, 1983

Salary Averaging Period
(a) 5 years	(b) 4 years	(c) 3 years (OOO.OOO'S)	(d) 2 years	(e) 1 yearReduction of $3,648 million decrease in liabilities shown in question 2	145	292	441	579	719Reduction of current service cost difference of 5.1 per cent of payroll shown in question 2, as a per cent of payroll	.3	.5	.8	1.1	1.34.	The effect of using implicit annual inflation assumptions of 6 per cent and 9 per cent instead of zero per cent, along with reduced salary averaging periods, would have been as follows:
A-6 per cent inflation
Salary Averaging Period
6 years
Decrease in liabilities in respect of service prior to December 31,
1977	5,873
Decrease in current service cost for service after December 31,
1977, as a per cent of contributory payroll	8.1
5 years 4 years 3 years 2 years 1 year (OOO.OOO'S)
5,659	5,432	5,194	4,966	4,7257.7	7.3	6.9	6.5	6.1
B-9 per cent inflation
Salary Averaging Period
6 years
Decrease in liabilities in respect of service prior to December 31,
1977	7,327
Decrease in current service cost for service after December 31,
1977 as a per cent of contributory payroll	10.1
5 years 4 years 3 years 2 years 1 year (OOO.OOO'S)
7,113	6,885	6,639	6,400	6,1429.7	9.3	8.8	8.4	8.0
Order Paper Questions
4.	What gains would have been realized by the PSSA with respect to the amount required to finance PSSA benefits earned to December 31, 1977 and the employer contribution rate required to finance PSSA benefits on account of current service after December 31, 1977 if the 1977 PSSA actuarial report had moved to economic assumptions reflecting annual inflation scenarios of 6 per cent and 9 per cent respectively and if the calculations of PSSA benefits after December 31, 1977 were made on the basis of a PSSA contributor's (a) best consecutive (i) six (ii) five (iii) four (iv) three (v) two year average annual salary (b) best single year annual salary?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: See reply to question No. 3,487 answered this day.
[ Translation]


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Mr. Lawrence:: Madam Speaker, the answers to questions given today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the two Ministers of State 1 think have either become garbled in the translation or else the Parliamentary Secretary has made an error. 1 believe the numbers he has just referred to, at least two of them in any event, are not the same numbers shown in the supplementary Order Paper published by the House under yesterday's date.


Erik Nielsen: At least Smith knew his numbers.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I would be pleased to repeat those numbers, or else I can take this up outside the House, or privately, with the Hon. Member in order to rectify any problems that may have arisen.


Erik Nielsen: Do it here.


Charles Joseph Clark: Table it.
Note: While the inclusion of an inflation rate factor in the economic assumptions used to value pension benefits payable under the Public Service Superannuation Act can decrease the liabilities and the estimated current service cost of those benefits, this does not mean that a surplus or savings are created for the Public Service Pension Plan as a whole. For example, the 1977 actuarial report on the Public Service Superannuation Account indicated that as of December 31, 1977, the net position of the Public Service Pension Plan, including indexing benefits, was a deficit of $3.9 billion.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Did the actuarial reports on the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) prior to December 31, 1977 examine the PSSA using economic assumptions that reflected a zero inflation scenario?
2.	Did the actuarial report on the PSSA as at December 31, 1977 examine the PSSA using economic assumptions that reflected a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario and, if so, were the gains realized by the PSSA with respect to (a) the amount required to finance PSSA benefits earned to December 31, 1977 (b) the employer contribution rate required to finance all PSSA benefits in respect of current service after December 31, 1977 solely because the 1977 PSSA valuation was carried out in a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario and, if so, what were the amounts of these gains?
3.	To what extent would the gains realized by the PSSA through the move to a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario in the 1977 PSSA actuarial report have been reduced if the calculation of PSSA benefits after December 31, 1977 were made on the basis of a PSSA contributor's (a) best consecutive (i) five (ii) four (iii) three (iv) two year average annual salary (b) best single year annual salary?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I know it is simply routine to ask that the rest of the questions remain on the Order Paper, but 1 am rising on a very valid point. We believe that the numbered questions referred to today by the Parliamentary Secretary have not been answered. Therefore, if the House agrees to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member, presumably we are agreeing that today's numbered questions have been answered by him. If that is the intent of the motion, I for one disagree and object; and if we are going to get into a debate about it, so be it.
May I seek your ruling, Madam Speaker, on what I believe is perhaps an error on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary?


Madam Speaker:: The Chair is certainly not in a position to determine whether it is an error or not. The Parliamentary Secretary wants to deal with that and I recognize him for that purpose.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It is entirely possible that there could have been an error but perhaps it would clarify the situation were I

January 18, 1983
Order Paper Questions
to read again the numbers of the questions to which I have placed answers before the House today. They are Nos. 1,225, 3,331, 3,487 and 3,958. Should there be any irregularity, I believe it could be rectified through merely standing the tabling of those answers. I can assure Hon. Members that this Government will undertake, as expeditiously as it has in the past, to respond to all other questions.


Madam Speaker:: The Clerk of the House indicates to me that these answers are tabled and the questions have been answered.


Walter David Baker: There still seems to be an irregularity. I am looking at the Order Paper, and question 3,958, which I believe is the number the Parliamentary Secretary gave, is in my name; and it is answered in that way on page 126.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I have here a copy of the answer to the question. I certainly do not want any Member not to have his question answered. That is not our intention. If there has been an irregularity I undertake to ensure that it is rectified so that Hon. Members may have their responses. I look forward to co-operating with them in order to ensure that that result comes about.


Walter David Baker: That is fine. Good enough.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure that satisfies all Hon. Members.


Mr. Murphy:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answering the questions the Parliamentary Secretary answered question No. 3,487, which is a question I have had on the books for something like 13 months now. It is a question relating to the Bill we are debating again today, and I find it ironic that it took so long for the Government to get this information. 1 find it extremely ironic that we are getting this information after we have had the debate on second reading and after we have finished committee study of that particular measure, Bill C-133.
I would hope that in future when we seek information from the Government it will not take 13 months, and if the Government is going to introduce specific legislation on matters about which we have asked questions, that that information will be forthcoming before the debate is almost over.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, we of course are pleased to take under advisement any constructive suggestions coming from the Members on the opposite side of this House, in order that there might be the greatest disclosure, the greatest number of answers to these questions. I think the Hon. Member as well as all Members here will recognize, that we have answered thousands of questions during this session, some of them more complex than others. The Hon. Member can even take heart from the fact that perhaps his question has been partly responsible for some of the legislation we are bringing forward.
We can learn, Madam Speaker, from the Opposition as well as from Hon. Members on this side of the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and the motion of Mr. Gray (p. 21886) and the motion of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (p. 21889).
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to say a few words on the amendment before Bill C-133 is discussed this afternoon. I wish to make it clear that I wish to oppose the amendment. I think it is very unfair and very unjust.
First of all, it is an amendment to increase the 6 per cent raise in this particular legislation to 6.5 per cent, a measly one half of 1 per cent. That shows the generosity of the Liberal Party of Canada across the way.


An Hon. Member:: It is $18 million.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It may be $18 million, but the Liberal Party across the way gives many more millions to big companies and to all kinds of people through very extensive tax write-offs.
As a matter of fact, I could not help but note in the statement made by the Bishops of Canada on January 5 that the top 20 per cent of the Canadian people make 42 per cent of Canada's national income and the bottom 20 per cent make 4 per cent of Canada's national income. What the Bishops are saying, and I want to quote them, is that we need more balance and that an equitable program should be developed for reducing and stemming the tide of inflation. This would require shifting the burden for wage controls to the upper income earners and introducing controls on prices and new forms of taxes on investment income such as dividends and interest. I think that is the crux of the whole six and five debate which is before the House.
I do not think anyone argues that we do not need a restraint program; most countries in the world do have restraint programs. But the whole problem is, who is going to pay the price? Who is going to pay the price to bring down inflation in this country? The Government decided it will be the ordinary worker, the pensioner, the kids of this nation. Ordinary people will have to pay the price of inflation in Canada.
For example, a 6 per cent increase for someone with an income of $10,000 will result in an additional $600. However, for someone with an income of $50,000, a 6 per cent increase will result in an additional $3,000. What kind of fairness is that when the poor guy gets an increase of $600 and the wealthy person receives an increase of $3,000 a year? All that
January 18, 1983

does is add to the disparities, the unfairness and inequities in this country for the top 20 per cent who earn 42 per cent of the national income and the bottom 20 per cent who earn 4 per cent of the national income.
I suggest this legislation should provide the converse. Everything we do in this country should be directed toward narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. I recommend that all Members read the statement by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued on January 5. In many places they speak about the moral obligation of politicians, the business community and others in this country to help the poor and the ordinary working people of Canada. They say, and I quote:
The first principle has to do with the preferential option for the poor, the afflicted, and the oppressed. In the tradition of the Prophets, Jesus dedicated his ministry to bringing "good news to the poor" and "liberty to the oppressed". As Christians, we are called to follow Jesus by identifying with the victims of injustice, by analyzing the dominant attitudes and structures that cause human suffering, and by actively supporting the poor and oppressed in their struggles to transform society.
Bill C-133 does not do what the Bishops of Canada suggest, identifying with the poor and those less done by. Instead, the Bill before this House will make the poor and the ordinary worker pay more. In this case the retired public servant will pay more while the wealthy in this country pay less as they get more and more tax breaks from the Government supported, unfortunately, by the Progressive Conservatives in this House of Commons.
I repeat, this statement should be required reading for all Members of Parliament. In their statement the Bishops make reference to the kind of economic programs we should have in this country. They say it is not moral that we have 1.5 million jobless in this country. I recommend this document to each and every Member.
I hope that the Liberal backbenchers, many of whom I believe are sincere, will be able to persuade their colleagues in Cabinet who are isolated from the real facts not to fight inflation on the backs of the ordinary people, the poor, the oppressed and the unemployed, but rather that we fight inflation by restricting the incomes of the very wealthy or clamping down on excessive prices and profits and the many tax loopholes that there are for the wealthy and the coupon clippers of this country. We should not fight inflation on the backs of the poor and the pensioners in Canada. The right way is to deal with those who can afford it. That is not only the best way economically but the moral way to get out of this crisis.
If the Bill before us stated that the incomes of the lowest paid Canadians would be increased by the cost of living plus 3, 4, 15 or 18 per cent, or something like that, that those with incomes of $50,000 and more, such as Members of Parliament, would receive an increase of 2 or 3 per cent or no increase, and that those making higher incomes would have their salaries rolled back, I would agree with an inflation program and a restraint program. However, I do not agree with an inflation program that tightens the belt of the skinniest person so much that he cannot breathe and gives the overweight person extra elastic in his pants so that he can expand indefinitely as he enjoys life and the fat of the land.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
That is not fair. It is not the direction we should be taking in our country. Nor is it the vision we should have for Canadians. In fact, in addition to giving working Canadians and other ordinary Canadians more of the national income, they should be given more of a say, more power and more rights in the workplace. Workers in the communities and farmers should own more and more of our economy. However, there are those in this House, particularly in the extreme right in the Progressive Conservative Party, who complain about the present day Petro-Canada, CBC and other public ownership. That is the direction we should be going.
I am sorry, I cannot hear the interjection of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). I suggest that he study the statement of the Bishops. He will find that they refer to alternative economic approaches that we should be taking in this country. I quote from page 6:
There are, of course, alternative ways of looking at our industrial future and organizing our economy. This does not imply a halt to technological progress but rather a fundamental re-ordering of the basic values and priorities of economic development. An alternative economic vision for example, could place priority on serving the basic needs of all people in this country, on the value of human labour, and an equitable distribution of wealth and power among people and regions. What would it mean to develop an alternative economic model that would place emphasis on-socially-useful forms of production; labour-intensive industries; the use of appropriate forms of technology; self-reliant models of economic development; community ownership and control of industries; new forms of worker management and ownership; and greater use of the renewable energy sources in industrial production?
That is exactly the opposite of what we hear from many Members on both sides of the House. They say we have too little of society oriented toward profit-making, stock markets, private investment, and that there are not enough write-offs for dividends, investments and tax credits. That is the opposite of what the Bishops recommend.
1 hope this document of the Bishops will become an historic turn-around in this country toward a society that is more moral, just and equal for each and every Canadian and each and every region. If the Bishops succeed in doing that, they have made a contribution to Canada that is much greater, I am sad to say, than the national Parliament of Canada is making through the words uttered in this House.
I believe I have another minute or two, but I see you getting edgy, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that the allotted time for his speech has expired.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in opposition to the amendment proposed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) as well as the provisions of this Bill. When one looks at the amendment advanced by the President of the Treasury Board, one readily sees that it is a measly admission of the fact that this Government's approach is wrong. If it had the courage, it would withdraw not only the amendment but the legislation. If it had any confidence in its six and five program, this kind of legislation would not be necessary.
I am surprised in listening to the debate that the NDP seem to focus the bulk of their words on an attack against the

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Conservative Party. They are more inclined to attack the Conservative Party, who are not the authors of this piece of legislation, rather than attack the Liberal Government, which is the author of these provisions. More and more Canadians are coming to the realization that the Liberal-NDP socialist alliance that has governed this country over the last 15 years is certainly not working. It is the NDP which kept this Government in office during the period from 1972 to 1974. It is the NDP which triggered this Government's return to power, but now they stand around and indirectly criticize the Liberal Government, but they are more inclined to attack the Progressive Conservative Party which obviously has a greater share of political support in Canada than perhaps the Liberals and NDP combined. So they are basically fighting for their political survival.
I hearken back, Mr. Speaker, to lectures we received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this fall when he emphasized the necessity for trust and the need for Canadians in all corners of Canada to pull together. I have listened to this debate and there have been some very impassioned pleas and sincere appeals from Members on this side, asking the Government to reconsider this legislation. The Liberals are asking Members to put their country first. They are asking senior citizens and other groups, those unorganized and unable to fend for themselves, to bear the brunt of the six and five program. The Liberals are breaking a promise and commitment, once again employing that double standard which has been the hallmark of this Government. The Government has one law for its friends and one law for other people. It does not ask the Pitfields or the people who have been the recipients of the huge bail-outs to restrain or cut back. Rather, it calls upon that group in society which has the most difficulty fending for itself.
The Government points out that it needs the revenue. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is inaccurate and clearly misleading because this Government has always found money to buy service stations and nationalize oil companies. Look at what the Government has spent through PetroCan. It gobbled up Pacific Petroleum for $1.5 billion; Atlantic Richfield for $342 million; Petrofina for $1.4 billion, and then the latest acquisition of a string of service stations for $600 million. That is $4 billion in the last two years. The Government found money to spend on those kinds of enterprises, but we have to ask ourselves whether that expenditure has really been in the best interests of Canada. I have before me an assessment of Petro-Can's competitive potential related to its low-cost capital structure as outlined by Ultramar Canada, and I want to quote from a document they presented. They say:
Pctro-Canada obtained its equity capital 'free' from the Federal Government and pays little interest on its debt.
It reported retained earnings of $176 million on December 31, 1981 after six years of operations. If Petro-Canada during those years had been obliged to find its capital, and reward its shareholders and lenders on the same terms as a private sector integrated oil company, subject to the rigorous discipline of
financial markets and commercial reality, it would have reported a cumulative deficit in the order of $341 million.
This is a variance of $517 million, financed by taxpayers and consumers in ways few of them understand, and potentially enabling Petro-Canada to wield irresistible power in the market place.
There you have it, Mr. Speaker. The Government has money for that sort of enterprise which is really, according to this assessment, not a very good investment. It has not even paid simple interest in terms of return on investment. We also know this Government is extracting billions and billions of dollars from the western provinces and resource industries. I have a recap of the cumulative total which this Government has extracted in the field of energy related taxes and it works out to about $11 billion over an 18 month period. It is now working out to a rate of about $7 billion or $8 billion a year in taxes extracted from the consumer and taxpayer as the result of this Government's imposition of its energy tax program. So when we talk about money, it is simply a matter of the allocation of funds and priorities, and this Government has chosen, as a priority, to spend money buying service stations rather than providing for protection to retired civil servants and the people of Canada with young families who are finding it very difficult to cope in this very depressed economic state.
When we speak of trust, Mr. Speaker, we simply have to refresh our memory about what this Government said during the last election campaign and the 1974 election campaign. We all know the issue was wage and price controls. We know the Government, particularly the Prime Minister, was very critical of a policy outlined by our Party in support of a freeze and a regime of wage and price controls. He promised the Canadian people that would never occur. Well, we know what happened, that is history. We also know that in the 1980 campaign there were some rather irresponsible promises made by this Prime Minister and his Government, amongst which was this, and I quote from The Toronto Star of January 26, 1980:
Trudeau: "We will enhance the security of the individual through measures such as the increase in the guaranteed income supplement which helps one of the groups in our society-the elderly poor-that needs help most.
I could go on and quote the promises regarding cheap energy, or talk about the security of individuals and what the Government was going to do with respect to the problems of unemployment. Just a short quotation would certainly be most revealing at this particular time. At the University of Saskatchewan on January 16, 1980, Mr. Trudeau stated this:
On jobs, we will not increase unemployment by 100,000 jobs this year as the Tories promised to do in their budget.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I would draw to the Hon. Member's attention, concerning the use of proper names of Members in the House, that he should not do indirectly what is not allowed directly, and that he should refer to Hon. Members by the name of their portfolios or their ridings.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that when one was quoting from an extract, one would have to quote accurately, using the name
January 18, 1983

"Mr. Trudeau" as it appears in the article rather then improvising, but 1 will certainly adhere to your suggestion and just continue with the quotation:
We will instead produce an industrial strategy that expands small business, encourages research and development, and increases Canadian ownership.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in this country where Canada finds itself in the worst position of any of the countries of the OECD group. We have an auto industry and a forest industry in trouble; we have a mining industry which has practically collapsed, a fishing industry in tatters, and an agricultural industry severely impaired by high energy taxes. We have a Canadian energy industry severely hurt by the National Energy Program, and the latest Oilweek magazine bears that out when it says that the net income of foreign controlled companies in the year 1982 has declined by 11 per cent, while the Canadian controlled companies-which were to have been protected by the NEP-saw their income slashed by 37 per cent. What we need in this country, Mr. Speaker, is a climate of confidence in which we can build and inspire industry and investment and create confidence to allow the combined fortunes of this country-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my constituents in Burnaby on Bill C-133, and in particular on the amendment which is before the House. It is basically an attempt to buy off Liberal backbenchers who had expressed a certain amount of opposition to the Bill in its original form.
The amendment would increase the annual rate of indexation by one half of one percent in 1983 and in 1984. What this means is that those Liberal backbenchers who have changed their minds and have now agreed to support the measure- which is an invidious attack on the standard of living of thousands of elderly people in Canada-have been bought for a price of approximately ten cents per day. That is the amount of the increase the amendment would bring to the average pension of the people affected by the Bill.
The Bill constitutes a direct attack on the standard of living of thousands of my constituents in Burnaby-retired members of the Public Service, retired members of the Armed Services and retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Government has broken faith with close to 200,000 retired federal employees. The breakdown for 1980-81 showed some
120,000	retired members of the Public Service, 32,000 retired members of the Canadian Armed Force, 2,200 retired members of the RCMP and other retirees, bringing the total to about 160,000 people. This figure will be increased over the next two years to about 200,000 people.
We are talking about individual retired federal employees who, over the course of their employment, contributed 1 per cent of their salary to a special supplementary retirement benefits fund for the purpose of protecting the purchasing
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
power of their pensions. In addition, they contributed 6.5 per cent of their salary each year for their basic pensions.
1 want to emphasize that what the Government is doing is breaking a sanctified contract with public servants who, in good faith, contributed deferred wages, in effect, amounting to 1 per cent of their salary, for the purpose of protecting the purchasing power of their pensions against an increase in the cost of living. The Government has made use of those funds contributed by retired federal employees, for its own purposes and has not invested them to bring the best possible return. Once again, the retired federal employees are contributing in that way to the good of the country, only to have the Government stab them in the back through the means of Bill C-133.
We are not talking about wealthy individuals, Mr. Speaker. The average pensioner affected by the Bill has a pension of $6,900 per year. Many of them are survivors and 83 per cent of survivors receive a pension of less than $5,500 per year. Most of the survivors are elderly women struggling to get along on incomes well below the poverty line.
The effect of this iniquitous Bill is to rob retired federal employees of over $100 million over a two-year period. For the average pensioner that means a loss in 1983 of some $345 or, for the two years, some $1,200. At the same time, the Government is eroding the base of these pensions for future years. This is a Government that talks about equity, that asks pensioners to contribute on a fair and equitable basis to the fight against inflation. It asks pensioners, in effect, to take a cut in their real standard of living.
What equity exists in a Government which, at the same time as it slashes the standard of living of federal retired employees, cuts the marginal tax rate of the highest income earners in the country? What equity exists in a Government which, at the same time as it cuts the standard of living of elderly retired public employees, allows some 4,850 Canadians who earned more than $50,000 in 1980 to pay not a penny in income tax? This fact is revealed in the most recent taxation statistics for this country. In that same year, 179 taxpayers who earned over $200,000 paid not one penny in income tax as well.
The Government should hang its head in shame for asking retired federal employees to take a cut in their real standard of living at the same time as it allows the wealthiest in our society to escape paying any income tax whatsoever. At the same time, it has introduced legislation which would cut by 10 per cent the marginal tax rate of the wealthiest people in the country, those most able to shoulder the burden of the fight against inflation. The Government certainly does not in any way display the principles of equity and justice which should be displayed in the circumstances.
Bill C-133, Bill C-131 which deals with old age pensions, and Bill C-132 which deals with Family Allowances flow directly from the six and five legislation which the Progressive Conservative Party overwhelmingly supported in June 1982. In the documents which accompanied that legislation it was explicitly stated that at the heart of the six and five proposals was a cut in the standard of living, not just of federal public

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
servants but of retired federal employees, including retired members of the RCMP, the Canadian Forces and others.
The Conservative Party was fully aware of the consequences of six and five, yet it voted with the Liberals 16 times, in recorded votes, to support the legislation which is resulting in a cut in the standard of living of over 200,000 elderly people in the country. What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Svend Johannes Robinson: As my colleague says, shame on them for supporting the framework of this legislation and now hypocritically saying, "Even though we knew where the legislation was leading, even though we knew six and five was going to be applied to the elderly and the weak in our society-"when it comes to the acid test, they back off.
I could not put this matter any better than it has been put by many of my constituents in correspondence with me. I should like to quote from a letter sent by a Mrs. McIntosh of Wildwood Avenue, Burnaby, which is one of many I have received. She writes:
I am writing this letter to protest the proposed government legislation to limit the indexing of civil service pensions to 6 per cent. I can understand the need for restraint in these trying times, but it should not be at the expense of something that we have already paid for. During our working years, civil servants were told that in return for a percentage of their wages, they would receive a pension fully indexed to the cost of living increase for that year. If a private individual tried a stunt like that they would probably land in jail for fraud.
How true that is, Mr. Speaker.
In 1977, in response to correspondence on the question of the indexing of Public Service pensions, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had this to say:
Pensioners are out of the work force and cannot bargain or strike for larger incomes. They are not the cause of inflation; they are its victim. We have an obligation to help protect them.
I note in passing that they are the victims of the economic policies for which the Liberal Government is responsible. The Liberals have been in power for almost all of the last 15 or 20 years in this country, with a brief interregnum.
I know my time is coming to an end. I would like to close by emphasizing the fact that Bill C-133 and the proposed amendment to buy a few votes on the Liberal side constitute nothing less than an assault on the standards of living of some of the people in the country who are the least able to afford the burden. I have heard from many of my constituents. 1 have heard from Mr. Glen Scott, President of the South Burnaby branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, and from hundreds of others who insist that the Government should respect the commitments it made to them and to the people of the country and withdraw this odious piece of legislation.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to make some brief comments on this infamous Bill and the rather stupid amendment to Bill C-133, to cap the retirement benefits of public servants. Actually it is a Bill which gives the Government a licence to steal. Heaven only knows that the
people of Canada have lost enough faith already in the Government. To bring in a piece of legislation like this breaks a legal contract without any prior consultation with a group of people who can least fight for themselves in the struggle to keep their heads above water during retirement years.
We in the NDP are outraged because if a trade union broke a legal contract I am quite convinced that the Government members, and certainly the Conservatives, would be up on their feet yelling and screaming all afternoon, day after day. Let us not forget that the Conservatives supported the Government with Bill C-124 which brought in the whole six and five program. We in the NDP were the only Party in Ottawa to oppose it. Now it is easy to understand why one Tory after another is rising to try to heal his or her conscience. They are trying to get across the idea that that is not what they had in mind when they supported Bill C-124, that they did not anticipate that it would be extended to include retired public servants. Nonetheless, they supported the six and five program at that time because they felt that the majority of Canadians were for it. Perhaps that is true, if one wants to be led by the polls like sheep, but one must have the courage to face reality afterwards. Apparently that is not being done in this debate by the Conservative Opposition.
There are a few facts with respect to Bill C-133 that 1 would like to put on the record. I hope they will clear up some misconceptions and misinterpretations as far as the general public is concerned. To begin with, the Bill really amounts to the theft of $165 million from an account paid into and contributed to by public servants during their working years, based upon a 1 per cent additional payment by them as a hedge against inflation during retirement years; in other words, the indexing of pensions. Public employees pay 7.5 per cent of their salary to support the pension plan. On the other hand, in the private sector employee contributions seldom exceed 5 per cent and are frequently less. This is something which is not generally known by the public, that Public Service employees actually contribute more to their pension plan than do most employees in the private sector-7.5 per cent of their salary to support their pension plan.
1 have another series of figures which 1 should like to put on the record. The benefits paid from the plan to date have been more heavily financed by employees than by their employer. Of $1,360 million paid out between October 1981 and September 1982, employees contributed $735 million compared with the Government's $625 million. Here again this is usually not the case in the private sector. Usually in the private sector it is the employer who pays the larger share and, in some cases as a result of agreement, the employer pays all of the contribution to the pension plan. During their contributing years federal public servants pay more than the private sector at 7.5 per cent, and in contributions back they have actually paid more for the contributions than their employer.
Another fact I should like to put on the record is that currently there is a surplus of $15.5 billion in the Public Service Superannuation Account. The interest which can be earned on this amount is more than sufficient to pay for
January 18, 1983

indexation. The fund itself is in healthy shape. At this time it is not costing taxpayers one cent, yet the Government insists on cutting back the normal increase public servants would receive based on the cost of living. This was why they contributed the extra 1 per cent during their working years-as a hedge against inflation.
Previously the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) committed the Government to full indexation of Public Service pensions as a right earned during working years. I believe this was stated by the Prime Minister back in 1977. His Ministers previously defended the plan and argued that the Government could not break its contract with Public Service pensioners by reducing indexation. We must keep in mind that we are not dealing with only Clerks of the Privy Council or Deputy Ministers who retired on very handsome superannuation benefits because they were making very high incomes during their last five or six years of employment. We are dealing with literally thousands upon thousands of retired RCMP officers, retired military personnel and retired public servants who never got into the high income brackets during their working years. Like all retirees, they have no clout or strength in numbers to fight the Government. 1 argue very strongly that they were not the cause of inflation.
Ordinary Canadians, whether they be retired public servants or retirees from the private sector, did not have control over the economy. They did not make major decisions at the top which contributed to inflation, yet they are the ones who are expected to fight inflation by taking a reduced retirement pension when, even at the present time, well over half the
100,000	federal Public Service retirees can barely make ends meet, primarily as a result of the high inflation rate.
The Government's Green Paper on pension reform clearly supports the need to protect all pensions against the erosion of inflation. Many observers in the private sector agree with this.
I cannot think of anything more humane which a Government can do, at the federal or provincial level, than to guarantee its former employees who are now retired a secure and financially safe retirement. In most cases they have given the best years of their lives to the Government and its Public Service, yet now they are being kicked in the pants because of the Government s stupid financial policies which have brought about runaway inflation.
1 should like to close by simply stating that we in the NDP are unalterably opposed to Bill C-133. It is unfair, it is morally reprehensible, and it is a theft of some $165 million from contributions by public servants to their retirement fund as a hedge against inflation. It is an odious Bill. It should be withdrawn, and the amendment to raise the increase from 6 per cent to 6.5 per cent and from 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent is nothing short of a sick joke.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I put a question to the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)? I believe that is provided for under the rules.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The time allotted to the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) has expired. The question can only be put at this time with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. Blais:: What about the ten minutes allowed for questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I think there is a misunderstanding either on the part of the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) or on the part of the Chair. Speeches at this time, at report stage, are not followed by the ten-minute question period provided under the provision of the rules. It is my understanding that the Hon. Member, if he receives unanimous consent, can put a question to the Hon. Member for Brant at this time. This is why the Chair asked whether the House wanted to give its unanimous consent to the Hon. Member for York-Peel. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is agreed, provided also that the Hon. Member for Brant accepts the question.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will accept a question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Hon. Member and also to two of his colleagues. I am always curious to hear what socialists have to say with respect to whatever happens to be before the House.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Listen and learn.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I noted that the Hon. Member for Brant spoke about runaway inflation. I certainly agree it is a tragedy that this Government has subjected the nation to the inflationary forces we are experiencing in the country. The Hon. Member for Brant is the last socialist speaker from whom we have heard. I believe that most of us have had an opportunity to read the OECD economic outlook of December, 1982, which pointed out that Canada in 1982 alone had a real Gross National Product reduction, a negative growth, of 5 per cent, the worst of any of the 24 nations reviewed in that report. Does the Hon. Member-and presumably he knows the feelings of his colleagues in the socialist Party-have any twinge of conscience now for what they triggered in this country? They allowed the emperor to return to be Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and allowed the nation to be subjected to a lack of real growth and to inflationary pressures. Does it not disturb the Hon. Member and his colleagues to see what they have subjected the nation to?


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek the guidance of the Chair in determining whether the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) has any inclination to follow along the track of the question. He knows full well that the Conservative Party committed suicide in the Thirty-first Parliament.

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Brant.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give a facetious answer to a very rambling question. I do not know what the question had to do with Bill C-133 or with what I said. I can only assume that the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) is prepared to support this Bill. I presume that his Party is prepared to support this Bill as a way of fighting inflation. However, I put the question back to the Hon. Member for York-Peel by way of an answer. Does he think that it is morally right that we should fight inflation on the backs of retired Canadians? Let him stand up and answer that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please.
Before I recognize the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), may I deal with the proceedings of the adjournment motion this evening?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble)-National Security-Position of Canadian Government vis-a-vis Soviet Government-(b) Request for reduction in number of Soviet Embassy officials; the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-Agriculture-Level of beef imports-(b) Balance remaining in quotas; and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis)-Unemployment Insurance-Plight of persons exhausting benefits-request for aid to municipalities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and the motion of Mr. Gray (p. 21886) and the motion of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (p. 21889).
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak against this amendment and to second the motion, if you will, of my colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and to support his remarks made to the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). I remind the Hon. Member for Brant that it was an amendment that brought the fall of the Conservative Government which was trying to do something about inflation at the time of the demise of the Thirty-first Parliament. I would also remind the Hon. Member for Brant that the reason many Members were opposed to Bill C-124 was that Members' salaries were to be reduced by it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take a look at Members opposite who opposed any cut in their salaries, the great socialist hordes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: This amendment is ludicrous. Just listen to the baying hounds to my left, the cohorts of the people across the way.
This amendment, amounting to a half of one per cent, is an admission by the Government of a disastrous Bill, of an inequitable Bill. It is adding to the confidence crisis in this Government. It is a plague unto the savers of Canada who, by prepayment of their pensions-hundreds of thousands of them in the Armed Forces, the civil service and the RCMP- provided for their future now, only to find their future crim-bling like a sand castle by the actions of the highest court in the land, this Parliament that can change its mind. The underlying issue, as everyone is aware, is the credibility and accountability of this Government or, more correctly, the lack of it.
By introducing Bill C-133, the Government is once again going back on its word, just like the 18-cent a gallon tax. By doing so, this Government is proving that honesty and integrity, the things on which the Conservative Party is built, are words that this Government cannot comprehend in either official language.
This Government, having entered into a contract, a sacred contract, now seeks to break that contract. That provision was not in Bill C-124. This Government seeks to break that contract with little or no regard for the serious consequences to befall those with whom it contracted, and with little or no regard for the morality involved. That is the problem in Canada today.
It has been pointed out by many other speakers that for many years public employees paid 7.5 per cent of their salaries to support a pension fund. In that, of course, was a 1 per cent provision for indexation. The Government has chosen to ignore that.
In my firm we have a 5 per cent pension plan. Contributions of 5 per cent come from the employee and a like amount from management. Right now that fund draws 9.5 per cent. Those employees are secure. As their salaries increase, so does the
January 18, 1983

amount in the pension plan. As we refinance those moneys with increased interest payments, people are totally protected. Why then did this Government not put the principles of free enterprise into play? 1 will tell you why. It is because this Government supports the principles of the people to my left. This Government does not care. What does it do with the money? Is it actuarially sound? Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what would happen if that money, that $15.5 billion surplus alone, not to mention all the rest of the money that was invested over those years, had been placed with a private insurance company with a letter of comfort, the backing of the Canadian Government? To have done that would have made sense. Had that money been invested through free enterprise there would be no need for me to stand here today talking about indexing of pensions, because the Government would have had money to burn had the money been in separate funds. But these people will laugh at Mr. Lougheed and his Heritage Fund. His Government places money at the disposal of people, where it belongs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Even forgoing what 1 have just said, whether or not the notion of indexing was appropriate is not the issue here. The issue is the fact that public servants, Armed Forces personnel, RCMP personnel, contracted with their Government for the indexing of their pensions. They paid for it. They did that in good faith, but what happened? The Government can change the law at will in order to force its will upon the savers of Canada, many of whom are very low income earners, such as the private in the Army and the Government clerk who have put their years in for the service of Canada.
I would remind the Government that a contract is supposed to have legal status. There are laws in place to protect either party in a contract, and the Government's duty is to enforce those laws, not break them. Yet this Government wishes to enact a new law which will enable it to break a contract while destroying the confidence of the Canadian people. What is next? The Government is demonstrating once again that when a certain law does not suit its purpose it will bring in another law which will, no matter if it is through three budgets or by other means.
Surely, if the Government no longer supports the principle of indexing pensions for its employees, it should have the simple decency to honour its present obligations under the contract and change its rules for future employees. Certainly it is a dishonourable and discreditable act to tell a group of people that they will be assured of something through a contract and then be denied that assurance.
This Government's pension plan has been bogus from the beginning. It is not actuarially sound. Reports are made to give people the impression that they have a separate pension fund when, in reality, this money goes into the general revenue. Let me point out a few examples of what the Government does with this money, even with a $15.5 billion surplus. As was
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
pointed out by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) a few moments ago, its priorities are mixed up. It purchases oil companies for $4 billion, some of which is double the price of the stock, and the money leaves the country. In this area it has a $341 million deficit.
Let us review some of the loan transactions this Government has made. For example, there is a loan to China for approximately $49 million. The Auditor General's Report stated, "An interest-free loan to China was authorized under the Exports Credit Insurance Act interest-free." The Government is then willing to give a paltry .5 per cent to the people who have devoted their lives to the service of this country. I could cite many other examples of loans which have been made by this Government interest-free. There is an example of a loan which has a 35 year maturity, a five-year grace period and is interest free. It matures at various dates between April 2001 and November 2005 in the amount of $3.82 million. There is another loan for $18 million with a 20 year maturity and a five-year grace at 5 per cent. There is a myriad of these examples. It represents absolutely profligate spending and mismanagement. One only needs to consider countries such as Haiti and Jamaica for further examples.
Canadians realize what this Government is doing. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) was the Member who pointed out the fact of that $15.5 million surplus. He made one of the best speeches last night of any I have heard in the House since I have been here. He pointed out the fallacious actions of this Government.
My hon. colleague, the Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) received a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dated October 12, 1977. I would like to quote it again for the record. The Prime Minister said:
Pensioners are out of the workforce and cannot bargain or strike for larger incomes. They are not the cause of inflation. They are its victim. We have an obligation to protect them.
We see the Government's obligation through a law which says that its former obligation does not count. The Government cannot be believed. It will break a contract whenever it wishes.
The pension fund is not actuarially sound when it could be so very easily. The Government does not back free enterprise, and this country is going down that slippery slope to socialism every day that we stand in the House. It is into our pockets, into our lives, and we want it out. This cannot be done on the backs of pinchers.
Some Members opposite understand the principles that are involved in this issue. They have publicly indicated their opposition to this Bill. It is about time that they began to think. A few other Members opposite first objected, at least publicly, to their constituents, but now have decided to put politics above people and will undoubtedly vote with the Government on this odious Bill, to quote a phrase from the Hon. Member for Brant.
Having destroyed the Canadian economy, the Government is now crying poor and, in this instance as in others, is planning

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
to take money from the poorer sectors of society. Of course, it is the sector of our society which needs it.
If we are so poor that we cannot afford to help Canadians, so poor that we have to renege on our contracts but can lend billions of dollars to Third World countries, why do we have those billions of dollars to give to those Third World countries and other people? We will never help them unless we put our own house in order and help our Canadian pensioners.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) may answer a question with unanimous consent of the House since his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I thank my colleagues. The Hon. Member referred to the fact that this Party voted against Bill C-124 because we wanted to keep our MPs' high pensions. Of course, this is not the case. I would ask the Hon. Member how many Members in his Party have given up their pay increases; as many as our Members have done? I would also ask how many Conservative Members fly first class or have begun to fly economy, as our Members have done to save expenses to the people of Canada?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The last speaker flew first class to Vancouver at Christmas, and I know that because I saw her get on the plane.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, can the Hon. Member show me documented proof that every Member of the NDP is flying economy, and can she show me where they did not vote for an increase in their salaries? I cannot vouch for every Member on this side, but I am not asking the question. I know how I spoke in caucus and I know the feelings of a great many of my colleagues. Therefore, I would say that the onus is on her to show the people of Canada what she really means. Put up or shut up.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Ask her about her Japanese car.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to answer that question because the facts speak for themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this Bill and to the amendment which is the half per cent solution presented by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). It only penalizes civil servant pensioners more than the original six and five proposal.
Of course, 1 join my Party in strongly opposing Bill C-133 because it breaks a contract agreement with the civil servants.
It is a contract to ensure them full indexing on their pensions which they paid into with the intention of being protected from inflation. The Government is doubly penalizing Public Service retirees by arbitrarily imposing this six and five restraint on
them. It is destroying confidence in the credibility of the Government itself which already has very little credibility.
Over the years many civil servants have paid into their pensions while planning very carefully for their retirement. Some retire early in order to be protected from having to live on a limited income with high inflation.
Their employer, the Federal Government, agreed to full indexation and paid its share into these pension funds. The Government also made use of those funds to which the public servants had contributed from their salaries. It made use of these funds at a low interest rate for various projects, and it benefited more than fully from the money of its civil servants. We strongly oppose the fact that the Government now refuses to pay back the civil servants. Pensioners are unable to reduce their food intake by 6 per cent. They cannot depend on fuel costs being restrained to 6 per cent or that their rents will be held to an increase of 6 per cent.
Many pensioners in my riding are finding it very difficult to survive on their limited incomes, particularly if they are not living in their own homes. Civil service pensioners have worked hard for the federal Government and they will be doubly penalized by the Government, first, through Bill C-131, if passed, when there will be a cut-back on basic old age pension indexing to 6 per cent and 5 per cent. Then, of course, the Government wants to sock it to them again in this Bill which would impose 6.6 per cent, 6.5 per cent with the amendment, capping the cost of living indexing. Any way one looks at it, this is a terrible breach of confidence. It is really an immoral step that the Government is taking against its own employees, who work very hard for some of the people who are sitting in this House and voting for this Bill.
I would particularly like to concentrate on the plight of civil service pensioners who happen to be women. In the last couple of days we have heard much about gentleman's agreements in this country. I can tell Your Honour that those gentleman's agreements have not been too concerned with the actual prejudice on the part of the Government toward women employees in the Public Service. I would like to give several examples. We know that women clerks who went on strike to get equal pay had an agreement that their salaries would be increased, including a 12.25 per cent increase. However, under Bill C-124, their indexing was reduced to 6 per cent. When their union appealed to the President of the Treasury Board to exempt them under the clause that stated that any group can be exempted by the Governor-in-Council, he refused. This is the lowest paid group of public servants.
Then again, we consider many of the women who are working and struggling to try to improve their position in the Public Service. Of course, these women who are now pensioners worked at very low rates of pay. That is bad enough for those who are younger now and in the Public Service, but the ones who are retirees worked at unbelievably low rates of pay over the years. If we consider the number of women who have
January 18, 1983

a chance to get promotions in the Public Service, one finds a deplorable situation, once again. This is because the Government has no affirmative action program. There is the lack of kind of affirmative action program to which the Government gives lip service. We find, for example, that 63 per cent of women in Public Service earn under $18,000 while only 23 per cent of men earn under that amount. We also see that 78 per cent of women in the Public Service are in support categories, such as clerks and maintenance people, earning low wages, and only 22 per cent are in middle management or office positions. There has been very little improvement over the last few years, since the Government has given lip service to affirmative action. Now, of course, the Government is breaking a written contract with Public Service pensioners, particularly with these women who have worked for such low wages over the years and now receive low pensions. On top of that, they will be doubly cut by these two Bills concerning indexing. Any way one looks at it, this Bill must be withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lang) on a point of order.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House unintentionally. There is no written contract with regard to the pensions between the Public Service and the Government.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed with an example. To illustrate discrimination against women in the Public Service, and now against Public Service pensioners, I would like to refer to a woman to whom I spoke when I visited my riding last week. She was very concerned about this Bill. At that time she spoke about the male domination which still exists in the federal Government, even though there is supposedly equal treatment in Canada today. She said that women are working in the lowest paid jobs, they work for much shorter periods of time, and therefore they have lower pensions on the average.
In her particular case, she went back to work when she was 42 years old. She was the sole supporter of her family, with two young children. She worked as a typist for $192 a month in 1956 and slowly made her way up to a clerk-typist position and a little higher. Then she was forced by poor health to quit in 1960. She said that she is lucky because she has her own house and a little garden and can keep some of her costs down. This woman earns, from her superannuation from the federal Government, a mere $359 a month. That is very little for people to survive on in Vancouver.
I would like to say that not only do we object to the Bill because it is immoral, but also because of the fact that to the federal Government's employees it is a breach of faith on the part of the federal Government. It is extremely hard on federal Government pensioners who are the lowest paid people and who now face full inflation. They have no real protection against inflation. As I said, it is of major concern to this Party as it applies to women pensioners who were former civil servants in particular.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents in Vancouver-Kingsway to speak on this amendment to Bill C-133. As Your Honour knows, the Bill itself decreases the amount of civil service pensions next year and the subsequent year to a level of six and five, 6 per cent and 5 per cent, rather than the inflation rate which was the original bargain, and thereby decreases the amount of money which should legitimately come to retired civil servants. In other words, the war against inflation will be fought in part by the retired civil servants in Canada.
The amendment changes the Bill somewhat. It increases the annual rate of indexing by .5 per cent in 1983 and 1984. Therefore, with the amendment, it means that the increases will be 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent. The change, I am told, is to placate some Liberal Government backbenchers. How easily, sir, they are placated! Their support is literally bought for 10 cents a day. They are easily sold out.
I rise to speak on the Bill because it is an attack on some of my constituents in Vancouver-Kingsway, specifically, on retired civil servants, on retired Armed Forces personnel, on retired RCMP personnel and others. I am told that there are
200,000	people in this country, in Canada, who will be affected by the Bill. I know that there are a number of people, affected in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, because I have received letters, visits and telephone calls about this matter. I am told that 1 per cent of civil servants' salaries went into a special fund to protect the purchasing power of those salaries.
The Parliamentary Secretary raised the question as to whether there is a contract involved. I am told that the Government states that there is not a contract between itself and its employees in terms of pensions. The unions state that when the Government was preparing for collective bargaining, the unions approached the civil service associations in the 1960s to suggest that superannuation be excluded from collective bargaining. In return, they were promised that there would be no unilateral changes in the program. An advisory committee was established and, until the present time, the Government kept its promise about no changes without consultation.
I note that Bert Hill, in an article in the Ottawa Citizen on January 5, said that "This puts the Government in the same position as some backward private employers who see pensions as a privilege rather than a right earned during the working years".
There was an agreement, in a sense, and this agreement has really been broken. This is a Government which seems to be prepared to break agreements and bargains, and that is a dangerous trend, because I do not think that governments in Canada were like that in the past. The Government is prepared to break the Crow rate agreement with farmers. It is even prepared to break agreements with Parliament. Concerning the pre-build of the Alaska Pipeline, it did not even come back to consult this Parliament when it wanted to change a fundamental law of Parliament. It is prepared to break an agreement with employees across the country when it implements

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
the six and five program and it breaks collective agreements with the Public Service. I say that this is morally wrong.
1 have before me a recent statement of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Bishops say that there has been a breakdown in the morality of Canada. All we have to do is to look at our own Government. I believe that moral priorities are linked with political decisions, as the Bishops have said in their report. I say, and I think many other people feel this way, that it is morally wrong for the Government to change this agreement that it has with their retired employees.
The other day the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) said that it was up to the retired civil servants to fight the battle against inflation. In the first place, this is the wrong battle. We should be fighting against the problem of unemployment, not inflation. We have the wrong people fighting the wrong problem.
Dome Petroleum is offered $500 million to bail it out, along with the banks. There are petroleum incentive grants of $8.6 billion offered in this country to the oil companies. Maislin is bailed out; Chrysler is bailed out; any company can be bailed out. Even in British Columbia we have got to the point where we bail out a ski hill, Whistler's Mountain. Then we penalize and freeze the incomes of civil servants. What we have in this country is socialism for the rich. That is what we have achieved after all these years, I am loathe to say.
Is it not about time we asked the people who can best afford to bear the burden of this recession, as the Catholic Bishops have said in their report, to do so, instead of picking upon the poor civil servants and especially on retired Armed Forces personnel who cannot speak for themselves when they are in the Army and who are now speaking through their organization? It is simply not fair. It is simply immoral to pick on the Armed Forces retirees. They are the people who fought for this country, who served this country. We do not want them to have to fight further battles in their retirement. We want to help them in their retirement. I think this is where it is morally wrong.
Pensioners have written to me from my riding and from all across Canada. To illustrate, I just want to read a letter from Mr. H. R. Gillespie of Hoy Street in my riding. He says:
As a retired civil servant, I would like to protest the Bill C-133 as it applies to superannuation pensions. While employed I was required to contribute 6.5 per cent of my salary to the Superannuation Account and an additional I per cent to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account. The latter deduction was made to provide for pension indexing (as defined in section 2(1) of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act). I support FULL indexing to be applied at the current rate of inflation as measured by StatsCan for the year 1982, on January 1, 1983.
The letter continues:
In all honesty, the Government does not have the right to use this money for purposes other than maintaining the pension funds. For them to have changed the rules of indexing when it was paid for by myself and all other civil servants, both retired and continuing workers, is completely unacceptable. I will monitor the performance of those Members in Parliament who can protest this injustice and influence my family accordingly, when next we have an election.
I can assure Mr. Gillespie that we in the New Democratic Party, and myself in particular from Vancouver-Kingsway, support him 100 per cent in the thoughts he has expressed in his letter.
I have had letters from other constituents. Pensioners' organizations and professional organizations have written to us. All of them, except perhaps for the superannuates' national organization the executive of which, in my view, badly represents its members, have been very supportive, and I quote from a letter from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada dated January 14, 1983. It says in part:
The New Democratic Party has steadfastly supported public service pensioners, in their fight to defeat a bill which seeks to legitimize the theft of $165 million as part of the Government's political battle against inflation.
We are grateful for that support and we will continue to fight.
Before I sit down I would like to speak to two other matters.
I say this to the Conservative Party, and 1 have listened to some of their speeches. They should have realized, when they agreed to support the six and five program in principle, that bills like this would affect the old people, the children, and now the retired people from the Armed Forces and the Public Service. It is beneath contempt to make the argument about the NDP voting to increase our salaries. They know that is nonsense. The NDP voted against the six and five Bill, and the Conservatives should have voted against it in principle because the logical outcome is this particular Bill.
I want to conclude by saying this. I am ashamed for my country-and I say this to the Canadian people, if I might- that we are attacking the Public Service of Canada. If one were to go today to Fraser Street in my riding, to the UIC Office, one could see what it is like to be a clerk in that office, with a line-up of thousands of unemployed. So let us not attack them; we should be supporting them. We should be helping them in this dire time. That is fundamental justice. Instead, we seem to be morally bankrupt here in bringing in an amendment such as this and a Bill such as this in which we go after retired civil servants, the retired Armed Forces personnel and the retired RCMP personnel to make them bear the brunt of the war against inflation. All this, while we let the big, rich guys off. In my view, that is morally wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River rises on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned and would like some clarification as to whether the Conservative Party is going to continue to oppose this Bill, or are they remaining in their seats for the rest of the day?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Bow River rises on the point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the NDP should know that we have had 17 speakers on this Bill since yesterday morning. The NDP has had 14. They still have to catch up to us.
January 18, 1983_____________________________COMMONS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the NDP. They tell us, as members for sanctimony, that somehow we are against the aged, the retired, that we in the Conservative Party, because we voted for a Bill, can take the least likely stance that they can paint and say we are for all of its follow up legislation. It is like asking us, "Why do you vote for the pizza you want, when you oppose anchovies?" The fact of the matter is, if they can paint the light, that somehow there is any Party in this House or any group of citizens anywhere in this country who opposes those who are retired from receiving a decent income, then it is every bit as legitimate for us to tell them that when they voted against Bill C-124 they voted against it because they were protecting their own salaries. In other words, as the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) just said, it was nonsense for us in the Conservative Party to tell the NDP that the only reason they voted against Bill C-124 is because they did not want their salaries to be cut. It is nonsense, but it is every bit as logical as their telling us or anyone else in this House that there are some people here who are opposed to retired people.
So, if I may set that question aside, I want to say that what we have here is pizza legislation. Parties will differ because there will be some parts they like and others they disagree with. It is not to say that the six and five program is wrong, or our Party is wrong in seeing that the six and five was brought in. What is wrong is that the application is selective, that is, it applies to a section of society, generally from welfare to average, but does not apply to those in the average to high income bracket. That is one of the principles that is wrong.
The other principle that is wrong is the question of breach of contract. Members opposite say there was no written contract. What a thin veil to hide behind, because we can still see right through. The truth of the matter is, whether it was written on paper or otherwise, the members of the civil service paid extra money for the purpose of receiving the extra pension.
If it was to be the view of Government, supported by Parliament, that there would be a time when public servants should not receive as high a pension, right or wrong, that could be accepted, but not after the contribution payments had already begun. Who in their right mind would believe that after having made payments for the purpose of receiving a higher income, along would come big government and say that it is sorry, "Although you have made the payments, you will not get a higher retirement income"?
Who on the Liberal side can rise and say there is no contract? Although it has collected $14 million more from the public servants in Canada in terms of payments, it now says there is no written contract. Whether it is written or not, there is a contract. There is an agreement whereby if public servants were to set aside more money, they would receive more in return.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
Other Members have pointed out that what is wrong here is the question of the principle of allocation of Government priority. In other words, while they argue that in this time of restraint they can no longer pay for pensions, they can build airports that are massive and opulent and buy oil companies at double their value as well as introducing a Crown corporation that would destroy the right of enterprise in the marketplace of agricultural products.
In other words, what the Government is doing is simply reaching into the grab bag and picking on those groups their pollsters tell them they can pick on. The news media has widely circulated the fact that through polling Canadians, the Liberals have found out that public servants can be picked on politically. It is not a question of justice or the law of Parliament, but simply whom they can safely pick on politically. This is done on the basis that right across this country there are public servant jokes such as, "How does a public servant wink? He opens one eye". That is the view of the Government on the basis of polls, even though it knows it is wrong. It tells the people of Canada that because there is no contract, it can do as it wishes with public servants.
We talk about six and five and now the amendment to 6.5 and 5.5. That is very much like yelling to the person who is drowning not to worry because we have taken a pail of water out of the lake. If one's income is degenerating, having it degenerate by not quite so much is of very little comfort.
I want to share this perspective. Many Canadians who hear this debate will view it in the context of a public servant and think of him as having retired yesterday or today.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Him or her.


Arnold John Malone: I am sorry, I stand corrected. Obviously I meant persons, people, him or her. I certainly want to give all the credit one can to that hard-working army of females in the Canadian Public Service who deserve the compliments of everyone in this House of Commons. The point is that Canadians generally think of them as having retired either presently or very recently. The truth is, and this was mentioned previously by others, some of the public servants retired a decade or more ago. They made their contribution to their pension benefits. Because of inflation in recent years, they are in a very desperate situation today. To limit them in the same way that would limit someone who has recently retired and has caught up with the present inflation rate is basically inexcusable. Those who retired in the sixties or early seventies as a result of the limits of this legislation will have their pensions cut in a way that will severely limit their buying power.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are giving me a signal to tell me my time is up. It certainly is not a signal to tell me that there is an end to the issue. We can talk for a long time on this.
We must remember there is a specific injustice. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) reminded me of this when I said "him" rather than "them". She is very right in talking about public servants to a large degree being female and that to a very significant extent females are in the lower income brackets. This legislation will apply more to them and

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
will cause even more discrimination with regard to their pensions.
We need to talk about the principle of this legislation. First, if there are going to be programs such as six and five, they must be universal throughout society. Second, you cannot breach a contract, which this Bill and this amendment does. Those two principles have been broken by the Government. For those reasons, we are fighting the Bill.
The NDP refer to how we voted before. We must restrain ourselves as a society. They now find individual warts in this legislation. That in no way deters us from the principle that we must practise restraint at a time of inflation. Flowever, the Progressive Conservatives are strongly opposed to the suggestion that (a) the Government has the right to select or (b) that it has the right to breach a contract. My time is up. There is much more we should talk about. 1 hope Members of the NDP recognize that if they continue to speak in opposition toward this Party which did not introduce the legislation, they simply implicate themselves as to whom they are afraid of at the time of the next election.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to the amendment to Bill C-133. It is an opportunity to express some of the views of my constituents who are concerned that their pensions are being eroded by the unilateral action of a federal Government which they thought had some commitment to pension reform. I will quote from a few letters I have received. It is important that we know whom we are talking about when we talk about the Public Service and those who are affected by the legislation. I quote:
For many years we paid the contribution required toward the full indexing and we were assured that our pensions would always be fully indexed.
That was written by a pensioner who served for four and a half years in the RCAF and 3016 years in the Public Service. I quote another pensioner as follows:
With times as they are now, 1 need all the pension I can get to keep up with today's prices and rates. The indexation was set and promised by the Government and 1 feel betrayed.
The individual who wrote that worked in the Post Office for 21 years. Another constituent wrote:
This is a contract entered into with the federal Government and should not be broken ... I say we have paid for this in advance.
Fie paid into the superannuation fund for 35 years. Finally, a fourth constituent wrote:
If any company or corporation had handled pension funds in this manner, they would be jailed or out of business or both ... 1 trust your Party will take a strong stand against this proposed Government measure.
We in the NDP have demonstrated, not only on Bill C-133 but on Bills C-132 and 131, that we are not prepared to see the standard of living of our pensioners and our children eroded by legislation that will not generate any economic activity in this country but will simply lead to greater and greater recession.
I might say to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who has obviously been keeping an eye on the number
of speakers in this debate, that we have now had 18 Conservative Members and 1 am the fifteenth Member of the NDP to speak. 1 would like to remind the Hon. Member that we were expecting there would be the normal three Conservative Members speaking against this legislation for every New Democrat, and we will be anxious to tally up at the end of the debate on this amendment just what the outcome is. I certainly will be interested in hearing what comments the Conservatives have to offer.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I made an error when I said we had 17 speakers. We actually had 19, and now we have had 20 compared to the NDP 14, and now 15.


Edward Allan Miller: I see the Conservatives still have some difficulty counting, Mr. Speaker.
We are opposing this legislation because we have pensioners in our ridings who thought they had some security. As we all know, the superannuants have paid 6.5 per cent of their wage into a pension fund, but beyond that they have contributed 1 per cent of their income to a supplementary retirement benefit account. That was specifically to protect them against the erosion of inflation. They were probably in an enviable position, considering what the rest of the pension system in Canada is like, to be able to do that. They considered that contribution as a deferred wage, and the former President of the Treasury Board recognized that.
The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) indicated there is some sensitivity in the public about public servant's salaries and pensions. We seem to have in Canada a group of individuals who do not particularly like to see public pension plans or government involvement in those plans. We have seen the spectre of exorbitant pensions being paid to retired public servants and Members of Parliament. If those indexed pensions were extrapolated over 20 years at about a 10 per cent inflation rate, certainly they would be immense. But what we are dealing with here is an average pension of about $8,100 a year. If we look at the widows' and survivors' benefits of those public pensions, they are even worse. One figure I have read is $3,200, but if 1 look at the Superannuants Association figures, they estimate a typical surviving spouse as a meagre pension of about $2,000, which will be reduced under this legislation to about $1,800. That is a pretty pitiful amount of money for a surviving spouse to have from a pension fund into which the employees paid 7.5 per cent of their wages. We are dealing with a tax on retired public servants which is going to cost them on average about $1,200 over the next two years, for a total saving of $100 million or $150 million to the Government. Because that money would normally have been used to generate further economic activity, it will help to depress the economy. The Government has recently published a Green Paper on pensions called "Better Pensions for Canadians". It lists some of the serious failings of our pension system as follows:
Some elderly people who are single, particularly single women, have incomes that are insufficient.
January 18, 1983

Inflation has eroded the value of employer-sponsored pensions for many Canadians who are now retired and has also eroded the value of benefits accumulated by employees who are still at work.
Many employees will ultimately receive little pension income, even after many years of work, because they do not stay in one job long enough to acquire vested benefits.
Even if vested benefits are acquired, pensions are generally not "portable" when an employee changes jobs.
A significant number of working people are likely to experience declines in their living standards when they retire, in large measure because employer-sponsored pension plans are not universally available, because they lack sufficient opportunity to accumulate retirement savings, or because pension plan benefits are not sufficiently large.
Elere we have Government employees who were at least some way down the road to improving pensions, but we now have a Government which arbitrarily degrades the only bright spot in the pension scheme in Canada, probably to the benefit of private pension plans. What is going to happen ultimately, when old age pensioners and superannuates see the attitude of the Government to pensioners? In order to protect their retirement income they will have to turn more to private industry. I would challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to use some of her clout within cabinet to see that legislation of this nature is withdrawn, and withdrawn immediately.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, to examine this amendment in slightly more detail than we have been doing so far, let me say that it is really a problem in the sense that it is an insult to Parliament and the senior citizens and civil servants who have served this country for so long. Today we find a Government which wants to steal money from those people, money they have paid over the years, 6.5 per cent for a pension plan, followed by 1 per cent for indexation. Now the Government would literally steal from those who have paid into that fund. The proposal put forward by the Government is that the thief return part of his ill-gotten gains, and a very paltry amount at that. That is clearly an insult and the House should be offended, as should civil servants who depend on that indexed pension.
There is no doubt that the amendment offers a number of courses of action, and perhaps it would be useful to list them for my Conservative colleagues. The Government is absolutely intransigent on this particular point and has no intention of backing off. No matter how foul the proposed legislation, the Government will go through with it. It is a matter of saving face. However, it might be useful to outline the problem for our colleagues who share the Opposition benches.
The Government can proceed with the offensive measure of closure on the Bill if the Opposition shows that it is serious. For that to happen, though, the Conservative Party would have to put up an equal number of speakers to those put up by this Party, and obviously it does not intend to. Occasionally it does put up a speaker to make a token representation. If Members of that caucus were to join our caucus in an equal commitment to stop legislation, then they would put up three speakers for every one from this Party, but since it has taken the opposite
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
approach, clearly it intends to let the Bill slide through. In the hour that remains, we are faced with the necessity of putting up six speakers from the New Democratic Party with little assistance from the Conservative Party. That is consistent with the position the Conservatives have taken on the amendment as well as on the Bill itself and on Bill C-124.


Walter David Baker: Nonsense!


Raymond John Skelly: A commitment by the Conservatives such as 1 have outlined, would force the Government to impose closure on the Bill, but obviously they do not intend to bring that about.
On the 16 votes that were held in relation to Bill C-124, essentially the Conservative Party backed the Government. There was a proposal that Bill C-124 should not apply to pensions, but by voting with the Government the Conservatives elected to defeat that. It is clear that you cannot have your cake and eat it. We are not attacking our Conservative colleagues. I think many of them and a minority of Liberals believe the Bill is offensive. All we are doing at this time is asking the Conservative caucus to bear its full share of responsibility in order to defeat this reprehensible piece of legislation.
I ask them not to talk out of both sides of their mouths, blatantly claiming that they are doing their share to defeat the Bill.
Much has been said about this amendment already, Mr. Speaker. We know that the proposal would cap the pensions of 119,670 retired civil servants, 31,811 retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces and 2,249 retired RCMP officers, and that with increases in the years ahead, roughly 200,000 people, including spouses, would be affected.
The Government is asking us to take the money that those people have paid into a pension plan and money paid to index that pension plan and use it to refuel the economic recovery of the country. Clearly that is a complete and reprehensible farce proposed by a reprehensible Government.
Over the years, the mismanagement of the economy, the blatant abuse of Canadians through high interest rates, the lack of development of an industrial strategy, the failure to provide adequate programs for industrial development and secondary industry, have led to the collapse of the economy. The way out of this is not to steal from retired civil servants or retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces but, rather, to put an adequate program of economic development in front of Parliament, pass it quickly and get Canada back on the road to economic recovery. I reiterate, the solution is not to steal from civil servants.
The amendment before us which proposes to give back a small amount of money, represents an attack by both the Liberals and the Conservatives on the concept of the Public Service. They know full well that if they spread the view that public servants are not doing a good job then, by implication, it follows that their pensions should be chopped, their bargaining rights taken away and their salaries capped. When the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) was a member of the

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2}
Clark Government he proposed to chop the civil service by 60,000 members.


An Hon. Member:: What about Howard Pawley in Manitoba?


Raymond John Skelly: Over the years the Liberal Government has attacked the civil service in the same way as the Conservative Party has. The final abuse is the way that the widows of salaried employees have been treated over the years. Michael Pitfield was given a $6 million pension and salary through his appointment to the Senate.


An Hon. Member:: The Six-million-dollar man.


Raymond John Skelly: As my colleague says, the Six-million-dollar man. He was also sponsored by the Clark Government. Although it fired him, it allowed him, for pension purposes, to be classed at the DM-3 level, at $105,150.
What we have before us today is a grossly unfair amendent which is a complete insult. It shows a lack of integrity on the part of the Government and a lack of commitment by the Conservative Party to retired civil servants, members of the Armed Forces and the RCMP.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this amendment and some of the general principles involved in the Bill. I should like to raise some issues of a moral and ethical nature. First, I should like to remind members of the Government about the Speech from the Throne of April 14, 1980.
We are now in one of the longest sessions of Parliament in history. Because of this, perhaps our Liberal friends opposite have forgotten what was said in that Speech from the Throne, so I think it is important to remind them. They made a commitment to the people in April 1980 which is not being honoured. The Government promised to respond to individual needs by promoting greater security for the elderly, extended opportunities for the young and equality for women. Does this Bill offer that greater security, Mr. Speaker? It definitely does not. My colleagues have pointed out that many of the older pensioners are women. In my constituency there are some who worked for the federal civil service in Ottawa and who took early retirement. Do you think they consider this to be equality? They definitely do not.
In that same Speech from the Throne in 1980, the Liberals claimed that they wanted to create a country whose people would share their wealth with those who need it most. But what is being done for the elderly and the pensioners of this country? The Government is attacking their pensions.
The Speech from the Throne pointed out that inflation strikes hardest at the old and those least able to take care of themselves, yet the Government is now acting in an irresponsible manner.
I notice that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is in her place. In committee she said that she expected sacrifices from everyone, from taxpayers in general,
Family Allowance recipients and pensioners. This reminds me of the little anecdote about the hen and the hog walking arm and arm and seeing a sign at a church concerning an offering. The hen said to the hog, "I have an idea. I think we should contribute to the needs of the poor; I think we should offer them bacon and eggs." The hog replied, "Well, yes, for you that is merely an offering, but for me it would be a total sacrifice." Many of these elderly people have already sacrificed totally. These people had to live through the more difficult periods of time when they did not have all the technology and other benefits we have today. They had to live by the sweat of their brow. These people are presently being attacked.
I should like to share the contents of one or two letters that I received because we need to remind the Government opposite that it is the human dimension it needs to take into consideration. In one letter from Ste. Rose du Lac in my riding, a person wrote:
I have worked for nearly 21 years in the Post Office-the first years were made up of long hours and days and very hard work-we were there to give service to our community.
The contributions made to the SRB Fund were mandatory and represented a form of insurance of our pensions against rising costs of living. We paid the premium. We are entitled to it.
Now a retired pensioner, I have looked forward to that pension cheque so I can enjoy the rest of my declining years.
She asked me to do everything possible to stop this type of legislation. In another letter from Winnipegosis in my riding, a superannuate referred to Bill C-133 and asked me to oppose it. It read:
This is in direct opposition to what we were promised when we contributed an extra 1 per cent which was to ensure that our pensions would be indexed according to the increase in the cost of living. We feel that we have paid the premium and so should be entitled to the insurance this premium was to cover.
If this Bill is passed it will give the Government the legal right to rob the pensioners of their rights and reduce many to living below the poverty level recently determined by the Senate. In other words it would reduce or rob the average pensioner of approximately $1,200 in the next two years and drastically lower their standard of living for years to come. The Government's claim that this lower indexation will save the pension account $100 million is a very misleading assertion. The $100 million belongs to the contributing public workers, not the Government.
On behalf of all superannuates and those now contributing to the fund, 1 would urge that you do everything in your power to oppose any legislation by our Government to alter the present form of indexation. I think you will realize that if this Bill is passed it will set a precedent which will endanger the rights of many people in Canada and also lead to possibly other legislation of a similar nature.
Again I would urge you to use all means you have available to have this Bill defeated.
I could go on and on sharing the comments of people who have taken the time to write to me. They have written in their own hand; it is not something they have cranked out. They are representative of the vital concerns of people who perhaps have been struck with fear as a result of the arrogant actions of the Government. Another letter reads:
I am writing to express my concern of Bill C-133 which is now before the House of Commons.
As I am a retired federal civil servant, I urge you and your colleagues to oppose this measure, in support of all retirees of the Civil Service.
January 18, 1983

I assure that person that indeed we oppose this Bill. Another letter urged me to strongly oppose the Bill to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.
There are some people who have waited for a long time to receive their pension. 1 have a letter from a person who retired as a warrant officer in 1971. He contributed to the pension fund and received a pension cheque of some $349, which amount had not changed since that date. However, a couple of years ago he received notification, according to his letter, that in 1983 his pension would be adjusted upward. He said that he was elated, but imagine his feelings when he found out that the Government would now renege on its commitment to indexation.
What is happening in this type of legislation? It is a case where the Government is failing to recognize the people who contributed over their earning years to the economy of Canada. The present Government is biting the hands that have fed it over the years. This type of ingratitude reflects negatively on the Government. I urge the Government to reconsider this legislation. In this case a contract was given to people; there was a promise and an understanding. Pensioners contributed with full trust and in confidence, expecting the Government to honour its word. Instead, the Government has not honoured its word.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether pensions are really a privilege or something actually earned by pensioners. I urge the Government to recognize that it is not a mere privilege. It is something to which people contributed, something for which public servants worked hard, something they have earned. Retired public servants in my community, even those who retired early, contribute in vital ways to community life, whether it be volunteer work, in cultural groups or otherwise. They anticipated that the Government would honour its word and that they would be able to cope with inflation because they had contributed to the fund. Some of them were enticed to take early retirement, feeling that this was one way in which they could assist in providing employment for younger people. Instead, the Government reneged on its promise and these people were forced to ask themselves whether they could get back into the job market to meet their needs in their retiring years.
In closing, I indicate to the Government that by its actions it is creating a crisis of confidence in itself. I urge Government members to have a change of heart, repent in their ways and drop this Bill.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief intervention in the ten minutes which I am allowed this afternoon on the amendment to Bill C-133, to limit the indexing on pensions of retired public employees. In fact, the amendment increases the six and five program for retired public servants from 6 per cent in the first year to 6.5 per cent and from 5 per cent in the second year to 5.5 per cent.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
I would like to have a little leeway before coming to the comments I would like to make with regard to the amendments to the Bill. One could hardly recognize what we are debating from listening to some of the interjections made by members of the Conservative Party. I am tired of listening to members of the Conservative Party blaming their woes and problems on the New Democratic Party, which Party they consider to have defeated the Conservative Government in December, 1979. Comments made this afternoon, both by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) and the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) were almost entirely on that subject. I would like the people of Canada to know the reason for the downfall of the Conservative Government in December, 1979. The Government of the day, that Conservative Government, introduced a budget in which it set out to the people of Canada how the Conservatives would run the affairs of the country. The Liberals made an amendment to the budget. As normal procedure, the New Democratic Party made a sub-amendment to the amendment of the Liberals. When it came time to vote on the subamendment to the amendment, the subamendment which was put forth by the NDP, the Conservatives were defeated. They took that as a vote of non-confidence. In spite of requests and pleas from many members of the Progressive Conservative Party, their Leader went to the Governor General and asked for Parliament to be dissolved and to call another election. It was out of the ignorance of the Conservative Party, i submit that the Conservatives did not have to go to the Governor General and have another election called. They could have waited until the amendment moved by the Liberals came to a vote or until the actual vote was taken on the budget itself. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and I think the people of Canada should know, that it was through ignorance and the inability of the leadership in the Conservative Party that brought the Conservatives down in 1979. It was through no fault of the New Democratic Party that that Government was removed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: In fact, I feel very badly that the Leader of the Government at that time, now the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) did call for another election, because he might have been able to manoeuvre himself into staying in power. I wish he had done that so that the people of Canada could see that a PC Government is not a darn bit better than a Liberal Government.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about Manitoba? The NDP Government has a $700 million deficit.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The people of Canada would have known that by now.
There are few things that can be seen with the hindsight of the Conservative Party other than their hemorrhoids.
I would like to address the rest of my remarks to the Bill itself and to the amendment. By the Government's own admission, it will save in 1983 some $60 million by imposing a

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
6.5 per cent limitation on the indexation of retired public employees' pensions. If the Government invested all of the $60 million that we will have at the end of this fiscal year, this $60 million in savings would make up one twenty-fifth of one per cent of the national debt. That is a very minuscule amount when you talk about the whole scheme of things. In 1984, the Government will be saved an additional $105 million.
My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party are opposed to this amendment as we are opposed to Bill C-133 itself. We do not see any need to put the burden of fighting inflation or of beating inflation to the ground on the backs of those who can least afford it.
In the pension plan right now that we are talking about today, there are some 90,000 former contributors who receive about $8,100 annually out of the program. There are an additional 32,500 people who receive about $3,200 a year each in survivor's benefits. The average annual pension that was paid out, as of November, 1982, was some $6,900 a pensioner under this pension program.
I think it is unfair for the Government to have said there is not a contract here. I submit that there certainly is a contract, if not written or entrenched in stone, there was certainly an agreement between the public employees and the Government that they would be taken care of in their years of retirement as part of having worked and served their country and also as a benefit for having contributed 6.5 per cent of their salaries. This was to assure the public employees some kind of security in their retirement. In addition to this, these people have paid an extra one per cent of their income to protect their pensions against the ravages of inflation with which we have become so familiar in recent years. As the cost of living went up according to the Consumer Price Index, their pensions also would go up. It is important to note that these retired public employees paid for that benefit.
In the 1960s the Government suggested that superannuation be excluded from collective bargaining. In return, the public employees were promised that there would be no unilateral changes in the program. An advisory committee was established and, until the present time, the Government kept its promise, but now it is breaking the promise. This is the same as in the early days when the private pensions and public pension programs were not in existence. The railways were the most flagrant abusers of pension programs. The railways used a pension program as a tool to hang over the heads of their employees so they could clout them with it if they went on strike. When people went on strike their pension programs were cancelled. In that case, many people within the union were divided. The younger people, not caring quite as much for their pensions, would still want to go out and fight whereas those closest to retirement could not do that because they knew the companies could take away their pensions from them at any time.
We find the Government is doing much the same thing here in destroying confidence in the Canadian people. People felt they had a contract. They thought the Government was obligated in terms of providing them with some retirement income. But we now find the Government has been reneging
on the promise of protecting them from the ravages of inflation. In fact, it will be very harmful to this small group of people since we have, relatively speaking, a small dollar amount that will not even affect the treasuries of Canada. It is hard to say how actuarially sound the program is because the Government does not set up separate accounts for the indexing amount put in by public employees and the actual benefit that has to be covered for the 6.5 per cent. The moneys go into general revenues, and it is very difficult to trace back how sound the pension program is when the Government keeps the records for the pension program in the way that it does.
I will say a further word in terms of support of this Bill. One finds that when the six and five program first came about in Bill C-124, the Liberals introduced it and the Conservatives supported it, knowing full well that what was going to happen to this program is happening here today. The only Party on record as being opposed to the changes in the pension programs for which we have fought so long and hard is the New Democratic Party. It is certainly not the fault of our pensioners or our retired public employees that the country has suffered such a high rate of inflation. It is direction, or lack of it, from successive Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, which have not put this country on the track on which it should be.
We need to bolster our economy in order to protect those programs which we have worked so long and hard to put into place. While Governments are partly responsible for bringing this to reality, we now see it being eroded.
I am very distressed to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is returning from his tour, indicating that we may be shifting some of our exports of raw material to Japan since the United States is no longer as great an industrial power. I believe this is a sad situation. I suggest that we should be attempting to process some of those resources at home instead of exporting them to other countries, so that we may provide the jobs and the economy that we need in Canada and protect those programs which are being affected by Bill C-133 and C-131.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose this legislation. I wish to say to my colleagues to my right that we are now reaping some of the whirlwind of the winds that they have sown over the last number of years. We also see the spectacle of a Liberal Government, in its frightened and confused state of mind, endeavouring to pass measures through this Parliament which would meet demands made by the Official Opposition over many years.
It was the Official Opposition who sowed the winds over the last number of years about there being too much Government, too great a deficit and that there should be reduced Government spending and the introduction of restraint. They have met with a fair measure of success, to the point where they have frightened the Grits into adopting that state of mind. They are now reaping the whirlwind of those winds which they
January 18, 1983

sowed. They are now saying that they are against those measures which they have been advocating for many years. They ran on the horse of Reaganomics and those foreign ideologies about the new morality and the new conservative trend from south of the 49th parallel, and we are beginning to see the results of that.
I believe that these two old Parties want to reduce indexing and eventually have no indexing, in spite of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) believed a few years ago.
Every Canadian would be willing to co-operate in fighting inflation and providing employment. When the Government unfairly picks on those who are at the lower end of the income scale and unable to defend themselves, then this Party cannot and will not support that unfair treatment. We will do what we can to prevent this legislation from passing.
Even with a modest amount of inflation, or even zero inflation, the necessity for an increase in pension will still arise to allow for an increase in the standard of living. However, we will not likely reach that stage for some time.
1 would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation with which we are confronted is reminiscent of former policies. I invite my friends on the Government side and in the Official Opposition to go back and read Hansard of 1929 and through the "Dirty Thirties". We are now into our 116th year of Confederation and we have had nothing but Grits and Tories and Tories and Grits, booms and busts, depressions and booms and recessions and busts. It is a vicious circle.
It is interesting to consider that this legislation attacks the pensions of former federal employees whose pensions were part of their wage package. Every government or private employer has taken into account the expenditures it has had to make for unemployment insurance premiums, workmen's compensation and its share of pension deductions as part of the wage package. Since it was considered as part of the wage package, private sector employers were able to add that to their cost of doing business. Working people considered deductions for a pension as part of the wages they earned in all the years they were employed. It is their money and not the Government's to make use of. That is money which the Government holds in trust for federal civil service pensioners.
When one reads the history of these two old eighteenth century outfits, one runs across statements such as:
I think you will find that in every department of the Public Service we have spent less this year than Parliament authorized us to spend.


Walter David Baker: Tell us about the Regina Manifesto.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You will get that in July. Another such statement reads:
(Ten per cent cut in Public Service wages) that we believe is essential for the purpose of enabling this country to have a balanced budget.
Another quote reads:
Third, increases in the rates of pay of other employees in the federal public sector will be constrained to no more than 6 per cent in the first year of the application of the program to them and 5 per cent in the second year.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
You might guess who that is. Another quote reads:
There is one important initiative-the introduction of restraint on public sector salaries. That is a field in which the Government has lagged behind several Canadian Provinces.
Almost all of them had Tory Governments.
I cited three quotations. One is from R. B. Bennett on February 8, 1932, at page 59 of Hansard. The second is from the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) from June 18, 1982. The third is from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on July 5, 1982, when commenting on the budget. Now they are reaping the whirlwinds of the winds they have sown.


Walter David Baker: No, the seeds.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Here is another quote:
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company a year ago instituted such economies-
They were able to get a 10 per cent reduction. It was accepted by the clerical staff. That quote was from R. B. Bennett in 1932.
What has been happening to those employees who are under federal jurisdiction? What is not happening for them with respect to their pensions?
I have some more quotes, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As soon as I am finished.


Mr. Fisher:: You have been finished for years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Here are some more interesting quotes on the Grits and the Tories. The first one states:
The primary duty with respect to unemployment does not rest with the federal Government.
The next quote states:
We want to encourage the private sector and have more profits, more investment and more employment in the long run. That is our policy and it will overcome the misery to which the hon. gentleman referred.
The next quote states:
Third, we must continue to rely primarily on dynamism and creativity of the private sector as the engine of growth in Canada.
Those are three more quotes: R. B. Bennett, June 30, 1931, page 3183 of Hansard; John Crosbie, November 13, 1979, page 1242 of Hansard; Marc Lalonde, October 27, 1982, page 2079 of Hansard. Mr. Speaker, they have not learned anything in 50 years. They keep repeating the history from which they did not learn anything. One does not fight inflation starting at the bottom end of the income scale. Surely, that is not civilized at best, and, at worst, surely that is not Christian. One does not start at the bottom. One does not have $600,000 corporation presidents heading up one's program of restraint and combating inflation. Surely, no Parliament which has any selfrespect and regard for the pensioners in Canada, whether or

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
not they were civil servants, can countenance this kind of legislation. I ask the Government to withdraw it. It is not your money. It is there for the people to have, and let us make sure that they get it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on a point of order if he is pursuing the same point, but then I would have to have unanimous consent of the House for the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to continue.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the history, and I would like to test the memory of the hon. gentleman from Regina West.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am not as old as you are, Walter.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He does not look as old.


Walter David Baker: He has referred to a number of quotes coming from political leaders, Liberal and Conservative, back-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And present ones.


Walter David Baker: -to Richard Bedford Bennett, our Prime Minister in the Depression. He indicated that those Prime Ministers had said certain things about public servants. Is he aware that not even Richard Bedford Bennett attacked the pensions of public servants, and that the present Government is the first one which has attacked the pensions of public servants?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As I indicated, I must seek the unanimous consent of the House for the Hon. Member for Regina West to continue his remarks. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware that Mr. Bennett did not bring in legislation against civil service pensions because there were little or no civil service pensions.


Walter David Baker: There were.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: However, what civil service pensions there were, with his reduction in the number of people employed and the reductions in their salaries, he ruined their pensions over all the rest of the years he was in office, and it was continued by Mackenzie King. Deductions were not made from their incomes, and, as a result, their pensions were reduced by that much when it came their turn to retire.
Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to have received unanimous consent of the House to continue my remarks-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -that I want the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to hear some more similar quotes from
the likes of R. B. Bennett, Mackenzie King, Pierre Trudeau, Joe Clark, etc.-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I think unanimous consent was extended to the Hon. Member for the purpose of answering the question and not for the purpose of continuing his remarks. If he wishes to seek unanimous consent, I must recognize him to do so.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thought I already had unanimous consent Mr. Speaker. I do not want to abuse the House. I do not think that particular rule has been changed. I can go on speaking until 6.30 p.m. and start up again tomorrow, if you want.


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman, by continuing, is not abusing the House. He is abusing himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore that remark by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, because if there is anyone who abused himself and his entire Government, it was himself on December 13, 1979, when he could not count and did not know anything about the rules and manufactured the defeat of his own Government.
Mr. Speaker, I will not go into all of these quotes which I want to give.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will use other occasions. I just want to ask this House not to pass this legislation, and I want to ask the Government to withdraw it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I came into the House late because I had difficulty getting to Ottawa today. I came to the House about one hour ago and I had not intended to enter into the debate. I would have preferred to have done so tomorrow. However, I have been encouraged by my constituents, who would be affected by this particular piece of legislation, to enter the debate. They have an excellent association headed by one Mr. Vern Perry, who has been in touch with me over the years, and they have done a tremendous job of organizing the senior federal pensioners in the area to combat the likes of this legislation. I will perhaps go into that in a moment, but I would like to explain my reasons for rising. Maybe I should not rise to the bait which has been put out by my colleagues from the left. They are from the left in more ways than two or three, but I really must rise to speak.
The Hon. Member for Regina (Mr. Benjamin) did not know whether we had been in Confederation for 117 or 118 years. Frankly, his arithmetic is as lousy as his logic.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Impossible.
January 18, 1983


John Raymond Ellis: If my arithmetic is not too bad, I think this is the 116th year of Confederation. During that time, thank God, we have not had a socialist government any worse than that of the socialists who sit across from us right now. Had we been forced into the-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are more reactionary than you are.


John Raymond Ellis: -unlikely and unhappy position of having to put up with a government of socialists such as those we have heard this afternoon, then Heaven help us.
I am curious to know, in this particular piece of legislation, who they feel is the enemy. All they have done this afternoon has been to condemn the Conservative Party.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You and the legislation.


John Raymond Ellis: It happens for a change, that we are on the same side concerning this particular piece of legislation. They really cannot tell the difference. Let me tell them who is was who supported the Liberals in order for the Liberals to get back into power. Let us make that very clear. The New Democratic Party stood up in this place and supported the Liberals three years ago. It was their motion. They moved it. They supported the Liberals in order to turn out of office the only Government which provided opportunity, the only Government which was on its way to cleaning up some of the mess that we have seen over the past decade and a half.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Bunch of crybabies! They do not know even how to lose bad!


John Raymond Ellis: Certainly, there is no question but that we are opposed to high taxes. Taxes are too high. I know that the socialists would like to see higher taxes. That is what the Hon. Member has just said. Taxes are too high and we would love to see them come down. Deficits are too high, and we would love to see those deficits come down, but we all know that there is not a snowball's chance of either of those things happening with the present Government.
To return, I would ask, who put the Government in power?


Peter Joseph Lang: The people of Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Unfortunately.


John Raymond Ellis: Whenever the Hon. Member for Regina West rises to speak, one notices that there is nothing, by way of any legislation, which he cannot hang on Canadian Pacific. He worked it into his speech this time. In some way shape or form, I am sure that if we ever have legislation to prevent the proliferation of mustard seed on the moon, he will get the CP involved in it. I wonder if the Hon. Member really realizes what is going on in his own Province.
I had the very distinct pleasure of having dinner last week with the Hon. Grant Devine, the Premier of Saskatchewan, and I listened with tremendous interest to what is going on in that Province. I listened to how they have given themselves a
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
break and reduced the price of gasoline to SI per gallon. I guess, Mr. Speaker, I am not supposed to use that language in this House. Perhaps I should have said 22.9 cents per litre, in the Province of Saskatchewan. That was despite the National Energy Program, not because of it. We know that the NDP members in this House are in favour of the National Energy Program. They would like to see gasoline prices go higher yet. They would like to see Petro-Canada buy all the major oil companies, then the price of gasoline could really go up. If they could get the price of gasoline up to $3 or $4 per gallon, they would be very happy, but I say that the new Conservative Premier of Saskatchewan has cut the price almost in half, to 22.9 cents per litre. I am curious as to how these fellows square this with their constituents when they go home on the weekends, if indeed they dare go home on the weekends.
Some of the things happening in Saskatchewan I found very interesting. I recall hearing the Hon. Allan Blakeney talk about the need for family farms and the strength of family farms, but the NDP government in Saskatchewan had bought over a million acres of land. They were not interested in family farms, they were interested in Government farms. There is a difference between the sanctity of the family farms and the Government farms they were planning. I get terribly tired of this pious rhetoric that we get from our colleagues on my left.
As I said, I walked into the House and heard this nonsense and decided to respond in part to it. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to dig out all the quotes, but I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with any of the quotes the Hon. Member has cited this afternoon. He may not like them, and he may have some way of twisting them so they suit his purpose, but I tell you that the men he quoted were honest. They stood in their places in this House and they spoke their piece and they worked for the benefit of Canada. They did not get up and say one thing one time and something else another time, when it suited their purpose.
It seems to me that had we had the time to dig out some quotes it might have been very interesting to see what the Member for Regina West would have to say on this and other subjects.
I know that the new rules of the House, which I support, do not allow for a free-ranging and long-winded discourse on the New Democratic Party. It would give me great pleasure to spend the rest of the afternoon making them account for some of the things they have done.
Let me just deal for a minute, if I may before I sit down, with this piece of legislation, which we will vote against. This legislation, unfortunately, puts the burden of fighting inflation on the backs of the people who cannot fight back.
If in fact the Government, and I know who are the proponents of this Bill, the people who are trying to put this Bill in place, the NDP obviously do not know, if those people have to carry the whole burden of the inflationary program of this Government, then it is entirely unfair. Surely the answer is to reduce inflation first, and then the indexation which is in place

January 18, 1983
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)
will not in fact increase over 6 per cent or 5 per cent. Surely that is the logical way to do the job. Surely a Government which has been in power so long should be capable of coming up with ways to do just that. Obviously it is not.
In closing, I say that we are going after the wrong people. There are those people in the civil service in Ottawa, as we have heard, who somehow seem to not know where they are going. And there are probably quite a few more than there should be. But I say that whether one goes to Regina or Vancouver or the city of Belleville, where 1 live, and talk to those people who are doing their jobs in the small offices of the Department of Agriculture, or in the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which happens to have its head office in Belleville, they are doing their jobs the very best way they know how. They are doing it for a Government that hands them Bill C-133, and it is time we all voted against that Bill, and did the job properly.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak against Bill C-133, and particularly this amendment, which is an insult.
I agree with the concept of Government restraint. The record shows that we voted in favour of the restraint program of the federal Government. I would like to make it perfectly clear now that the vote was not also a vote in favour of breaking faith with the many public service pensioners who will be affected by Bill C-133. I find it very disturbing that, as part of the federal Government's so-called restraint program, it has decided to penalize public sector pensioners. 1 am deeply concerned that this Government, reversing its repeated promise for a just and equitable tax system, is now adopting a proposal which clearly discriminates against a segment of the population who are the most susceptible to the vagaries of this recession-wracked economy, elderly pensioners.
Indexation of our tax system affords taxpayers a measure of protection against inflation and at the same time imposes a degree of financial discipline and spending control of the federal Treasury. With this proposal, the Government will profit from inflation through the erosion of the income of civil service pensions. No incentive will exist for this Government to try to halt the inflation spiral. Unlike those Canadians who, despite Liberal policies, are working, pensioners are not able to negotiate increases to their incomes to help them cope with rising costs. That is why the fully indexed pension is so necessary. It enables men and women on fixed incomes to keep the purchasing power they have when they retire. The argument that the universal old age pension goes equally to the well-off as to the needy elderly, does not apply. The very needy elderly are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which continues to be fully indexed. The well-off elderly are in a fortunate position. However, there are about 100,000 elderly recipients of universal old age pensions whose outside incomes are just barely above the $6,000 cut-off for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
The Senate of Canada maintains that a two-person family earning less than $11,030 in 1980, a figure which must be higher now considering this Government's track record of recessionary policies, live in abject poverty. Former public sector workers and their survivors currently receive an average of only $6,900 per year. In large cities, pensioners live well below the poverty line. While $55 may not seem to be a large amount of money, to many pensioners who have planned for their retirement, next year this amount will be very important.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the Hon. Member for calling it six o'clock and in this pre-prandial hour, thanks is due to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his generous offer of assistance.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address, at some greater length, a question which I asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on December 10, 1982, and the response to that question.
It will be recalled that my concern, expressed in Hansard at page 21474, involved the spy Hambleton and the revelation that in a British court, not a Canadian court, the country for whom Hambleton was engaged in his spying activities was the Soviet Union. Having regard to that disclosure, I asked the Prime Minister what note of protest his Government has sent to the dictatorial regime in the Kremlin. He confronted me with the response, which is on record, that to the best of his knowledge there has been no specific protests at that time.
I then went on to deal with the fundamental problem that exists with respect to the staffing of the Soviet embassy by agents of the KGB, either properly so-called or otherwise. I pointed out to the Prime Minister that this was not a novel or unusual circumstance in that it was not that long ago that 12 employees of the Soviet embassy had been expelled from Canada for conducting espionage activities. His response to me was that that showed very clearly that the Government was indeed on its toes, astute and alert and about to deal with those who tampered with our national security.
Let me refer to Hansard for April 2, 1982 when almost the exact circumstance was raised by myself in the House. I refer to page 16098. In that case I referred to the expulsion from Canada of a certain Mikhail Abramov, an official of the Soviet embassy who was carrying out activities which were illegal
January 18, 1983

under Canadian law. Accordingly, he was denied continued residence in this country. It will be recalled that Mr. Abramov had endeavoured, unsuccessfully that time, to convince a Canadian citizen to provide him with information of a technical nature which had been denied the Soviet Government as a consequence of its invasion of Afghanistan.
On that occasion I referred to a statement by the then secretary of state for External Affairs, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), in which he dealt with the revelations of the espionage activities of Mr. Abramov. That particular press release noted that "this is the third time in a period of four years that Russians have been involved in activities of this nature." With the Hambleton affair, we might now conclude that there were four occurrences within a four-year period, or maybe three and a half-years. In any event, the circumstance with which we are confronted is one in which the Soviet Union consistently breaches our laws and engages in activities which are directly related to efforts made by their agents to subvert Canadian justice and penetrate our security.
The point I made in both cases was simply this. It is time we laid down a rule to the Soviet Union that they would understand. I suggested that that rule be this. In the event that an agent of the Soviet Union is found to be engaging in subversive acts in Canada or endeavouring to tamper with our security system or enticing Canadians to commit treason, for every expelled Soviet diplomat or agent, five of their embassy staff shall be expelled. This would be done in the hope and expectation that by reducing the number of these agents, the security of Canada may be protected.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his comment to the effect that, in his view, the Government is alert and on its toes, ready to protect our national security. I believe those were his exact words and he is correct in that analysis.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replied to this question on December 10 he said that the Government does not hesitate to demand the withdrawal of personnel from Canada who have abused their diplomatic status or who have behaved in ways contrary to their responsibilities as representatives of their countries. This includes the Soviet Union. The record shows that Canada has been prepared to take appropriate action as circumstances dictate. Indeed, since 1978, a total of 18 foreign officials from four different countries have been declared persona non grata. The Hon. Member should know that prompt and firm action is certainly taken against all foreign officials who abuse their diplomatic status.
It is important, however, to repeat that diplomats are posted to Canada for valid and entirely legitimate reasons. They have important functions to fulfill representing their countries' interests here, just as our representatives have in their countries. We encourage normal diplomatic functions by any
Adjournment Debate
embassy and we expect that same treatment for our representatives abroad.
In the case of the Soviet Union, we are aware that in the past some officials have abused their status and we have reacted appropriately. A permanent reduction in the number of Soviet Embassy staff, however, would certainly not guarantee that such unacceptable activities would end. It would, however, undoubtedly invite retaliation against our Embassy in Moscow and inevitably it would adversely affect the important work carried out by both embassies in managing Canada-Soviet relations. If we applied the Hon. Member's magical rule of five expulsions for every sin, then we would expect the same treatment to be meted out to our people in Moscow. That would not be useful.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-PLIGHT OF PERSONS EXHAUSTING BENEFITS-REQUEST FOR AID TO MUNICIPALITIES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to raise a very special problem which has occurred in certain parts of Canada, namely, the two communities of Kamloops and Salmon Arm, British Columbia.
The unemployment rate in Kamloops as of last week was 27.4 per cent, and in Salmon Arm it was in excess of 30 per cent. These communities have had to adjust to an extremely trying situation and they have done so by formulating a series of food bank operations for needy families. They have set up unemployment guidance centres to advise on both economic and social aspects which face a family or individual experiencing unemployment, particularly those who have been unemployed for more than a year and who are now part of that growing group called "exhausties" who have lost their UIC benefits and are now dependent upon welfare or other forms of social assistance. The mayors of the communities have established special employment crisis centres. Local groups are again doing a variety of volunteer tasks to ease the unemployment problem which now face so many families in these two communities.
The question, Mr. Speaker, is this. What does the Federal Government have for these communities faced with these very special problems at this time? We hear of programs such as ILAP, under which a certain community is designated because of a high level of unemployment and the difficult circumstances it faces. I should like to ask how much unemployment is required before a community is designated under that scheme to provide financial assistance to both the public and private sector. It seems to me that 27 per cent and 30 per cent unemployment is far in excess of the statistics for those communities that have already received designations under programs such as ILAP.
I should like to ask the Government to consider these two communities as being in some special circumstances, and give special consideration to them for public works projects, for instance, that could be financed through a number of federal Government schemes.
21980

January 18, 1983
Adjournment Debate
The fundamental question my constituents have asked me to pose to the Government is, how many people have to be unemployment before a community is considered eligible for special assistance from the federal Government?
It has been proposed that the period for which people receive UI benefits should be extended in special circumstances. At the present time, many people who have received benefits for 52 weeks no longer qualify and see their incomes collapse to the social welfare level. Some of them end up losing their homes, their businesses, their farms or whatever.
I realize that people sometimes describe situations in terms that make them seem worse than they are, but 27 per cent and 30 per cent unemployment in a community means that the situation is very severe indeed. It does not look as if things will get much better in the months ahead. Like everyone else, I hope that economic recovery is just around the corner, but until we see some clear evidence of it 1 suspect that unemployment will increase.
I ask the Member of the Government who will reply, and for whom I have a great deal of respect, to give these two hard-pressed communities some encouragement so that they may approach the future with optimism.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, may I immediately tell the Hon. Member that he has raised his concerns at a most appropriate time, just before the presentation of a budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). I am certain that these representations, among others, will be considered seriously by the Minister in the preparation of that document.
I think we should offer a small explanation on each of the two issues he has raised. He asked about a universal increase in the benefit period for unemployment insurance and also about increasing some tax rates in order to pay for that. In good conscience, he discussed the communities where unemployment is running at 30 and 40 per cent. His proposal to increase benefits would also apply, however, in an area like my own where we are fortunate enough to have an 8 per cent unemployment rate. I think we need to target the help more to distressed communities rather than making it universal. In an area like mine, unemployed people have communities like Toronto, Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington and Guelph in which to approach employers in thousands of businesses for work. Those people would benefit as much as those people in isolated places. For that reason we introduced targeted programs like ILAP and NEED.
I would refer the Hon. Member specifically to the municipal options available under the NEED program through which communities can build up their infrastructure and, at the same time, hire people who are exhausting their benefits. In that way, they can kill two birds with the one stone. They can get rid of some of the headaches that up to now the municipalities have not been able to solve.
The tax question is equally important and equally serious. I urge the Hon. Member to look at the advantages of leaving the money in the private sector where it can stimulate investment
and where it can stimulate the creation of jobs. In effect, we have already had a tax increase, the increase in unemployment insurance premiums in October to both employers and employees.
I do not think it would be appropriate to drain more money out of the private sector at this time just to increase the period of time for universal unemployment insurance benefits. We should be looking at targeted programs and we should be encouraging investment. At the same time I encourage the Hon. Member to continue making his representations so that the Minister can take them into account in the preparation of his next budget.


AGRICULTURE-LEVEL OF BEEF IMPORTS. (B) BALANCE REMAINING IN QUOTAS
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my adjournment debate participation this evening is related to questions I directed to the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) respecting the matter of recent beef imports into Canada. The details can be found in Hansard of November 5, as reported on pages 20447 and 20448.
At that time I asked whether current beef imports into Canada were being properly monitored according to an earlier September meeting between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and some of his staff and the newly-appointed Meat Import Advisory Committee. This monitoring procedure was necessary because of the then anticipated reduction in Canadian exports of beef to the United States under the terms of the U.S. meat import law.
This year-end disruption of beef imports and exports between Canada and the United States was precipitated by the ongoing very serious drought in Australia. This situation, which was really tragic in that country, interrupted the last half of their 1982 exports into North America and caused considerable disruption. It caused stepped-up beef exports from Australia to both the United States and Canada, but mainly into the United States because its market was obviously higher.
In his response the Minister admitted to the danger of "some of that excess being diverted into Canadian markets". Now we have a better understanding of what developed after Australia, New Zealand and Canada voluntarily agreed to reduce and limit their beef exports to the United States, in return, for which the United States would not trigger its reduced beef import law quotas to which they were entitled. Unfortunately it took Canadian authorities more than a month to put this quota control into effect.
In October 1982 the Government announced that Canada's quota had been filled, and we began to experience a serious drop in our Canadian live cow prices. Our shipment of live cows had been increasing since the United States beef quota had been applied. Two situations developed. Our live cow prices were depressed rather significantly and the incident
January 18, 1983

provided a short-term but serious irritant to American cattlemen. I know from my own experience that something like this upsets a usually good relationship between our two countries. This was all because of the delay of over a month in the Canadian Government's institution of the export permit system to provide a basis of monitoring.
The voluntary import limitation agreement was the right approach; I hasten to point that out. It was fully supported and suggested in the first place by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. The Association also suggested quarterly quotas for the new year that we are into now. Unfortunately the joint statement at the end of last year, on December 30, did not suggest this. The reason is obvious.
We know the threat of excessive imports exceeding quotas at this time is not very likely. Nevertheless, this experience in 1982 suggests that not only should a quota have been declared in that joint statement at the end of last year by the Minister of State for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture. But also, we feel sure, and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association recommended, that it be should done on a quarterly basis.
I would suggest one other recommendation I hope the Government will take seriously. When we have an upsetting situation or an emergency, such as took place in the last six or seven weeks of 1982, which requires a voluntary quota system, such as we used, a monitoring permit system should be declared early, giving the trade-not only the producers but the importers and exporters-to get used to the fact that they can expect a monitoring system under the Export and Import Permits Act.
This should be done early enough so that we do not have the panic effect we had last fall. Even though the Government indicated what it would do, it took a long time to implement the monitoring process. That had rather serious consequences on the price of our live cattle, in particular.
There is one other point concerning this situation that 1 think is worth mentioning. Surely this is the time to think about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We had one preliminary early meeting late last fall. This reminds us of the situation that developed in the discussions that took place in the Tokyo round during the last GATT negotiations a little over three years ago. Now that is behind us and we see the situation that developed. We know our negotiators were outmanoeuvred in the Tokyo round in two areas.
The first was the guaranteed minimum access level, to which Canada subscribed, for meat imports coming into Canada, mostly from Australia, New Zealand and the United States. It was set too high. I think that is obvious now. Perhaps the reason is that at the time of the negotiations Canada had an all-time high in our cattle population. That situation has drastically changed. It may be years before we ever reach that peak again. But let us remember, such is not the time to
Adjournment Debate
negotiate a guaranteed minimum access level. The figure set has caused us considerable trouble.
The second thing that developed out of those negotiations was our agreement as a trading partner to what is known as a human population growth factor. No other country, especially the United States, was asked to make such an agreement. This was an agreement that as our human population increased each year, which is inevitable, so should the level of imports of Canada. That has imposed a long-term load on what we are expected to take into Canada. This is very discouraging to our domestic cattle producers at a time when they need some incentive to get back into the industry.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the points raised by the Hon. Member. I will make sure they are drawn to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan).
The Hon. Member pointed out the events of 1982. I would like to note further that on September 28, the Governments of Canada and the United States entered into an arrangement to control the trade in beef and veal for the calendar year ending December 31, 1982. The two Governments anticipated that Canadian exports of beef and veal to the United States would not exceed 121.1 million pounds and that U.S. exports of beef and veal to Canada would not exceed 21.4 million pounds, both figures for 1982.
Consequently, beef and veal were placed on the Export Control List and the Import Control List effective October 1, thereby requiring export and import permits for the last quarter of 1982.
On December 31, 1982, the Minister of State for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture announced that upon review of the international meat situation, Canadian import controls would not be required for at least the initial 1983 period. In addition, a review of the U.S. beef market indicated that, at least for the first two-quarters of 1983, it would not be necessary to restrict beef exports to the U.S. In view of these developments, the requirements for export and import permits were revoked, effective January 1, 1983.
The Minister of agriculture has added, however, that the decision not to limit imports of beef and veal in 1983 would be reviewed on a quarterly basis-and that is close to what was said in one of the comments by the Hon. Member-and that import action would be considered if the forecast for imports of beef and veal increased significantly, or if the United States moved to restrict its own beef and veal imports.


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

Wednesday, January 19, 1983