1984-05-10

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved:: That this House profoundly regrets the two-year delay of the Government in bringing in promised legislation to improve guaranteed income supplements for low-income single elderly Canadians, and condemns the Government for its failure to respond to the innovative proposals of the all-party Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform to expand opportunities for Canadians under age 65 to make adequate provision for income in their retirement years.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Opposition is able to raise this question of pension reform once again for debate in this House of Commons. We do so in the hope and expectation that somehow it will move the Government forward, if only slightly, to the very real changes which are needed in the pension system in Canada; to make sure that those who are now in greatest need will have their wants addressed; and that there will be changes so that the poverty we see now all too often among our elderly citizens is not perpetuated into the future.
Back in March of 1983, Mr. Speaker, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I posed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) concerning the tragic plight in which so many of our elderly citizens find themselves as a result of inadequate income. I asked her when there might be an increase in the guaranteed income supplement so as to relieve their poverty. The Minister responded in this way. Mind you, this was back in March of 1983. She said that "the cost of bringing the single pensioners over the poverty line . . . has been approved by the Government as their first social spending-whenever we can afford it".
[DOT]	(mo)
When I posed that question one year ago, Mr. Speaker, it was not the first time it was asked. It was not the last time that it was posed to the Minister, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Each time they were asked about Canada's elderly poor, the Ministers replied that the needs of this group were their top priority and
that legislation to improve their lot would be the first piece of social legislation which would be brought before the House.
Since then the Minister of National Health and Welfare has seen fit to bring in the Canada Health Act. The Government has introduced measures to put restrictions on transfers for post-secondary education. There have been these Bills and others dealing with social issues, but there is still no sign of legislation to address the pressing needs of Canada's 600,000 elderly poor, the group which the Government has said time and again is their top priority.
The fact that we have 600,000 elderly Canadians living in poverty in a country as rich and bountiful as Canada, in a society supposedly as compassionate and humane as ours, is a national disgrace. The fact that this has been allowed to continue month after month, year after year, is a telling indictment of the Government. The Government is bereft of ideas, drained of decency, and unable to recognize the priorities which must be dealt with in this society. I know the Government has its priorities: bail-outs of de Havilland, Cana-dair and Maislin; bonuses for executive officers in de Havilland and the Canada Development Investment Corporation; and the purchase of Petrofina gas stations. We know what the priorities of the Government are. For the people who have, throughout their lifetimes, worked for and contributed to the development of this great country, there is only a promise trotted out time and time again that some day, some time, they too will become a priority.
Is it any wonder, Sir, that today we condemn the Government? We condemn it not only for its failure to introduce legislation that would meet the current needs of today's elderly poor, but also for its failure to bring about long overdue pension reform of the whole system so that we can ensure that the poverty of today will not be meted out to those who will be senior citizens in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. We must begin to come to grips with this issue and reverse what is happening.
Studies, conferences and task forces on pension reform have been going on for years, Mr. Speaker. It would take the rest of my allotted time today to even name all of the conferences and commissions which have taken place, let alone comment on the recommendations which they have put forward. It was the concern about the difficulties encountered by many of today's elderly, and the prospect of even greater numbers being in straitened circumstances in the not too distant future unless corrective measures are taken quickly, that precipitated most of the studies which have taken place. It was the same concern which precipitated the establishment of the all-Party parliamentary task force on pension reform. I want to pay credit to the work of that task force because it worked long and hard

May 10, 1984
Supply
and studied the issues. I believe it came up with some very positive and innovative proposals.
First, I want to examine the current situation in this country. Presently there are some 2.5 million Canadians who are over the age of 65. Of those, 600,000 live below the poverty line. What is critical to note is that most of those 600,000 are single and four-fifths of them, or 80 per cent, are women. They are women who, for the most part, worked full time in the home when they were younger and had little or no opportunity to prepare financially for what we so euphemistically term their "golden years". Even if they receive the full Old Age Security and guaranteed income supplement, it is a total of $534 a month or $18 a day. That amount is $2,000 below the poverty line for people living in medium-sized cities across this country, such as Kingston, Sudbury, Sydney, Kelowna and Sherbrooke. People who live in cities like those, where they receive only the Old Age Security and guaranteed income supplement payment, live $2,000 below the poverty line.
The all-Party task force on pension reform recommended that the income for single persons over the age of 65 should be set at two-thirds of the income of married couples. For those most in need, that would mean a maximum increase of $102 a month of the guaranteed income supplement. However, that increase would be based on a sliding scale downward, depending on other additional income that the pensioners might have. It meant that those most in need would receive the largest increase.
The Government chose not to accept that recommendation. Instead, the Minister of Finance in his February Budget proposed to raise the guaranteed income supplement by $25 a month on July 1 and by a further $25 a month in December. That is the proposal that the Government has brought forward and the proposal that I hope will go through Parliament. But I must ask Government Members today, where is the legislation to implement even that increase? It is less than two months before the first half of that $50 increase is supposed to take effect, yet there is no sign of any such Bill on the Order Paper. Surely the Government, with all its bureaucrats and advisers, cannot be having that much difficulty drafting such a simple piece of legislation. Surely that is not difficult. Perhaps we should ask whether it is the will to find a way that is holding the Government back.
Three years ago, the Minister of National Health and Welfare made this statement in the House of Commons, as reported at pages 8609 and 8610 of Hansard on March 25, 1981:
-we have often repeated the commitment of this Government to bring all the senior citizens who now receive the supplement over the poverty line.
Of course, she did not say when. Therein lies the deception. When statements like that are made by a Minister of the Crown, expectations are raised. The elderly poor anticipate that their burdens will be lessened, but nothing happens except that the limited income that they receive gets stretched thinner and thinner as the costs of the bare essentials of life get higher
and higher. Surely if there is any sense of decency and awareness of priorities left in the Government benches at all, it will bring in the legislation that was promised in the February Budget to increase the guaranteed income supplement.
I do not understand what the holdup is. The Government since that time has seen fit to introduce any number of other measures. Why not this one? Why has the Government not felt that this one was as necessary as any other piece of legislation that could be considered by this House? If this Opposition Day motion does nothing else but provoke the Government into taking action in this regard, we will have achieved something really worth while.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to ask what are the prospects for those under the age of 65 who are still in the paid labour force or who are working full-time in the home? That subject was addressed by the all-Party task force on pension reform. The task force had two very real concerns in this regard, Mr. Speaker. One was coverage and the other was cost. It came up time and time again.
First with regard to coverage was how to reform the pension system so as to encourage and make it possible for those who are not now in retirement income plans to be able to participate in them. That was the one question we dealt with. The second was the cost of such reform, not only at the outset but the escalating cost to the public purse if these critical measures are not taken to bring all of these people who are not presently in retirement income plans into them. What would be the cost to the public purse down the road if this issue is not dealt with? We looked at the immediate costs and we looked at the long-term costs to the people of Canada. We did so, Mr. Speaker, because the problem is there before us. Old Age Security payments, public expenditure, this year amount to some $12 billion. That is a lot of money, Sir, but that amount will increase rapidly with an aging society. However, if those presently below the age of 65 are encouraged to prepare now for their retirement years, the public expenditure could be reduced.
Let me elaborate on coverage. At present, there are some 2.7 million people who work full-time in the home who have no access to the Canada Pension Plan, let alone any other pension plan. That group was of great interest to us-almost three million people who work full-time in the home. There are as well some five million people in the paid labour force who have no supplemental benefits. They pay into the Canada Pension Plan and that is it. These five million people in the paid labour force are primarily in the $10,000 to $28,000 income bracket. They work for the most part in businesses and firms which do not have pension plans, and they see RRSPs as a vehicle for higher income earners, not for themselves. Both groups that I have mentioned, those who work full-time in the home and the five million in the paid labour force who have no supplemental benefits at the present time, account for a total eight million
May 10, 1984

Canadians who are without adequate pension coverage at the moment.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has recognized the problem. She did so when she came before the parliamentary task force on March 17, 1983, and said:
I believe coverage is the key issue of pension reform. I really mean extension of coverage to all workers, and that is on a universal basis... You see, the majority of working Canadians do not belong to private pension plans. Only 54 per cent of men and 38 per cent of women in paid employment are protected by private pension plans. These are cold, hard facts.
Those were the cold, hard facts 14 months ago when the Minister said that, and they remain the same cold, hard facts today. The Minister of Finance failed to address this critical issue in his February Budget. He promised to discuss the concept of a homemaker's pension with the provinces, but he did not indicate that the federal Government was committed to bringing homemakers into the Canada Pension Plan in their own right. The Leader of my Party has made that a personal commitment.
The all-Party task force laid out in detail the way in which homemakers could be brought into the Canada Pension Plan. The Minister and his officials certainly had adequate time to study the details of the task force proposal. He must know that the recommendations stipulated that contributions for homemakers' pensions would be from family income and, where this was not possible, would be subsidized by a 0.3 per cent increase in over-all Canada Pension Plan contributions, bringing them from 3.6 per cent to 3.9 per cent of payroll. None of the cost for this would come from the public purse, but the Minister of Finance did not even react to the task force proposal in his Budget or at any time since.
Would he prefer to have the majority of those 2.7 million people who work full-time in the home being put in the position where they have to rely solely on the guaranteed income supplement when they reach the age of 65? What would that do to the public expenditure? What about the five million people in the paid labour force who have no supplemental pension plans? What encouragement was given to them to seek additional coverage? None whatsoever. Unbelievably, the changes proposed to money purchase plans by the Minister in his February Budget, which will mean a reduction in federal revenues of some $300 million annually when they come into effect, will be of greatest benefit to those earning in the upper income brackets, $55,000 or more. The changes may help those who can afford to put $10,000 per year away into such plans, but for people earning only $12,000, $15,000 or even $20,000, that idea does not particularly grab them. They simply cannot indulge in such fantasies.
Instead, the task force proposed establishing a flexible, portable, registered pension account which would have the benefit of a 40 per cent tax credit rather than a tax deduction. This incentive was aimed at encouraging lower to middle income earners, particularly women, to contribute to their own retirement income. Again, there was no response from the Minister of Finance.
Supply
In closing my remarks today, I say to the House that the parliamentary task force recognized the pressing need for real pension reform. So too did the Leader of my Party and Hon. Members on this side of the House. We realize that we cannot go on forever piling burdens of debt upon the shoulders of the next generation and the next, not if we expect the intergenerational contract to be honoured. We have to look after our elderly poor today. We have to be prepared to do more to look after ourselves tomorrow. That will only take place if those presently outside the pension system are given the opportunity and the incentive to participate. That the Government has not allowed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A ten-minute period is now provided for questions and comments.


Mr. Frith:: Mr. Speaker, there is much I agree with in what the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) said this morning. I will have the opportunity later this afternoon to make a speech on the same topic. In my hand I have the Budget presented on December 11, 1979 by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when he was Minister of Finance in the Conservative Government. I admit that the poverty level among our elderly is a problem that exists today. It existed five years ago and it existed ten years ago. When the Hon. Member's Government was in power there was only one Budget we can judge by, and on reading through it I see there was no money to increase the guaranteed income supplement in that 1979 Budget. The question is, why not?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the great comments I hear across the country about the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government is that it is forever living for yesterday. The concern of today's elderly poor is what is of pressing need. That is what the Government should be addressing at the present time.
The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) can go back to 1979. I can go back to the 1940s when Mr. Harris, the then Minister of Finance, became known as the "six-buck boy". It was Mr. Diefenbaker who addressed that issue. We can go back over the history of pensions from the time they began, but that is not the issue before us today. The issue today is that there are 600,000 people over the age of 65 who are living in need. The urgency is to get on with doing something about it. I say to the Hon. Member for Sudbury, who I know is concerned about this issue, that he should be pressing his Ministers to bring in this Bill and not be reminiscing about 1979, 1970, 1950 or any other year in the past. It is today that we are concerned about.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that since 1980 the Liberal Government instituted a Bill that gave an immediate $35 per month increase and is now proposing a $50 per month increase. Under one Government, by the end of
3578

May 10, 1984
Supply
December, 1984, the elderly in our country will be $85 per month better off than they were in 1980. That was the point I was making.
If the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands is serious in terms of her commitment for pension reform and for the guaranteed income supplement Bill to be passed in this House-and the Opposition House Leader was here just a few moments ago-she well knows that other pieces of legislation are being tied up at the present time. She knows how this goes. The Opposition want to have the Western Grain Stabilization Act introduced and passed as quickly as possible. We on the Government side have several pieces of legislation emanating from the February Budget that we would like to have passed, including the guaranteed income supplement increase and some measures that involve elements of pension reform that were in the February Budget.
Why do we not make a deal? The Opposition wants to have that Bill passed and we have pieces of legislation we would like to have passed. Why do they not instruct their House Leader to meet with ours? We would get these pieces of legislation through as quickly as possible. There are pieces of legislation that we deem to be a priority. That will have to be part and parcel of the deal.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks why we do not deal with other pieces of legislation. That was very much the tone and temper of my speech. I think this Bill should have a greater priority. If the Government had any sense of priority, it would have at least put this Bill on the Order Paper. It would have introduced it. It would have drafted it and brought it into the House so that we would know it is there in the whole bargaining process. It is not even in the process where we can debate it.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I do know the concern that all of us have. I share with the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) concern for people who will be retiring and are apprehensive about their retirement income. I like the idea of a universal old age pension. Those who worked and tried to get a pension were entitled to see something across the board. There were others who tried and were not able to do it. CN pensioners received small pensions. Therefore, it made good sense to have an across-the-board pension. It helped those who were not in a position to do it to have a guaranteed income supplement. We piled one more on top of that and required people to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.
The information I have is that the Canada Pension Plan funding is in some difficulty. There is some apprehension that in order to make it actuarially sound, we will have to increase premiums or face increased costs. Figures I have seen indicate that the time frame is not that far in the future when there will be some difficulty with the Canada Pension Plan.
I listened to the Hon. Member talk about the 0.3 per cent increase and the fact that it would not cost the Government anything. All of the items suggested by the task force involve
some cost. I am concerned that we might push something like the Canada Pension Plan costs too high by bringing in too much at once. We have the old age pension, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan, which has been improved. There are more people who have access to it today. A small point is in a divorce situation, where the wife now gets half the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan, which should have been the case all along. It is there, or will be, and voluntarily some of us have to do that. The fact that I am 57 and getting closer to 65 may mean that I have a vested interest in this.
I am worried about the costs that we may be imposing on the Canada Pension Plan, all of the people who pay into it, in order to meet all the commitments that both the Hon. Member and I would eventually like to see. I am afraid that if we try to bite off more now, it may have the impact of overloading the system with costs and we will not be able to meet the benefits that should be met today.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the concern that was expressed by the Hon. Member was expressed to the task force on many occasions. There is a perception in the public that there is something drastically wrong or inadequate about the funding of the Canada Pension Plan. Our studies did not bear that out, but they did show that the percentage of payroll that would have to be contributed to the Canada Pension Plan over the years would have to be increased. By the year 2000, we anticipated it would go up to 8 per cent of payroll. That was why we said that the proposal we put forward with regard to the inclusion of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan would be a contributory one, as with anybody else. If they contribute in the same way, they would not be asking any more or any less from the Canada Pension Plan than you or I. Nor would they contribute any less.
The question is, why should these people in Canada be treated as second-class citizens? That is what is happening at the present time with regard to the Canada Pension Plan and those who can participate in it. What we did was to make sure that this was actuarially possible. In all of the studies that we did and in everything we looked at, we were satisfied that this could be accomplished, but it would have to be on a contributory basis.


Mr. Bloomfield:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member regarding her proposal. All of us in this House want to see our elderly taken care of in fine fashion. Can she give examples of other countries with better support programs for the elderly than Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not look at the needs of the elderly poor in this country in comparison with any other country. I really do not. If they are in genuine need, we have to do something about it. Whether there are better or worse situations in other countries should not be our major concern. Our major concern is, what are we going to do about our problems in Canada? That is the approach which the task force and people on this side of the House have taken.
May 10, 1984

i do not think it is enough to go about saying that people are worse off in the United Kingdom, Europe, Asia or Africa, because we are not able to change the pension plans in those countries. However, we can do something here and we have a responsibility and an obligation to get on with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Debate.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is sorry but the time for questions and comments has expired.


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate in the House today. To begin with, I believe that one should first examine the point which has been raised by the Hon. Member opposite with respect to her contention that the Government has delayed the introduction of legislation to fulfil its promise to alleviate the difficulties experienced by Canada's single elderly pensioners.
I hear the word "delay" being used quite often. I think we should begin by examining the accomplishments of the Government with respect to pension reform and I think one could then conclude that it is simply not the case that there has been a delay. Contrary to what has been indicated, when examining the events of the past couple of years it becomes very clear that not only has action been taken but it has been consistent with the fulfilment of the Government's 1980 promise of pension reform.
In order to look at the history of the pension reform process, one must go back to the early part of 1981 when, shortly after the election, the National Pension Conference was convened. That conference brought together all of the players in the pension system including business, labour, government and women's groups. These players came together for the first time to look at the real problems of our pension system and to begin moving toward a national consensus on reform.
The Government followed up on the momentum established by this conference with the 1982 publication of the green paper entitled Better Pensions for Canadians. It should be noted that the proposals contained in that paper included the Government's position vis-a-vis income for the single elderly pensioner. I quote from the statement of that position:
-the situation of these single pensioners will be improved as soon as resources permit.
That same paper included a proposal to establish a parliamentary committee to undertake widespread public consultation on the issues surrounding pension reform. As the Hon. Member opposite knows, having served on that committee, that special committee on pension reform was formed on March 1, 1983. In other words, the promise to establish the committee was made in December, 1982 and fulfilled in March, 1983.
As Hon. Members know, the committee members undertook an amazing responsibility. They undertook a study of all of the
Supply
proposals contained in the Government's paper on pension reform. These not only included suggestions for changes to the public pension system of Old Age Security and Canada Pension but also included suggestions for changes to the private pension sector and changes to reflect inflation protection, the special situation of women and pensions and the financial issues associated with those proposals.
The committee heard hundreds of witnesses and scrutinized briefs from all sectors of Canadian society. All areas of vital concern to Canadians were covered thoroughly in its final report. Recommendations concerning each issue were submitted to the Government of Canada in December, 1983, and I might note that under its terms of reference the committee had an assigned reporting date of December 31, 1983. There was certainly no delay on the part of the parliamentary committee.
The Government gave its response to the parliamentary task force only two months later. This response was contained in the Budget Speech of February 15, 1984, made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). In other words, within two months the Government announced its intentions to introduce legislation to improve the financial situation of single low-income pensioners. This announcement did not contain generalized promises. It contained specific proposals to increase the guaranteed income supplement for single pensioners by $25 a month in July of 1984 and another $25 a month in December of 1984.
The same Budget also specified that the guaranteed income supplement program would be further amended to guarantee recipients of partial Old Age Security pensions the same minimum income guaranteed under the GIS program for other Canadians. I might point out to Hon. Members that the parliamentary task force had recommended further study of ways to assist these partial pensioners. The Government chose, however, not to study this issue further but instead to announce its intentions to introduce this proposal at the same time as it introduced the two-stage $50 increase in the supplement for single pensioners.
Let us examine in more detail the $50 increase in the guaranteed income supplement single rate. This increase will benefit current low-income single pensioners, widowed pensioners receiving the spouse's allowance and one-pensioner couples, about 750,000 pensioners in all. As well, some 25,000 persons whose incomes were just slightly too high to qualify for the supplement will now be entitled to receive part of the increase.
This proposed increase is by no means the first step taken to ensure income adequacy for low-income Old Age Security pensioners. In 1979, the guaranteed income supplement was increased by $20 per pensioner household. In 1980, a further increase of $35 was provided to each pensioner household. However, even though single pensioners received the full benefit of the $20 and $35 increases, for those pensioners it was not enough. Single GIS recipients, three-quarters of whom are women, were still not guaranteed an income sufficient to meet their basic needs.

May 10, 1984
Supply
Various groups and organizations, including the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario, the Canadian Council on Social Development and the Senate Committee on Poverty, have studied the question of benefit adequacy for singles. They all agree that a single individual needs at least 60 per cent of the income required by a couple. Given that two-pensioner couples are already guaranteed an adequate level of retirement income under the OAS-GIS program, it was decided that the guaranteed income level for single pensioners must be at least 60 per cent of the amount provided to couples. The S50 monthly increase in the guaranteed income supplement single rate will do just that. In fact, by December, 1984 this increase, along with the regular quarterly cost-of-living increases, will guarantee single low-income pensioners 62 per cent of the income guaranteed to a two-pensioner couple.
Some Hon. Members will undoubtedly question why the Government did not accept the proposal put forward by the parliamentary task force on pension reform. The task force recommended that a special top-up benefit of $102 per month, taxed back at a rate of 100 per cent, be provided only to single GIS pensioners at the lowest income levels. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, analysis showed that the Government could not accept this proposal exactly as it was put forward. The fact was that low-income Old Age Security pensioners could have been worse off than they currently are.
For instance, several provincial governments already provide top-ups to the guaranteed income supplement. These top-ups generally operate with a 50 per cent tax-back structure. This in combination with the 50 per cent tax-back rate used under the guaranteed income supplement program means that low-income pensioners already lose $1 of benefit for every $1 of other income they have. Unless the provinces agreed to fully exempt the first $102 of income a pensioner has, something which would be quite expensive to do, the pensioners with the lowest incomes would effectively lose $1.50 of benefits for every $ 1 of other income they have.
In view of this situation, it proved to be better to make a straightforward increase of $50 per month for every pensioner receiving GIS at the single rate. The wisdom of this course of action has already been proven by the announcement made by the Ontario Government that it will not only pass on this $50 to Ontario pensioners receiving the GAINS supplement but will actually add to the increase to ensure that low-income single Ontario pensioners will be guaranteed 60 per cent of the income of marrieds. That action was possible only because of the way in which the $50 increase has been designed.
I would now like to turn to the second major proposed amendment which will guarantee partial pensioners the same minimum income as provided to the full pensioner under the OAS/GIS program. Whether they have lived in Canada for 40 years or as little as 10 years, all Old Age Security pensioners will be guaranteed an adequate level of retirement income. About 3,000 persons, primarily immigrants, receiving partial OAS pensions will benefit from the proposed amendment in
the first year. This number will rise rapidly over the next ten years as more partial OAS pensioners become eligible. For example, by 1990-1991 it is estimated that as many as 25,000 persons will benefit from this amendment.
As Hon. Members know, Mr. Speaker, the Old Age Security residency rules were changed in 1977. For persons coming to Canada since that date, the old age pension is earned at the rate of one-fortieth of the full amount for each year of residency in Canada after age 18. Partial pensions were introduced to simplify the previous complex rules which not only determined entitlement on an all or nothing basis, but under which some period of residency carried more significance for eligibility purposes than others, depending on when in a person's lifetime they occurred.
The introduction of the partial benefits earned in accordance with the years of residency in Canada enables the federal Government to enter into international social security agreements. These agreements allow new Canadians to bring to Canada the pension rights they have earned in other countries. Such rights can then be combined with the rights earned here to meet eligibility rules for Canadian benefits, such as the ten-year requirement for an OAS. Right now we have agreements in force with five countries; Italy, France, Portugal, Greece and Jamaica. We anticipate an agreement with the United States will become effective this year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, just at this moment the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is in Belgium to sign a similar agreement with that country.
As well, we have negotiations under way with a number of other countries. However, despite progress in this regard, it remains that some pensioners do not have access to foreign pension income, nor income from any other source. As a result, they have nothing to fill the gap between the partial old age pension they receive and the amount of the full pension which lifelong Canadian residents receive.
Significantly, Old Age Security pensioners receiving a partial benefit can receive maximum GIS benefits. However, because they do not receive full basic pensions, partial pensioners are guaranteed less total income than is guaranteed to persons who have lived in Canada all of their lives. The proposed amendment will mean that low-income pensioners receiving partial OAS benefits will qualify for whatever additional guaranteed income supplement benefits are necessary to give them the same minimum income level as other pensioners. This change will eliminate any adverse consequences which could have arisen as a result of the amendments to the OAS Act in 1977. As well, it is consistent with the goals of the guaranteed income supplement program, namely, ensuring income adequacy to all pensioners in Canada.
There is no doubt that every Hon. Member of this House would have been happy to see this legislation introduced earlier. The needs of the low-income elderly have been known to all of us. However, the economic circumstances of a worldwide recession made it necessary for the Government to wait until it could responsibly make the commitment implied by the $50 increase in the GIS single rate. This increase is going to
May 10, 1984

take place beginning this July. That is an undertaking which was given in the February Budget and is one which was not given lightly.
Hon. Members know that thousands of pensioners are now counting on this increase. They also know that the Government will bring the legislation forward shortly, Why, then, is there now this suggestion of delay? What can be accomplished, Mr. Speaker, by this suggestion except to create needless anxiety among our pensioners? Pensioners, Mr. Speaker, have enough to contend with in making ends meet without worrying that somehow the promised increase will be denied to them. I know that Hon. Members from the benches opposite will want to reassure pensioners that when this legislation is brought forward, it will be given speedy consideration.
For our part, Mr. Speaker, I can assure Hon. Members of this House, and all Canadians, that the Government of Canada remains committed to these promises and that the introduction of the proposed legislation is imminent. With the co-operation of all Hon. Members, the legislation can be passed quickly, and since Opposition Members have expressed their support for these proposals, I have no hesitation in assuring low-income single pensioners that they will see the S25 increase in their GIS pension cheques in July.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) when the Government will bring in the Bill to increase the guaranteed income supplement. He has said it is going to be done. What a great many people across this country are asking is, when? Give us a date. Government has been saying it since February. Can the Minister very straightforwardly just give us a date?


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not in the position to give a specific date. However, I can give the Hon. Member assurance that if Hon. Members opposite are prepared to give priority to consideration of this legislation, I am sure a date can be identified very quickly between the House Leader of the Opposition and our House Leader so that the legislation can be introduced and considered just as quickly as possible.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we take that as a commitment on the part of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. We have had greater difficulty dealing with the Government House Leader than we have with the Minister who has just spoken. Therefore, I hold my breath, not fully understanding that the Government House Leader will be as forthcoming as the Minister has just been.
However, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not it is the intention of the Government to bring forward at the same time the legislation which will change the regulations with regard to registered retirement savings plans to benefit those income earners in the country who presently receive an income in excess of $55,000 a year. It will cost the Government something in the way of $300 million in lost revenues in order to benefit that select group of people. I do not consider
Supply
that to be a priority or even necessary. However, I am wondering if the Minister can tell us whether or not that proposal which was put forward by the Minister of Finance in the February Budget will be introduced also.


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, may I begin my comments on the secondary question, I suppose, by commenting on the first. I believe we are all aware, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of initiatives and financial Bills which are presently before the House to which we had understood priority consideration would be given, and to which Hon. Members of the Opposition would lend their full support, in order that those particular issues could be dealt with quickly. Thus the amendments to provide for the $25 July increase in guaranteed income supplement might be placed before the House at the earliest time. I hope that that co-operative attitude which seemed to have prevailed at that time could also prevail for this particular piece of legislation.
With respect to the Hon. Member's secondary question, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any information on that so I really cannot provide her with an answer.


Mr. Miller:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister how it is that the Province of Ontario could agree to pass on the $50 to pensioners without a tax-back through the GIS, but we cannot get the same agreement on the $102 increase. Is the Minister aware whether the Government has consulted other provincial governments to see that they will not tax back any increases through the GIS which may accrue from this House of Commons?


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that yes, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, through her officials, has been consulting with the different provincial governments to ensure that the $50 increase in the GIS will be passed through to the individual pensioner. In fact, I think the Minister has commented in this House that it would be a priority of hers to ensure through consultation and monitoring that the $50 increase was passed through to the pensioner rather than reflecting increased charges, for example, in the provinces.
My understanding is that there is a general agreement. I guess Ontario is the best example. They have already demonstrated publicly that they will not only pass through the $50 increase but will in fact enrich that particular increase, so as to ensure that the benefits received by the single pensioner will be guaranteed at a level equivalent to 60 per cent of the benefits received by married couples.
As far as the question of why the $102 would not have been acceptable, I would suspect that the reason for that was simply due to the cost.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and then ask the Minister a question. The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) left the impression that this side of the House was holding up the legislation. He asked us why we did

May 10, 1984
Supply
not pass the legislation. Mr. Speaker, there is a false impression going out to the people of this country that for some reason we will not let the Government pass the Bill. The real truth is, of course, that the Government has not brought the Bill in. How can we hold it up when it has not even been brought in?
The other point raised by the Minister concerned other Bills they wanted passed. If the Government is going to put its emphasis on Bills dealing with corporations instead of bread and butter issues affecting our senior citizens and farmers, of course there is going to be difficulty. That was not our doing. That is the Government's doing. It decides what to bring in and when. It has not yet brought in the Bill relating to the $25 increase for single senior citizens in July and December under the GIS. It has not brought in the Bill which might save scores of farmers from going into bankruptcy. But it brings in a corporations Bill and leaves it here day after day.
I ask the Minister if the Government can start getting its legislative priorities in order and deal with the bread and butter issues which affect the daily lives of our people, instead of dealing with these corporation Bills?


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think the comment is just a little bit unfair. There is no question that there are financial Bills and initiatives which benefit all Canadians, including the proposed change to the GIS, and the proposal brought forward for consideration by the House to provide some assistance to the western grain farmer. There are a number of initiatives proposed which require priority consideration. It is a matter of the two House Leaders getting together and agreeing on some timetable which would see the legislative package, including the GIS increase, expedited as quickly as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for moving a motion allowing the House to look at the Liberal record on pension issues and the most recent inappropriate response to the serious poverty experience of many elderly women, and the totally inadequate response to the demonstrated need for pension reform.
One in four elderly Canadians live in poverty. Some 60 per cent of single elderly women, 80 per cent of them widows, are poor with little opportunity, other than through increases to the OAS or GIS, to see any improvement in their standard of living. They look forward to a long life of poverty, as do many women working today inside and outside the home, unless real pension reform is implemented. The NDP concurs with the motion regretting the delay in recognizing the needs of hundreds of thousands of single elderly poor by failing to implement increases to the GIS or increasing the universal OAS to its former level of importance in income replacement.
However, just like the Conservatives, we also recognize that electoral considerations mean more to the governing Liberal Party than the needs of pensioners. It did not require a
parliamentary task force on pension reform to show the Government the serious shortcomings of our public and private system in providing adequate pensions for women who statistically outlive their husbands and who have little opportunity to contribute to their own private plans or earn enough to achieve full CPP or even to share a working spouse's pension on divorce or death. When the Government does respond on the eve of an election, the response denies the seriousness of the conditions many Canadians find themselves in. By rejecting the task force report recommendation of a $102 permanent increase in the GIS for the single elderly, and only promising a $50 per month increase by year end, the Government fails to understand the report itself and the witnesses who appeared before the task force. Failure to introduce the changes to the House compounds the uncertainty many Canadians feel.
While the NDP can also sympathize with the second part of the motion condemning the Government on its response to the task force report on pension reform, we cannot share the Hon. Member's surprise at the pension reform offered by the February, 1984 Budget. The response of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is consistent with the philosophy of the majority report of the Liberals and the Conservatives providing more incentives and another chance for the private sector to respond to a shameful record. Increases in tax incentives to wealthy Canadians to encourage greater participation should not surprise the Hon. Member, nor should the feeble response to a greater pension coverage for low-income and part-time workers through a registered pension account. The Member and her Conservative colleagues join the majority of Liberal Members in seeking any and all methods to protect private pensions from meaningful expansion of the Canada Pension Plan or Old Age Security. Instead of meaningful reform, the Liberals have responded with a token GIS increase amounting to $1.61 per day by the end of 1984, while providing massive tax deductions to high-income earners which could amount in the most extreme cases to an equivalent of $20 per day to wealthy individuals.
Unlike the Liberals or Conservatives, the NDP would implement a pension system to reduce the dependence on the GIS, as was the original intent when the GIS was established on a temporary basis in 1966 while the Government waited for the Canada Pension Plan, Quebec Pension Plan and private plans to mature in order to reduce dependency on the GIS. Some 18 years later, in 1984, over 50 per cent of retired Canadians depend on full or partial guaranteed income supplement. This is evidence of the failure of the private and public sector pension systems in the past two decades.
Pension reform should indeed be reform. The proposals in the Budget insist on another decade or two of dependence on private plans to meet the needs of Canadians. It will not happen. We need to reaffirm the universality of the Old Age Security pension and return it towards its 1964 level of income replacement of 20 per cent of the average industrial wage, thereby beginning to reduce the dependence on GIS and the disincentives to saving for retirement which the 50 per cent tax-back on additional income attached to the GIS causes.
May 10, 1984

Liberal leadership candidates and Conservative leaders and former leadership candidates leave many doubts about their intentions towards universal pension arrangements. People wonder how deficits are going to be slashed while politicians advocate billions of dollars of additional expenditures to appease every special interest group on the economic side. The social development envelope of the Cabinet accounts for 40 per cent of the federal expenditures with another 20 per cent used to pay off the debt incurred by successive Liberal Governments.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, in whose name the motion stands today, made an appropriate statement to the House yesterday with regard to the comments of leadership candidate Mr. John Turner about slashing the deficit by $15 billion over the next three to seven years. She said:
The candidate refuses to spell out in detail how he would accomplish his goal, but mere mention of his intention to go after social programs has already had a damaging effect. For while economists may be skeptical about his statement, hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have to get by on the guaranteed income supplement and social assistance, are now worried that their payments will be radically reduced.
I think that is a valid comment, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Kingston and the Islands is also aware, as is the public, that many members of her own Party feel social expenditures are too high. They are itching to get into power to switch Government priorities to the corporate sector. Her Party worries the very people she is concerned about in her statement. It is possible that a John Turner-led Liberal Party would be undistinguishable from a Brian Mulroney-led Conservative Party.
In fact, some of the comments of the former Finance Minister give a lot of people concern and doubt about what the policies really are. On November 25, 1983 Mr. Crosbie said, "We're not giving anything away. If you want to find out what our policies are, elect us". On July 12, 1983 the same individual is quoted in Maclean's as saying: "If I told you what I would do we would never get elected". Mr. Speaker, those comments do not engender any confidence in people who are living on public pensions or even private pensions.
The NDP issued a dissenting view in the parliamentary task force report on pension reform outlining both areas of support for the majority view, but disagreeing fundamentally on the majority faith in giving private plans yet another chance to apply their pensions to the two-thirds of women not presently covered, to offer inflation protection, to provide mobility to workers moving into new jobs, and to securing employer contributions to workers' pensions before 10 years of service.
We called for a 25 per cent increase in the Old Age Security pension to 17.5 per cent of the average industrial wage, indexed to wages to protect its universality and its earlier significance in replacing pre-retirement earnings. We also called for an expansion of the Canada Pension Plan to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage. The recommendation to expand the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan
Supply
conformed to the request of women's groups, labour groups, social policy groups and some pensioner organizations fed up with the promises of private pensions and aware of the experiences under reliance on those same private pensions.
In its presentation the National Action Committee on the Status of Women told the task force:
For the future elderly women, the most important reform would be the expansion of the Canada Pension Plan, so that those who are in the labour force can have adequate benefits when they get to the age of 65.
Many other women's groups advocated increases in the Canada Pension Plan to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage.
In rejecting any expansion of the Canada Pension Plan, Liberal and Conservative Members ignored the experience of labour, women and pensioners toward a system that has failed to respond voluntarily to the demands of Canadians. Instead, we now have proposals in a Budget document which threaten further government action if voluntary compliance with increased participation in private plans is not evident over some uncertain period of time. Failure to take on the powerful pension lobby will mean continuing dependence on government assistance through GIS and tax assistance.
The only carrot for women, those most in need of pension reform, is the promise to discuss the principle of homemakers' pensions with provincial governments. Even the promise of a homemaker pension advocated by some, but by no means all, women's groups is flawed. It is flawed not only because it favours one-earner couples, but is flawed in the majority report because it fails to recommend increasing the CPP/QPP beyond the present 25 per cent of the average industrial wage. The Government has accepted this recommendation and denied the most important reforms for women in the pension field. This particularly affects women in part-time work or women in jobs with no private pension plans. At this time only one-third of women are in private plans despite the growing number of women attached to the work force.
I would like to spend some time discussing part-time workers because once again the Budget proposals calling for pension reform offer nothing to the vast majority of the 2.7 million part-time workers in Canada, 72 per cent of whom are women. The inclusion of part-time workers in pension plans, where offered to full-time employees, and the provision of a locked-in registered pension account will not significantly benefit the one in five Canadians expected to comprise the parttime work force in Canada by the end of the century. These workers earning less than 80 per cent of full-time worker wages are not likely to respond to the lucrative tax deductions of the new and improved RRSPs, or to be very interested in locking in pension funds to a registered pension account.
In publishing their report on part-time work, the Commission of Inquiry on Part-time Work recommended the following:
In view of the lack of Pension coverage in industries where most part-time workers are found, the above recommendations cannot be guaranteed to provide all part-time workers with adequate retirement income. Therefore, the federal Government should work towards expanding the public earnings-related pension

May 10, 1984
Supply
system (CPP/QPP) to replace a higher percentage of pre-retirement earnings, preferably, 40 to 50 per cent of the Average Industrial Wage. At the same time, a method should be found to offset to higher contribution rates for low income workers, many of whom are part-time workers.
The recommendation referred to in that quote applies to changes in the Labour Code requiring part-time workers to be included in fringe benefits and pension plans on a pro-rated basis. The problem, of course, is that few employees in the community, business and personal services sector are pension plan members.
Workers in the home or outside the home will not be well served by Liberal promises of pension reform, or for that matter by Conservative Party proposals dependent upon the accumulation of 25 to 30 years of pension contributions before any reasonable amount of inflation protection can be expected.
By rejecting retroactive inflation protection, the 60 per cent CPI inflation protection recommended in the Budget will only apply on contributions made after the implementation of reform discussion, both federally and provincially. Pensioners will continue to see serious erosion of their retirement income earned from private plans for the next 30 to 40 years while once again we wait for private plans to mature, this time through registered pension accounts, inflation protection and earlier vesting.
Instead of improving pensions by increasing contributions and benefits to the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans which provide immediate inflation protection, complete mobility, immediate vesting and application to part-time as well as full-time workers, the Government is willing to risk more years of inadequate post-retirement income for pensioners.
I would like to deal now with the financing of the Quebec and Canada Pension Plans because the detractors of public pensions, such as the National Citizens' Coalition and many Liberal and Conservative Members of Parliament, would have Canadians believe the plan is bankrupt.
Canadians contribute 3.6 per cent of their incomes up to the average industrial wage into the CPP/QPP to provide themselves with a pension of 25 per cent up to the maximum of the AIW which is currently $20,000. These contributions, which are then loaned to provincial governments, have accumulated over $23 billion as of 1983. This accumulation of assets is based on a relatively low contribution rate, one of which was anticipated to increase as early as 1976 but has not done so because current contributions to the plan are adequate to pay benefits to retired plan members. Provinces in fact, up until this time, have not been required to pay interest on the loans from CPP/QPP although they may soon have to. Currrent contributions are adequate for the next 20 years without the fund being bankrupted, as some people would have us believe.
The conclusion of the parliamentary task force was to reject the suggestion that the Canada Pension Plan was bankrupt or suspect because the assets securing its promises are not carried on the books of private corporations. The task force recognized that the capacity of the Canadian economy to meet pension
commitments decades from now depends more on our ability to move grain along rail lines, goods through seaways and data via satellites, than does it depend on paper gains that make pension fund managers look good in the short run.
If there are fears about the willingness of provinces to pay back the accumulated loans from the Canada Pension Plan, these fears should be directed at the provinces and not at the Canada Pension Plan, which is functioning as originally intended through a transfer of pension benefits from one generation to the other on a basically pay-as-you-go basis, with no intention to accumulate massive funds through full funding of the plan. In fact, the business sector is adamantly opposed to full funding of the CPP for fear of impact on their own capital markets and government control of huge amounts of pension funds. The CPP/QPP funding mechanism is in fact designed to satisfy the business community and the federal and provincial governments.
Canada's pension system should be expected to meet certain objectives. I believe most expect that we should be able to ensure that Canadians are able to avoid serious disruptions in their standard of living upon retirement or upon the death of a retired spouse. Elderly Canadians should also be provided with a reasonable guaranteed minimum income and with pension opportunities and arrangements that are fair.
By expanding the Canada Pension Plan to meet a greater replacement rate, these criteria can be met without the delay and inadequacies inherent in private sector reform alone. When combined with an Old Age Security increase, Canada Pension Plan expansion and credit splitting, homemakers and part-time workers will be guaranteed better pensions. At page 150 of the minority report I have outlined certain things that will accrue to single elderly people and women in general if in fact the NDP recommendations for increasing Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan do in fact accrue. Full-time homemakers will be guaranteed an indexed income above the poverty line. If their spouse was a middle or low-income earner, they will be guaranteed that their standard of living will be maintained when their spouse moves from work to retirement.
Third, homemakers will be guaranteed that their standard of living will be maintained when their spouse dies. They will be provided with the Canada Pension Plan retirement benefits in their own names at age 65. Finally, they will be guaranteed equal treatment with their spouses no matter which one dies first.
We are also anxious to see legislation brought before the House which will at least deal with the most critical problem that elderly Canadians face right now. They are the 600,000 people who live below the poverty line, four-fifths of whom are women, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands. We are skeptical about the time frame for introducing this Bill before Parliament. We certainly have much to say about pension reform and we will be doing so when changes are brought before Parliament.
Specifically, we will be very concerned and will want to know in detail why the Government can find massive amounts
May 10, 1984

of money to increase the tax deductions for high-income earners when it can only find $50 per month for single elderly pensioners and cannot even pass that measure without great delay in the House of Commons.
Once again I thank the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands for providing the House of Commons with what I believe is probably the most important issue facing Canadians today, not only elderly Canadians living in poverty but the entire population which must decide on reforming a pension system that has been woefully inadequate over the last 20 years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Dantzer:: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to the motion before the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I seek the indulgence of the Hon. Member. The Chair did not see the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) rising presumably to put a question.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the previous speaker. In the last couple of weeks, Mr. Peterson, the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in the Ontario Legislature, joined in the chorus of cries of gloom and doom from those who are predicting that the Canada Pension Plan will soon go bankrupt if it has not done so already. That cry was joined a couple of days ago in an editorial in The Globe and Mail. Would the Hon. Member expand on the views of the Parliamentary task force to which he referred which rejected that contention?


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that question because I think it is important. Members on the task force had certain concerns themselves about the Canada Pension Plan, its mechanism for funding and its loans to provincial governments. However, in discussing the fears that had been expressed by some individuals to the task force and publicly, provincial governments indicated to us that they had every intention of paying back the contributions that they had received from the Canada Pension Plan and that those funds would be available.
I should also advise the Hon. Member that the Canada Pension Plan fund is essentially a pay-as-you-go fund. This generation of workers is paying for the pensions of those who are retired. There is a recognition that in the future contributions from working Canadians will have to increase because there will be more people on pensions. It is fundamentally a transfer from one generation to the retired generation. As long as the Canadian public has faith in that mechanism, the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan are basically sound. As I say, the CPP has accumulated some $23 billion and we are not even using the interest on that fund yet to pay Canadians their pensions in retirement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Further questions or comments? Debate. The Chair wishes to apologize to the Hon. Member
Supply
for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) for having aborted his take-off attempt.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You have not aborted my take-off; I am quite prepared to take off at this time.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I speak to the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) because it is a pertinent topic. I would like to illustrate to the House and the people of Canada how the Liberal Party's use of the words "pension reform" is really a question of mirrors, illusion and smokescreens. The Government has absolutely no intention of bringing in pension reform.
Let us review the history of what the Liberal Government has done in this regard. It is a very brief history. Shortly after it was elected in February of 1980, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), with much fanfare through newspaper advertisements and so on, said that the Government would hold a National Pension Conference. This conference took place a year later, in the spring of 1981. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the then Minister of Finance as well as the Minister of National Health and Welfare appeared at that conference and assured all of the delegates that pension reform was a subject that the Liberal Party would urgently address.
In fact, the Liberal Party made two promises. First, it promised that there would be a conference of first ministers held immediately in order to discuss pension reform. That was in 1981, yet when did that first ministers' conference take place? We are still waiting for it. So much for that particular promise. Second, it promised that it would publish a green paper on pensions within three months. We waited for the entire year of 1981 and much of 1982. I believe we received the green paper toward the end of 1982. This report is contained in a nice glossy booklet. All that we see from the Liberals about pension reform are glossy booklets in both official languages. There is nothing essentially wrong with what is in the book. It was just a repeat of what occurred at the National Pension Conference. There are some things that are wrong, however, but what it did in all of its glossy paper, small books and big books, was to set out what those of us who are involved in pensions already know, that reform was needed.
In the index we find the following comments. Elderly Canadians should be guaranteed a reasonable minimum income; everyone can agree with that. Here is another phrase: "Opportunities and arrangements available to Canadians should be fair to provide for their income". Canadians should be able to avoid serious disruption of their pre-retirement living standards on retirement.
Here is the booklet, Mr. Speaker, and here is the information. This is a very political Party that we have across the way. Its members were not sure who supported this proposal and who supported that proposal. There is at the end of this book a proposal about which they were concerned. The Minister of

May 10, 1984
Supply
National Health and Welfare said: "There is a large question of coverage and I think it should be handled one of two ways. One is to increase the CPP and the other is to make mandatory private pensions". That was the real issue behind the green paper and it was the real issue behind the proposal to set up the parliamentary task force. I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not expect the task force to come up with anything new, but she did expect it to come up with an endorsement of one of those two proposals.
The task force was set up. It reported within a year after a lot of hard work. What happened? It came up with another glossy piece of paper, this time light blue in colour. The social reporters commented that it was a Conservative report. I do not know whether they were talking about the content of the report or the blue label. In any event, the report was well received. The task force did a lot of good work. It set up a very comprehensive scheme for Canadians but it did not do what the Minister of National Health and Welfare wanted it to do. The task force did not endorse mandatory pensions in the private sector, nor did it endorse an increase to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage in the Canada Pension Plan. I can get into that later but I can tell you very good reasons why it did not do that, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister received the report. Her comment was that it did not speak to coverage. But it did speak to coverage in a very efficient way. As so well pointed out by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), it had some very imaginative proposals for dealing with low-income people.
We waited. Then we had the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). We have some more glossy paper. This time it is brown glossy paper. The books have all sorts of nice brown colours on them. There is a very happy couple in the springtime of their retirement shown on the front cover of one. The document again goes all through the lip service and illusions and everything else about which we have heard so much, but the document does not get to the meat of the problem. The proposals do not provide a decent minimum coverage for elderly people. They do not come near that. The proposal of $50 a month over a year still leaves, as the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands said, 600,000 elderly people about $2,000 under the poverty line.
This Government has created illusions and given us smokescreens. It is not really serious. I could ask the question that Mondale asked Senator Hart: "Where is the beef in your program?" Where is the legislation? Surely the Government can bring it forward, Mr. Speaker. We have heard silly excuses from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell), whom I respect and who was ill at ease when he gave the kind of excuses such as: "The Opposition is not finishing the work with the other legislation and we cannot bring this essential legislation forward". I cannot buy that explanation at all.
Let me come back to why the task force did not follow the Minister's hope and provide an increase in the Canada Pension Plan to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage that was in the minority report. The simple reason, which should be clear
to all Canadians, is that at the moment the Canada Pension Plan costs the average person 3.6 per cent of his income; 1.8 per cent is usually paid by the individual employee and 1.8 per cent is usually paid by the employer. A self-employed person pays the whole premium. But that is not a true cost. If the Canada Pension Plan were properly funded, it would cost the average worker 10 per cent of his or her income. Someone may ask from where is that money coming. At the moment we are transferring it to future generations. We are not really covering, with the 3.6 per cent contribution to the CPP, the real cost. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is the best bargain anybody ever had in this country.
The New Democratic Party's proposal, which was really the proposal of the Canadian Labour Congress written by a Canadian Labour Congress official, is for an increase to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage. That works out to 20 per cent of a true funded cost. We in the task force were not prepared to have a young taxpayer with a mortgage on his house and raising a family pay 20 per cent of his income, to be transferred to the same generation. There was a consensus throughout the land. The only people who wanted it were those who did not concern themselves about the cost. I remember bringing this point forward in Calgary to a union group. The answer given was: "I am not worried about the cost; where the money comes from is your problem". That is the kind of attitude which the task force could not quite buy.
What about the other proposal which the Minister would have us accept for coverage, namely mandate to the private sector regarding the necessity of providing pensions. In Canada the majority of small businesses do not have pension plans. It is also a fact that the small business community at this time is going through a very difficult period. Small business in Canada provides 80 per cent of the new jobs. I think that figure is fairly accurate. The task force was not prepared to impose additional costs on that segment of the business sector because we felt small businesses were having enough difficulty with the taxes and the paperwork for Stat-sCanada and so on. It was not the time, if it ever is. Small business should be given an opportunity through the proposals put forth in the task force report to provide those pensions.
Certainly the majority of the members felt that the philosophy behind pensions was that people should be encouraged to provide their own. It should be made easy for them to do so. One should not impose stringent regulations and high costs on one generation to be passed to another.
That is why the task force did not do what the Minister hoped. It is my understanding that there are presently discussions taking place between the federal Government and the provinces. It is also my understanding that when they reach an agreement they will propose some changes in the Canada Pension Plan, perhaps somewhat like those proposed by the task force which were taken up in the Budget papers of the last Budget. But I want to warn Members of this House and Canadians that if that happens they can expect an increase in the cost of their monthly payments, an increase of that 3.6 per cent contribution.
May 10, 1984

I contend-some people do not agree with me-that the Canada Pension Plan in its present form is really a fraud on Canadians. It is not a pension plan at all. It is merely a system of taxation to get money into the general revenue fund of each province and then there is an obligation by the Government to say: "Fine, we will pay out these funds".
The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) tried to say that the Canada Pension Plan is not in trouble and that payments should be increased. But what are the facts, Mr. Speaker? Most people in Canada think there is a fund available somewhere as a result of the 3.6 per cent they pay toward the CPP. However, they are very shocked and surprised to learn there is no fund and that any moneys which have proportionately gone to the provinces have been used by the provinces in their general revenue funds. What have they done with that money? They have built roads, they have hired bureaucrats, perhaps they have built schools, and they have lent money to their Crown corporations. Only one province has kept an accurate accounting of where the money has gone. Only one province has made plans to pay it back. Other provinces have said that they are quite capable of paying back the money any time they want, but others have said that they will not pay it back. Of course, some provinces have said that they need that money coming in or they would be not able to survive, so they are the ones who are very interested in seeing it continue.
We do not have a fully-funded plan. The reason for this is that if we had such a plan, it would cost 10 per cent instead of 3.6 per cent. By now $75 billion would have been built up in the fund and it would be in the hands of government. Indeed that would be very dangerous. Who wants government spending $75 billion? They would control all private companies in Canada with that amount of money.
That is the type of situation which exists in Sweden where almost 50 per cent of new capital belongs to the government because of pension funds. Political parties vie to obtain control of that fund. This is why I think no reasonable person would want a fully-funded pension plan.
The task force recommended a pay-as-you-go plan with a cushion of two or three years. That is not what we have in Canada, as the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni said. We have a partially-funded plan. In fact, it is overfunded to the extent of $25 billion right now. I suggest it would be very difficult to get that money back. It is almost impossible for any provincial government to start raising that amount of money and paying it back. They simply will not do it because it is much easier to say that they will improve benefits and increase contribution rates. I guarantee that is what will happen very quickly; we will probably see that in June. The rate they propose will probably be more than that of a pay-as-you-go plan.
At the moment the plan is taking in as much as it is paying out. As I understand it, if the contribution rate is not increased, next year we will be asking the provinces to pay
Supply
their interest into the plan. So far they have paid interest into the plan and have borrowed it back out again, without it ever reaching the people who should receive the benefits. If the provinces pay back the interest, the plan would not need to be subsidized nor would the contributions need to be increased until about 1991, at which stage they would have to start paying back the $25 billion to keep the plan solvent. I believe that would be gone by the year 2001. In point of fact, if we said that there were to be no further contributions and that the provinces had to pay back the interest and what they owed, the plan would continue without any increase until the year 2001.
The task force did not feel that was a good idea because it would involve a large increase. It felt that the increase in contributions should be gradual, and that is why the major recommendation was that the plan should be phased in over a 25-year period. It was felt that the Government and the provinces should set the rate over the 25 years and review it every five years to ensure that their calculations are correct and that people do not face a sudden increase. Unfortunately, that particular plan will not be accepted because of the difficulties in which the provinces find themselves.
There are those who argue that the provinces should have the money just as much as the private sector, that social capital is just as effective at creating wealth as private capital. That may well be true. I do not think I am prepared to argue that, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of that money was not used as social capital in the sense of building roads, schools, hospitals and dams. Much of it went into the hiring of bureaucrats. Perhaps, with access to easily available money, governments spent more than they would have normally and became involved in spending patterns which we are now trying to avoid.
In negotiations with the provinces, Parliament and the Government have to be very careful. If the Government were so impressed with pension reform, it would have indicated what kind of stance it was taking in its negotiations with the provinces. When this plan was first started-and I will give it credit-the federal Government wanted contributions to be around 1 per cent or 1.5 per cent. It felt that that percentage would be sufficient to fund the plan on a pay-as-you-go basis. However, it gave in to the provinces in order to get its hands on pensions, which are a provincial responsibility. Of course the provinces, God bless them, took as much as they could. This is why the rate was set at 3.6 per cent. They had good statisticians. They knew there would be a large build-up in the fund and that they would have money to spend.
This is why I say that it is a fraud on taxpayers. It is a regressive tax. Those things that they would normally build with social capital, such as schools and churches-perhaps they do not build churches; perhaps in Newfoundland they build churches-are paid for by people with $20,000 incomes. A person with a $20,000 income pays 3.6 per cent of his income to provide such things, whereas a person with a $40,000 income pays 1.8 per cent. Is that fair or reasonable? Yet the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni says that he wants this figure increased to 50 per cent of the average

May 10, 1984
Supply
income. That is even more regressive. It is just ridiculous. If we want to go that route, it would be much better to call it a tax and make everyone pay it. It could be a 3.6 per cent or 4 per cent tax against everyone's income, but that is too honest. Governments do not like to be honest. It is too direct. People might understand what is being done to them and would become very unhappy.
I see my time is almost up. Like the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni, I commend the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I think this Parliament and the people of Canada know that if this Government brings in any pension reforms, particularly with respect to women, it will have been due to the efforts of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands. I hope she continues the fight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the comments of my friend from the task force. However, in rejecting any increase in the Canada Pension Plan and any mandating in the private sector, the Hon. Member did not refer to the additional 50 per cent of the people who at the present time are not covered by private pension plans. In terms of the suggestions either in the Government's budget proposals or in the task force report, how can the Hon. Member see more reliance on the private sector as more opportunity for people to save for retirement if there is no increase in the public pension system or some mandating in the private system?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, in response to that question, I really do not see anything in the Budget proposals of the Government to solve that problem. There was a considerable number of proposals in the report of the task force. One was RPAs and another was to provide tax credits for people investing in RRSPs. In other words, it would attract the lower income group and make it worth while for them to be involved in a self-help program. In fact, most small businesses today want to become involved in pension schemes, but they want them to be flexible. They do not want them to be mandated. They want people to go into them as they can afford to do so.
You will find, Mr. Speaker, that the response to the registered pension account is very large. In fact, I give the green paper credit for that proposal. The Government brought that proposal forward as an afterthought. It was not very serious, but it was grabbed. Everywhere you went, people were enthusiastic about this. It was made a much more important part of the process than one would have thought. That is why the task force felt there was a real potential here. That is where the coverage for those people will exist. The task force proposal for married people would bring a large number of people into the pension scheme.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems is the locked-in aspect of a registered pension account. Once that contribution has been made by the employer and the employee, that is
locked in until retirement. That will be a massive disincentive to people on the low-income scale.
The RRSP is already available to individuals and could have been used by employers to give a pension over the last few years. Why does the Hon. Member feel there will be any greater take-up of an RPA than there has been initiatives by private employers to initiate RRSPs for their employees?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, that is why the Government proposal in the Budget will not work. I agree there is some incentive because it is a locked-in program. That is why the task force suggested the RRSP be frozen and only RPAs be allowed in the future.
Let us examine what we are doing here. We are giving tax credits to people who save for retirement. Once a pension, always a pension. There have been too many examples in the past of people using their RRSPs when they take a leave of absence for a year. They spend the money without having to pay the high taxes. The state may have to support them anyway. If we give them tax breaks for pension accounts, it should be kept in a pension. That is basic.
That is why I am so upset about the Government proposal to increase pensions for those receiving over $50,000. It is the tax dollars of someone earning $20,000 that will pay for the privilege these people will get. That is ridiculous. I might say while I have the opportunity that it is a bureaucrat's proposal. The only reason it is there is because most bureaucrats earn more than $50,000 a year and they want bigger and fatter pensions. That is obviously why they did it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the very informative and excellent address of the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). I cannot help but remember the days when he was Mayor of the City of Edmonton and I was one of his constituents. He showed great concern for the rank and file, and he still has that concern. That is why I will ask this question.
There is quite a body of people who will never qualify for a pension because they are not able to contribute, such as housewives and women who stay home to look after a crippled brother, an aged father or a sick mother. They have paid nothing into the Canada Pension Plan.
Several years ago there was a federal disability pension and a provincial one. One almost had to be cold before he got the federal pension. The provincial pension filled in the gap for those who could not work. Today there are people who reach the age where they cannot work, they have no pension and do not know what to do. All they get is welfare.
Did the task force give consideration to this group of people who have never had the opportunity to pay into the Canada Pension Plan and consequently cannot expect to get anything out of it? Will this group always be left high and dry, or do we have something in mind to help them in the years when they need help?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his kind words. The task force did in fact deal with this. As the
May 10, 1984

Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands suggested, the proposal to put married people, men and women, into the pension scheme would include a large portion of those people. We made several proposals to push back the age of eligibility for spouse's allowance, dependant's allowance and survivor's allowance to age 60 in order to fill that gap. We made proposals on disability pensions. We made many proposals which this Government has not taken up.
There is no doubt that the area the Hon. Member mentions is a very serious one. To a large degree it may not be a pension problem but a social welfare problem. Whatever name you call it, a reasonable government has a responsibility to look after these people. We cannot spend all kinds of time and money on corporations and on looking after executives of air companies and then ignore these people.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair should first inquire if there are further questions and comments because there is time remaining. If not, is it agreed that we call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, in February of this year we were informed of the desperate situation of Estonian dissident Mart Niklus, who had been imprisoned by Soviet authorities for his human rights activities. My plea today is probably a last effort to obtain this man's release. Already in poor health from his previous prison terms for human rights activities, he was again imprisoned in 1981 for another 10 years of hard labour and five years of internal exile. After engaging in a hunger strike in October of last year, he has now begun another hunger strike.
I ask the House can a free nation such as Canada stand by helplessly while the Soviet Union persecutes with impunity those who stand up for their rights, rights which we often seem to take for granted, and rights for which people living under Soviet oppression are willing to die? Mart Niklus has already been granted an entrance visa into Canada. On behalf of all
Canadians of Estonian heritage, and indeed on behalf of all people of the free world who believe in the freedoms of the individual, I urge the House to do all in its power to obtain Mart Niklus' release and allow him to emigrate to Canada.



STATISTICS CANADA


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has recently released, in 10 different languages its demographic profile of Ontario entitled "Ontario Highlights from the 1981 Census". The 1981 census contains a huge array of information on the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of Canadians. The majority of highlights in the demographic profile of Ontario were compiled from the longer form which one-fifth of Canadian householders were asked to complete. The census gives Canadians an in-depth and accurate profile of themselves, as well as detailing how political representation is to be distributed in the House of Commons.
"Ontario Highlights from the 1981 Census" has been printed in the following 10 languages: English, French, German, Ukrainian, Polish, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Greek. I feel that Statistics Canada should be commended for making its census data available in so many different languages. An achievement such as this underscores the federal Government's commitment to continuing a practical and progressive implementation of multiculturalism into the fabric of daily Canadian life.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, every time I raise the topic of multiculturalism I get nothing but hoots, howls, and derision from members of the Progressive Conservative Party. In the next election the people of Canada will show their disrespect for that kind of attitude toward a policy of multiculturalism.



FORESTRY


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian of Ukrainian descent I am very pleased to speak on behalf of my Party on a very important national topic. As this is National Forest Week, it is a good time for Canadians to face up to the reality that we are destroying our forests and the jobs that go with the vital forestry industry.
The Canadian Forestry Service was once a proud world leader in forestry research and management techniques. This golden age of the federal Forestry Service was encouraged and supported by the Diefenbaker Government in 1960. Since the advent of the Liberal Government in the mid-1960s, there has been an inverse relationship between the length of time the

May 10, 1984
Liberals have been in power and the amount of real support that has been given to the forestry sector. In most respects the treatment of our forests over the past two decades has been an ignoble sham.
Increased public awareness, and solid representation and support from members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, have brought forestry issues to the fore. The Government must respond to these issues. It must take significant steps to secure the survival of a $24 billion Canadian industry that supports one million Canadian jobs.
The Government of Canada must take the lead. It must commit itself to acting to restore forestry to departmental rank, and to working co-operatively with the provinces, territories and industries to secure this vital component of Canada's future. Without this commitment, National Forest Week will become a week of national mourning.

[ Translation]



AIR TRANSPORT


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we were honoured to receive the Hon. Minister before the Standing Committee on Transport. The Minister came to table his new policy, Canada's policy on air transportation. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my constituents in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe area, I must say I am delighted with the proposals that were made and that are being submitted to the Canadian people.
Basically, this policy demonstrates the Government's confidence in the ability of Canada's air transportation industry to sustain increased competition. With the Minister, I would say that the airlines will now have an opportunity to be more productive and more competitive. Consumers will thus benefit from a wider range of prices and services.
I would also like to draw the attention of my fellow Canadians to the fact that deregulation of air fares and air routes does not apply to safety regulations, which must be observed at all times in air transportation. The Canadian Transport Commission and the Department of Transport will continue to give special attention to safety precautions. As for the policy we are discussing today, it concerns deregulation of air fares and airlines, so that airline companies will be able to compete with each other, for the greater benefit of all air travellers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has now expired.



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for several months the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board have been promising prairie farmers the return of some of their contributions to the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. Both opposition Parties have indicated that there is agreement to assist in making speedy changes to the Act to make it more responsive to the income needs of farmers.
More than two weeks ago the two Ministers issued a nine-page press release outlining the effect of their proposed legislation on farmers. They indicated how the per unit trigger mechanism would be more sensitive to price declines, how a full change to a crop year basis would more accurately reflect costs and speed up pay-outs, and how the five-year crop averaging period would yield larger pay-outs of up to $300 million. For a farmer who has contributed the maximum levy, that would amount to a pay-out of about $5,000.
That is what the Ministers have said, Mr. Speaker, but they have done nothing since. There has been no Bill placed before the House, and no concrete action has been taken to show that the Ministers really mean to make a pay-out now when farmers need it.
Why has the Bill not been presented to the House? Why must farmers wait to get their own money back? Why does the Minister continue to delay the pay-out? Does he intend for the pay-out to be seen only as an election campaign goody rather than as an entitlement for which pre-payment was made by western farmers in good faith?

[ Translation]



THE MEDIA


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, on April 4 and April 15, I mentioned in the House that The Toronto Star had written a very disparaging article about the city of Chicoutimi. Since then, after I had spoken personally to the reporter, Mr. David Miller, and to one of the newspaper's officials, Mr. Gerry Hall, The Toronto Star sent another team to meet the authorities of the city of Chicoutimi.
After criticizing this newspaper, which I consider very respected and reputable, I must inform the House that the reporter retracted what he wrote about Chicoutimi and the Saguenay. I might add that I appreciate the very professional attitude of the reporters, in the circumstances, and I also wish to congratulate The Toronto Star on its integrity. Mr. Speaker, I hope that other reporters will take The Toronto Star as an example and, when they make a mistake, take the trouble to correct their story.
May 10, 1984

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish the same team would come back to the Saguenay and do another article on the region's economy, to let Canadians know about the advantages offered by this region to future investors in the industrial sector.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, as a casual and somewhat disinterested observer of the Liberal leadership race to choose an interim Prime Minister, I can give you an objective assessment of what is looked upon by the majority of Canadians as an exercise in futility. Neglecting also-rans such as "the Boss Hogg of Canadian politics", and "the bath-tub mangier from Hamilton", the impoverished Grits are left with only two real contestants.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) is running as an apologist for the status quo. He has everything that the current Prime Minister of Canada has, except, of course, intelligence. Our corporate lawyer friend from Bay Street, however, is busily condemning every single Liberal policy, including those such as deficit financing which he himself started. Yesterday he said: "I joined the Liberal Party two decades ago because I believed in helping those Canadians who need help". Is that why he spent most of those two decades as a director of Canadian Pacific Railway?
At the Turner lunch yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: More!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, last night we were treated to another outrageous statement by the President of the United States with respect to Central America. Once again the President has asked Congress for massive military aid to help what he calls "the vulnerable democracies of Central America against communist enslavement". Does the American President really believe that Americans and their allies are so blind or so stupid as to believe that the system which he supports in Central America, in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and formerly in Nicaragua, are by any stretch of the imagination true democracies which honour justice and freedom?
For generations these poor countries in Central America have been run by cruel military oligarchies which have oppressed, exploited, and killed thousands of their citizens and the United States has benignly supported them. If there is any Government in Central America which is a vulnerable democracy, it is the revolutionary Government of Nicaragua which, unfortunately the Reagan Government is trying to destroy by assisting ex-Somosans and other reactionaries.
This week in this House the President of Mexico warned us that the problems of Central America could not be solved by military means or by foreign intervention. Let us ask our American friends to refuse the President's wild demands and to truly-
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



METRIC CONVERSION


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, western Canada was surveyed in square miles, our roads are built and measured in miles, our farms are measured in acres and sections, and our agricultural products are bought and sold in gallons and pounds and tons. Where it was necessary, for example, in the sale of wheat to metric countries, for years the conversion was made at the time of sale by the Wheat Board. Everyone was happy, that is, except for this totalitarian oriented Liberal Government which brought in compulsory metric. The provincial Governments were duped into accepting it, and farmers then received their wheat cheques based on tonnes and, in spite of the utter confusion that resulted, acres were replaced with fractional hectares, and miles with kilometres.
"I am a stranger in my own country", a farmer said to me. "The Government suddenly changed the measurements that I learned in school and used all my life. Now I don't know what I'm selling or what I am getting for a bushel".
Well one provincial Government has now come to its senses and at least has made a start in reflecting the thinking of its people. This year the Alberta Government ordered that all publications and material printed by government Departments be in acres as well as hectares when referring to land measurements.
Sir John A. Macdonald in 1871 gave Canadians freedom of choice to use imperial or metric. Will this Liberal Government now disband the Metric Commission which has provided loyal Liberals with high paying jobs, costing Canadians more than $50 million, and restore the freedom of choice provided by Sir John?

May 10, 1984
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. Would the Minister of State indicate if he feels it is inconsistent government policy, on the one hand to attempt to create employment and, on the other hand, follow a high interest pattern, bearing in mind that for every 1 per cent increase in our prime rate 25,000 Canadian jobs are ended? It is like putting out of work all of those working for British Columbia Packers Limited, the Campbell Soup Company Ltd., Canadian Tire Corp., Coca-Cola Ltd., Dome Petroleum, McCain Foods Limited, and McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd., all in one fell swoop. How can the Minister justify that kind of interest rate structure?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, no one rejoices at higher interest rates. We do not on this side of the House. I am sure that the Hon. Member does not either. No one can be happy with increases in interest rates, but the Hon. Member opposite should understand that interest rates in Canada are a direct reflection of interest rates in the United States.
The Hon. Member knows full well that in the United States interest rates over the past months have been increasing as a result of two factors; high government deficit and hence high government borrowing combined with economic recovery. That has placed pressures on the price of money, which has driven up interest rates in the United States. In those circumstances, operating in a free money market between Canada and the United States or between Europe and the United States, money flows from Canada or from western Europe into the United States, seeking higher returns. In those circumstances, Canada or, indeed, Germany this past week, has one of two options. It can either let interest rates move upward in response to the situation in the United States, or allow the value of the Canadian dollar to reduce.
The Bank of Canada has been acting to moderate fluctuations, but the principal challenge-


Mr. Nielsen:: Enough!


Roy MacLaren: -facing Canadian economic management and the management of European economies or, indeed, of any industrialized countries, is the situation in the United States where interest rates have been increasing.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF JUSTICE-CANADA AND UNITED STATES UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again I direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. The
Minister undoubtedly has witnessed Iona and the Seven Dwarfs proceeding to their leadership convention. He has undoubtedly noted that certain of the dwarfs have made statements. For example, the Minister of Justice, sometimes referred to as "Sleepy" has stated, and I quote:
We all know, basically, how to stimulate the economy to create employment.
Would the Minister indicate to the House if he has consulted with the Minister of Justice, who apparently has the answers?
Second, would he indicate to the House, in relation to the American reference which he has just made, why its unemployment rate is at 7.8 per cent while ours is at a level which results in 442,000 more Canadians being out of work in this country compared to the number which would be out of work if we had the same rate of unemployment as there is in the United States?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Hon. Member's first question is no. The answer to the second question is that we have been creating jobs in Canada at a rate faster than in the United States.


Mr. Oberle:: 
Roy MacLaren: The fact is, as the Member should know, during the past year we have created jobs at a record level. Equally we have seen a growth in our labour force which has exceeded that of almost any other industrialized country. In other words, as fast as we have been creating additional jobs more people have joined the work force. The basic fact is that government policies, whether direct government support for job creation or policies intended to encourage private sector job creation, have been successful in creating jobs at record rates.


COMPARISON OF INTEREST RATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister indicate why Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and Switzerland have an interest rate structure no higher than 8 per cent at a time when we have to live with 12 per cent and rising? In addition, if he has not consulted with the Minister of Justice, would he indicate whether he has consulted one of the other dwarfs, Bashful, sometimes referred to as John Turner, to find out why he seeded the mess in the period from 1972 to 1976, which the Government has now inherited?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should recognize that the prime rate in Canada has been running at one half a percentage point
May 10, 1984

below that of the United States. We have maintained in past months a substantial difference in the prime rate between our two countries. The Hon. Member refers to Germany. If he looked at the facts he would see that the German Central Bank in recent weeks has recognized that interest rates in Germany will probably have to increase in response to the situation in the U.S.
There is a broadly based concern throughout the OECD member countries about U.S. interest rate policies. But that concern is not limited only to those member states; it also exists in the United States itself. The chairman of the Federal Reserve system has expressed serious concern about the Government's deficit management and the fact that interest rates are going up. That situation affects all countries in the world. The Hon. Member should recognize that.


PROPOSED MORTGAGE RATE PROTECTION PROGRAM
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance and relates to the effect escalating interest rates are having on the housing industry and jobs. I have 20 years' experience in this industry and I know that every housing start represents 2.5 jobs. Starts are down drastically in 1984. Builders, big or small, have lost most of their equity in the last two and a half years of depression, as it was described by the Minister of Finance, and are now merely working on revolving loans. Therefore, will the Minister tell the House why the interest stabilization program, or the mortgage rate protection program, proposed three months ago, is taking so long to implement? Why has the Government waited when it knows, with its deficit-spending policies, that the interest rate was bound to spiral upwards?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may recall that the Minister of Finance on several occasions has indicated to the House that the mortgage interest rate protection plan will be introduced in the House shortly. The Member may also recall that in the budget speech of February the Minister stated that this innovative program required consultation with the private sector. Given our tradition of budget secrecy it was not impossible, of course, to carry out those consultations prior to the tabling of the Budget. However, he said, it would be necessary to consult with the construction industry, the mortgage money industry, consumers, and a range of interested institutions about the details of the program. Those consultations have been going forward. I am pleased to say that they have been constructive and positive. It is my expectation they will be concluded in a brief time. As I said, the Minister of Finance indicated on several occasions that we shall introduce the necessary legislation shortly.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, consultations with those industries will lead to their annihilation because there will be no private sector left. With 15 per cent and 16 per cent mortgage rates, Mr. Speaker, they cannot sell homes, and there will be no industry.
Oral Questions


INCREASE IN MORTGAGE RATES
Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, housing starts in 1983 were 179,000, and the projected rate for 1984, seasonally adjusted, is 126,000. In light of that, has the Government any proposals or contingency plans to deal with these 15 per cent and 16 per cent mortgage interest rates? I understand the rate has gone up approximately one half per cent today.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to have overlooked the fact that the mortgage rate protection plan will be retroactive to March 1 for new and renewed mortgages. He should realize that when the legislation is brought to the House he and other Members will have a full opportunity to make their contributions. But he should understand that the legislation is effective as of March 1 this year.


INCREASE IN BANK OF CANADA RATE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will have become aware in the last few minutes that the central bank rate has gone up more than half a percentage point and is now in excess of 11.5 per cent. Six month T-Bills are up to 12.5 per cent, which means that the prime rate in Canada will be going up in the next few days for home owners, farmers, small businessmen and the like.
This trend line has been demonstrated for the last number of weeks, yet the Minister of Finance keeps telling us that there is nothing he can really do, that he is basically a financial eunuch and he has to look to Paul Volker in the United States for guidance. Will the Prime Minister of Canada tell us today whether he agrees that there is nothing the Minister of Finance of the Government of Canada can do to keep interest rates from continuing to increase?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree with the phraseology of the Hon. Member. He refers to changes in interest rates today and yesterday. If he referred to the answers just given by the Minister of State for Finance he would see that the question was dealt with very competently. What Hon. Members opposite seem to forget is that, in order to borrow money at a reasonably low interest rate, you have to find lenders who are prepared to lend their money at a low interest rate. That means Canadian savers who want to lend money at a rate substantially less than they can get across the border in New York. I do not know many lenders who will, out of a spirit of nationalism, lend their money to Canadians at a rate lower than they can get in the United States. This is not blaming our plight on the United States. It is just stating an obvious economic fact of international financial marketing.
Currencies from all over the world have been flowing to the U.S., including Canadian currency, for the past few years since the Americans have had very high interest rates. That is

May 10, 1984
Oral Questions
why the Canadian dollar, the Deutschemark, the yen, all currencies, including the very strong ones, have fallen against the American dollar. Incidentally, the Canadian dollar has fallen less than all those other currencies. That is not too complicated, Mr. Speaker.
From the point of view of the borrowers, everyone would like to borrow at a lower interest rate, but you have to find lenders who are prepared to lend at a lower interest rate. Until the NDP or the Tory Party can give us a pool of such lenders who are prepared to lend at rates below the market, then we will sort of be bound by market rates.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF BANK ACT TO PROVIDE LOWER INTEREST RATE SPREAD
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, reports which we have received over the last number of months have indicated one of the reasons interest rates are high to the consumers of Canada, whether one is seeking a mortgage, a small business loan or a farm loan from the chartered banks particularly is that the differential between what the banks are charging and what they are giving their depositors is larger than it has ever been in Canadian history. That is because the Bank Act provides for that.
The Government has indicated a real interest in opening up the Bank Act to assist the foreign banks. This would be a breaking of precedent of its 10 year rule. If the Government is going to ask us to open the Bank Act to assist foreign banks operating in Canada, does the Prime Minister not feel it would be appropriate to amend the Bank Act to provide a lower interest rate spread so that Canadian consumers would receive some benefit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member conveniently neglected to remind the House that the Bank Act was opened to make the banks more competitive. This was done in order to benefit the consumers and borrowers. The Hon. Member can comment on whether it has that effect or not. However, that is why we opened the Bank Act.
With regard to the Hon. Member's question, I would suggest it is a different one. It has to do with banking profits and so on. The Minister discussed those, and I am sure he would be prepared to discuss them again. He has indicated that profits were high but had been very low, and so on.
I take it from the Hon. Member's line of attack that he and his Party are now prepared to concede that when the basic rate in the United States goes up, it is impossible for Canadian rates not to go up. I am not talking about excess profits. I am seeking an admission from him that we cannot divorce ourselves from the American money markets.


SPECULATOR TAX SUGGESTED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the Prime Minister's answer that he is seeking
our position on interest rates. I would like to inform the Prime Minister of Canada that we feel it is now time to take an independent position. It is now time for Canadians to say that we are not going to let Paul Volker in the United States dictate what happens to our recovery here in this country. We would like to see the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as directed by Parliament, take steps to reduce those-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I invite the Hon. Member to ask his supplementary question. Within the framework and time allowed, a debate can be very difficult for the Chair to regulate. According to the rules, this is supposed to be a Question Period. Would the Hon. Member ask his supplementary question?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just responding to the question of the Prime Minister. Considering that if Canada takes an independent position there may be a tendency for speculative money to flow out of the country, would the Prime Minister be willing to consider the imposition of a speculators' tax to remove the possibility of speculators moving out of the country? A ceiling of $100,000 or even $500,000 could be provided so that 99.9 per cent of Canadians would not be adversely impacted.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can vent his spleen as much as he wants against Paul Volker. I carry no brief for Mr. Volker's monetary policies or, for that matter, for those of the administration. In point of fact the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and myself have taken issue with the United States on their high interest rates. We have indicated that they have various consequences, not only on Canada but on investments throughout the developing world.
We can always criticize Mr. Volker, but I notice that the Hon. Member conveniently side-stepped my earlier point that until he has supplied us with a pool of Canadian savers who are prepared to lend at a rate lower than the American rate, we cannot force them to lend their savings at a lower rate.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for small business. The highest level of potential job creation exists within the small business sector. Likewise, the largest number of jobs are lost in small business when high interest rates are allowed to continue to rise as they have risen again today. Can the Minister responsible for small business tell us what specific representations he has made to Cabinet or to the Minister of Finance which would protect this vital sector from high interest rates? More important, how successful have those representations been?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government believes very strong-
May 10, 1984

ly in the role of small business in pulling the country into a period of economic recovery. That was the main emphasis of the February 15 Budget. The Minister included a number of items in that Budget specifically designed to assist small business. Through the Small Business Loans Act over 25,000 small businesses in Canada got loans last year which they otherwise probably would not have received. I think that is a pretty clear indication of a commitment to the small business sector.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should clean his ears out. I asked him about high interest rates and representations he has made to the Minister of Finance. He did not respond to that question.


TOURIST INDUSTRY
Otto John Jelinek: My supplementary question will be on the same basis, but in respect to the area of tourism, for which the Minister is also responsible. That is also a very high intensive labour area. As a result of the Government's continued policy of high interest rates and over taxation, potential job creation in that area is being seriously threatened.
I hope the Minister is listening carefully. As the Minister responsible for tourism can he tell us what specific representations he has made to Cabinet or the Minister of Finance which would ease the burden of high interest rates and over taxation within this vital sector? How successful have those representations been? Will the Minister please direct his answer to my question?
Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and
Tourism)): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the approach of the Hon. Member. He is a well known believer in the free enterprise system, in market forces, in the law of supply and demand, and one who does not believe in intervention. The Government, however, does believe in intervention in certain areas. With regard to tourism, we have literally doubled our advertising budget in the United States this year to get more customers to come to Canada, to help the tourist industry.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, if I can get his attention. We are experiencing a rapid rise in interest rates similar to the 1980-82 period. During that time auto and truck sales slumped from 1,400,000 vehicles to 920,000 vehicles, a 34 per cent reduction. The auto industry was the key factor in the recent recovery. What is the Government planning to do to protect jobs in this important sector when, according to the Conference Board of Canada, the Canadian consumer has lost confidence in spending money?
Oral Questions


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all interest rates are not climbing like they did in the period the Hon. Member mentioned. Second, I am glad to see that the Hon. Member finally recognizes the fact that the resurgence of the auto industry in Canada is due in large part to what the Government of Canada has done to assist the industry in the last couple of years. Third, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member reads the speech I gave a couple of weeks ago he will see that we probably have more potential investments in the auto industry sitting on our desk right now than we have had at any time in the last five years put together.


TASK FORCE REPORT-REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, those jobs are great sitting on the Minister's desk. I would like to point out to the Minister that he has also had the auto task force report sitting on his desk for one year. He has made no comment, taken no action, and will not deal with the industry on this.
What is the Government going to do to protect the jobs of the employees of the automotive manufacturers other than talking about $2 billion sitting on his desk? What is he going to do to protect the jobs which are there now?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is a very busy Member of Parliament. Therefore I will send him all the documentation of responses we have made to the auto task force report.
First, it was through the efforts of my predecessor and the Members of Parliament on our side from the Windsor area that the Chrysler Corporation, and about 11,000 permanent jobs, were saved in this country. Second, there has been a recall of over 25,000 workers in the auto industry alone, almost back to pre-recession levels in the auto industry.
I think the Hon. Member saw an article in the paper the other day which indicated that the price gap between North American automobiles and foreign cars is closing. Much of that has come as a result of actions taken by Ministers of the Crown on this side of the House.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who is proceeding into a jungle. I do not know if he is the new Tarzan. He says that Canadians can have lower airfares. He knows that I submitted a brief to the CTC supporting lower air fares for Canadians without the madness of deregulation with which he is proceeding. Can he guarantee that all Canadians, not just

May 10, 1984
Oral Questions
those who happen to live in our six largest cities, will be eligible for lower and discount fares, and guaranteed service of any kind?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say that I am not Tarzan, and I do not think that the Hon. Member looks like Bo Derek either.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: With that sense of humour you could have been leader.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am just trying to match the standard of my colleagues. With respect to the serious point of the question raised by the Hon. Member, the fact of the matter is that we are moving toward a liberalization of the air industry which is a word that I hope is most compatible and harmonious to all Members in the Chamber.
We are attempting to free up that industry for it to begin making decisions to allow the consumers more choices in both frequency of service and in the kind of prices from which they can choose in order to get greater opportunities to fly and travel. We are trying to move away from a system which is dictated by government decision, and to put the onus on people in the industry and allow the consumer to be able to elicit the kind of choices and opportunities that we believe exist.
I know that that is not a philosophy that is adopted by the New Democratic Party, but this Party happens to believe in the system of growth that is based upon initiatives of private people given the freedom to exercise that initiative.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: While Jungle Jim mouths those phrases, the jungle that is already in place has meant that places like Regina, Saskatoon, and Halifax have become deserted by CP Air. There are people who had to drive from Saskatoon to Calgary and then fly to Toronto, to get to Mexico on discount fares. He had no guarantees in his announcement today.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member asks his question?


SERVICE TO SMALL COMMUNITIES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister knows very well that most of the markets in Canada are not large enough to sustain more than one or two airlines, can he guarantee under his jungle policy that he can prevent carriers on these routes into the smaller centres from charging fares as high as they like, or prevent them from not flying at all-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member should really ask a supplementary question. Will the Hon. Member bear in mind that a supplementary question should be precise?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have already put two questions in 30 seconds.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has put two supplemen-taries, maybe the Minister could answer one of them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will he prevent carriers from charging all they like on routes for which they do not provide discount fares?


Mr. Friesen:: Take your time, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will he protect smaller communities from not having any service at all from major or regional carriers? What protection is he providing for all those other communities and people who do not happen to live in Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the Hon. Member and members of the committee this morning when I appeared before them and tabled the document, it would be worth while for members to read that document and therefore get the answer to those very questions which the Member has posed.
What we are quite clearly setting out is an opportunity for many smaller communities to have a much broader range and frequency of service compared to what they have now. We believe that there is a strong pent-up energy in the airline industry that is waiting to be liberated to provide those kinds of services, while at the same time still using the auspices of the Canadian Transport Commission to follow through on the application of licences as they have in the past. That is what we followed very clearly in phase one of the approach, and we will be providing a reference that we hope to bring to the House that will take a longer look at further avenues of liberalization that we can follow.
I think that all the Hon. Member is engaging in is a series of scare tactics. Those are not the conditions which we are applying. We are attempting to apply an objective and purpose for a healthy and vital airline industry so that we can get some growth back into that industry, just like we want to have growth in the entire Canadian economy.


AIR FARES
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in January the Minister of Transport promised that Canadian air travellers would have lower fares by this spring. On the basis of the policy that has been announced this morning, may I ask the Minister when he expects these low fares to take effect? Can he assure the House that he will be able to live up to his commitment wherein he stated that fares would be reduced by 20 per cent to 30 per cent as a result of his deregulation policy?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, to answer the Hon. Member, what we said in January was that we intended to have a new policy in place this spring that would provide the framework within which the private sector and the airline industry could begin making the kinds of management decisions and choices that would lead to lower air
May 10, 1984

fares. The Hon. Member himself is the author of a letter that he sent to me recommending that we go on a phased approach, which is what we are following. The Hon. Member obviously does not want to follow his own advice. I am always available and open to the advice of Hon. Members opposite, when it makes sense. That was one of the few times that the Hon. Member's advice did make some sense. That is what we are prepared to follow.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is not the Hon. Member for Vegreville but the credibility of the Minister of Transport and whether or not one can believe him.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government vowed to reduce air fares by spring. Is the Minister going to provide reduced air fares by spring and, if
so, by how much?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that credibility depends on how much one is prepared to live up to the commitments. We made a commitment for a new policy. You have a new policy today, unlike the Hon. Member, when he was Minister of Transport, who promised new policies and they were never seen.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You cannot have it both ways.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Two days ago I asked the Minister what he was going to do for the thousands of fishermen in the four Atlantic provinces and in a portion of Quebec where the ice is packed on shore. Fishermen are unable to get out and fish, and unemployment insurance benefits will be cut off next week. I would like to ask the Minister again-he has had 48 hours- what is the decision?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I promised the Hon. Member a couple of days ago I would discuss this matter with my colleagues in Cabinet, and I promised to try to obtain an answer in response to his representation as quickly as I could. He has not given me much time to do that. But I should tell the Hon. Member that I was successful today in convincing my Cabinet colleagues that we should respond to this very real and pressing situation as a matter of urgency, that we should follow the pattern we had previously followed in 1974, I think it was, and make special arrangements to ensure that the fishermen who have been so adversely affected by the high degree of ice infestation in the area are supported, supported in effect with what are the equivalent of unemployment insurance payments, though not technically so, since they are ex gratia payments, as long as this situation exists as one of difficulty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that since January there has been an entire series of announcements by all the airlines in Canada about a whole series of discount fares for senior citizens, young people, and across the board fares to every point in Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You cannot have it both ways.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that we are now providing a new policy that will allow airlines to apply for new licences, new routes, and to have a much wider flexibility in setting their own prices without having to go to the CTC for approval.


John (Moody) Roberts: The Hon. Member asked me to show leadership, Mr. Speaker. I believe I have confirmed his expectations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now if the rest of you would get off your seats, we would get something done.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
We happen to believe that by putting our trust and confidence in the major partners in the airline industry to use those new freedoms to make those choices, they will bring the kind of service and choices to the consumer that will enable low prices to be brought in. We are proving that we have faith and confidence in the private sector, not like the Hon. Member who obviously wants us to dictate prices again.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister is aware that high interest rates, more than any other single factor, are forcing Canadian farmers off the land in near record numbers. As a direct result small businesses are being forced to close, and a countless number of jobs have been lost. Now that interest rates are rising once more, will the Minister tell us, according to his estimation, how many more Canadian farmers will be forced off the land this year, and what solution does he have to offer to the problem of high interest rates?

May 10, 1984
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member uses one economic factor as being the reason for farmers going bankrupt. He knows that is wrong. In his own province the farmers in need of funding, loans, and moneys to operate this year need funding because they have had bad crops and low commodity prices. Those are the main reasons, not the interest rates. The interest rates were not a factor for the last two years. Farmers have received special subsidy loans to the tune of 4 per cent and 5 per cent, and in some instances they have had loans with interest rates as low as 8.75 per cent. But that did not save them. They had bad crops at the same time and no product with which to pay their bills, regardless of the interest rate. Yes, we are concerned about interest rates Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has just made statements about what we should do but he has not said how we should do it.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: One of the reasons we have a Government with a responsibility to govern, Mr. Speaker, is that we expect it to provide the answers. This Government has a few more months in which to do that.


Mr. Cook:: Weeks.


MINISTER'S ADVICE
Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Bearing in mind that there are two million unemployed Canadians at this point, what recommendations does the Minister have to offer to those young farmers who are being forced off the land in terms of where they should go to seek employment?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the retraining programs available through the Department of Employment and Immigration, of course, are there. He says many young farmers are being forced off the land. I would like the Hon. Member to be more precise. We have had more young farmers enter agriculture in the last 10 years than in the previous 20 years. The average age for farmers has gone down from 54 years of age to 49 years of age. There are more young people engaged in agriculture now than there have been for the last 30 years, and they are not all into bankruptcy either. If they follow Whelan's philosophy and organize themselves into marketing boards and have some say about prices, those young farmers will not go bankrupt.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: They listened to the Conservative philosophy that the great free market system was going to take care of them, and it did not take care of them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour was in the House just a moment ago, and my question is for him. Perhaps I can wait until he returns.


EMPLOYMENT
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Canadian Medical Association recommended to the Minister that a program of economic support be established for refugee physicians who can find unfunded internship programs in teaching hospitals to meet Canadian licensing standards.
In a recent letter to me the Minister mentioned he would consider the possibility of providing financial assistance to refugee doctors, and I stress refugee doctors, who obtain unpaid positions. Now that his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has convinced the provinces to convince the teaching hospitals to provide more unfunded positions, would the Minister show leadership, as he did in my colleague's case, and provide this financial assistance under the post-secondary job creation programs, to these refugee physicians so they can become qualified in Canada and practise the profession they are trained to follow?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that in my letter to the Hon. Member I said that I would be pleased to do that provided I had the accord of the provincial Governments in taking such an approach. I promised to place the matter on the agenda for discussion with the provinces. I have done that. It will be discussed at the federal-provincial advisory committee on health and manpower resources sometime in June.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Some 4,500 Canadian workers have died and 60,000 have been disabled on the job in Canada in the three years, and under three Labour Ministers, which have passed since the former Minister of Labour, now the Minister for International Trade, said in a speech in the spring of 1981 that the Government would be introducing into the House its long awaited amendments to Parts III, IV, and V of the Canada Labour Code "in the near future".
Almost four months have passed, another 500 workers have died and another 6,500 have been disabled, since the beginning of this Session, the time by which the present Minister last September promised me introduction of the Bill.
The Minister referred to earlier had also promised my Party's labour critic that the NDP task force on occupational health and safety, in recognition of its acquired knowledge, would be fully briefed and consulted prior to introduction of the Bill. Will the Minister now inform us exactly on which date he will introduce this legislation? Second, will he keep his predecessor's and his Cabinet colleague's promise to consult fully with the NDP task force representatives before introduction? Finally, and most important-
May 10, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. One question at a time. The Hon. Minister of Labour.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to give the Hon. Member the assurance that the Bill will be tabled in the House next week. Second, if the Official Critic for the New Democratic Party is available, I or one of my departmental officials will be happy to brief him on this Bill. Unfortunately, it is hard to tell who the Official Critic for labour is in this Party. They seem to change every month!


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kootenay West on a short supplementary question. If the Hon. Member is going to ask a series of detailed questions, let me just point out to him that they should be placed on the Order Paper.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But I should say in answer to the Minister that the NDP has had only one labour critic since the beginning of 1980. They have had three Ministers of Labour and four years of unkept promises. That is enough of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, after this four year delay, will the Minister now guarantee full and adequate House and committee time for consideration of this most important Bill before any summer recess or prorogation? If not, does the Minister think that Mr. McDermott's phrase of "sleazy Liberals" is justified?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Bill is tabled in the House, I intend to ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to arrange to expedite it as quickly as possible. I am sure the Hon. Member will be giving his full co-operation.
As for who the Official Critic is for the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member, who has a very loud voice, could perhaps let me know after oral question period whether he is the critic or his colleague from Kootenay-East-Revelstoke, because for several weeks I have been dealing with the latter Member.
Petitions


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He must be aware of the high rate of cancer found in servicemen who have been exposed to nuclear radiation. Why is his Department still insisting that each of these individuals produce expert medical evidence before he can qualify for a pension and for treatment?


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, this group of veterans, the same as any others, are entitled to make application to the Pension Commission for consideration of their cases. The Hon. Member should be aware that we have commissioned a study by the University of Ottawa of this particular group of veterans. We expect to receive a total analysis of their case, and a recommendation arising from the study, later this fall.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Surely the Minister is aware that the Department of National Defence has also been conducting a study of this matter for two years.


CASE LAW-REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF PRECEDENT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the Pension Act is supposed to operate on the case law principle. The Department has accepted in some cases, such as that of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Owen Browne, that cancer was caused by exposure to radiation. Why is the Minister not willing to accept that case as a precedent for all servicemen who were exposed to nuclear radiation and subsequently developed cancer?


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, that particular matter within the medical profession is an issue on which there are varied opinions. As a result of these varied opinions we have initiated a study of those who were actually involved in radiation exposure, whether it be the Chalk River clean-ups or the Nevada testings. Hopefully the conclusion of the study will throw some light on the acceptable principles which should apply to consideration of those cases before the Pension Commission.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, May 9, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

May 10, 1984
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, could the Government House Leader outline for the House the anticipated business for tomorrow and into next week?


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, it would be a pleasure, Mr. Speaker. We had a meeting of House Leaders this morning at which we agreed to the following motion. If there is unanimous consent, and I was told there would be, I would suggest that the question be put. Therefore I move:
That when the House adjourns on Thursday, June 14, 1984, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, June 18, 1984.


An Hon. Member:: Why?


Yvon Pinard: Because of a very important event in Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. President of the Privy Council to present the motion?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the usual non-partisan spirit around here and since the Liberal Party needs all the help it can get, we are quite prepared to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as far as the business of the House is concerned, I wish to thank the Hon. Members Opposite for returning the favour we did them a few months ago.
Tomorrow, we shall resume consideration of Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Should the debate on this subject be completed before the end of the day, we shall proceed with second reading of Bill C-10, to amend the Divorce Act. Monday and Tuesday, if we have finished consideration of Bill C-32, we shall resume consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof. However, if we have not finished consideration of Bill C-32, we shall be considering this Bill as well as Bill C-24, being the second Bill pending.
As far as next Tuesday and Thursday are concerned, both will be Opposition Days. I therefore officially designate next week Tuesday and Thursday as Opposition Days. All of this, of course, is subject to change.
Mr. Speaker, I might add that there have been discussions about several Bills that are now on the Order Paper and about other legislation that soon will be. These negotiations are
taking place at the Parliamentary House Leaders' level, and I am confident that within the next few days, we can make Parliament far more productive than it has been in the last two weeks.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the matter quite clear so that there is no misunderstanding. Would the Government House Leader confirm that for tomorrow Bill C-32, with back-up Bill C-10, will be the business of the House, but that on Monday, depending upon the disposition of Bill C-32, it will be Bill C-32 with the back-up of Bill C-24? If consideration of Bill C-32 is finished on either Friday or Monday, will he confirm that on Monday we will proceed with Bill C-24? Could the Government House Leader indicate whether he has any other back-up Bill for Bill C-24 in the event that we finish that particular debate sooner than expected?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the Hon. Member for the implications in his question. I feel we are going to make considerable progress and will do so very quickly. Consequently, Bill C-25 will be the other piece of legislation, followed by Bill C-29 and Bill C-6, in that order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, could the Government House Leader advise us now when the Bill to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act will be brought forward for first and second reading?


Yvon Pinard: As I just indicated to the House Leader of the Official Opposition, we had a meeting of House Leaders this morning, including the NDP House Leader, and this matter was discussed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, as the Government House Leader knows, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry passed a unanimous resolution over two months ago asking that members of the Committee be empowered to travel to the West Coast and meet with fishermen who are in as much distress as those on the East Coast. When does the Government House Leader intend to ask the Chairman of the Committee to bring that recommendation forward to the House in order to provide the resources for that Committee to travel and meet with fishermen on the West Coast?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it has not been my policy nor my attitude to twist the arms of chairmen of committees.
May 10, 1984



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the document entitled "Draft Amendments to the Income Tax Act" tabled this day be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Following consultation with spokesmen for the other two Parties, I ask leave to move that the Committee make its final report thereon no later than May 31, and I propose that this be made an order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Minister to introduce his motion?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer, before we have this motion, to have an opportunity of consulting again with my colleague and maybe we will then be able to get back to the Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, and in the circumstances the Minister would have to give notice of his motion.


PETITION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a number of students at Georgian Bay Secondary School in Meaford, Ontario. The students petition the federal Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to apologize formally to Japanese Canadians who suffered during the Second World War as a result of being uprooted by the federal Government for the loss of their property, lands and many other possessions.
Order Paper Questions


CANADA'S FOOD GUIDE
Mr. St. Germain: Did the Department of National Health and Welfare publish "Canada's Food Guide-Handbook", and, if so at what cost for (a) concept and research (b) production (c) printing (d) distribution and what was the total cost of the publication?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes the Department of National Health and Welfare published "Canada's Food Guide-Handbook (Revised)":
(a)	Cost for concept and research	$ 7,000(b)	Cost for production in English and French	3,700(c)	Cost of printing 272,000 English and 78,300 French	158,600(d)	Cost of distribution	4,500Total cost	$173,800


STUDIES ON DETERRENT EFFECT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Howie: Did the Government undertake, or has it initiated in the current Fiscal year, any studies relating to the deterrent effect of capital punishment and, if so (a) were these studies carried out by outside consultants (b) in what time frame were the studies to be conducted (c) was any amount allocated to the studies and, if so, what amount?


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Justice and the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows: No.


EXEMPT STAFF OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, Financial assistance or other beneFits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other beneFits?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No. The Minister of National Health and Welfare employs exempt staff as follows:


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 350, 478, 506, 722 and 764.
1.	(a) and (b)
Executive Assistant Special Assistant Legislative Assistant Administrative Assistant Special Assistant Driver
2.
(c)
Christiane Beaulieu Laura Erola Rose Boyko-Wuerscher Gisele Gaudet Gerald Merckel Randall Gasparini
No.

May 10, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Nickerson: Did the Department of Employment and Immigration direct that "Summer Canada 84" advertisements not be placed in local newspapers with a paid circulation of less than 2,000 and, if so, was consideration given to the fact that all the community newspapers in the Northwest Territories, except those based in Yellowknife, have a paid circulation of less than 2,000 and that as a consequence, the message will not reach its intended audience in other northern communities?
2. Did the Department relax the directive mentioned in part I for the Northwest Territories in previous years and, if so, will it do so again this year?


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. Yes, the Department of Employment and Immigration did direct that "Summer Canada 84" advertisements not be placed in newspapers with paid circulation of less than 2,000. This policy was necessary due to budget restriction limiting the number of newspapers in which we could advertise. However, we do make every effort to use smaller local newspapers where budgets and advertising objectives allow.
The "Summer Canada 84" advertising campaign utilized weekly newspapers as the primary media. This resulted in CEIC placing advertisements in 500 community newspapers, including four papers serving the North, the Whitehorse Star and the Yukon News, both based in Whitehorse, and the Yellowknifer and the N.W.T. News/North, based in Yellowknife.
2.	No, it is not necessary to relax the directive. It applies only to national advertising placed from CEIC Ottawa. Each local CEIC for students in the N.W.T. and the Yukon is provided with a budget for placement of advertisements in their community newspapers.


Mr. Riis: In the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83 were any government cheques stolen and, if so, what was the cost of replacing and reimbursing the amounts to recipients?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: The number of government cheques stolen by fiscal year is as follows: 1980-81: Records on stolen cheques were not kept prior to April, 1981. 1981-82: 622, 1982-83: 466, 1983-84: 234.
For the total 1,322 stolen cheques, the cost of replacing and reimbursing the amounts to recipients is approximated at $6,500.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald:
That this House profoundly regrets the two-year delay of the Government in bringing in promised legislation to improve guaranteed income supplements for low-income single elderly Canadians, and condemns the Government for its failure to respond to the innovative proposals of the all-party Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform to expand opportunities for Canadians under age 65 to make adequate provision for income in their retirement years.
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it gives me more than a little pleasure to rise today to discuss the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I must confess that I wondered if the Hon. Member was truly being serious in making this proposal. It seems that the Hon. Member is concerned with the Government's failure to respond to the innovative proposals of the all-Party task force on pension reform.
Hon. Members are aware of, and applaud, the work of the task force of which the Hon. Member was a part. We must go back and look at the contents of this report. Either the Hon. Member has forgotten what was proposed by the task force she belonged to or she was not around when the Budget was brought down on February 15. The Government has listened very closely to the task force and has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is its intention to act as expeditiously as possible to bring the wide range of much needed pension reforms into existence.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Where's the beef?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Hon. Members will recall that the parliamentary task force was appointed to do some very serious and difficult things within a limited time frame. They were called upon to report on the proposal made by the Government in its green paper Better Pensions for Canadians and particularly to look at inflation protection under private plans, proposals for the Quebec and Canada Pension Plans, survivor benefits, expansion of mandatory pension arrangements by public or private plans, Canada Pension Plan financing and the special pension problems facing women. They were given until the end of 1983 to make their report and they did so well within that time period.
The Government brought forward a detailed and positive response in the February Budget. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands is concerned that this is not going to be brought into legislation. To say her concern is not well founded is an understatement. The GIS is due to increase by $25 on July 1 and by another $25 on December 1. To say that this will be done without legislation being presented is quite improbable, to say the least.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It can't be.
May 10, 1984


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: That is right, so the legislation will be brought in. That is exactly what we are saying. It is a finance Bill.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the Government has finance Bills that it wants to bring forward. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) says we have to pass the Western Grain Stabilization Act, that we have to help farmers. I do not find any fault with that. That is quite commendable. In fact, it is a priority item.
The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) brought up the same question. He was told by the Prime Minister that we on this side of the House have many priorities on what we have to put forward, some of which are finance Bills, one of which is the increase in the GIS.
The Opposition has to make up its mind. It cannot have it both ways. It cannot come down 100 per cent in wanting to help the prairie farmers on the one hand, and then the next day say that we immediately have to throw the concerns of the prairie farmers aside and now present to the House the concerns of our elderly and poor. Either one-half of the Conservative Party is not talking to the other half, or they have the shortest memories that this House has ever witnessed.
This morning we heard from the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). He says that what is being done with the Bills, certainly the green paper Better Pensions for Canadians and the task force report, does not reflect the Minister's ideas. If Members opposite had not held this Opposition Day when the Minister was out of the country, she would be able to present her ideas and clarify them.
The Minister's ideas certainly do not need any clarification. The Minister and the Government have been very supportive of what was brought down by the task force on pension reform. This debate is completely unnecessary. It is pure schizophrenia on the part of the Opposition. It indicates that they do not know what their priorities are, not only from year to year, month to month, week to week, but from day to day.
What was it that the task force proposed? It made 65 separate recommendations. I do not intend to go into all 65- there is a sigh of relief and that is in order-but let us look at some of them in terms of the original mandate.
First, on inflation problems, under employer-sponsored plans the task force proposed to drop the excess interest approach and instead proposed that all future pension accruals be updated on the Consumer Price Index less 2.5 per cent, subject to two limits. One was based on a portfolio of investment return and the other was based on an economic indicator which the Chief Statistician proposes eventually to develop.
The Government has responded positively to this proposal. The February 15 Budget indicated that the Government agreed to move from the excess earnings approach and instead would propose inflation protection based on 60 per cent of the Consumer Price Index. This is very similar to the task force proposal, although it is simpler and at current inflation rates would be somewhat more generous.
Supply
Second, on survivor benefits in the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, the task force recommended that survivor benefits not be terminated on remarriage, that survivor benefits after 65 be set at 30 per cent rather than 60 per cent of the deceased spouse's pension, and that the divorced spouses be given the survivor's pension. Again, the Government has indicated its intention to act.
The Budget stated that legislation will be brought forward providing there is sufficient provincial consent to ensure that survivor benefits will be continued on remarriage. I certainly hope that the provinces will give their consent to such a provision, and I would urge all Members to use their good offices with provincial governments to support this proposal.
On the other proposals that are of a more controversial nature, I am sure that the task force members were aware of the federal-provincial nature of the Canada Pension Plan. Major CPP benefits can only be made with provincial consent. Accordingly, the Government has proposed to place further changes to CPP survivor benefits on the agenda for federal-provincial discussion.
Third, the task force recommended that no immediate action be taken on mandatory pension arrangements. The federal Government has gone along with this recommendation for now but has announced through the Budget broad measures to encourage expansion of voluntary pension coverage for full-time and part-time workers. As well, the federal Government will continue to monitor these coverage items.
Dealing with the other specific topics of CPP funding and homemakers' pensions, which again are matters requiring provincial agreement, the federal Government has agreed to enter into federal-provincial discussions and is sure that the task force's ideas will be given serious consideration by the provinces. Of course, this by no means covers the full extent of the task force recommendations nor does it cover the extent of the actions proposed by the federal Government, far from it. Indeed, even the immediate steps that the federal Government has taken have gone beyond those recommended by the task force.
For example, dealing with pension vesting and portability, the undertaking contained in the Budget for the vesting of pensions after two years of plan membership and for the portability of pensions through the transfer of built-up credits is almost identical to the task force proposal. The Budget undertaking regarding sexual equality and the provision of annuities is again virtually the same as that proposed by the task force. There should be equal pensions for male and female employees retiring under equal circumstances.
The Government has also agreed with the task force on the need to move forward with protection for spouses through the provision of pension rights for survivors of private plan contributions. It also agreed to the need for access, on marriage breakdown, to the private pension credits which have been built up through the efforts of both spouses during the marriage.

May 10, 1984
Supply
Dealing with plan termination insurance, the Budget agrees with the indication of the task force that this is not required at this time.
Dealing with tax assistance for retirement saving, the Budget announced what amounts to the most sweeping changes ever made in this area which will give equivalent access to tax assistance regardless of the vehicle used. It will also set comprehensive lifetime limits on contributions and index the limits on contributions and pensions annually. That was definitely the thrust of the task force report.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that although I applaud the Government for having taken this kind of action so soon after the task force report, I applaud even more the Government's generous approach which will encourage Canadians to put more money toward retirement, and indeed to put even more money toward retirement than the task force recommended. I also applaud the Government for its decision to increase spending on the guaranteed income supplement to which I referred earlier.
The increase of $460 million a year that the Government is giving to single pensioners and couples composed of only one pensioner is greater than the increase of $350 million that the task force recommended. Although the increase of $50 per month is not as large as the increase of $102 per month that some pensioners would have received under the task force's proposal, the coverage of the Government's increase is much broader. I am sure that all Members will agree that pensioners need and deserve this help at this time.
I am also pleased that the Government decided to act immediately to help immigrant pensioners who are in need by guaranteeing them the same pension as is now guaranteed to lifelong residents of Canada through Old Age Security and the guaranteed income supplement, rather than undertaking the further study which was proposed by the task force.
The actions to be taken that were announced in the federal Budget cannot all take place at one time and cannot cure all of the problems of the public and private pension systems. For one thing, the broad provincial jurisdiction in this area must be acknowledged. It is the provinces which must set the pension standards for 90 per cent of Canadians, which must approve the Canada Pension Plan changes and which provide extra top-ups to the federal guaranteed income supplement. These things must be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, even if we consider only the immediate steps to be taken by the federal Government, we must see that the consensus of the task force has been translated into action.
We will be seeing legislative action to amend the Old Age Security Act to provide needed help for low-income singles, for families struggling to get by on a single pension and for immigrants who come to Canada late in life. We will see amendments to the Canada Pension Plan to extend the creditsharing provisions so that spouses of CPP contributors will be able to claim a personal CPP pension as a right either on marriage breakdown or at age 65. We will be seeing federal pension benefit standards for inflation protection, portable pensions, vesting, disclosure, survivor benefits and a sharing of
pension rights by spouses. We will be seeing fairer tax rules and the creation of new tax vehicles so that small business employers can have their own pension fund. All this is clearly in keeping with the principles underlying the task force proposals and indeed in most cases is practically indentical in detail to those principles.
It is certain that not all of those 65 recommendations will be implemented in the first phase. We hope to see even more accomplished in the second phase, with the co-operation of course of both levels of government. However, to suggest that the federal Government has not acted, and acted boldly, to implement these innovative ideas is to both misunderstand the Budget and to belittle some of the important recommendations of the parliamentary task force. I would say to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands that I do not understand her motion and that I feel the Government has acted very directly in this very important field.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I never thought that I would see the day when a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare would stand in the House and say, as the Hon. Member did, that to date the concerns of the elderly poor in the country were, in his words, completely unnecessary. Not only did I think that I would never hear a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister say that but I thought I would never hear a Member from Cape Breton-The Sydneys say that. The predecessor of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys made it a point on his own to raise in the House the concerns of the elderly time after time. I know many people from Cape Breton-The Sydneys who are over the age of 65, who are in need and who are waiting to hear when this legislation which was promised last February will be brought forward.
The Hon. Member has said that today's debate is completely unnecessary. Since he thinks that the debate as to when this legislation is coming forward is completely unnecessary, I would like to ask him if he would tell us the date on which this legislation will be introduced into the House of Commons.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, there may be a question as to whether or not she heard me correctly. I do not know whether she has a need for remedial hearing techniques or not. However, Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not say that the concerns of the aged are unnecessary and I certainly did not say that all of their problems have been corrected. I did say that I do not feel, as seems to be suggested by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, that the Government has done nothing with respect to the task force report and that the Government is insensitive to the needs of pensioners. In fact, I said that the Budget addressed a great many of the concerns of the aged.
The Hon. Member refers to my constituency of Cape Breton-The Sydneys. I would remind the former Member from this constituency of the unemployment which exists in this
May 10, 1984

area of approximately 35 per cent in real terms. There are young couples of whom neither of the spouses has a job and who are without the funds necessary to meet the needs of their children. There are young people who cannot get their first job. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) was on this task force, Mr. Speaker. I am sure she realizes that one of the criteria we considered was that not all of the money which the Government had available to help Canadians would be used for the benefit of people over the age of 65. There are other needs which have to be considered. While there are real needs of people over the age of 65, these needs must be weighed in conjunction with the needs generally in this country.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He spent a fair bit of time showing that the Government in fact had responded positively to the recommendations of the pension reform task force. Could he indicate to us which one of those proposals, which he highlighted as being proposals on which the Government is moving, will see legislative form before the next federal election?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) for his question. As the Government House Leader said today, this is a question being negotiated by the House Leaders and as such is part of their discussions. I must say, however, that there is a great deal of concern on this side of the House with the plight of those over the age of 65 who are living below the poverty level. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Hon. Member for Provencher and of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands when they speak about the plight of these people. This question certainly should be addressed as soon as possible. With that I agree. However, I do feel that the Parties have to get together. Hon. Members on the other side must determine how they want it to go. We hear on one day that we have to deal immediately with the plight of the farmers in the west, and we hear on another day that we must deal immediately with those people over the age of 65. Those questions are very important, but unless we get the proper consensus of all Parties working together, these questions are not going to be resolved as soon as we would like.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question. Obviously, one of the things with which the task force was concerned was fairness and pension reform. In view of the fact that the $50 per month increase in the GIS amounts to $1.61 a day for most pensioners on full GIS, and in view of the fact that in the budget papers there was a proposal to permit those workers making up to $86,000 to deduct up to $15,000 a year in pension contributions-which was against the recommendations of the task force, as the Hon. Member knows-would the Hon. Member indicate whether he feels that that is fair? A single pensioner on GIS would receive $50 a month, and an individual making up to $86,000 may claim up to $7,500 off his taxes. Is that fair?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) that the
Supply
priority is with those who are living under the poverty level. Regardless of what the Budget says, the priority will be given to that group of people.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Parliamentary Secretary. The motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) talks about pension reform. However, I believe all Hon. Members should be aware that when Parliament passed Bill C-139, the effect of that particular Bill was that workmen's compensation would now be included for the purposes of calculating the guaranteed income supplement. I have a number of constituents, Mr. Speaker, who have received substantial reductions in the incomes which they were previously receiving.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has received representations from various people across the country and whether he has received representations from Hon. Members opposite as well as from those in our own Party to try to have this particular piece of legislation changed so that it can go back to the way it was, which is, that workmen's compensation would not be included for the purposes of the guaranteed income supplement.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one further point. Those who receive guaranteed income supplements in my province are entitled to other benefits, for instance, in terms of medical care, drugs, and property taxes. Now that workmen's compensation has been added to their total income, that has been wiped out. In addition, they have received a reduction in their over-all income, so instead of having a 20 per cent reduction, it amounts to approximately 40 per cent. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary, who I know has been working very diligently on pension reform for the last number of years, has had that type of representation in the last number of months?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, (Mr. Dingwall), I would tell him that I have, like he has himself, received representations regarding this question. It comes down to a matter of dealing with funds which are available. Certainly, it is not an easy task when you consider that people over the age of 65 are not receiving the amount of funding which they should receive and which we would like them to receive.
The question is how best to utilize the funds which can be made available. I, like the Hon. Member, have made representations requesting that perhaps people over the age of 65 should not have their compensation payments included for tax purposes. The rationale which has been explained is that when people are under the age of 65, certainly they are at a disadvantage. Over the age of 65 it is difficult for most people to do the things they once did. That is not to say that we would not want to see that funding remain with those over the age of 65, and the matter is being reviewed and possibly will be changed. However, it relates to a question of funding needs in this country and how these needs generally must be met, not

May 10, 1984
Supply
taking one need in isolation but taking all the needs of this country together.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The House will now proceed to debate.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, coming from my constituency, I need not tell the House what an interest my constituents have in the old age supplement and in Bills such as those projected by the Government. I am sorry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is not in her place today. I understand that she is in Belgium attempting to come to an agreement with that country over an exchange of pensions. I would be much comforted if I thought she might bring back the same attitude which that government has toward payment of pensions to women at age 60. The Belgian Government does it in a very simple way, whereas the Canadian Government prefers to put in place the most disorderly hodge-podge of regulations which anyone could imagine determining how much money it will disburse to senior citizens who are female.
Today's debate is brought about because of the Budget which came down on February 15. At that time, as reported on page 1430 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had this to say in his Budget speech:
In the Throne Speech, the Government made a commitment to introduce legislation to increase the GIS for single pensioners. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will soon be introducing legislation to increase the maximum payment to this group of pensioners by $50 a month.
Of course, it was going to come in two phases some five months apart, if it was to come at all. The Minister also stated:
Provision will also be made to see that persons receiving partial old age pension, most of whom are Canadian immigrants, have Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits sufficient to give them the same minimum income as other pensioners.
The legislation which is now due comes about because of the parliamentary task force which recommended pension reform. Its recommendations were quite progressive and comprehensive. I felt rather sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacLellan) who had to stand up and claim that the Budget declaration of the Minister of Finance represented the wishes of the task force. There is a kind of Tiny Tim and Ebenezer Scrooge comparison which can be made between the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Finance in this dialogue which may or may not be going on.
It is not that we are quarrelling with the Bills we think are going to come about, but it is a real possibility that these Bills will not be passed before the summer break. Parliamentary Secretaries and the Government House Leader all tell us that, yes, they are urgent, yet we never see the Bills. Surely it is misleading the House to have Government representatives talk about early passage of these Bills when they have not yet been put on the Order Paper. There are 34 days left to us, including several Opposition Days. We granted another day today to the Liberals to take that rag-tag bunch of candidates they have,
sort out the six worst of them and keep the other one. I would just as soon see them draw lots; we might end up with a better candidate.


Mr. Beatty:: There is one of them here right now.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I am sure he feels the same way. That would give him an increased chance.
If the Government was to bring the GIS Bill forward, I am sure there would be no prolonged debate. Then we can get to the Bill, which this Government seems to consider so very important, respecting the Crown corporations which the Liberals have fostered throughout their period in office. They can then guarantee that certain people will be appointed to these positions before they indulge in the deluge of an election we are going to have.
One of the problems we have in trying to discuss this Bill is that we are very short on details and we have not yet seen the Bill. When we speak to Ministers who will be responsible for this legislation, we find that they do not seem to know what is going to be in the Bill. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) answered the many questions put to him concerning war veterans's allowances, but he is not able to tell us what he is going to do.
All our problems in this area started with the 1977 amendment to the Old Age Security Act. It established stricter qualifications for old age security and it established the provision of partial pensions for immigrants. I opposed that measure at the time, pointing out that it was going to be an administrative nightmare, and now I am not happy that my forecast came true. The amendment was predicated on the idea that all other nations were going to have reciprocal agreements with Canada, but they have not done so. That was the underlying assumption when the Government decided that a partial pension would be feasible. The result has been a kind of guaranteed poverty class. We allow people into Canada who are too old to get in sufficient pension time before they reach 65 so as to have a decent living from the OAS and GIS.
I would like to speak for a moment now about the British pensioners, of whom there are 40,000 resident in Canada at the present time. They have been waiting for years for reciprocal pensions. In 1978, in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that pension reciprocity with Britain was her number one priority. Well, last October, the Minister answered a question in the House in part by saying that the dossier of the reciprocal agreement for pensions and other social programs between Great Britain and Canada is an active one. This March she put out a statement in which she said that she regrets to advise that, in spite of Canada's efforts, the British Government has decided not to proceed at this time with the social security agreement. This is devastating news, and I think we should have an opportunity to ask how it came about. Is it simply that the Minister is unable to get along with the British, or is it that the British really do not want to pay these pensions? It seems only just that a person who paid into
May 10, 1984

a pension fund should be able to get money out. This situation has left a great number of British pensioners in the lurch.
Another group of people who are suffering badly are the immigrants from Third World countries. It is impossible to have reciprocal agreements with some of those countries because they do not have a pension system in effect. We bring people in on the assumption that we will give them a partial pension and they are supposed to get a pension from their home country. Consequently, these people end up at pensionable age with about a quarter of a pension, if they have been here for ten years, out of the possible 40 year period for building up pension credits.
This problem was brought to the attention of the task force by a variety of witnesses. The main point they made was that these people were not only unable to get a partial pension from their homeland, but they are frequently not employed in an occupation in Canada which has either a private pension plan or a Canada Pension Plan. This of course leaves them destitute at a time when most Canadians expect to retire at the age of 65 and live on their OAS and GIS.
In 1977, the then Minister of National Health and Welfare, now the Minister of Finance, stated that those unable to qualify for adequate OAS and GIS pensions had the option of going on welfare. That surely is not a satisfactory answer with regard to what we are going to do with the people who came into this country in good faith and now find they will not be like other Canadians when they reach 65 and receive the OAS and the GIS. Instead, according to the present Minister of Finance, they will be expected to go on welfare.
We now find that the same Minister has introduced a Budget which promised to increase the GIS to those receiving partial OAS in order to ensure that they have the same minimum income as other pensioners. This will require an increase to the GIS so that that portion will be over 100 per cent. As everyone is aware, the old age security is paid at a basic rate without any means test. The guaranteed income supplement is also paid up to a certain rate given in dollars. If you only have a quarter of half the rate of the old age security, plus a full guaranteed income supplement, you are still at a lower level than what is thought to be the poverty level, or indeed the sustenance level for Canadians. As is typical of the Liberal Government, it is now going to bring in more legislation which will attempt to address the grievous fault caused by its last amendment to the Old Age Security Act.
It would be much simpler, Mr. Speaker, to abolish the system of partial entitlement to the old age security and allow immigrants to qualify for full old age security after 10 years, as they did before the amendment was brought in. We should provide them with the same guaranteed income supplement as is received by all Canadian pensioners, subject to the same requirement of an income test. I do not see the value in going around a three-sided triangle by changing perfectly good old age security provisions, making room for partial pensions, and then devising another piece of legislation to cater to some of
Supply
the people who cannot get the sustenance level which would be caused by the first piece of legislation. Surely it would have been simpler to cancel the amendment to the legislation which was introduced in 1977. I am rather proud of having opposed that amendment at the time.
Let us look at the war veterans allowance. Possibly to the surprise of many, and apparently to the surprise of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the war veterans allowance is correlated with the guaranteed income supplement. When the guaranteed income supplement increases, the war veterans allowance increases. There is a small Department of Veterans Affairs top-up procedure which takes place. The war veterans allowance is added to, so that the person drawing this allowance will always be a little better off than those who are not veterans.
On March 14 I asked the Minister a question in the House of Commons. I was seeking clarification as to whether veterans under 65 who receive war veterans allowance would benefit from the announced increase in the guaranteed income supplement. I was trying to determine whether this would apply to those recipients who are considered to be single for the purposes of WVA or to all recipients of WVA, married and single. In response to my question, the Minister stated:
I can assure the Hon. Member that the provisions which were included in the Budget to provide for a $25 increase in the GIS as of July 1, and a further $25 increase as of December 1, will be passed through to all veterans simply by increasing the ceiling.
This was obviously nonsense. The Minister did not understand what the Minister of Finance had said in his Budget and did not realize the complexity of it. Therefore, he was unable to make clear which veterans would benefit from the increase. I gave him an opportunity to clarify this, but he did not seem to be able to do so.
These matters have been brought up in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on four separate occasions. In a statement to the committee on March 20, the Minister indicated that the increase in GIS to single recipients would be reflected in an increase in war veterans allowance for single recipients. This, of course, would ignore the married recipients who are over 65. They would find themselves falling back to the same level as the single recipients. Since then, the deputy minister has been unable to explain precisely how the increase will be put into effect. He has further confused the issue and then promised members of the committee that the Minister would clarify matters shortly. As yet we have had no statement from the Minister on this subject. When he was speaking to the House this morning in this Opposition Day debate, I noticed that he did not clarify the subject.
Obviously, some very technical changes will have to be made to the war veterans allowance. If the Bills come before Parliament and are passed, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be expected to decree by how much each category of the war veterans allowance will go up. I suspect that the Minister still does not know what is going to be in these Bills when they are presented. This is part of the difficulty we are having. It seems only reasonable to me that the Minister should at least have the notification before the Bills are produced. He had better be

May 10, 1984
Supply
ready for them because he should be writing the regulations at the present time to ensure that the War Veterans Allowance Act is amended or changed by regulation, which he is entitled to do, to comply with these forthcoming Bills.
I have listened to Members on both sides of the House saying whose fault it is that these Bills have not been presented. Clearly, this side wants to have the Bill on the guaranteed income supplement as early as possible. We want the grain stabilization Bill as well. The Government has promised to deliver both these Bills. We want them. I expect they will pass fairly quickly. Then the Government can debate, as long as it wants, the Bill on how to handle its Crown corporations. I see no reason to continue with this procrastination. A large segment of the population of Canada is liable to be hurt if the Bill I referred to is not brought in in time to be passed before the end of the session at the end of June. It is outrageous that on February 15 they should have made statements in the Budget which have not as yet been acted upon. I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the Government is planning not to pass those Bills and to try to fight an election campaign saying that it is someone else's fault that the Bills have not been passed. I expect that trick would easily be seen through. I look forward to hearing someone who has some responsibility on the Government side tell us when the Government proposes not only to put these Bills on the Order Paper but to table them for first reading.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak, if I may, for a few moments with regard to the motion which is before us in terms of the reform of pensions. Earlier in my comments I mentioned workmen's compensation being calculated in for the purpose of the guaranteed income supplement. The effect of Bill C-139 is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The Hon. Member's comments must relate to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). He cannot introduce extraneous matters. They must relate to the Hon. Member's speech.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, as any good solicitor or advocate would realize, I am attempting to build my case, which would then tie in with what the Hon. Member has said. Before I come to that conclusion, which will be obvious to everyone in the House, I am sure you will see that it is on the point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has but a brief moment to do just that. Both questions and comments must be brief and to the point.


David Charles Dingwall: Would the Hon. Member not concur with me that when workmen's compensation is calculated into GIS and war veterans allowance is excluded for the purposes of GIS, that is somewhat unfair and discriminatory? We can probably find all sorts of cases in which veterans are certainly more deserving than those receiving workmen's compensation. Alternatively, would the Member not concur with me that there are perhaps very many situations where individuals who are in receipt of workmen's compensation are perhaps, in some
instances, more deserving of that income than some veterans? I would not advocate that as a general principle. However, with regard to pension reform, various sections of the Income Tax Act have been amended. They have indiscriminately inflicted a dire consequence on senior citizens.
On many occasions the Hon. Member has stood in his place and advocated better pension reform not only for veterans but for the elderly. I would like the Hon. Member to concur with me in order that we could take joint action, not in a partisan, political way, but in an effective way, to have the Minister for National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) address this very important issue.
As l have heard the Hon. Member himself say on several occasions, we do not want to act indiscriminately against those in need. I believe that by calculating workmen's compensation into the guaranteed income supplement we are not only reducing the incomes of numerous constituents on the list I have before me, we are in fact penalizing them twice. I would hope that the Hon. Member, whom I have respected since my entry into this Chamber, would concur with my desire to right a wrong which I believe to be in Bill C-139. However, I need his help and I am wondering if he is prepared to give it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his complimentary remarks. The Government frequently introduces legislation apparently with no idea as to its side effects. Perhaps it is because there are not enough Members from Cape Breton who understand the lives that the working people lead and the misfortunes they suffer. Having said that, I do not see the possibility of my ever saying that veterans are being treated too generously, particularly by that Government.
I agree with the Hon. Member's point about workmen's compensation. I suggest that it is outrageous and typical of the Government to want to reduce their guaranteed income supplement, because they are being paid for an injury they suffered in the work place under a program for which they pay normal taxes. Everyone else pays workmen's compensation fees. I commend the Hon. Member for his attitude. I am sorry that it is not shared by Members on the front benches.


David Charles Dingwall: I have one further comment. I concur with the substance of the Hon. Member's remarks, but I want the record to be clear that the effects of Bill C-139 were not seen in this Chamber when it was introduced. It took several months not only for the bureaucracy but for those affected by the legislation to comprehend it fully. I do not think there was any desire, politically or otherwise, to affect those in greatest need. I believe there must be a consensus among Members of Parliament, who, on the one hand, stand in the Chamber to say that they are concerned about the elderly and, on the other hand, pass a law that is very unjust.
I need the assistance both of Members opposite and of Members on this side of the House to bring this matter to the
May 10, 1984

attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) as well as of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLar-en).
The sections of the Income Tax Act that are involved are Section 81, Section 56 and Section 110. They must be repealed before this wrong can be corrected. I need the assistance of Members opposite, and I hope that at the end of the day, when the debate has been concluded, no one will interpret my suggestion as being in any way partisan, because I think we are all concerned about those senior citizens who are in the greatest of need. Some of them have had a substantial reduction, ranging from $50 to in excess of $200 a month.
I want to thank the Hon. Member, whom I have respected and admired since my entry into this Chamber, for his assistance in this matter.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the Hon. Member and I are members from different committees. My interest is in the Department of Veterans Affairs and in senior citizens. The problem he is raising concerns the work place and workmen's compensation.
I do not know how much pressure he can exert on the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but certainly we on this side are forever lining up to try to put questions to the Hon. Minister. I find it difficult on many days to find her in the House early in Question Period. I do not like to say that, but it seems to be the case.
Certainly we will try our best, as far as I am concerned, to assist the Hon. Member, who I think has brought to light a very good point. It indicates a reform in the pension system that is needed and one that was pointed out so clearly in the task force report. With the exception of a couple of measures that we are still waiting to see in print in the House, it has been totally ignored by the Government.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to give one example of the dire straits in which some people in this country find themselves. I refer to a 70-year old gentleman by the name of Malcolm Woodland who lives in the town of New Waterford. Prior to Bill C-139, his income was $336.38.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Per month?


David Charles Dingwall: Per month. However, the effect of the legislation is to reduce that income to $266.28. It does not allow him to take advantage of the social programs that the Government of Nova Scotia has put into place in terms of his property taxes and moneys that are made available for drugs.
It is inconceivable that senior bureaucrats, of whatever politi- cal affiliation, should have put that provision into the legislation. As politicians, we are allowing that wrong to continue. I want to give the House judicial notice that it has not heard the end of this. I have petitions coming from the towns of Glace Bay, New Waterford and Sydney Mines. I will
Supply
place them before the Chamber and I will speak to those petitions. I hope that by your concurrence, Mr. Speaker, you might want to lend your very substantial support to my suggestion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not dispute the vigour with which the Hon. Member puts forth his particular grievances. However, I do have some misgivings about the relationship of the Hon. Member's comments to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Victoria. They are in some sense related, but I had the impression throughout his comments that the Hon. Member was making a pitch on a very specific matter which had not been raised by the Hon. Member for Victoria.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Pools-Sports pool-Provision of funding for medical research, (b) Request for five-year funding plan; the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Agriculture-Red beef stabilization program, (b) Status of discussions; the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-External Affairs-Guyana-Increase in racial and political violence, (b) Visa requirement for Guyanese immigrants.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):
That this House profoundly regrets the two-year delay of the Government in bringing in promised legislation to improve Guaranteed Income Supplements for low-income single elderly Canadians, and condemns the Government for its failure to respond to the innovative proposals of the all-party Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform to expand opportunities for Canadians under age 65 to make adequate provision for income in their retirement years.
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have mixed feelings about rising in the House. I say this because I took part in the work of the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform and I find it somewhat ludicrous to be speaking to the motion without the Member who moved the motion being present. Mr. Speaker, I think Hon. Members are not taking their duties seriously. The Hon. Member for
3610

May 10, 1984
Supply
Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is not in her seat, and she moved the motion. She is taking advantage of the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who would be able to correct some of the glaring mistakes that have been perpetrated since this morning.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I just want to inform her, after the comments she has made, that the Member for Kingston and the Islands is attending the Committee on National Health and Welfare where the Minister of State for Social Development is appearing. That is why she is not in the House at the present time.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I nevertheless wish to take this opportunity to reassure senior citizens across the country, because they know very well that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has never made idle promises. Everyone knows that the $25 increase due on July 1st will be given retroactively to senior citizens, if necessary, and that they will also have the increase scheduled for January 1984.
That being said, I still think the day is wasted, but I shall go on just the same. I want to quote today's Opposition motion and correct a mistake in what it says:
That this House profoundly regrets the two-year delay of the Government in bringing in promised legislation to improve Guaranteed Income Supplements for low-income single elderly Canadians-
It is not two years but two months. Let me explain the obvious: In 1981 we held the National Conference; in 1982 we tabled the Green Paper, and in December 1983 we tabled the Report of the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform.
Well, if I count from December 1983 to-and if I take the date on which the Budget was brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), that is only two months. I think the Government did very well to engage in consultations. We are responsible people, and we therefore had to consult with the other parties concerned. Once again, I want to give senior citizens in this country the assurance that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will keep her word, as always.
Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that in his Budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced that the Government intended to pursue pension reform in two stages. During the first stage, the Government proposes to increase the guaranteed income supplement, to improve minimum standards for private pension plans, to strengthen the Canada Pension Plan and improve the benefits to women, and also to improve tax assistance for retirement saving. These measures, set forth in the February Budget of this year, were meant to improve substantially the pension situation of both today's pensioners and of Canadians who will retire in the future. However, the Government realizes that although the measures
are very important, further steps must be taken. That is why a second stage is planned which will start this summer and will include discussions and especially negotiations with the provinces on a series of further proposals.
After the consultation process, we shall now proceed with the second stage, namely, negotiations. I think that if the Members Opposite were sitting on this side of the House, they would do the same.
I was favourably impressed with the spirit of co-operation shown by Ontario in this respect. The proposals for reform by the Government of Ontario augur well for federal-provincial discussions of pension reform.
Of the major issues that will be on the agenda during federal-provincial discussions, I would like to mention four: first, the homemaker pension; second, improving disability benefits; third, greater flexibility in the age of entitlement; and fourth, financing of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. All of this depends on federal-provincial negotiations, Mr. Speaker.
All proposals were the subject of studies and recommendations by the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform. The Government realizes, however, that the issues are complex and require further study and further discussion with the provinces.
Take, for instance, the issue of homemaker pensions. It is a complex issue and a number of solutions have been suggested. The pension proposal was made for various reasons: to recognize the value of work done by women in the home; to meet the need for adequate retirement income; to provide for greater financial autonomy and to recognize the contribution of each individual to the marriage union. All of these reasons are entirely valid, and I cannot agree more. Proposals for changes made during the first stage of pension reform also support this initiative. In addition, it was suggested that an additional pension based on wage equivalent as well as compulsory contributions be made a part of the Canada Pension Plan. A proposal like this one raises a number of questions, however.
First, what price is set on the work of women in the home? Is half the average industrial wage a valid and fair assessment? If so, how can we justify this? Who is going to pay for the pension? Will this be the full responsibility of the family breadwinner? Should low-wage earners be subsidized by all working Canadians? If the family breadwinner is to pay, does that settle the problem of women's financial dependence? And are we to differentiate between women who work full time in the home and those who combine a job outside the home with housework? Does work done in the home by certain individuals make them eligible for a pension, while women who have a job outside the home are not eligible?
May 10, 1984

I am raising these questions, not because I am against pensions for women, on the contrary! I simply wish to draw your attention to the complex issues that must be resolved before we can reach a consensus on the subject.
Changes to the Canada Pension Plan require the approval of two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the population. Because of the many aspects of this question, the Government has decided to postpone the question of including a pension for housewives in the Canada Pension Plan until the second stage of consultations with the provinces. I may add that the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans are very similar, and that the federal Government and the provinces, including Quebec, are very anxious to maintain the parallels between the two plans. It would be unthinkable to make important changes in the Canada Pension Plan without prior consultation with Quebec and without ensuring that the parallels between the two plans are maintained.
The second major issue on the agenda for discussion with the provinces is the ban on more flexible rules on eligibility for benefits, especially the Old Age Security benefits and retirement benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. The Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform had to admit that lowering the age of entitlement for the Old Age Security pension should be examined more closely.
The financial implications are quite considerable. For instance, there is the impact on the labour force participation rate. Many programs already exist for this age group, such as provincial social assistance programs, and disability benefits under the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. We must consider the implications for all these programs.
The Government of Ontario has already announced it would support the addition of an early retirement plan to the Canada Pension Plan which would be similar to the one introduced under the Quebec Pension Plan. Mr. Speaker, as of January 1984, all senior citizens in Quebec are eligible for pension benefits under the Quebec Pension Plan when they are 60 years old. Considering that the Government of Ontario looks favourably on this measure, the outlook for reaching an agreement with the other provinces is promising. However, we must have a comprehensive policy for all pre-retirement measures, and to achieve this, further study and consultation at the federal and provincial levels will be necessary.
A third important item on the agenda for our discussions with the Provinces is the question of disability benefits. The Hon. Monique Begin has already embarked on a major consultation process with the Provinces in this regard. She has made proposals to improve disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. Improving these benefits would mean bringing them up to the level of the benefits paid to a pensioner aged 65 or over who receives the old age security pension as well as retirement benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. The maximum disability pension now represents only about 57
Supply
per cent of this amount. I remember, Mr. Speaker, how important this question of disability pensions was when I sat on the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and I realize that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been negotiating ever since. She has been negotiating with the Provinces for the past two years. I note that this is the third item on the agenda for federal-provincial discussions. Work is going on, but everything cannot be done overnight. I was impatientmyself when I saw that nothing much was being done to follow-up on the recommendations of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. I can now realize that some progress is being made.
Most Provinces have indicated their agreement in principle with this proposal, on the understanding that some arrangement can be reached on the funding of the Canada Pension Plan. This question is also on the agenda for the second stage of the pension reform. On the other hand, the Hon. Monique Begin and her colleagues have embarked on a major federal-provincial study to examine the possibility of introducing a comprehensive disability insurance plan designed to solve the problems of those who are not protected by existing federal and provincial programs or whose coverage is inadequate.
This study is now under way and should continue for some time yet, unfortunately. However, before it can be introduced, such a plan calls for comprehensive studies, and the federal and provincial ministers have agreed to continue to improve existing plans until they receive the recommendations to be made by this federal-provincial committee, which has not submitted its report yet. In view of the general agreement in principle on this issue, we can expect the second stage of pension reform to be successful in this regard.
The question of funding the Canada Pension Plan will however be one of the major issues to be settled. Indeed, contributions to the CPP should increase from 3.6 per cent of insurable earnings to about 6 per cent by the end of this century. They should then increase from 8 to 10 per cent of insurable earnings within about 40 years. Mr. Speaker, I hope I misunderstood what the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) said this morning. I hope I did not hear him correctly. I hope the Canadian people did not understand that the system was jeopardized because it is not. We could carry on as we are doing now for another 20 years without increasing the 3.6 per cent rate of contributions by a single cent. I will go on, but I want to reassure the public by saying that there is nothing to fear, as did the NDP Member who worked with us on this matter, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) who also reassured the public this morning by saying that there was no need to worry about it. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, contributions to the Canada Pension Plan should increase from 3.6 per cent to 6 per cent by the year 2000 and to 8 per cent within the next 40 years. There are now several options for funding the Canada Pension Plan. In principle,

May 10, 1984
Supply
contributions could remain unchanged for the next 20 years if the federal and provincial governments deemed it necessary to draw from the present reserves to pay benefits. However, Mr. Lalonde indicated in his Budget that an increase would be desirable before then, even though it is not required for the financing of present benefits, simply to reduce the effect of an increase which could be rather significant if we were to wait until the year 2000. This would be transferring too much of a burden to a future generation.
Mr. Lalonde added that he planned-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to remind the Hon. Member that she has to refer to her colleagues by their portfolio or constituency and not by their own name in accordance with Standing Orders.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance said that he planned to co-operate with the provinces in order to set a proper schedule of contributions, with special attention being paid to the proposal of the task force which suggested a pay-as-you-go formula taking into account any improvement in allowances. It is clear that the government is taking its responsibilities not only as far as the financing of the Canada Pension Plan is concerned but also with respect to the proposals made by the parliamentary task force. However, it is quite obvious that one of the basic questions to be solved is the lack of protection made available to Canadians. Less than half of all Canadians have an adequate pension plan. Should governments extend the scope of compulsory pension plans to solve the problem? It is important to give the private sector as many opportunities as possible to show that it can provide an adequate pension to retired Canadians.
All the steps taken should encourage the private sector and provide the necessary tools to perform that task. The government intends to monitor the response of parties concerned. Our committee suggested a three-year period to enable the private sector to take charge. We also suggested that after that period, if the private sector has not taken its responsibilities and borne its own share of the employees' pension plan, the government should perhaps double the Canada Pension Plan or find other alternatives.
I think that the government has shown that it was ready to move quickly in the area of pension reform. It has also shown some responsibility and caution concerning the more complex issues to be dealt with in the second phase of pension reform. The provincial governments have also a capital role to play. The extent and quality of pension reform will very much depend on the outcome of negotiations. Nevertheless, I am confident that we will succeed in thoroughly altering the pension system in the shortest possible time in the interests and for the welfare of all Canadian men and women.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for my colleague who was on the task force. The Hon. Member indicated that the Quebec Pension Plan permits voluntary pension eligibility at age 60. In view of the fact that the pension task force heard about the severe plight of many people between the ages of 60 and 64 who were ineligible for pensions anywhere in Canada, and in view of the high unemployment rate and the need for young people to obtain employment, would the Hon. Member press her Government to consider, in the discussions between the Government and the provincial governments, lowering the age of eligibility for the Canada Pension Plan to 60 years on a voluntary basis, particularly because of the urgency with which the provincial and federal Governments view discussions on the CPP in terms of increased contributions? This would be the time to raise with the provinces changes in the Canada Pension Plan provisions as they refer to eligibility.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good idea in view of the fact that it takes so long to negotiate and that this matter is not on the agenda. I was made aware only today of the fact that it is not on the agenda, but certainly I will bring it to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I thank the Hon. Member very much for his suggestion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I looked forward to this debate to discuss pension reform in Canada, especially in view of the fact that this subject matter has been a focus of very extensive study by the special task force on pension reform. It has received much attention in various provinces, specifically the Province of Ontario. It is also an ongoing consideration for the private insurance sector. I intend today to concentrate on two areas, first the short-term, which I believe the motion addresses, and, second, pension reform as a comprehensive policy.
A number of Members on the Government side have indicated today that this debate is not necessary or that the motion does not clearly reflect the work that the Government is doing. Their position has been that the Government is moving on pension reform and that the Budget proposals which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) brought in on February 15 were a direct response to the need for pension reform and were a plan of action.
I can understand why Members of the Government would say that, because the booklet accompanying the pension paper which the Minister of Finance tabled at that time is entitled Action plan for pension reform. I can understand why Government Members would be defensive on the basis that the Government has moved on pension reform. The question must be asked whether this is the case. In the Budget, the Minister of Finance rejected the $102 per month GIS top-up which the task force on pension reform had suggested. Instead, he came

May 10, 1984

in with a proposal that the GIS for single elderly be increased by $25 per month on July 1, 1984, and by an additional $25 on December 1, 1984. Government Members today have been defending that proposal. We in the Opposition have been saying that we want to see the legislation. We would like to see that legislation passed very quickly.
A number of things have happened in the debate on that very point since the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) asked that question of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I intend to raise those issues here.
Members of the Opposition have been arguing and putting forward the proposition that we wanted the western grain stabilization amendments brought forward in the House. A number of government Members have been saying that we want that proposition and that the next day we want pension reform or the $25 per month which will be effective from July 1. All of us have been in the House long enough to know that the House could deal with the Western Grain Stabilization Act tomorrow and that it could deal with the $25 increase in the GIS as well. Obviously we would like to see that legislation.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: What about the other legislation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member for Sudbury asks about the other legislation. I find that interesting. I will deal with one piece of legislation. The Government, the committees and the House have spent an inordinate amount of time on Crown corporations. The Government has spent an inordinate amount of money on Crown corporations.


Mr. Turner:: Let it go then.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will finish, Mr. Whip, if you will give me a minute. It is absolutely important, if we are not going to have that debacle again, that the legislation be changed.
How do we change legislation? I know of only one method of changing the legislation of an obtuse Government, that is, to keep hitting it over the head with what is wrong. Sometimes they listen. It is like the old farmer with the Missouri mule. Before he went out farming, he hit it over the head with a two-by-four so that he could get its attention. The Government needs its attention directed to the priorities that Canadians have. The priority of Canadians, at least in my part of the country, is the Western Grain Stabilization Act and pension reform for the elderly. Also, they do not want to see a Crown corporation Bill passed which will allow the perpetuation of the waste of money which we have seen in this House and in the country.
If I had the time today, and I do not, I would elaborate on the fact that when we talk about pension reform, we should look at the amount of money it would require. Members on both sides of the House agree it is needed. Let us compare that to the losses that have become evident through Crown corporations in the last few weeks. We could have had various pension reforms if the Government had brought forward a financial plan which would have forced the Crown corporations to be
Supply
competitive. They should not be able, every time they are in trouble, to come back to the public sector and ask for more, and say that if we do not give them more, they will close their doors and jobs will be lost. That is a constant blackmail and a vicious circle in which we seem to find ourselves when it comes to Crown corporations.
Coming back to the $25 supplement, Members on this side of the House have told the Government to bring in the legislation and we will pass it. The Government is on somewhat thin ice when it tells us to pass the legislation when it has not even introduced it.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: We are ready.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Here is a revelation. The Hon. Member for Sudbury says it is ready. Good. Wonderful. Let us have it presented for first reading tomorrow. In fact, I will make an offer which I am sure will be accepted by Members of this House. If they want to move back to introduction of Government Bills now, we will give consent to do it now.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: You are not reneging on your commitment made by Don Blenkarn?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Pro-vencher has the floor.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I can understand. There is no Cabinet Minister in the House. They would have difficulty presenting any Bill at any time, even with unanimous consent. I leave it at that. I simply say, bring in the legislation and we will pass it.
The Member for Sudbury says that the legislation is ready. His colleague, who just finished speaking, indicated that if the legislation is not passed by July, it will be retroactive. I understand the Hon. Member for Sudbury will speak later today. Maybe he can square the circle for all of us as to whether the legislation is ready, why it has not been introduced and, if it is not passed, whether it will be retroactive. I am sure a Liberal mind could always find its way around three points of view.
What is important in the longer term is this. I recognize this cannot be done overnight. When the Minister of Finance came in with pension reform, the public, especially those trying to meet their financial obligation on a day-to-day basis, saw the Government pamphlet entitled Action plan for pension reform. In the Budget speech, of approximately three-quarters of an hour's duration, the Minister of Finance said that these are the changes that will be brought in. Taxpayers know that at midnight that night tax provisions in the Budget became effective. They cannot understand why other aspects have to take months, and sometimes years. Is it the reality today that all of us in this House face in 1984, that it is good to have promises in the Budget? The Government might even have been sincere in bringing forth an action plan. Knowing full well that a federal election will intervene, it sees the political advantage of presenting it in this form. That might be greater than the actual benefits that the individual Canadian might receive from those proposals.

May 10, 1984
Supply
It is that kind of action which I believe debases people's respect for the parliamentary process and for the word of politicians. I ask Government Members to consider that seriously. When I look at the short-term and the second $25 which will become effective on December 1, 1984, will the legislation include that increase, or will subsequent legislation be needed? Again, taking into account the reality of a federal election sometime in 1984, one could very quickly see why pensioners are raising some serious questions as to the sincerity of the proposals themselves.
What about the longer term, Mr. Speaker? There is no question in my mind that pension reform is needed. Hon. Members opposite may not be surprised to hear this coming from me because they know me, but they may be surprised to hear this coming from an Opposition Member. I commend the chairman of the task force on pension reform and the task force itself, and I agree that we must address the questions of accountability, affordability, portability and private responsibility when dealing with pension reform. I recognize, and I think anyone who is realistic must recognize, that a government, regardless of its political stripe, cannot simply say that it will provide more and more to Canadians, when in fact it must be asking how it can get Canadians, through education or tax incentives, to take greater responsibility for their own future pension needs and future welfare.
Frankly I believe that we have done a disservice to many Canadians. Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s we left the impression that if governments at all levels would use a larger and larger proportion of the GNP, then somehow all Canadians would benefit or would benefit more than if they looked after themselves. Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that there is no role for government to play. I am simply saying that we cannot create an imbalance by telling Canadians to trust governments, because governments come and go. Lord knows that this Government must go. However, governments come and go and needs are modified. No one can adjust more quickly to one's individual needs than the individual himself or herself. That should be the criterion to be used when dealing with pension reform.
Having said that, I support the increase in the GIS because it addresses directly the problems of those who are most in need. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, mentioned various statistics. I do not have time to address those statistics today.
There is one group that is composed of people who do not have the ability, or have only a limited ability, to provide for themselves because of the circumstances in which they find themselves, and those are widows between the ages of 60 and 65. I am sure that every Member of the House has dealt with a case of a widow whose spouse was 65 years of age or older and received old age pension and GIS at the time of his death. Therefore, when the surviving spouse, who is generally the wife, reaches her sixtieth birthday, she would need to receive, at the very least, the spouse's allowance. However, if she has
not yet reached the age of 60, not only does she lose the pension of her deceased spouse but she does not even receive the spouse's allowance. At the same time, those spouses who are between the ages of 60 and 65 receive the old age pension as well as the spouse's allowance and continue to receive at least a portion of the spouse's allowance. I do not believe that there is any private pension system which can address that question. It must be addressed by public initiative.
I have looked at the statistics which deal with the situation to which I have referred. I have seen the number of people who fall into that category. I have looked at what the costs of the implementation of such a program would be. I simply say to Hon. Members that the cost, annualized over the next year, of giving that group of people the basic spouse's allowance, which I know would not be adequate but would at least be a recognition of their special circumstances, would amount to but a small portion of the amount of money that either of the aeronautics industries that have been referred to in the House in the past two weeks have requested for next year. That is what I mean by priorities.
I know that my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to spend a few moments dealing with the longer term. As I said earlier, pension reform can only be accomplished through a twinning of the private and the public sectors. I have no doubt that most of the proposals made by the task force have merit. This is not only because, as Hon. Members know, I deal with these questions within a fairly conservative fiscal framework. As well, I made the task force report available to a number of my colleagues who work in the life insurance business and who have actuarial training. You must know as well, Mr. Speaker, that these people are very cautious about any general pension plan expansion in the public sector. I would like to tell Hon. Members what they said. I believe that there will need to be some discussions regarding questions of mortality tables, for example, because, on average, females live longer than males do, but those are technical questions. Generally speaking, this is what my actuarial colleagues said of the task force generally, and I quote from their critique of the report:
On the matter of financing, it takes a stance that should be supported by a political party which believes in fiscal responsibility, honest accounting and disclosure, and minimal interference with individual initiative.
I could not have said that better myself, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that the dilemma of the Government is that pension reform takes a great deal of discussion and negotiation. It must be built upon the pillars to which I referred earlier and to which I believe the task force referred as well.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the fact that these matters are either complex or time consuming should mean that the process should not continue. Nor do I believe that, now that this Parliament is hopefully in its twilight days, this initiative should end simply because a federal election will intervene. If we do not continue the process, there is no question in my mind that we will continue with the same old programs.
May 10, 1984

Though such programs as the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, the GIS and the Canada Assistance Plan are valid individually, we must put together a comprehensive pension reform. If we do not do so, I see, as I look at an aging population, as I look at my colleagues in the House who are getting older and as I look at society as a whole, that there is no way that we can be honest to society by saying that the public purse will provide an adequate standard of income for the aged. This cannot be done without requiring that people make provision today for their future. That is not to say that there will not always be a certain component of society that will need public help. I am not arguing that point at all, nor am I trying in any way to be mean-spirited about the issue. 1 am simply saying that if the pension system is to survive, that is the question we must address and that is how we must address it.
It has been mentioned that the CPP is not actuarially broke but that it is sound. That depends upon which side of the CPP one looks. One can look at it in terms of its obligations today, should those obligations be called, as against the pay-outs that are being made at the present time. When looking at the payouts that are being made at the present time, the plan is generally sound, although I have heard mentioned that it will be sound only until about the year 2005.
We have all heard our constituents say to us that they hope there will still be a pension plan when they retire. The point that surely must be made is that we must take the initiative today, because there is a mood in the country for pension reform based upon the principles we have enunciated. I am saying to the Liberal Government or, should we have the responsibility after the next election, to the Conservative Government, that regardless of our partisan positions, that goal is surely one which is valid for all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Guilbault):: A ten-minute period is now provided for questions and answers. Are there any questions?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I was slightly confused this morning when the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) made her speech. She talked about the one section of our report in which we had recommended going from a tax deduction system on the tax treatment area of the pension funds to a tax credit in order to attract a lot more of our lower and middle-income group people to go into a pension plan of their own volition. Am I to take it from the remarks of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands this morning that the policy of the Conservative Party in this area is to recommend going to a tax credit system from a tax deduction? Could I have some clarification?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is a valid question. My personal bias has always been toward the tax credit. If one looks at the registered pension accounts, one sees that they work better under that kind of system. The task force also recommended,
Supply
for example, that RSPs could not be rolled over for other uses other than for pension purposes. I believe that when one takes a look at the RSPs, the RPAs and the tax credit, one sees that those three have to be combined.
The question I would have, and it needs some discussion, is whether the 40 per cent limit on the tax credit which the task force recommended, while it might meet the objective of the lower income group, would not cut out-and that is one of the criticisms in the task force report-the managerial classes or those with higher incomes. And is there any purpose or point in doing so? While that is not a complete answer, I believe that is the area of discussion we must have in terms of any agreement we can come to on tax credits.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any more questions? Debate.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would just like to thank the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) because I feel he shows a good grasp of the issues considering that he was not a member of the all-party task force. I believe he has added a great deal to the debate here this afternoon.
I would also like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for the work they put into the preparation of our report on pension reform. I found the process itself was very creative and I feel most of us would have to agree, having seen the results of our recommendations put into effect so quickly in the Budget documents, that it makes us, I suppose, thankful that the work we put in in 1983 was worth the effort.
I would like to begin by saying that I could not agree with the Hon. Member for Provencher more when he stated that it is imperative that we, as Canadians, teach the present generation who are in the work force today to put aside more money from current consumption and plan for their own retirement years. I believe that this is the message we will have to give loud and clear, regardless of political stripe. We will have to teach ourselves to save money.
There were three premises, which meant a great deal in terms of the recommendations which emanated from the task force. First and foremost, we believe very strongly that the tripod, which was developed until now in terms of delivering the retirement income system which we all take for granted, was sound, and it was based on the need for the private individual to save some money on his own, to have access to a private pension plan, to have his own personal savings and, in addition, to rely on the public pension plan itself. In other words, we were very much aware, when we made our recommendations, that we would not disturb that tripod which has served Canadians relatively well in their retirement years until now. As a result of that, we did not recommend a significant expansion of the Canada Pension Plan.
There were many groups of people, largely labour and some women's groups, who came before our committee and asked for a doubling of the Canada Pension Plan. One of the major reasons why we rejected the call for a doubling of the Canada Pension Plan was that we had a great deal of concern about

May 10, 1984
Supply
the burden we would have to place on the next generation of Canadians who would pay for that pension system. I believe very few Canadians are aware that it costs now 3.6 per cent of their income to pay for existing levels of the Canada Pension Plan. It will have to rise to 8 per cent to 10 per cent of their income just to pay for the existing levels by somewhere around the year 2015.
Had we made a recommendation to double the Canada Pension Plan, it would have meant that my children would have to pay roughly 16 per cent to 18 per cent of their income just to pay for that kind of Canada Pension Plan. My feeling was-and I believe it was shared by eight of the nine members on the task force-that if we were to place that kind of burden on the next generation of Canadians, we would have a reneging of that intergenerational transfer burden. Hence, we did not recommend a doubling of the Canada Pension Plan.
That was one of the first things that we accepted as a given in the whole pension debate. The second point, which played a great part in terms of our recommendations, was the new emerging work pattern we have witnessed until now. We recognize that young Canadians who enter the work force today are, more than likely, going to have to work in two or three different provinces during their lifetime. They are going to have to be much more mobile in their quest for employment. Perhaps they will be in a place where they will only be working part time. Certainly, the whole concept of work sharing may, in fact, be an emerging work pattern, and the pension plan will have to be flexible enough to accommodate that kind of emerging work pattern.
Those work patterns led us to make an awful lot of recommendations about creating a much more flexible pension system in the country. I am not talking now of the public pension system but, rather, of the private pension system. That led to our recommendation that the vesting period be only two years rather than the current ten years.
We recommended the creation of registered pension accounts so that, as the worker moved from one work place to another, he could transfer his pension assets into that registered pension account. That addressed the portability issue. It led us to make recommendations for a minimum degree of inflation protection for the workers' assets, although we have had differences of opinion on whether the formula we recommended or the one which was presented in the Budget is the correct one. I believe all Parties now agree that some degree of minimum inflation protection is necessary in the workers' interest. Therefore, the emerging work patterns had a lot to do with our recommendations.
Last, but not least, the emerging family pattern had a lot to do with many of the recommendations we made. These are largely, I suppose, women's issues. Certainly, the emerging family pattern where we witnessed some 40 per cent of today's marriages ending in divorce led us to make recommendations on improvements to the division of assets upon marriage breakdown between the spouses. It led us to make recommendations under the Canada Pension Plan so that upon remarriage, as an example, one does not lose one's pension assets
which have been accrued. It made for a number of recommendations with respect to the inclusion of home makers in the Canada Pension Plan.
The Hon. Member for Provencher did not mention this in his speech, but the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) stated that the Conservative Party's position on that is to favour the inclusion of home makers in the Canada Pension Plan. I would like the Hon. Member for Provencher to know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has agreed to that position before the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. However, with respect to the inclusion of home makers in the Canada Pension Plan, although it would appear that we have agreement on both sides of the House, the fact of the matter is that any changes to the Canada Pension Plan require the approval of two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the population. Hence, that kind of formula means that the Province of Ontario has in effect a veto power. As recently as a month ago, the Treasurer of the Province of Ontario, Mr. Allan Grossman, stated that in his plans for pension reform he does not favour the inclusion of home makers in the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore, I would say to the Hon. Member for Provencher and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands that evidently there will have to be some political pressures placed upon the Treasurer of Ontario if we wish to see the inclusion of home makers in the Canada Pension Plan.
I want to deal now with the motion itself, Mr. Speaker. The legislation for the increase in the GIS planned to take effect on July 1 of this year and on January 1, 1985, is in the formative stage and the Government House Leader plans to introduce it shortly. The Hon. Member for Provencher well knows that those Bills are negotiated between the Government House Leader and his counterparts in the Conservative and NDP Parties. I have no doubt that the GIS provisions in the February Budget will be implemented on time.
Other areas which would reflect on the need for legislative changes regarding pension form are much more complex than what has been indicated by the Hon. Member for Provencher and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands. The federal Government has jurisdiction only over some 14 per cent of the pension plans in the country. In other words, 86 per cent of private pension plans fall under provincial jurisdiction. In the area in which we have complete jurisdiction, that is the banking sector and companies involved in transportation between the provinces, we put forward a background document in the Budget to bring forward legislation which would make significant changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Because of the complexity of the changes, we need to have a lot more discussion between the employers and employees affected and the federal Government. As a result, we have a technical team at the present time going across the country soliciting responses to the paper we presented in the Budget.
Last but not the least, Mr. Speaker, we have some concern concerning the tax treatment of pension funds. I am glad to
May 10, 1984

report that the Minister of Finance and the Government accepted the basic thrust of the recommendations in my report to have a more equitable tax treatment of funds set aside for pension purposes. It was recognized by all members of the task force that people who belong to defined benefit pension plans have a significant tax advantage over those who do not. Those people, who are largely self-employed or who are professionals or small business persons, who were limited to the $5,500/$3,-500 rule were adversely treated as compared to those who had access to a defined benefit plan. As a result, the federal Government accepted the concept of a lifetime limit of tax assisted moneys, which resulted in a significant increase in the upper limits. The Budget proposal is to raise the limit from $5,500 in 1984 to $10,000 in 1985, and then, in incremental steps, to $15,500 by the year 1988. There will then be significant changes for those who belong to defined benefit plans. Phase two of pension reform, beginning in 1988, is to place a value on the defined benefit plan so that if a worker is entitled to more tax room it would be deducted from those new upper limits. Hopefully, between now and the end of June the Budget papers, which we hope will be adopted by the House, will reflect those new limits and put them into effect. But there are technical difficulties in getting the system to accommodate those new upper limits. As a result, legislation which would reflect those complexities will have to be introduced in the fall. It was well known, even at the time of the Budget, that we would require a technical group to meet with representatives of the industry in order to adjust the system to accommodate this new concept of lifetime limits for tax purposes.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that the GIS legislation will be introduced in the House between now and the end of June. I think it will take at least until the fall to introduce the changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act because of the complexities I mentioned. I do not think any Member of the House would advocate creating a degree of uncertainty in financial markets by not agreeing to those new upper limits between now and December of this year.
I wanted to point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that the task force made a number of recommendations with respect to changes in the Canada Pension Plan. They are significant. Because the Province of Ontario has the power of veto, it is going to require extensive negotiations between the provinces and the federal Government. I am hopeful that the legislative agenda for pension reform will largely reflect this over the next 12 months. A meeting is to be convened by the Treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Grossman, of the Ministers responsible for this legislation on June 5. He is hopeful that there will be consensus concerning the legislative agenda for pension reform. I assume that this will in turn create consensus on the need for changes to the CPP. This Government has long recommended significant changes in the CPP disability payments. Two years ago, the Minister put a proposal before her provincial counterparts which would have doubled those payments. At that time, the Treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Frank Miller, rejected the doubling of disability payments. I am pleased to report that in a speech just three weeks ago the current Treasurer of the
Supply
Province of Ontario has agreed to the doubling of these payments. This will mean an awful lot to our constituents.
As the Hon. Member for Provencher mentioned, and I happen to agree with him, many of our problems have to do with people between the ages of 60 and 64, a lot of whom are widows. I think it is fair to say, as I look around the House at other Members, that we have a great deal of difficulty with people who have to rely on CPP disability payments to survive. We all recognize that those levels are far too low, so I am pleased that Mr. Grossman has finally removed the veto and we can get on with the changes to the CPP to allow people to live in a minimum of comfort and security.
Also, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have agreement on improvements to survivors' benefits as recommended by our task force and consequent to the changes in the CPP. It appears that we have unanimity concerning the division of CPP assets upon marriage breakdown. Clearly I think we are on the path to pension reform. I anticipate that changes in the public pension system will occur much more quickly than changes in the private pensions, but I am also hopeful, provided we can get some degree of consensus from the June 5 meeting, that we can have private pension plan legislation introduced both federally and provincially over the next 12 to 18 months. Regardless of the timetable, it is clear that once the legislation is in effect for the public and private systems, it will reflect much better the needs of workers and women in the area of pensions.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I wish I shared the same optimism as my colleague. However, I have one or two questions which I think are of importance. As Chairman of the task force, the Member knows how important are these negotiations with the provinces regarding changes to the Canada Pension Plan. The provinces are not all that anxious to change the Canada Pension Plan.
The Member has heard concerns voiced by the task force with regard to people out of work between the ages of 60 and 65, particularly now with the high unemployment in the manufacturing areas. In his capacity as former Chairman of the task force, would the Member encourage his Government to make strong representations to provincial governments in renegotiations on the CPP to have some serious discussions about lowering the age of eligibility for CPP on a voluntary basis to age 60? This would provide adequate income to people between the ages of 60 and 65. It would also allow young people back into the work force who have been unable to obtain work in the last few years.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Member opposite. That is a course of action which I would hope we could convince our provincial counterparts to take. I agree that an actuarially reduced Canada and Quebec Pension Plan would be of some benefit to youth who are seeking employment. I have also thought on numerous occasions that we could probably use much more innovative private pension

May 10, 1984
Supply
funds to entice older workers who have a better pension to retire and leave their jobs to the younger workers. Hopefully that could be done.
I would like to point out to the Member opposite that one of the recommendations which we did make on the Canada Pension Plan, which deals in a peripheral way with his question, was agreed to by the Minister of Finance. Until now, the Canada Pension Plan has operated on the theory that a person entering the work force at the age of 18 will stay there until the age of 65. In other words, his maximum benefits are calculated on the basis of 47 years in the work force. 1 do not think that anyone in this room would suggest that the emerging work pattern means that people are going to stay in the work force for some 47 years. As a result of that, we made recommendations to change the requirements under the Canada Pension Plan from the maximum of 47 years to 35 years. This would better reflect the public pension plan and the situation which exists in private pension plans. More important, it would give more Canadians maximum payments under the Canada Pension Plan. Only 18 per cent of Canadians who retired in 1983 qualify for the maximum payment under Canada Pension Plan. That position has been accepted by the Minister of Finance. Hopefully, it will be adopted by our provincial counterparts as well.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Sudbury was speaking about the GIS increases. I would like to mention a case in which a person, who is allegedly going to get a $25 increase, is actually going to have a decreased income. That is because the workmen's compensation contribution is going to be considered, which was never done before.
There are three payments under compensation. One is regular compensation. If I am working in a mine and a lump of coal hits my shoulder and dislocates my shoulder bone, I will receive regular compensation until that is healed and I can go back to work. That payment is not likely to affect people who are 65 or older. The second payment is called temporary partial disability. If my shoulder does not heal in the regular length of time and I have therapy for it, I am put on a temporary partial disability pension. That will not likely affect most older people either. The payment which is going to affect most people over 65 is the third one; the permanent partial disability. An example of that is a person who loses his hand or foot. After it is healed, he still does not have his hand or foot. He must go through life without it. That is a contribution he has made to industry. That payment is not wages. The regular compensation is in lieu of wages. Permanent partial disability has nothing to do with wages because he has lost part of his body in industry. That should not be considered as income under any circumstances.
I raised this point with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) a few weeks ago. She was going to discuss it with the Minister. I have not heard from her or from the Minister as yet. I would like to raise this matter with the Hon. Member for Sudbury. It is a real injustice for someone who has a permanent partial disability to have a reduction in income because he lost a hand or foot and is now
being paid for that loss. Would the Hon. Member comment on that?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite raises a valid point, which perhaps an all-Party committee of the House could investigate. It is not only the area of workmen's compensation which confuses the Canadian public. For the purpose of testing, veterans' allowance does not qualify for purposes of the guaranteed income supplement. Yet we do that now for workmen's compensation and not in the case of veterans allowances. If our system is going to require some kind of income testing, the rationale should be the same for all. We have now created a sort of hodge-podge of regulations. This matter must be reviewed by an all-Party committee which can hold hearings across the country. It certainly needs clarification. The Hon. Member has pointed out a glaring example of an inequity which should be addressed.
I would like to give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of a sentiment which was expressed before our task force by a number of people who are now pensioned. They were pensioned on plans which did not have any indexation factor. As an example, the CN pensioners made a very compassionate case for retroactive lump sum payments from their funds to pensioners. The committee agreed that this should be done. We felt that if there is one glaring example of an injustice in this country, it is what has occured to pensioners under the CN plan.
The difficulty which we have under the guaranteed income supplement system is that if we were to convince CN to give a lump sum payment, or at least to increase the monthly payments to their pensioners, almost half of it would be lost because they would be losing their qualification for the guaranteed income supplement. Our recommendation was that it should lie outside for purposes of income testing. That is another example of something which must be rationalized in the system. I think it would be a worthwhile pursuit for all three political parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any more questions?


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have only one more question. The point which the Hon. Member made with regard to the guaranteed income supplement is a good reason why we should reduce dependence on the GIS. My Party and I were surprised by the generous provision of up to $15,000 in tax assistance for upper income individuals. This means that an individual making $86,000 could deduct $7,500 from income tax, if he were at a 50 per cent tax rate. I know that the Member shared the concern of the task force about how much assistance should legitimately be given to higher income individuals. Is the Member aware of any cost estimates which this limit of $15,000 is going to put on the tax system when fully operational in 1988?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that when it is fully operational from 1988 onward, government estimates would be somewhere in the area of $250 million. It is fair to
May 10, 1984

state that the recommendation of our task force was to have tax assistance at a significantly lower amount than that which was reflected in the February Budget. To be fair, it was also stated that if we implemented the recommendation of my own task force, we would be affecting not just upper income level Canadians; we would be hitting very hard as well at the average International Nickel Company worker.
Therefore, we did in effect what the Minister of Finance did in his February Budget. We accepted the principle of lifetime tax assistance. At the same time, we maintained the levels as they are at the present time under the present legislation, which is up to $60,000 of pension per year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to participate in the Opposition motion that is before us today. Let me begin by quoting the motion:
That this House profoundly regrets the two-year delay of the Government in bringing in promised legislation to improve Guaranteed Income Supplements for low income single elderly Canadians, and condemns the Government for its failure to respond to the innovative proposals of the all-party Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform to expand opportunities for Canadians under age 65 to make adequate provision for income in their retirement years.
When I first heard the motion that was placed before the House, I remembered a time before my adult active involvement in the labour movement or the political process in this country in 1947 to 1949 when the United Autoworkers in the United States and later in Canada began their campaign for a pension plan in the auto industry. Since then much progress has been made with respect to industrially negotiated pension plans and public pension plans on both sides of the border, particularly on the Canadian side of the border. At that time there was a short song "too old to work and too young to die" which became a symbol for the people at that time. That expression is still singularly appropriate to the conditions in which many of our citizens, particularly those who work in heavy industry, still find themselves. The song, which was sung by Joe Glazer, the educational director of the United Rubber Workers at that time, who often travelled among various groups of workers in industry, is as follows:
They put horses to pasture, they feed them on hay.
Even machines get retired some day.
The bosses get pensions when their days are through,
Fat pensions for them, brother, nothing for you.
... Who will take care of you,
How'll you get by
When you're too old to work and too young to die?
Those who have not worked as life-termers in heavy industry may think that that day has passed. However, anyone who is familiar with the mining and smelting industry knows that the number of people who take early retirement in that industry due to union negotiated pension plans often die before the age of 58 or 60, or very soon after they go on pensions. This is largely due to health hazards that still exist not only in the mining and smelting industry but the chemical and other
Supply
industries as well. Furthermore, it is the hazards from those industries that affect the surrounding communities. These hazards exist partly because we have not conducted the necessary industrial clean-up, both in and out of those installations, that should have been carried out.
Hopefully the Government and the Official Opposition are seriously considering reducing the retirement age to 60. Certainly the NDP has discussed and advocated this step for a long time. But at a time when we are all collectively considering reducing the retirement age to 60, we should seriously consider the fact that there are thousands of Canadians who retire at age 58 or 60 but who do not live long enough to collect pensions for more than a few months. It is still a serious situation and one to which this song still applies. They may still ask how we will get by when we are too old to work and too young to die.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) a moment ago. I believe he said that the Government would soon introduce legislation to provide for the increase in the guaranteed income supplement. The word he used was "shortly". I trust that he will forgive those of us in this Party for not exactly being excited by the use of his word "shortly". We saw an example of this in Question Period today in reference to the former Minister of Labour who stated on June 1, 1981, that an even then long awaited and still awaited important piece of legislation affecting life and death in the work place would be introduced "in the near future". I do not know how the word "shortly" relates to the words "in the near future", but I think the Hon. Member would forgive us for being suspicious and preferring to have the legislation in hand before showing great excitement. However, the statement is welcomed and I hope it will be followed through.
Canada must have the most studies conducted of any country on earth. With respect to the question of pensions, there has been a task force, a couple of Throne Speeches as well as a Budget. That Budget mentions studies which followed the studies of the task force, which in turn followed previous studies which have lasted for years. We have seen green papers, and I suppose there will be white papers. Perhaps there will be a whole rainbow of papers before we begin to seriously accomplish even some of the extremely limited recommendations made by the recent task force on pension reform.
The last Budget had a section entitled "Building Pensions for Canadians". Stage one is to be implemented on January 1, 1985. They are rather limited recommendations. Stage two is to commence on January 1, 1988. This will take place in three or four years, and in the words of the former Minister of Labour, I suppose that is in the near future. However, it still puts off to a future time any meaningful suggestions in the Budget. For instance, there is "the annual dollar ceiling on deductible contributions to all types of pension plans which rises to $15,500. Second, "the carry-forward provision for deduction entitlements for both money purchase and defined benefit plans comes into force. Entitlements from 1985 onward can be claimed". Third, "the two types of plan are integrated into one comprehensive system of tax assistance limits".

May 10, 1984
Supply
Fourth, "maximum pension and contribution limits will be indexed by changes in the average industrial wage starting in 1989". It is stated "that the changes will not be retroactive". That is at least one definite statement, that "the changes will not be retroactive".
The same Budget has another booklet entitled Action plan for pension reform. Building better pensions for Canadians. At page 13 there appears, in big black headlines, "A Time to Act". It states that "the Government is determined to ensure that pension benefits and coverage are sufficiently improved so that all Canadians have an adequate retirement income. Accordingly, it states, "the Government undertakes to monitor closely the reaction of provinces and the private sector to the proposals for pension reform presented in the Budget, and it will be ready to discuss with them whatever additional steps may be required". This was stated under the heading "A Time to Act". The Government states that it will "monitor" the attitudes of the private sector and of the provinces.
The Government says that it will be monitoring, over a period of who knows how long, to see what the attitude of the provinces will be before moving on its budget proposals contained in the section entitled "A Time to Act", under an "action plan for pension reform". I will help the Government monitor more quickly by bringing a certain situation to its attention. This situation is taking place in a number of provinces. I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is all too familiar with it. Approximately a week ago, one of my constituents brought me his and his wife's cheque stubs. Mr. Raymond Rhodes of Site 18, Comp. 31, RR 2, Castlegar, had a cheque from the Government of Canada which represented a monthly increase from $440.64 to $441.39. Of course, that was to accompany the indexed section of his pension. It is an increase of 75 cents. That cheque came in April, 1984. On April 26, 1984, a cheque was issued from the Province of British Columbia in which he received a supplement from that province which, as all Members know, is as a result of a federal and provincial agreement on how pensions work or do not work in this country. His income from the Province of British Columbia was reduced from a March payment of $21.83 to a payment of $18.83, a reduction of $3. As a result of the "very well co-ordinated" system in this country, and the attitudes of the provinces-which I do not think need to be monitored-at least the attitude of the Province of B.C. does not have to be "monitored" any longer- and this generous system, he lost $2.25 in April, 1984 over March. The figures are very comparable. In fact the amounts are exactly the same for his wife, Mrs. Ruby Z. Rhodes of the same address. Together, they have lost $4.50 per month as a result of this indexation and as a result of the attitude of at least one of the three provinces at least it used to be a have province. It is questionable nowadays. But as a result of the attitude of B.C. and the Conservative-Social Credit coalition, the Liberal-Conservative-Social Credit coalition-it incudes them all-government of that province, the Rhodes lost this money.
Whose other attitudes are we going to monitor? We know that British Columbia has not been alone in their attitude. Have we really changed our attitudes very much, even looking back all the way? Certainly we have made some social progress. But have we really changed that much since that day in 1926 when J. S. Woodsworth and A. A. Heaps, one "the leader" and one "the group", the independent Labour Members of this House at that time, held the balance of power between Mackenzie King's Liberals and the Conservative Party? They were able to wring a concession from the Government. I keep a copy of the letter in my office. I have had it since I was a kid. It is one of the things of which anyone in the Social Democratic movement in this country would be very proud. A balance of power held by two members was able to wring out of Mr. King at that time a concession that he would introduce the beginning of an old age pension-albeit with a means test-and would consider an unemployment insurance system. The Prime Minister at that time made the commitment. We got old age pensions of $20 a month, I believe with a means test. We also got a promise to consider unemployment insurance. That consideration was for the "near future". But we had to wait from 1926 until the Second World War in order to get that concession that was being placed under "active consideration."
I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and in our predecessor Party the CCF, a Party in which I also had the opportunity to be active while I was still a young adult, have felt proud of the contribution that we have made, not only then but on a number of times and in many situations ever since.
I could go on and list a number of those occasions but I think I will relate to just one instance having to do with the late Judy LaMarsh. I believe Ms. LaMarsh, the then Minister of National Health and Welfare, was hosting a party in her office to celebrate the passage of the Canada Pension Plan. The hon. lady had the grace, courtesy and knowledge to propose a toast. Her toast was to another one of our colleagues. He is currently a colleague, the House Leader of this Party, the Hon. Stanley Knowles. As all Canadians know, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has played an important role in the development and improvement over the years of the Canada pension system. Most notably he and his colleagues at that time fought the good fight in order that we could begin to build a Canada Pension Plan that would work then and in the future to provide a more generous pension regime for at least all working Canadians. We have continued to add to that and will continue to add to it in the future in some ways along the lines of the report of the task force, hopefully more along the lines of the minority report filed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), in order to provide better pensions and more secure pensions that keep in line with the cost of living and allow people to collect pensions before they die.
In his report my colleague began with a quote from the House of Commons Debates for November 9, 1964. It was
May 10, 1984

from a speech made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, who said:
What I like most of all about the Canada pension plan-about the two stage plan which we are now developing for Canadians in their years of retirement-is that we are trying to reach a position where we are providing pensions that are adequate. I do not suggest that the levels which will be achieved by combining the Canada pension plan, at its best, with old age security, at its present level, are really the last words in adequacy, but at least we are talking about pensions of quite a different order from that which seemed to be accepted a few years or decades ago. I hope that, having accepted the principle that retirement security should be on the basis of adequacy, we will go on improving that basis, finding ways and means of raising the levels of our pensions so that all Canadians can look forward to a retirement in decency and dignity.
I hope that all Members of the House can say Amen to that.
I have sat in this House and observed the Government on the other side for four years. Its Members have sat on their seats for four years, only to come up in the last few months with a paper which says, it is "A Time to Act". But that action is still off in a never-never land. The Government has waited a full four years before it has even begun to talk like a Liberal Government. Its members have been acting like Conservatives for four years and the Government has become increasingly unpopular. Members of the Liberal Government are still acting like Conservatives, but now that an election is approaching they are going to talk like Liberals. The last Budget was a classic example. It was Conservative economics and Liberals politics, the worst of both worlds.
We look to the Opposition for something different. But what do we have? We have the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the finance critic for the Conservative Party, who talks about having to be "mean and nasty" and having to do all kinds of things to people. He goes rambling off in long interviews with reporters from The Globe and Mail and from elsewhere. He says that he would like to think about introducing means tests for baby bonuses, family allowances, and maybe some of the other social measures but that this is not the time. That is what he said. The finance critic for the Conservative Party said this is not the time to introduce a means test for all those social programs.
I wish he were here because I would like to ask him, when is the time? Is it after an election, when we might be unfortunate enough to see a Conservative government acting like Conservatives instead of a Liberal government acting like Conservatives? Is that the appropriate time? My God, Mr. Speaker, we already have a Government in British Columbia composed of Liberals and Conservatives and some old Socreds who do not know the difference anymore. We have had lots of experience with them. They are the people who issued the cheques in April, 1984 who took away in spades the pitiful amount that was just passed on to those same pensioners by this federal Government in the last few weeks.
I want to address briefly in discussing this motion the whole question of a means test versus universality. I will conclude quickly. I am afraid, for all of the economic arguments-and there are some good ones although I think some short-sighted economic arguments may prevail, that we could introduce more means tests to a number of our social programs, including more of our pension systems. But if we do that, we will in effect cut off virtually everyone who is approaching the
Supply
average industrial wage from receiving benefits. I would caution some of the more progressive Members on that side of the House that if we ever adopt such a regime, many of the workers in Canada, especially organized workers, for whom those of us who have had a chance to take some positions of leadership in the labour movement, who have been able to help keep on side in terms of social progress all the time, even sometimes at a cost to themselves, may well say, "We are paying a lion's share of taxes. How come we do not get any of the benefits? If you look at eligibility for the whole range of income related social program, federally and provincially, it is just below the average industrial wage where those cut-off lines always come into play either totally or in part. It would be the greatest disservice to social progress if we were ever to follow the very poor and poorly thought out advice for means tests rather than universality.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Any questions or comments relating to the Hon. Member's remarks?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate. Adequate pension benefits are important for all citizens, particularly women who until now have been the losers in many pension plans for reasons we all know.
In 1979, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first started applying the federal Government's commitment to pension reform, a special emphasis was placed upon the particular problems facing women under the current pension system in Canada. Following the National Pensions Conference in 1981, a number of seminars were conducted by various women's groups across the country. The overwhelming participation of women in these seminars was a clear indication of their concern about the inadequacies of the pension system and their personal commitment to reform.
In December, 1982, with the release of the federal green paper on pension reform, an accompanying document called Focus on Women was released. Later, the parliamentary Special Committee on Pension Reform was requested by the Government to consult the public on those issues of specific concern to women. The Government's consistent commitment to today's elderly women and to future generations of women is a matter of public record since 1979. The extensive periods of study are now over. The February Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) left no doubt that improving the pension system for women is a priority of the Government in 1984.
Today, I would like to outline how and why the Government is intending to bring about much-needed pension reform, with particular emphasis upon those initiatives which will be of benefit to women. Let me begin with the public pension system, namely the old age security program and the Canada Pension Plan. These, of course, are the areas where the federal Government has the greatest authority. Under the old age

May 10, 1984
Supply
security program, every Canadian citizen or legal resident of Canada who has lived in Canada for at least 10 years is eligible to receive a basic monthly pension at age 65. The amount is raised every three months to reflect increases in the cost of living. The residence rules under the old age security program were changed in 1977, so that persons who immigrated to Canada after that date with no prior residence, will receive an old age security pension at the rate of one-fortieth of the full amount for each year they have lived in Canada.
Receipt of this basic monthly pension depends solely upon age and upon the number of years a person has lived in Canada. It is not necessary for a person to have been a member of the paid labour force. In addition, for those pensioners who have little or no other income, the old age security program provides the income-tested guaranteed income supplement. This is determined in proportion to the other income of pensioners. Also, for the 60 to 64-year-old spouse of a lower-income pensioner, the OAS program provides a spouse's allowance which, like the guaranteed income supplement, is determined in relation to the couple's other income.
The purpose of the old age security program is to provide elderly persons with a level of income sufficient to meet basic living needs. For couples where both spouses are pensioners, the program is considered to meet that objective. However, the guarantee for single pensioners is not adequate. On that basis, the Government has promised to introduce legislation to increase the guaranteed income supplement single rate by $25 in July of this year and by a further $25 in December 1984. As well, those persons who receive only a partial old age security benefit, many of whom are immigrant women, will be provided with the same income guarantees as persons who receive the full pension. These changes will certainly help today's elderly, but what about tomorrow's pensioners?
The Canada Pension Plan was introduced in 1966. It is a social insurance program designed to provide a measure of income protection to members of the paid labour force and their families in the event of the earner's retirement, disability or death. Virtually all employees in Canada, be they full-time or part-time workers, contribute to the plan at the rate of 1.8 per cent of their salaries or wages up to a prescribed ceiling, with the employer making an equal contribution. Selfemployed persons contribute at the combined rate of 3.6 per cent. Of the 8.2 million contributors to the Canada Pension Plan, 3.2 million are women.
The benefit under the Canada Pension Plan is indexed every January in accordance with increases in the Consumer Price Index. All Canada Pension Plan benefits are fully portable. No matter how many times a worker changes jobs, he or she still receives a pension.
In recent years there have been a number of significant steps to improve pension protection for women under the Canada Pension Plan. For instance, beginning with the 1980 taxation year, women working with their husbands in small unincorporated family businesses can make contributions to the Canada Pension Plan if their salaries are deducted for tax purposes from the revenues of those businesses. Thus, many women who
were previously unable to have access to the plan are now able to build up pension credits in their own right.
Another important measure for women under the Canada Pension Plan, the child-rearing drop-out provision, was approved by the Parliament of Canada in 1977, and finally came into force last year following approval by the Government of Ontario. Now Canada Pension Plan contributors who leave the paid work force to raise children under age seven can drop those years of low or no earnings from the calculation of their final pension if it is to their advantage. The Economic Council of Canada estimated that using the drop-out provision may increase a woman's pension by as much as 22 per cent.
Another amendment to the CPP which was made in 1977 allows a spouse whose divorce became final after January 1978, to receive a split of the Canada Pension Plan credits earned by both spouses during the marriage. This provision treats accumulated pension credits as joint family assets. Given that one in three marriages now end in divorce, this is a significant feature for income protection of older divorced women.
I now want to mention briefly those areas where the Government is seeking further improvement. Amendments to the Canada Pension Plan can only be implemented with the approval of the Parliament of Canada, plus the approval of two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the Canadian population. For this reason, the Government of Canada will be seeking provincial co-operation this year to bring about changes outlined in the February Budget. These included the continuation of the survivor's benefit on remarriage and the extension of the credit-splitting provision to include marriage separation, as well as permitting credit splitting on application when the younger spouse reaches age 65.
While these immediate changes will improve pension protection afforded to women under the Canada Pension Plan, there are other areas of reform which will be included in the discussions with the provinces, including improved survivor and disability benefits.
Of the two public plans, the old age security program ensures that every person in Canada, whether or not he or she worked in the paid labour force, will have some level of income at age 65. Undoubtedly, the Canada Pension Plan as an employment-related plan provides better protection. It already provides coverage to most women in the paid labour force. It protects against low income years due to child rearing. It recognizes that pension credits are a joint family asset. It provides survivor benefits as well as fully portable and indexed benefits.
In contrast, when one looks at the third level of the retirement income system, the private plans, one sees very great failings there. This tier of the pension system was expected to provide employees with a retirement pension which reflected their pre-retirement earnings. Unfortunately, it is the exception rather than the rule when that happens.
May 10, 1984

In 1980, less than 50 per cent of employed paid workers belonged to a private plan. This situation is particularly serious for working women. Only 37.6 per cent were covered by a private pension plan. Apart from inadequate coverage, a woman who changes jobs a number of times or leaves the labour force to raise children may lose all her pension entitlements in private plans.
All of these factors, known in pension jargon as inadequacies in the portability, vesting and locking-in provisions of private plans, result in generally low and sometimes non-existent pension benefits for retired workers. In 1980, for example, only 24 per cent of old age security recipients received any private pension, and those pensions comprised only 11 per cent of the total income of all pensioners.
The odds against a woman receiving a decent company pension are high. Many will retire with what they think is a reasonable benefit, only to find that within a few years its purchasing power has been eroded due to inflation. While the benefits provided by the private pension plans provide cost of living adjustments, this is very rare with employer-sponsored plans. This creates particular problems for women who, on average, live ten years longer than men.
The federal Government has very little authority over employers' sponsored pension plans. There is a federal Pension Benefits Standards Act, but it covers only about 10 per cent of the work force. Authority for the remaining 90 per cent of plans members rests with the ten provincial governments, only seven of which have pension benefits standards legislation. This being the case, what can the Government of Canada do to shore up the weaknesses in the private pension system? It could set a good example with its own pension plan for its own public servants. Indeed, major changes were announced in this way in February which will be implemented by January 1, 1987. These changes will be of real benefit to those women who work for an employer who falls under federal jurisdiction and who has a contributory plan.
What about women who work for employers who do not offer a pension plan? This group is of special concern in particular because it involves so many women. One of the main reasons why many employed women do not have private pension coverage is that they work for small employers who do not feel they can afford the cost of setting up and administering their own plan.
A new tax-assisted retirement savings vehicle will be introduced, the registered pension account, which will accept contributions by both employees and employers which cannot be withdrawn until retirement. It is hoped that some of the smaller firms may find this to be an answer.
What I have outlined today is a package of reforms that represents a significant step toward providing improved financial protection for Canadians, especially for women when they reach retirement age. The process is far from complete. Consultation and co-operation with the provinces is critical to the implementation of the Government's proposals. I am pleased to see that the recent report published by the Government of Ontario endorses the federal Government's proposals
Supply
for 1984 changes in the public pension system. I hope that this is the beginning of action by other provinces as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining I would like to make some general remarks on this very important issue. I will begin by complimenting the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) on bringing the motion before the House today. By doing so, she has clearly demonstrated the concern that she and other Members of the Progressive Conservative Party feel, and the distress felt, that the Government has moved with inadequate dispatch in attempting to address the problems of the elderly, particularly the elderly poor.
I reject completely any suggestion made by Members to my left. I refer specifically to the speech of the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) who suggested, as members of his Party are sometimes prone to do, that somehow the members of the New Democratic Party have the exclusive right to care for the poor and the elderly.
The record of this Party stands for itself. Concern has been expressed many times in this House and elsewhere by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). The record of the Clark administration makes it very clear that we are extremely concerned about the well-being of the elderly and the poor. I suggest that a Progressive Conservative Government, as a result of reestablished priorities, would be in a better position to care for the needy than is the case now. The needy of Canada have nothing to fear from the prospects of a Progressive Conservative Government. In fact, I suspect they look forward to that opportunity.
This is a very important motion for two or three reasons. First, it addresses the problems of those who are often forgotten by the public at large and by Parliament. In this case, they have clearly been forgotten by this Government. I speak of the elderly and the poor. A short while ago, Maclean's Magazine addressed this subject in an article entitled "Canada's Forgotten Poor". Unfortunately, the measures which the Budget referred to and have not been brought to us with any kind of dispatch suggest that the problems of the elderly and the poor remain low in the priority of this Government. This issue is very important because, as others have said, very often it is women who fall into the category of the elderly poor. Because of the nature of the political system, women tend to be underrepresented in this House. Therefore, it is important that Parliament pay careful attention to their plight.
It is important in times of economic recession that we not forget the importance of social issues. There are many things which are of concern today, including the size of the national deficit. We are concerned about international crises. It is very easy for social issues to fall between the cracks in times like this.
This motion clearly points out how this Government has failed. It has failed to follow the recommendations of the

May 10, 1984
Adjournment Debate
parliamentary task force on pension reform. It has not brought in the recommended $102 per month increase in the guaranteed income supplement which was suggested. Instead, there will be a $25 increase, on July 1, we hope, and another $25, we hope, on December 1. We have, belatedly, half of what that all-Party task force recommended. By providing only half of what is necessary, this administration is failing to provide for the needs of those who fall into this category. We have also failed to address the problem of the near elderly, those between the ages of 60 and 65. In many ways, they are the most unfortunate of all. They, in particular, have fallen between the cracks.
There is no provision for those who were receiving spousal allowances and whose spouse died before the age of 65. All widowers and widows should be eligible for this kind of supplement between the ages of 60 and 65. I personally would favour the reduction of the qualifying age to 55.
Finally, in the last few moments left to me, I want to make a plea for the introduction of homemakers' pensions. Women who have remained in the home have made a substantial contribution to Canada throughout its history. Perhaps it is even more necessary now in times of economic restraint that we have such support within the home. Such women have earned the right to their own independent pensions and this is something which the House must address with great dispatch. Therefore, I strongly support the motion which calls upon the Government to change its priorities and to make the entire question of pension reform a matter of great urgency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please! It being six o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), to advise the House that the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on May 8, as recorded at pages 3503 and 3504 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier) to indicate how much money medical research would be receiving from the sports pool.
When Bill C-95, the Bill which established the sports pool, came before the House, the Government knew it had a very
sticky wicket because it was trying to get back into the lottery business, the gaming business and the gambling business. At that time, the Government decided that it needed to put some moral ribbon around the issue. It decided it needed some justification for returning to the gambling business. In typical Liberal style, it came up with something which at the moment looked good, but which upon second thought was as empty as the promises that were made. The Government said that any profits from the sports pool would first go toward the federal Government's obligations to the Calgary Olympics which are to be held in 1988. It is interesting to note that when the Calgary Olympics committee made application to host those Winter games, the federal Government committed itself to an expenditure of $200 million, but at no time did it say that that $200 million was conditional upon a sports pool being established.
That was not a good enough reason to get into the gambling business once again so the Government came up with two other reasons which it thought were foolproof. It indicated that money from the sports pool would go to arts and culture groups, such as symphonies, which are always strapped for money. As well, the Government became even more moralistic and said that it would put money from the sports pool into medical research. That, Mr. Speaker, was the moral element of an immoral Act.
There has been much controversy raging over the sports pool in the last few weeks. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the provincial Governments have taken the federal Government to court. In some cases, provincial Governments have been unplugging computer terminals in stores which sell Loto 6/49 and the sports pool. A counter-action has been taken by the courts which in some cases have asked the provincial Governments to restore those terminals. Suffice it to say that the Government has always put forward the sports pool concept as being one which would make good things like medical research happen.
This week the President of the Medical Research Council appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. At that time I asked him how much money the MRC had been promised by the Government for 1984-85 from profits from the sports pool. The answer was one which I expected, Mr. Speaker. He said that they had been promised nothing. Additionally, the MRC has a five-year plan, because in the field of medical research one needs forward planning. I then asked the President of the MRC how much money he will be getting from the sports pool for his next five-year plan. Again, the answer was interesting. He said that he is not counting on getting any money.
I thought that answer was valid until I asked the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport how much money would go to medical research. After all, Bill C-95 was passed by the Government, against the opposition of the other two Parties. I asked the Minister how much money would go to medical research for 1984-85 and for the five-year plan. The answer was very interesting. The Minister did not say none because he did not have the courage to say none. He might as well have said none because that is what his words meant. He said: "Oh,

May 10, 1984
Mr. Speaker, we are going to fund the Calgary Olympics. That's our first priority. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are interested in medical research and yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going to fund medical research." Elowever, what he failed to say, Mr. Speaker, was by how much and when.
That is the point which was made early in the debate on establishing that sports pool. Some of us said there will be no money forthcoming for medical research, it is only window dressing. The first committee I ever sat on in this House, Mr. Speaker, was the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, at which time we had the stamps and the lotteries for the Montreal Olympics. I remember the then mayor, who still is the Mayor of Montreal, said if we give him the Montreal Olympics deal it could no more have a deficit than he could have a baby. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for that genetic wonder to take place because the Montreal Olympics not only has a deficit, we are still paying and paying.
That will also be the case, Mr. Speaker, with this deal, and I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I am not interested in promises. I want to know today, and the medical research community wants to know today, how much money will it receive from the sports pool in 1984-1985? Second, how much money from the sports pool will go to MRC over the next five years?


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I support his concerns for medical research, as I am sure everyone in the House of Commons does. However, it is not really a question of where the money comes from which is so important. He talks about morals. I do not believe it is a question of morals, it is a question of money-money for medical research. It is not a question of where you get it from.
First, I would like to remind Hon. Members of the reasons for the federal Government getting involved in the so-called gaming business. In 1979, the short lived Clark Government made a deal with the provinces to get out of the lottery market in exchange for a given sum. This year that sum will amount to about $35 million. I should point out that this year the provinces expect to make a profit of about $500 million. So you can see that this was not a very good deal for the federal Government. But then what can you expect from a government which in 1979 could not count?
In keeping with the Clark decision to vacate the lottery market, the Liberals upon their return to power introduced legislation to enable the federal Government to enter the sports pool business. Contrary to claims made by the Opposition, this does not violate the 1979 agreement with the provinces, so I have been advised. The beneficiaries of the revenue from this new and exciting sports pool game are spelled out in the legislation.
In March of this year, the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier) signed an agreement with the 1988 Winter
Adjournment Debate
Olympics Organizing Committee for $200 million. This amount represents the largest single direct funding commitment by the federal Government for a sporting event. Commitments were also made in the areas of fitness and amateur sport, arts and culture, and health and medical research.
The Hon. Member for Provencher has raised the issue of funding for medical research. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that this year the federal Government will provide $170 million for medical research-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: $157 million, according to the chairman.


William Kenneth Robinson: Well, I have $170 million, of which $152 million will go to the Medical Research Council. As regards a five-year research funding plan, I am sure the Hon. Member will take this as notice and ask questions in this regard of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) when she appears before committee to discuss her departmental estimates.


AGRICULTURE-RED BEEF STABILIZATION PROGRAM. (B) STATUS OF DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to see if I can prod the Government. I know well the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), whom I respect, and I believe it fair to say that we are quite good friends. However, it is difficult to prod the Government through a Parliamentary Secretary who gets up and reads something which is prepared by the Department. Nevertheless, let me try, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, this side has been asking for a red meat stabilization program for Canadian producers of red meat for a considerable length of time. There is agreement among at least four of the provinces; Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, to have something like this created. There is an agreement in principle that a red meat stabilization program be put into effect. In fact, I have a press release from October 31, 1983, indicating agreement in principle on the red meat stabilization plan. The Government mentioned it in the Throne Speech in December. Both opposition Parties are in favour of this, and we have supported the Government, yet nothing happens. I suggest that if something does not happen very quickly, nothing will be done until we have a new session of Parliament or a new Government is elected.
There are financial problems in the industry, and one of the ways to rectify some of those problems is to have a so-called tri-partite red meat stabilization plan. The three parties involved would be the federal and provincial Government and the producers. The Minister is in favour, four of the provinces who represent a majority of the red meat industry are in favour, yet nothing happens.
The Minister is on record as of October 9, 1982, as saying that he would resign if something were not done concerning

May 10, 1984
Adjournment Debate
the marketing system of beef in this country. That is over a year ago and nothing has happened. He told us about a year and a half ago in committee that he has a plan in his back pocket but nothing has happened.
What I find very discouraging, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been no legislation of any kind in this session concerning this industry. All we have had is the tabling of a Bill to increase cash advances. We on this side would support that, but the Minister does not appear to have enough influence with his House Leader to have the legislation brought forward for debate. In fact, the only initiative taken by this Government in agriculture was about two weeks ago when the Farm Credit Corporation increased interest rates on loans. However, there have been a couple of initiatives from this side.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) moved a motion concerning the reduction of tax on farm fuels. That motion was referred to the committee. The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) moved a motion concerning the agri-bond concept, and that as well went to committee. So we have an opposition which has taken the initiative to try and reduce some of the problems in agriculture in this country, yet the Government has done nothing.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if a Minister is in favour of doing something and the Opposition supports him and he still cannot get it done, one must wonder what kind of support the Minister has in his own caucus for the things he wants to do. I refer to support, but the Government does not appear to make up its mind on what it is prepared to do.
Let me say again that we are prepared to support legislation establishing a red meat stabilization program on the basis of the press release issued by the Government in October, 1983, but we have to see the legislation. We have to get it through second reading, into committee, and then back to the House for third reading. There are only a limited number of days available until the end of June, I think something over 30 days. If we do not have that legislation fairly quickly nothing is going to happen. It is true that there are some concerns about it in the industry, but there has never been a better time to move in so far as prices are concerned. This is the time to do some of these things, not when you get into a crisis situation as we did in 1974 and 1975 with very low prices. This is the time to make some decisions and have the people who are affected come forward with some recommendations on what they want to see in this legislation. We cannot support phantom legislation. We must have legislation introduced as far as the House is concerned.
In closing, I suggest that anything the Government can do to bring forward this legislation to give us a chance to debate it before the end of June will be looked upon very favourably by our side. If we do not see this legislation, we will have to question whether the Government is at all sincere in addressing any of the concerns which Canadian agriculture presently has.


Mr. Andre Bachand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the question which the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) has raised concerning the establishment of the so-called tripartite red beef stabilization program. For nearly a decade the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his provincial counterparts have been trying to set up such a program.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me advise Hon. Members of the events which have taken place since the federal and provincial ministers of Agriculture met last summer in Prince Edward Island.
In Prince Edward Island, the provinces which are the larger red meat producers, namely, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, had agreed to examine together with the federal government a new program based on certain principles. On this basis, stabilization plans were developed and submitted last October to ministers and officials at a meeting held right here in Ottawa. Then, a series of meetings were organized with associations of producers and provincial governments to try and improve these plans. At a federal-provincial meeting which took place in Ottawa on February 9, further improvements were made. Thanks to these consultations, we now have an interim program which is being supported by the larger red meat producing provinces, by four provincial hog marketing boards, and by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. This program has been discussed by the Minister of Agriculture and his Cabinet colleagues who have approved the main provisions of the bill that they want to introduce in the House to set up a voluntary tripartite red beef stabilization program.
We hope that the bill now being drafted will receive the approval of the House and will be passed before we adjourn for the summer.
The Minister of Agriculture could then reach an agreement with his provincial counterparts when they meet in Winnipeg next July. Thereby, Canadian red meat producers could have a much needed program before the end of the year. This program will not merely be helping individual farmers, but it will also help put an end to the proliferation of stabilization programs which has resulted in a balkanization of the industry.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, we have gained the approval of Cabinet on the bill now being drafted and we would like these amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act to be accepted before Parliament adjourns for the summer so that firm agreements may be signed with the Provinces as early as next July.
May 10, 1984


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-GUYANA-INCREASE IN RACIAL AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE. (B) VISA REQUIREMENT FOR GUYANESE IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on March 14 I raised the question of Guyana, our sister commonwealth country, and the Guyanese people in Guyana and in Canada. 1 asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) whether Canada will condemn the systematic violence inflicted by the Burnham Government of Guyana on many of its people. I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) whether he will institute a special program for the Guyanese whom he is now shutting out by his visa requirement. Neither of them gave a serious answer. Therefore I now wish to return to the question.
Guyana is experiencing a very serious crisis. This tiny country of 500,000 people, smaller than many Canadian cities, sent over 400 people as immigrants to Canada in 1982 and over 500 in 1983. In 1983 alone 48 people were recognized by Canada as refugees. These were people with a well founded fear of persecution if they returned home to this so-called democratic country.
Guyana has a very serious food crisis. By present laws and police practices a person may be jailed and fined thousands of dollars for the possession of wheat flour. Whereas, of course, the fine for possession of marijuana is only a few hundred dollars. That illustrates the bizarre crisis and the cause of very severe malnutrition in Guyana. However, the attempts of Guyanese people to correct that by producing what they need are seriously hindered by a very violent and repressive government.
The government systematically encourages racial conflict, especially between people of East Indian origin and African origin, and also between people of African and European origin. It seems to rule by the principle of divide and conquer.
The police and the army are often involved in crimes. There is little or no recourse available through the courts, and, in fact, the government appears to be allowing crime to run free since the enforcers of the law are, themselves, taking part in it.
The Guyanese government in this respect is different from some other South American governments that may be repressive, but at least do not condone ordinary crime and violence except when they commit it themselves.
The violence appears to be directed against particular communities in Guyana, including the East Indians, Portuguese, the Chinese and the whites. This is the term used in Guyana that applies mostly to British or Dutch. Of course, there are also many mixtures.
Part of the reason for such attacks may be that some of these smaller groups have the position of merchants. Part of the reason is simply that the government, which is controlled almost entirely by people of African origin, chooses to allow violence to occur against those other groups.
Adjournment Debate
Furthermore, there is violence quite apparently directed against people who are perceived by the government of Guyana to be in opposition to it. The ruling party of Burnham, whose elections have been rigged and completely corrupt in the judgment of British and other international observors, is based on violent intimidation by black people who are primarily of African origin against other black persons, that is people of East Indian origin. In some cases, the support by an East Indian Guyanese of the opposition party, the Peoples' Progressive Party, is apparently enough to have him beaten and robbed of his land.
Another party in opposition, the Workers' Progressive Alliance, has attempted to bring people of different races together and, therefore, it is even more furiously attacked by the government of Burnham. Apparently they consider that racial unity among the people of Guyana would be a threat to their rule.
There is much evidence there of well founded fear of persecution on return, because it is almost impossible for a person who is blacklisted by the government in this small population to find another job. The government has taken over most of the enterprises and controls most of the jobs. Without a membership card in the People's National Congress, it is extremely difficult to find employment, especially for a person of East Indian origin.
Therefore, I am asking, in line with the letter written by the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) to both the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the government institute a special program, particularly a stay of deportation for up to a year, for Guyanese nationals in Canada who are claiming refugee status and whose cases need further examination because of the conditions in Guyana as yet unrecognized by our Government. I am asking that this Government monitor aid going to Guyana to see that it is going to the people who need it rather than to Government officials. I also ask that the Government publicly demand, within commonwealth channels, or in any other way, that the Government of Mr. Burnham in Guyana restore the practice of the protection of human rights and restore the practice of democratic elections, such as obtained there at the time of independence and for about ten years afterwards until the Burnham government took power about 20 years ago.
I hope the Government will respond to these points and not divert from them to other points.


Mrs. Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to answer the question put by the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) about human rights in Guyana and development assistance provided to that country.

May 10, 1984
Adjournment Debate
Regarding that part of the question which concerns visas and recognition of the Guyanese who are in this country, I will let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Dubois) provide the answer, since I think it more directly concerns his Department.
Mr. Speaker, I may point out to my hon. friend that a substantial reduction in the development aid being offered to Guyana would penalize the entire population of one of the poorest countries in the region. It would be contrary to our policy, which is to assist poor countries, irrespective of whether we feel they are being properly governed or not. Guyana does not have a good reputation in Canada, Mr. Speaker, especially as a result of allegations of electoral fraud. My hon. friend referred to racial violence, and there is also some talk of harassment of groups or individuals opposed to the regime,
restrictions on freedom of the press, police brutality and the rest. However, even if this country's human rights record is not exactly spotless, I still feel the situation is not as serious as it is often described. For instance, there are no political prisoners in Guyana, the rule of habeas corpus is observed, a fair trial is the norm, and unions have the right to organize, to negotiate and to call strikes. Furthermore, withdrawing aid from Guyana would bring about a breakdown of a vital part of our policy towards Caribbean Commonwealth countries, and would have serious consequences for its integrity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.27 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, May 11, 1984