1984-06-04

Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, let me say, first of all, that I certainly appreciate the healthy applause rising up from the Opposition benches. This augurs well for the debate on this Bill! I assume that Members will vote unanimously in favour of what will probably be the last Bill we shall be proposing in support of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, because once this Bill is passed, from then on all senior citizens will necessarily be above the poverty line.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-40 is basically focused on adding, in two slices, a full $50 a month, on top of the usual indexation, to what we call in the jargon "single pensioners" receiving the supplement. That means hundreds of thousands of seniors who are widows, widowers, single, separated, divorced and so on, who have no means or very little income other than what we call the "public pensions".
That is what this Bill is intended to do. However, we took the opportunity-and I am really confident that we will obtain the support of all Hon. Members of this House-to make other changes which will improve the pension system at the same time. These are small changes affecting perhaps 3,000 or even as few as 50 people a year. These are Canadians who for some technical reason fall between two chairs when it comes to the guaranteed income supplement. This, in a way, is a means to an end, and it is a happy end because it is the end to a very unhappy situation.
Some seniors, because of the limitations of, I suppose, the social sciences in preceding decades, still suffer a lot by not having a basic income guaranteed to them. Let me explain. In Canada, as in many other countries, I suppose-I would not know for sure until I researched the question-when we established the pension the concept was that a person who was
alone, for whatever reason, would receive half of what a couple receives. However, because of studies of family budgets and so on we now know that to live alone costs more than 50 per cent of a couple's needs. For example, the basic one-bedroom apartment, hydro and telephone will cost the same for a person alone as for a couple. Therefore, many groups-and in all fairness we should refer to them right now in this House-such as the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Senate Committee on Poverty and, I believe, the National Council on Welfare, have advocated that pensioners living alone and in need receive 60 per cent or a little more-which is what they are going to receive-of the budget of a couple.
That is why-and I do not say it in apology but in explanation-the couples who receive the supplement will not at this time receive a special increase. They will receive their usual indexation in July, next month. It is those, however, who are single and receive the supplement who will receive an additional $25 a month starting with their July cheque, and another additional $25 in their monthly cheques beginning in December. That, in a nutshell, is the purpose of this Bill.
I should mention that this increase will also be provided to widowed spouse's allowance recipients. Whatever their age or status, if they become widowed and they receive the spouse's allowance, which means they are younger than 65, which also means they are automatically in need, they will get the full $50 as well. In that way we are correcting what I would call a mistake of the past, of which I myself did not know. [Translation]
At this point I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is very important, that my colleague, the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), is to be commended for having brought this problem to the attention of the Government. When individuals receiving the spouse's allowance are widowed-and in most cases they are women-they do not receive the special increase for single persons because of a technicality in the Act. However, they are single, to all intents and purposes.
We are therefore correcting this, so that all widowed spouse allowance recipients will now receive the additional $50 provided in Bill C-40.1 think this is extremely important. [English]
I will make the point rapidly that many people who get this $50 are women. Unfortunately I do not have in my notes the exact percentage, but it is a majority and quite a high percentage. It reflects the make-up of society. The Hon. Member for

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), even if she is not always very nice to me when she speaks in this House, has joined forces with many of us to obtain changes in the pension system for homemakers. They raised the children, did unpaid voluntary work, or worked in the service industry or perhaps the small business enterprise of their husband, father or members of their family. They often had to work to help the family make ends meet without pay or with small pay and no private pension.
I also want to bring to the attention of Canadians that the group forming what we call the GIS pensioners, those who receive the supplement, are people in need. If they were younger than 65 they would be on welfare. We should not hide that fact from ourselves. We call it a supplement and there is no stigma attached to it, which I am very proud of. These people are in need and this Bill is not providing a luxury for them, it is a necessity.
To come back to this point of information, which I think should be shocking and shaking us all towards pension reform, the fact is that 235,000 single-rate pensioners in Canada have to receive the full supplement to the basic old age pension. That means they have absolutely nothing else in the way of income to live on during their old age. This is quite shocking for any country. It is dangerous as well because it means that a great number of Canadians, when they reach the so-called official age of retirement, will suffer quite a substantial fall in their standard of living. They may have their home paid for, especially in small towns or in rural Canada. However, in a city such as Montreal where 80 per cent of the people are tenants, they will not enjoy that benefit. That is a very worrying situation for the future and we want to address it.
Before moving to my next point I will explain something. The so-called single pensioners who get the supplement, even if only a partial supplement, will get the full additional $50, twice $25. People should know that. We are broadening the base of those who will get the supplement. There are those in the grey area of being very close to the poverty line. We are increasing the base. Our departmental estimates indicate that 25,000 old age pensioners who are not receiving any supplement will start to qualify immediately for a small supplement. They should check with my numerous offices all over the country and their local MPs to see whether they will qualify. These people have very little income and should apply.
Recognizing that single GIS pensioners are in need of better financial assistance was very important but in a way was not new. I will refer to the task force of parliamentarians of the three Parties who participated in what is now called the great pension debate. The task force on pension reform which studied the reform of private pensions also studied all pensions, including the two public pensions. For these GIS pensioners the task force recommended a special top-up benefit of $102 per month taxed back at 100 per cent in the lowest income group. Many Members and many Canadians think that would have been much better. However, it would have totally
changed the system. It would have been better for some but it would have eliminated a lot of GIS pensioners from receiving the supplement.
Let me explain why I did not recommend that to the Government. The reason is that the $102 per month with a tax back rate of 100 per cent would have given more money immediately to those who have nothing but the GIS. However, any pensioners receiving any money from another source would have that amount deducted from their GIS. That is a problem. As a Minister I could not talk with the task force on pension reform because it must operate independently, but I think it is fair that I explain today to the House and my colleagues why I did not recommend that to the Government.
Our system has two advantages which would have been lost by the recommendation of the task force report. One advantage of our present system is that it is proportionately adapted to each dollar of additional income from other sources. It is a fine graduation from those who receive the full OAS and the GIS with no other income to those with limited other income, and finally to those who have other income but not enough to match what is missing by even $10 a month and takes them over the poverty line. There is no disruption in this system; it is a scale that is finely tuned to the realities.
The second advantage is that we only take back 50 per cent of other income and thereby leave them 50 cents on the dollar. This means that we have built in within the public pension system in Canada incentives for people to build up their own savings. I do not know if I am turning into a capitalist, I do not think so, but I believe it is sacrosanct to build in and keep incentives for Canadians to save toward their older days.


Mr. Epp:: Go ahead, become a capitalist.


Miss MacDonald:: That is John Turner's influence on you!


Monique Bégin: Yes, but with a heart. That is the difference. We need the money to spend afterwards. We need a viable economy because I know how to spend the money.
Of course, we want jobs first and a good economy at the same time. Then we can refine our social programs to have the fantastic safety net about which Canadians are so pleased.
This being said, and despite the way Opposition is teasing me-I take it that it is all in friendship which, of course, is very dangerous when it comes from them-let me speak about the money which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has provided in his Budget. In that Budget the Minister of Finance referred to the amount that this new program will cost. Of course, nothing can be established without a cost and I am proud that the Government saw fit to put aside, among its new expenditures, funds for two programs; jobs for young people in particular and funds for seniors in need to whom we have promised it as soon as the economy allows.
This year the increase will raise expenditures by $250 million. In the next fiscal year, 1985-86, there will be an additional cost of $460 million because the spending will be
June 4, 1984

over the full fiscal year. I am pleased that we are hearing less criticism that these are non-productive expenditures and that mine is a non-economic ministry. I am prepared to answer those criticisms.
That $250 million which we just added to the Budget and for which I am asking support at the second and final stages of this Bill will provide an additional $24 in the next month's cheque for single GIS pensioners. That money will return directly to the economy. It will be spent in the daily budget of those people and will return more rapidly to the economy than other savings as they meet their basic and immediate needs. It will increase consumer demand. In order to convince people that this is not wasted money, I can go as far as arguing that this expenditure of funds has an economic benefit that is equivalent to creating 3,000 new jobs this year and another 2,000 jobs next year. I suggest that there are not only social benefits to these social expenditures but economic benefits as well.
I am also asking Members to support the reform which this Act seeks to bring about. I think they will agree with it because we have taken a pragmatic approach to a problem that is typical of Canada as a country of immigrants.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one comment, and I think you will understand, since you are from Quebec yourself. Dr. Camille Laurin, who is now the Quebec Minister for Social Affairs, after a rather stormy career with the Department of Education-and I hope he will not take the same kind of action in our social affairs field-Dr. Laurin has stated all of a sudden that he wants to patriate old age security pensions. In the course of my usual activities on the weekend, I spoke to quite a number of senior citizens groups. There were senior citizens from various parts of Quebec, and these people came to ask me, to plead with me to keep the pension so that I would be there to make sure there were no problems and the Province of Quebec did not make a hash of something that was working quite well. So I would like to reassure our senior citizens and say that this is a lot of rhetoric! There is no reason at all for patriating pensions. The system has always worked very well. I would rather not make any more political comments than I have to, but I must say that I am rather surprised at this Government, this separatist Government which not so long ago said through its Premier, Mr. Levesque, that senior citizens were a total loss, that it was their fault that the people who wanted Quebec to separate had lost the referendum and that senior citizens were holding Quebec hostage because they would not allow the province to separate, but on the other hand, they would all be dead in a few years and then we could have another referendum!
I would just like to say one thing. There will always be pensioners, there will always be senior citizens in Quebec, with the intelligence and discernment to realize what the advan-
Old Age Security Act
tages are for Quebec within Confederation. Therefore, despite Dr. Laurin's ideological dreams, old age pensions will stay where they are. If Dr. Laurin wants to give Quebec senior citizens more, or if he wants to give something to people between 60 and 64, he can do so right now. According to the Constitution, he does not need the permission of the federal Government and he does not even have to consult me, he can go ahead and do it. That is something we must not forget. Other provinces do it and refer to these additional payments as top-ups. Many provinces do this for their senior citizens.

I said we were also making a few other reforms to the system. One touches immigrants. Canada in that sense is a special country. We have immigrants who come here permanently. At the beginning of 1977 I became Minister of National Health and Welfare. That year we reformed the old age pension system for immigrants because Canada's rules were all or nothing. A person had to have many years of residence or he or she did not qualify. One did not have an image of the exact situation. Under my predecessor, who is now the Minister of Finance, amendments were brought in which changed the number of years of residence needed to qualify. The qualifications were more practical reflecting Canadian reality. We opened the door to all reciprocity agreements signed with other countries. Roughly one-third of our population comes from other countries. People who came from other countries had neither sufficient years of residence in their own country nor in Canada to qualify for a full pension. We organized a system allowing pensions to be brought from other countries which could then be combined with earned pension rights here.

Oh!-And since the Member for Kent (Mr. Bossy) who happens to be of Belgian origin is right next to me, I would like to say that on May 10 of this year, I signed the latest reciprocal agreement on old age security pensions in Brussels, at the Palais des comtes d'Egmont, an agreement which will make it possible for all Canadians of Belgian origin, immigrants of Belgian origin, and also people who decide to settle in Belgium, to qualify for their full pension, through the Canadian and Belgian governments. This is the sixth or seventh country with which we have signed an agreement, something that is very much appreciated, of course, by the Canadians concerned.

There was a downside to the 1977 amendments which favoured immigrants. I do not have the exact number of people affected, but a small number of Canadians of other origins do not qualify for pensions in Canada, or the GIS, for example. They do not qualify for x number of reasons. This could be aid to farmers in a person's native country not covered by any contributory plan. People could be in a situation in which they do not qualify for anything in their native land, nor in Canada. They literally fall between the two. This situation is being corrected by an amendment in Bill C-40. These people would

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
be considered in a category of need. This does not open the door for people to send their older parents to Canada just to get the Canadian pension. That would not be realistic nor fair to other Canadians. But if people lived a certain number of years in Canada and are in need, they will be eligible to receive the full GIS or whatever part of the GIS they need.
There is another small change which is important. I am sure Members will all agree that each one of us is a social worker or an ombudsman in our ridings. We hear about and we see people who are outside of the system. Let me cite one case. [Translation]
Here, I would like to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance), who brought the problem to my attention. I was not aware of this particular problem. The Hon. Member reasoned as follows: If the Government of Canada can go back five years to check income tax returns, and that is what happens if a person fails to pay income tax, since the Government has the authority to check returns over the last five years, then why shouldn't a person who did not know or did not apply for his old age security pension be entitled to retroactive payments for up to five years? Someone who is 71 or 70 or 69 is not entitled to retroactive payments for the years for which no application was made, although that person was unaware there was a pension. But we are changing that now.

To sum up, a person in Canada can receive only one year of retroactivity the way the system exists now.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I know of one case of three years.


Monique Bégin: That is illegal. We will have to correct that case by some special mechanism. A person in Canada older than 65 years of age who does not know there is a system of public pensions for whatever reason and has not applied can only receive one year's benefits retroactively.
One such case was brought to the attention of the Hon. Member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance) who brought it to my attention. He pleaded with very powerful reasoning. I promised that as soon as we had a Bill in the House, we would include this situation. According to my officials and what we know of the situation, we think there are 50 cases a year. That means 50 Canadians are not receiving their fair share.
We are also proposing that post-mortem applications for Old Age Security benefits be allowed in cases where the deceased would have been eligible for benefits had he or she applied. This provision would also give a widow or widower, if all the qualifications were met-the person could be a spouse's allowance case-entitlement to the spouse's allowance.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, several other amendments are proposed in an effort to make the Old Age Security program more equitable and efficient. Included are provisions allowing for compensating pensioners who lose any benefit entitlement as a result of administrative error or erroneous advice. I think everybody will agree that such a change was needed. This Bill
will authorize when necessary the issuance of a certificate on presumption of death, repealing an unnecessary and potentially misleading provision dealing with benefit entitlement under international social security agreements. There are, of course, changes necessary to co-ordinate Canada Pension Plan benefits with other sources for GIS entitlement purposes. Members received the details of these amendments in the special information package we distributed to all Members in the House.
As my time is coming to an end, in conclusion I should like to call upon the new government, which we will form after the next election, to make a serious effort in the area of pension reform. Today I am talking about public pensions. Along with this provision, the law should be satisfactory for many decades because it brings all Canadians automatically above the poverty line. However, it is only above the poverty line. It is normal that the Government would not do more, in a sense, because Canadians should supplement that guaranteed tier of income, as it is often called, with their own private savings and, more important, with their company pensions. That is the image we should remember in Canada.
With Sweden we are the only countries in the world with decent universal public pensions. However, with the United States we are the worst countries of the industrialized world for not having private pensions. Approximately 55 per cent of Canadian workers, most of whom are women in the workforce, have no company pension. The others have pensions which are not portable, which do not have survivors' benefits, and which are not indexed in any way, shape or form to the cost of living. That is what I think should be the next step. We should put our own house in order in terms of Canada Pension Plan reforms which cannot be made without the agreement of a majority of the provinces with two-thirds of the population. Therefore, the Minister of Finance and myself are commencing discussions with the provinces toward that end. The best indicator of how good it is to live in a country is the way it treats its seniors, and I think every Member agrees with that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in commencing debate on Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I want to say at the outset that we are in support of it. Not only do the major provisions of the Bill have our support, but they were recommended at various times through various opportunities by members of our Party.
That is my first point. My second point is that we do not intend to delay the Bill. We will co-operate not only in the debate on the Bill in terms of early and speedy passage but also raise certain issues which we believe should be addressed in the opportunity we now have in regard to pensions.
I point out to the House, and to the Minister specifically, that while we support the Bill there is a vast area of pension reform which we would have preferred to see addressed at this
June 4, 1984

point as well. However, that takes us into the question of a time frame with which I will deal in a few minutes. Those two points of view stand on the record, and I want the House to enter into this debate with them in mind.
Before getting into the main body of my remarks, I pay tribute to a number of my colleagues who have been in the forefront on behalf of our Party in pension and pension reform. While those of us who have specific responsibilities now in the areas of health and welfare have a personal concern, we have not had responsibility for the Party as has the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). There is no other Member of the House-I would suggest no one in the country-who has developed over a period of time, not only through the process of time but because of dedication and keeping the matter in the forefront of issues, the issue of poverty among the elderly, especially the need to change the pension plan to address the economic reality faced by many of Canada's elderly women on a day to day basis. I pay tribute to her today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In the latter part of my speech, as did the Minister, I want to talk about the task force on pension reform, and I will mention the work of other colleagues at that time.
It is important when we look at this Bill to let the Canadian public know at the outset what we in the House face at this point in time. Today, at the beginning of June, we have a Bill before us which received first reading on May 29. While I know the Government after first reading of the bill can come back with second reading very quickly, it is generally the process of the House that a period of time is allowed for private and collegial discussion after first reading and for groups in the country interested in the Bill's specific provisions to have an opportunity to look at them and come back with suggestions.
Pension reform-specifically the changes to the guaranteed income supplement-has been a point of discussion in the House for the last two years. On February 15, 1984 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) mentioned the $25 increase in his Budget to take effect on July 1, 1984 and the additional $25 in December, 1984. The Budget called for those provisions on February 15, but we only received the Bill for first reading on May 29 and today, on June 4, we are debating second reading. I am not trying to be difficult, but we have to be realistic about the situation. If we can get the Bill through the House reasonably quickly on second reading, it will go to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. At the present time that committee has before it Bill C-221, a Private Member's Bill in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) dealing with amendments to the Narcotics Act and the therapeutic use of heroin. As well it has Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. All of us recognize that there will be a certain number of allotted days in June and that there is a certain political event
Old Age Security Act
which the Party opposite wants to conduct in Ottawa this month.
That being the case, we have very little opportunity in either the House or in committee to get a grip on pension reform and the discussion which I believe should take place. If I have any regret or criticism of the Minister, it is just that I would have preferred to see the Bill much earlier. Then we could have had it in committee and discussed its provisions over a longer period of time. Despite that difficulty, the two points which I made at the outset of my comments stand.
The major feature of the Bill is to increase the income of elderly pensioners who now receive the guaranteed income supplement. Of course, to receive the GIS is contingent upon reaching age 65 or being eligible for the Old Age Security Plan. That supplement will be increased by $25 per month in July of this year and by an additional $25 in December. We support that, but as I said a little more time would have been helpful.
It is interesting to note that the Minister-and I do not think I am being unkind-has some difficulty explaining some of the other provisions because they are complicated and require some study. For instance, there are changes to the War Veterans Act and changes affecting immigrants, just to name two. There is also the five-year period in which a person can now apply whereas in the past it was one year. These are all important details and I would suggest that time would have allowed us to bring forward better legislation than that which we have now.
That being the case, I would like to outline for the House who these people are who will be affected by the increase in the guaranteed income supplement of $25. Within the confines of the House of Commons, it is very easy to speak of this matter in general terms. However, who are these people who will be affected? As of March of this year, 2,490,000 Canadians over the age of 65 were receiving the basic universal old age pension which currently stands at $265.89 per month. If we take a look at those 2.5 million elderly Canadians, we would also discover that approximately 50 per cent, or 1,241,000 of them, qualified for some sort of guaranteed income supplement in March of this year. However, of that group, some 302,812 or 12.2 per cent qualified for the full supplement. The rest qualified for the partial supplement. There is no question that there are a number of elderly Canadians today who are not eligible for company pensions or who did not have the financial resources to build up private pensions and are solely dependent on the Old Age Security and the guaranteed income supplement.
In one of the last statements made by the Minister, she said that the increase to the GIS would raise the incomes of those single elderly people who are receiving both the Old Age Security and the guaranteed income supplement above the poverty line. I suggest that that is not correct. In fact, when looking at figures that we and others in this field have worked out, it is my submission that with the proposed changes once

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
implemented, including both the $25 in July and the $25 in December, the 1984 incomes of single persons receiving OAS and GIS will be $6,625 per annum. That is still some $697 below the poverty line for those who live in rural areas and some $3,275 below the poverty line for those who live in urban areas.
I know that when we speak about the poverty line for rural and urban areas, we are using a basic figure or a norm. However, I suggest to the Minister and to her departmental officials that they re-examine the statement made by the Minister. I do not believe it is the case that these people who will be receiving income only from the OAS and the GIS will be placed above the poverty line after receiving these increases. Even taking into account the December increase, those people would still fall below the poverty line.
It is for that reason that a number of provinces have brought in programs generally on a quarterly basis to increase the pension for these people. In pension jargon, it is called a top-up of the pension plan. There is no question that the provinces have had to address that question in a financial way. I would suggest to the Minister that while we welcome these additions, part of her argument and her laudatory statements are not borne out in fact.
It is also important to note something which concerns me and that is that elderly Canadians who earned salaries which were relatively low as compared to salaries today and who did not have extra money to purchase pension plans or worked for companies that did not have pension plans now use a disproportionate amount of their income for basic necessities such as housing and food. I will not take the time of the House to mention figures, but there is no question that that is the case.
The Minister has said that the extra money from the GIS will flow back into the economy immediately because these people will spend it. That is true, but it is reflective of a more important issue. These people are spending higher percentages of their incomes on food, clothing and household necessities. Despite the adjustments for inflation, the fact remains that these people, on a day-by-day basis, still must face a very specific budgeting process which only they are able to undertake.
The whole question of the future of our society, a question of which pensions is but a part, is one which should concern us in this House and should concern all Canadians. While we welcome this Bill, I think there is a fundamental reality that we must face. I am not convinced that we are facing that reality as I had hoped that this Bill would. That reality is that social policy relating to such things as pensions, health care and the Canada Assistance Plan, to name just three, cannot be divorced from economic policy. It is that economic policy which I would like to address for a moment.
It is said, and it is true, that the Government of Canada must be deeply concerned about additional expenditures because of both the annualized deficit of some $30 million this year and the cumulative deficit of some $155 billion at the present time. That is the legacy of the Liberal Government. Today, more than one-quarter of the entire resources of the
Government of Canada are being spent not on debt repayment but on debt servicing. We as Canadians are now paying in excess of $20 billion for debt servicing. As is my bent, I will be conservative about it and say that if that amount could have been cut by 25 per cent through proper economic management, we would have had an additional $5 billion to put into pensions, health care, economic development or whatever the legitimate priorities of the Government may have been. Alternatively, we could have left that $5 billion in the hands of Canadians who could, with proper tax incentives, have bought pension plans on their own.
To put the situation into focus, at the present time the federal Government is spending approximately $9 billion on transfer payments through the block funding system for health care. If the debt servicing charge could have been reduced by $5 billion or 25 per cent, that amount would have been equal to 50 per cent of the total health care expenditures of the federal Government this year. That is why we cannot divorce economic policy from social policy.
We cannot afford to pay for social policies if our economic policies are not in place and properly managed. That is the dilemma and the legacy that I suggest is being left to elderly Canadians today and to generations to come. I say more in sorrow than in anger that that is the tragedy. When thinking of the potential of a country such as ours with people such as ours, one must recognize that we have unlimited opportunities relative to those of other nations. However, the deficit will affect social policy. No matter how much we want to be receptive to new plans and new expenditures and no matter how much we want the very best for our elderly, we must keep in mind that legacy. I condemn the Liberal Government for having foisted that legacy equally on the elderly and on future generations to come.
I spoke with a senior citizen this morning with respect to the Bill. I asked him what he would say if he had an opportunity to speak on the Bill. He said that he would speak about two things: the amount of money which is going toward servicing the debt; and the ravages of inflation on the elderly. There are some Canadians who can protect themselves to some degree from the ravages of inflation, but the elderly, who are on fixed incomes and below the poverty line in many cases, are not able to react as quickly. In some cases, they cannot react at all. It takes me back to the point which I just made: to develop a social policy of which we can all be proud, we must get our economic house in order. The only way to do that is for government to start placing a higher priority on economic matters than this Government has done.
Returning to the Bill, I have already stated that our Party supports the increase in the supplement. What else does the Bill do? The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) has been pressing for changes to the War Veterans Allowance Act for a number of years. Other Members on our side have been pressing for changes as well, but he has been especially vocal on that issue. Some changes to the War Veterans Allowance
June 4, 1984

Act are included in the Bill. I would like to say to the Government, and to the Minister specifically, that in committee, we intend to examine the details not only with respect to those provisions but also the provisions which have been put forward by my colleague from Victoria.
I recall in 1977 debating changes to the Old Age Security Act with respect to immigrants. The Minister responsible for National Health and Welfare at that time is now Minister of Finance. At that time the Conservative Party raised the point that in future years the immigrant population would increase and have all the rights of citizens once they received their citizenship, but that they would always have difficulty with pensions. We asked at what stage would those immigrants have to be considered if the Government could not give their pensions proper adjustment. We asked at what stage-and the Minister used the words herself-would we have to look at social assistance or social welfare.
The provision which is before us today addresses, at least in part, the mistake that was made in 1977. I would like to say to the Minister that by putting the provision forward she is not doing something new, but rather in part correcting the mistake of her own Government which was made in 1977.
At the present time there is a one-year pay-back period for a person who applies for Old Age Security after the age of 65 which is being increased by the Bill. That is a provision which obviously we endorse. However, there is another provision which creates great concern. I am sure every Member of the House has had the experience of being visited by a senior citizen-and generally they are widows-between the ages of 60 and 65 who is neither eligible for Old Age Security nor for the spouse's allowance. In my experience those are the most difficult cases. These women have spent their working years in the home. They have probably given the greatest contribution to our country that anyone could, namely the mothering of their children and the raising of their familities. But they have no pension plan. They do not have skills the marketplace needs and therefore they cannot find work. If they do find work, very often because of the physical nature of the work they are not capable of doing it because of their age. If there is a huge gap in our pension system, it is in that area. I look forward to a very early opportunity, after the next election when we form the government, to correct that fallacy. I would have hoped that the Bill would have corrected it today. I would have given credit to the Government if it had seen that mistake, after the cajoling and pressuring that has come from the House and, more importantly, from many single people, especially women. It is an issue which must be corrected at the very first opportunity. It is unfortunate that the Bill does not afford us that opportunity.
The House is now in possession of an excellent report on pension reform which was presented by the Special Committee on Pension Reform. It is interesting to note that pension reform, at least in my judgment, must and will become one of the top priority items on the national agenda in the next few years. That will happen for a number of reasons. I have already mentioned some of those reasons which include the
Old Age Security Act
economic reasons. However, there are other reasons. For example, our demographic reality is changing as a country. I do not like the term "an aging population". Somehow I think it is inaccurate. But the fact remains that at the present time approximately 12 per cent of our population is over the age of 65. By the turn of the century it is estimated that we will be approaching the 20 per cent figure.
That being the case, for those of us who try to plan for the future, there will be a greater demand on our health care system, there will be a greater demand on housing services, and specifically, for our purpose today, there will be a greater demand on the pension system. We must get our economic house in order so that we can meet that developing reality.
It is also equally important that we put in provisions whereby people can become participants in pension plans which are self-contributory, company-contributory, or a combination thereof, in order that when they retire they are not only subject to Old Age Security and the guaranteed income supplement. I have no doubt that those two plans will keep Canadians, whether it is 1984 or 2004, in or below the poverty line level. That is reality. The history of pensions will dictate that.
Having said that, there are a number of provisions dealing with pension reform which I would have hoped the Minister would consider in the Bill. The Minister said recently that private pension plans must be overhauled and reformed. She had an opportunity to begin the legislative process in this Bill but, unfortunately, it was not done. There is absolutely no doubt, when we look at the demographic realities of Canada, that we must address those questions.
The Minister also pointed out that she was ready to sign agreements. She indicated that the last social security agreement which she signed was with Belgium. We now have, I believe, seven of those plans in place. However, I suggest we must put much more effort into getting an agreement with the United Kingdom.
I am aware of the argument that possibly the Government of the United Kingdom is not at the moment ready to move. However, there are many Canadians who have lived in Britain, who have paid into the British pension plan and who are now residents or citizens of Canada, who have had a portion of their British pension plan benefits frozen. We must get an agreement for those Canadians because they have paid into that plan. We have an obligation to those people to ensure they can receive the benefits for which they have paid. I suggest to the Minister even in the last days of the Government of which she is a member that she make that item a priority. I want to tell the Minister and Canadians who are unfortunately facing that dilemma that there is a full commitment on our part that when we become the government we will make that a top priority item.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to end with the obligations we have to Canada's seniors. I am always concerned, when legislation such as this is brought before us, the timing of

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
it, that it could be seen not as pension reform but rather as a good or opportune political moment to give some emphasis to Canada's elderly. While we welcome this Bill, I believe the time is past when we should simply say: "Let us have some legislation. It is $25 today. It was $30 in the last election campaign, and we are going to get the elderly vote that way". In fact, Mr. Speaker, if one wanted to be absolutely cynical, one could say: "Let us create two openings, one for July, in case we want a summer election, and another one in December, in case we want a fall election. And we have both covered with $25".
I say through you, Mr. Speaker, let us not play games that way. The reason I say this is that I had an opportunity to speak to the eastern Manitoba seniors' council this last weekend. There were 130 senior citizens present from my riding who are representatives of some 28 senior citizens' clubs with some 1800 members. We talked about pension reform, among other topics, and it was interesting to note how quickly these senior citizens in Manitoba raised a concern about the move- and the Minister mentioned this-of the Minister of Social Development in the Province of Quebec. While it was not going to affect Manitoba, these citizens were concerned about what happens when we start making these changes or these adjustments. What is going to happen to their financial security? Are they vulnerable?
I believe the point which is so important to make is that these are Canadians who have contributed to our country and who are now in a position where they have made plans for the future based on the present pension system. Therefore, when I speak of pension reform, I believe what we should concentrate on is building on what we have. In other words, I am in favour of reform, not revolution. Let us reform the system but let us not create fear, as did the Quebec initiative, at least in the minds of some senior Canadians who obviously have looked at pensions very seriously and who take their economic reality on a day to day basis very seriously as well.
I would like to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we have a long way to go on pension reform. In order to achieve that reform, we must have economic development and recovery. I want to say to Hon. Members of the House, and to Canadians, that our Party will support this legislation in a speedy manner in order that these moneys, which we believe these Canadians deserve, will be received before the end of this month.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party I want to assure the Minister as well that we want to see this measure passed by the House as quickly as possible.
I was curious about something which the Minister said at the conclusion of her remarks to the effect that following an election campaign the Government should speedily proceed in the area of pension reform. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I have been hearing that ever since I came here in 1980. My research on that question has been going on much longer than that.
I have to say that I share the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), on behalf of himself
and his Party, that because of the parliamentary timetable which is left to us, there is a real danger that this Bill would not see the light of day in terms of enactment. The Government has allocated two days for this debate, I believe, today and possibly Wednesday or Thursday, I am advised. We would then see the Bill referred to committee.
What the committee does with the Bill, of course, is entirely up to that committee. However, it is conceivable that this measure would not come back into the House until after the Liberal leadership convention. Who knows what is going to happen then. We could be into an election and all kinds of things.
In light of that, Mr. Speaker, if it would be helpful to the Minister, I would be prepared on behalf of the New Democratic Party to make an offer to the Minister that she probably could not refuse. That would be to give consideration to all stages of this Bill today so that the measure could be enacted today. The Bill is not complicated. It is straightforward. The measures proposed in the Bill are recognized by every Hon. Member of this House as being of benefit to the individuals who will be the beneficiaries of it. So I repeat again, Mr. Speaker, that we in this Party would be prepared to follow precedents which have taken place in this House previously on measures which I do not believe to be as crucial or as important as this legislation, and deal with all the measures in this Bill through all stages in this sitting day. Therefore, at the end of this sitting day the seniors of this country would know that they would receive the $25 on July 1 and the other $25 in December as a fact rather than something they could only expect.


Monique Bégin: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I should point out to the Hon. Member that any such move to change the Bill to refer it to Committee of the Whole would require the unanimous consent of the House. Would the Hon. Member keep that in mind, if that is the proposal he is making?


Neil Young: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciate your reminding me of it. It is something which I will certainly take into consideration during the remaining time I have left to me.
I have dealt with my first concern, Mr. Speaker. The other concern I have-I would welcome clarification from the Minister either during the course of this debate or during the lunch hour-is that the Minister said at the end of her remarks that this $50 increase over the six-month period would raise all seniors above the poverty level. There have been a number of organizations which have a tremendous degree of credibility in the country with respect to their research capabilities. They have come up with figures which are very similar to the figures I have. I want to read them because I think it is important that the House realize there are figures which dispute the Minister's figures. My figures show there will be a substantial number of seniors in the country who will still have an annual
June 4, 1984

income much below the poverty line. I welcome my figures being disputed if indeed the other figures can be substantiated.
For example, in St. John's Newfoundland, after all the increases have been passed on, my figures indicate that a single person would still have an income of $2,769 below the poverty level, and a married couple would be $961 below the poverty line. In Charlottetown it would be $1,520 for a single person and $702 for a couple. In Halifax, the single would be $2,550 and $523 for a couple. Saint John, New Brunswick, $2,769 for a single and $961 for a couple. In Montreal it would be $3,266 for a single and $1,627 for a couple. In Toronto it would be $2,560 and $369 respectively. In Winnipeg it would be $3,178 and $1,522. In Regina it would be $2,469 and $421. In Edmonton it is $2,126 and $653. In Vancouver a single person would still have an income of some $2,799 below the poverty level and for a couple it would be $431.
I believe our figures are as accurate as anyone else's, Mr. Speaker. As I said previously, I would welcome the Minister responding to those figures and perhaps giving us the figures she has so we can compare them. Then people across this country will know whether these changes are going to be of the assistance the Minister's Department feels they should be.
I appreciate that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has a rough row to hoe in Cabinet. Because of Cabinet solidarity, of course, I doubt very much whether she can express that opinion. However, I know from my own personal experience with other Cabinet Ministers that money for pensioners is not easy to pry out from the larger pie for a whole variety of reasons. Seniors know that very well because they made their presentations in a very eloquent and articulate manner to the task force on pension reform. However, there are some contradictions between what the Government says it wants to do regarding the GIS and what it is actually doing. As you know, Mr. Speaker, our Party is not what you would call a great supporter of the GIS. We would much rather see an expansion of the Canada Pension Plan and the public system than a GIS means test, or an increase across the board in the OAS. By the way, there is a large number of people out there who think that the $50 increase is in the OAS and not the GIS. Some people are going to be in for a rude awakening when they discover they are not going to get the $50 a month increase.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to what the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) did in the last Budget to persons collecting workmen's compensation pensions. The Government changed the rules so that those pensions are now included in the calculation of income for GIS purposes. The Minister wrote a letter to the chief executive officer of War Amputations of Canada. She said that to ignore income from sources such as workmen's compensation would result in inequitably higher benefits for pensioners who have such sources of income than for pensioners without such sources. She said the purpose of the GIS is to ensure that every
Old Age Security Act
pensioner is guaranteed the same basis level of income. I never thought, Mr. Speaker, that meant reducing another person's income in order to make sure that higher income earners are making the same as bottom earners. I would have thought a more honourable thing to do would be to raise people from the bottom up to the top.
The one thing the Government ignores is that there are definite additional costs associated with being disabled. The House of Commons Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped made no less than 11 recommendations on that very question. We recognize that a person on a fixed income has associated additional expenses that an able-bodied person does not have. In all fairness to those individuals, the Government should have taken that into account. Certainly the Cabinet, in its response to that report, seemed to indicate that it fully understood that and would have some empathy for that argument. But what the Government did was to change the income tax system in order to chop away benefits from those individuals who were not otherwise affected in collecting the GIS.
I could say much, much more on this question. However, in the spirit of my previous remarks and my offer on behalf of the NDP to both the Government and the Official Opposition, I will not use up the entire time allocated to me. Rather than do that, I would ask the House for unanimous consent to move a motion to deal with all stages of Bill C-40 this day and refer the Bill to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member has proposed that the Bill be sent to Committee of the Whole and passed through all stages today. Such a proposal would, of course, require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Friesen:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no personal hesitation in saying that we could do that, but I have an administrative concern regarding a clause of the Bill which requires an amendment. Since the Bill was introduced only last Wednesday or so, there has been no time to prepare the amendment. I believe the Minister would be interested in this amendment because she wants to make sure that people are not disadvantaged through the administrative changes she is making. I would like to be able to prepare that kind of amendment but the time allotted does not allow me to do that. I would be happy to give consent but because of the lack of time we cannot even prepare an amendment which the Minister might want to adopt.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the Member was elected the same day I was in 1972 and he had plenty of time to learn the rules.


Benno Friesen: No.

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act


Monique Bégin: Then it was in 1974, which is ten years to learn the rules. He knows that he cannot include more money in any Bill being studied in the House. I would beg him to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. All Parties have agreed to having our House Leaders decide items like this. Why are we doing the House Leaders' work on the floor of the House? Surely this could be taken up with the House Leaders. They are quite capable of bringing in that recommendation. Let us not do something over the heads of the House Leaders who we believe should be handling this type of procedure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) again if he has something to add to his previous point of order.


Benno Friesen: Yes. The Minister misled the House. I said nothing about any extra expenditures.


Monique Bégin: You said more people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please.


Benno Friesen: No, I did not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I do not think we should get into debate on a point of order. Does the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) want to add to the point of order?


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member who previously spoke, in the absence of my House Leader who is at the fortieth commemoration of D-day, I am the Acting House Leader for my Party. As such, I would be prepared to enter into discussions between now and two or three o'clock with the Government and the Opposition to see if we can come up with a satisfactory formula which would allow us to do what I propose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: On the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question of getting this Bill through the House as quickly as possible is one which this Party has been urging for some time. In fact, just a few days ago I initiated an Opposition debate on that very issue urging that the Bill come forward. There are several things which have been included in this Bill that were not in the original indication given by the Government in its February Budget. Those are quite complex matters. I know the Minister appreciates that they are complex because it took her four or five months to prepare the Bill. Those matters have to be looked at and given-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. I do feel that we are entering debate. It is quite apparent that there is no unanimous consent given by the House to change the motion at this time. Therefore, for continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this Bill because I am very interested in a number of items in it. The $25 increase in July and November is certainly supported by all Members of the House. However, there are other things in the Bill which I think have to be considered. Quite frankly, I think they should be considered in committee unless the House Leaders can come to some other decision. I do not want to continue discussing the point of order, but I do not think the floor of the House is the place to discuss procedures of the House. That is why we have House Leaders. I guess that is enough said on that.
To begin with, I would like to deal with the specific matter of deductions for the purpose of arriving at the amount of money that we permit a person to secure the old age pension. I refer particularly to workmen's compensation. A question was asked the other day in the House with regard to a worker's compensation. I think the Minister had the wrong idea entirely of what partial permanent disability really means under the workmen's compensation Acts of the various provinces.
In no sense of the word is a PPD "income". When a man or woman is injured in industry, they go on regular compensation and secure two-thirds or three-quarters of their salaries for remuneration. That is income. They are unable to work and are paid this amount in order to continue living because the accident took place in industry. At the end of that time there is an assessment period. The work person is examined again to see if there is a partial permanent disability, a permanent partial disability or permanent total disability. It could be any of these. Permanent total disability would mean that perhaps both legs and both arms were gone or there was a very serious injury to the back which put a person in a wheelchair. That would be a total permanent disability.
When that occurs, surely we are not going to consider that as income. That is compensation because part of the body was left in the workplace. They were injured in the workplace through no fault of their own. They carry that loss throughout their lives. If that is to be considered income, the next step will be when a person like that obtains employment. A person who has lost both eyes, which would be almost total permanent disability, could not go to work because his income would be considered total income. Presently when a person employs someone who was completely blinded by employment, he is able to secure wages. It is recognized that that is compensation for the loss of the two eyes rather than payment for what he does afterward.
It is the same for a person who loses two legs or both arms. These people should not be penalized when they get to the age of 65 by suddenly making the compensation wages. That is completely contrary to compensation acts. That is completely contrary to what union people and others have fought for throughout the years. I do not like to see this even though it
June 4, 1984

may affect only a few. The principle which is being established is not sound. It is not at all sound to consider a permanent total disability or a permanent partial disability pension as income. It is not income. It is compensation for the loss of part of the body or sometimes practically all of the body. The industry is paying compensation because part of the body was left in the workplace. That should not be considered as income for Old Age Security or any portion of Old Age Security. Income for Old Age Security is a different thing entirely.
The Government did go so far as to say that pensions granted to veterans who left part of their bodies on the battlefield would not be considered as income. That is right. Veterans who have left part of their bodies on the battlefield should not have their pensions considered as income. It is not income at all. It is compensation or pension because part of their body was lost in fighting for the country. The principle is really the same. We grant one and refuse to grant the other.
I think this is because there is a misunderstanding of what compensation is. It is not payment of wages. This is particularly so with regard to a permanent partial disability pension or a permanent total disability pension. It is not wages; it is compensation because part of the body was left in the workplace. I think that should be corrected when this matter goes before committee.
I would briefly like to discuss another point in the Bill. That is the reduction in residence qualifications for the spouse's allowance. I support that particular item. It would reduce from 40 years to 10 years the residence requirement for a full spouse's allowance. This is a worth-while amendment that is overdue. When a pensioner with whom a person over the age of 60 lives passes away, then certainly the ten-year residence should be sufficient. However, I even question the need of the ten-year requirement.
Let me deal with another aspect of the spouse's allowance. There are cases where the wife of an old age pensioner is working and does not apply for the spouse's allowance. They may be able to get by on her wages and his pension and therefore they do not take advantage of applying for the spouse's allowance. However, when the old age pensioner passes away, the wife is left only with her wages which are not enough to live on. She still must pay the rent and all the other costs of the residence. The only difference is that now she only has to feed herself. When she applies for the spouse's allowance, she is refused because she did not apply while her husband was living. She is refused even though she is over 60 years old and her residency qualifications are sound.
I think that mistake should be corrected. A person should not be penalized because she tried to help the country by working when she could have quit working while her spouse was living and applied for the spouse's allowance. By not applying for that allowance and attempting to save the Government money, the wife is now unable to get the spouse's allowance. This case may not occur very often, but it affects some of our senior citizens who are now denied the spouse's
Old Age Security Act
allowance because they did not apply while their husbands were living. That principle is neither sound nor right.
I am in favour of the bilateral agreements. There are a number of my constituents who came from Belgium, Austria, Germany, Czechoslovakia and almost every European and Asian country. Since some of them have pensions coming from their homeland, it is a far better arrangement to have an agreement between the two countries so they do not have continually to contact their homelands. It takes weeks and sometimes months to get a reply from some countries, particularly those dominated by the U.S.S.R. Therefore, any bilateral agreement that is achievable can only help because it will assist our citizens to get a better pension.
Let me speak generally about the adequacy of pensions today. Certainly in the Province of Alberta, a pensioner who secures any portion of the GIS secures a portion of the Alberta assured income. Although I am unaware of the situation in other provinces, the residents of Alberta who receive a full GIS will secure the full Alberta assured income. This is probably true in other provinces and it is very helpful because the additional amount from provincial governments may, in many cases, bring people over the poverty line and remove the fear of what may happen tomorrow. I am in favour of anything we can do in that regard.
I am disturbed by the fact that when pensioners receive a pension of any type, it becomes virtually a fixed income. This might be acceptable if other costs remain fixed but the fact is that nothing remains fixed in our society. The cost of living, rents and taxes go up and while there is some indexing with regard to the total cost of living, it does not affect many items that are necessary for the livelihood of our people. Their pensions are not sufficient to replace worn out blankets or to make house repairs. While the pension may be sufficient to look after their everyday needs, other programs are necessary to meet these other costs. For example, if a pensioner is forced to move because his rent has suddenly gone up, it is difficult to meet the additional costs and any additional money that can be provided by other benefits would certainly be well worth while.
I support the program which the Alberta Government provides for widows over the age of 55. They are a group that have been left out of our country's social programs and such a program is of substantial help to them. Generally speaking, Canadian women between the ages of 50 and 65, unless they are on spouse's allowance, have nowhere to turn except welfare. Having worked all their lives, they should not end up on welfare. Most women at that age are unable to build up a Canada Pension because they have stayed at home to look after an invalid member of the family or an aging mother or father. When they are faced with no income they are told that the only alternative is to apply for welfare. That is not good enough in a country like Canada. We should be facing this problem and tackling it.
While there are some men faced with this dilemma, it is women in particular who cannot get back into the workforce when they reach that age because there is no place for them.

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
Some of them find work scrubbing floors. I think it is unacceptable in this country that a woman who gets to the age of 50 or 60 must go out and scrub floors or do washing when her health is at stake. There are pitiful cases such as these in Canada, including in my riding where women are now existing, not living, on welfare. The very fact that they have to accept welfare is an affront to them. However, one must face this prospect when one is hungry and there are no other provisions.
Certainly it would help to lower the pension age somewhat, we must do something for these women between the ages of 50 and 65 even if it is on the basis of need. It is a blot on the social programs of Canada that they are left to depend solely on welfare. This should be corrected as soon as possible.
Although the $25 per month extra will help single pensioners, many of my constituents who are married pensioners are also having difficulty getting by. Their rents and other expenses have gone up. Their food costs are continually rising. They have asked why it is only single pensioners who are receiving the increase. They have difficulty accepting the explanation that two can live cheaper than one. In many cases the costs are the same because rent, tax, utilities, telephone and actual needs are not cheaper for two than for one. When only one pensioner receives an income, that pensioner must pay for everything. While there is no doubt that expenses are shared when there are two pensions, there is still a need among many of our married pensioners who barely meet the requirement for receiving the GIS.
The Hon. Minister mentioned a disturbing result when pensioners receive payments under these programs. They say they are now okay, that they have this part of the GIS and part of the assured income and can make a go of it. But the following year something happens to their income. They suddenly get a letter telling them to pay back certain sums of money to the Government. That is a nightmare to some of our pensioners who get these letters. Once they get the money, they spend it. They all have a need. As the Minister said, pensioners spend the money, they do not hoard it. They cannot. Few, if any, have bank accounts. Some try to put a little aside to look after funeral arrangements. You have to admire them for doing that. But not very many have bank accounts. It is a tragedy when they get letters saying that they have to pay back the money given to them inadvertently by the Government.
I think we should deal with that problem. I hope the committee will deal with it. It is a tragedy when people are suddenly told that the pension or the GIS they have received must now be paid back. The sums are not large, but they are large in relation to a pension.
This generation, as all generations, will be valued in history for the way we look after our senior citizens, particularly those in need, and for the way we look after our crippled, handicapped and retarded. I hope Canada will stand high when we get our social legislation put together in that we will not only
look after our aged, those over 65, but also those between the ages of 50 and 65 who need help, especially our women, our retarded and our crippled.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. If there are no questions or comments, we will continue debate. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this measure which will increase the pension benefits for those receiving Old Age Security and the guaranteed income supplement. I have always felt that the first role of Government is to protect those who, through no fault of their own, are vulnerable in our society. It is for that reason that the spokesman for our Party, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), has already indicated to the House that we plan to give speedy passage to the legislation. I hope the promise of speedy passage does not preclude an openness on the part of the Minister to accept changes by way of amendment at committee stage in order to improve protection for those who are vulnerable. By that I refer to amendments that would mean no further spending and which have nothing to do with tax revenues, but would simply improve the administration in such a way that the people who need to be protected will have that assurance.
Having said that, I accept the fact that we have probably not heard the last of this Bill. It is a strange perversity in this House that when we talk about measures passed in this Parliament that have become unpopular in the country, measures such as the National Energy Program, spokesmen on the other side in the Liberal Government say Parliament enacted this legislation. We hear them say that it was the will of Parliament that this should happen. But when it comes to measures like this one, it will not be Parliament which gave pensions or extended pensions; it will be the Liberal Government that did it. That is what we will be hearing in the weeks ahead.
As my colleague has indicated, it is not an accident of the calendar that benefits are staged to July and December so that if perchance we should be on the election trail in July and August or in October and November, members of the Liberal Party will be able to say, not in the high road of parliamentary language that Parliament enacted it, or that it was the wish of Parliament that pensioners get these extra benefits. No, by then we will revert to the former language. In other words, it will be the Liberal Government that gave these benefits.
We should not be deluded into thinking that we are talking about pension reform. We are talking about a supplement to what is already there. It is not in any way improving the benefits except to catch up with some of the inflationary pressures people on pension incomes have been facing. To some degree those who are vulnerable are made more vulnerable by what we are doing today. As we know, the GIS has created its own kind of dependency. Those who are vulnerable because they have to depend on all government pension plans are made more so by this Bill. It is because of the vicissitudes
June 4, 1984

of government and government services that they become increasingly vulnerable. I am talking about such things as the mail service, computer breakdowns, the change of address that has to be worked through the system, the increase in inflation which is beyond the technocracy of government or the control of the pensioner


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Or the annual income report.


Benno Friesen: Or the annual income report. The fact is that adjustments are made always the quarter after the inflation increase or the cost of living increase. Then as my colleague mentioned, the exchange rates between the United Kingdom and Canada are another example. Because the pound sterling has fallen in relation to the Canadian dollar, it means a reduction in the pension amount for those pensionable by the United Kingdom. Those kinds of vicissitudes make the vulnerable even more so. Those of us who spend time in our constituency offices know the pressure that rests on people who depend upon government pensions and government services to deliver them.
If we are going to talk about pension reform, we must talk about ways to diversify pension income so that pensioners will not be so dependent upon only one source. We think to diversify income is a very clever method when it comes to business. What about farming businesses? When a farmer can, he will diversify his income through the crops that he plants. Business will diversify its investment as much as possible in order to make sure that when there are down years in one area, there is income from another.
Why should we not be able to diversify income through pensions by creating a tax structure in such a way that those who are pensionable should be able to look forward to a variety of sources for their pension and not be vulnerable because of the vicissitudes of government pension schemes? It seems to me that if we want to talk about pension reform, we ought to talk about diversifying rather than pyramiding pension sources.
There is something ominous and pernicious about this Bill. It not only gives, but it also takes away. I refer now to the workmen's compensation provisions within this legislation. The Minister in her speech gave all her attention to how the Government was lifting up all of the pensioners. In her letter to the gentleman in charge of the war amputees of Canada she gives her attention to how she is planning to take away. In her public statements she talks about how she wants to lift up the pensioners, but in her private letters it is how she is pressing them down. The perversity of this Government is that public attention will be on pension increases and the public who hears about it will be happy. The individual pensioners across the country who are vulnerable by way of workmen's compensation pensions will be pushed down and we will not hear about those, Sir. That is the politics of this legislation.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian tourism deficit continues to be one of our most blatant global embarrassments. It is not enough that we cannot lure foreigners to this fine country; we cannot even persuade our own citizens to holiday at home. It is a sad day when Canada fails to compete for the tourist dollar with countries outside our borders. Even with air fares included, it is often cheaper to travel abroad in the long run.
As a representative of one of the most fabulous tourist areas in Canada, that of Parry Sound-Muskoka, I want to ensure that the industry will not go down the tube. Speaking of the tube, I cannot help but notice the smiling face of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) on television, trying time and again to sell Canada to the world. I would assume the Minister appears in the commercial without taking an actor's wage, but it seems highly coincidental just prior to a federal election. Is he selling Canada as a tourist destination, or is he selling himself to the electorate?
With the Queen, the Pope, and the Liberal leadership convention in Ottawa soon, this capital city will fare very well, but the rest of the country is in real trouble.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, while congratulating and extending best wishes to Mrs. Hewes in her new post at CN, I also want to caution her to use her first few weeks in improving her peripheral vision so that she may protect her back. I would also counsel Mrs. Hewes to speak to her senior management team concerning its public utterances on the conduct and efficiency of Parliament.

June 4, 1984
A write-off of CN debts to the tune of $600 million by the taxpayers of Canada, a 50 per cent share of the $650 million contribution paid by the Government of Canada under the recent Crow legislation, and a 58 per cent increase in the cost of moving grain paid by western farmers, do not qualify the senior officer to degrade anyone. When CN shows steady profit and keeps trains running on time, then, and only then, will there be occasion for management to tender advice and counsel to others. Cobblers should stick to their lasts. No doubt Mrs. Hewes will profit greatly from the advice and experience of her predecessor in her new and important position.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to impress upon the House the great need for additional funds for the Summer Canada Student Employment Program. The need for an expanded program is even more pronounced in areas of high unemployment like Newfoundland where summer jobs do not exist, generally speaking, in private enterprise, or in government Departments which are practically non-existent.
If the Government of Canada would increase funds for summer employment for students in direct job-creation programs, it could provide thousands of extra jobs for young people, and it would reaffirm the Government's commitment under the Student Employment Program, contrary to the policy of the Progressive Conservative Party which opposes summer jobs through government funded direct job-creation programs.
The Liberal Party, unlike the Conservatives, is interested in creating summer jobs in high unemployment areas. I call upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to increase that commitment immediately, and I do not mean in a month's time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years the Canadian Navy had used the Hawaiian Island of Kahoolawe for shelling exercises. For a thousand years this island has been considered sacred to Hawaiian people. Yet from 1941 until 1979 its use for religious and cultural purposes was banned by the United States Navy.
In 1981 the entire island was added to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places because of its invaluable historic significance. At this very moment the Canadian Navy is again participating in exercises which include shelling this island,
exercises that pose an immediate threat to some of the archaeological sites, despite petitions from thousands of Hawaiians, despite resolutions from the State Legislature and municipal governments, in opposition to the shelling, and despite the fact that the navies of Japan, Australia and New Zealand have ceased their participation in shelling. To these entreaties the Canadian Government has shown an amazing insensitivity.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), two Ministers of National Defence and various government and military officials have dismissed out of hand Hawaiian concerns and their requests that Canada respect their cultural and religious heritage by withdrawing from the shelling exercises.
I call upon the Canadian Government to cease immediately any participation in any shelling of this region which is very important to Hawaiian people.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, June 6 marks the fortieth anniversary of the Allied D-Day offensive in Normandy which led to the liberation of Europe from Nazi occupation.
Operation Overlord was a great achievement. Five divisions reached the Normandy shores by sea, and three more by air. Seven thousand ships landed at the heavily fortified shoreline, in secrecy. Canadians will remember with pride the courageous efforts of our soldiers on Juno Beach. Canadian casualties numbered 946. The Queen's Own Rifles suffered the most, losing 143, The Winnipeg Rifles lost 128, and the North Shore Regiment had 125 casualties.
On Wednesday we will celebrate the victory, but let us not forget the dead who paid for their success in blood that we might remain free. Ten thousand Allied soldiers lost their lives in a battle which has become, as Time magazine put it, "an almost unconscious reply to the pacifist view of war".
If there ever was a just war in our history, it was the one in Europe 40 years ago. Every Canadian is aware of the philosophy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) toward that war. Hopefully our veterans will feel pride as he represents Canada in Normandy in one of his final, official, international functions as head of the Government.
May the fallen Canadians of Juno Beach rest in peace.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we hear a great deal these days about the adequacy of our social programs, but there are still those who fall between the various social safety nets. One such group com-
June 4, 1984

prises those under the age of 65 who suffer from debilitating diseases and have to pay an exorbitant amount of their income for drugs and medication. Because they are under 65, disability benefits from the Canada Pension Plan do not include the cost of drugs.
Let me cite the case of a man in my own constituency who is suffering from Parkinson's disease. He is 52 years of age, is married, and has two teenage children to support. Out of his meagre disability allowance he must pay S400 a month for medication to keep his illness under control. That is the bleak financial outlook for him and his family, month after month, year after year.
I am sure that the situation of this man is not unique. There must be many disability pension recipients under the age of 65 who desperately need assistance with their drug costs. While the matter is in part a provincial responsibility, nevertheless the federal Government surely has some obligation to do its part. I would therefore urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to consult with her provincial colleagues with a view to taking early action on this critical issue.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, until 1982 workmen's compensation payments were not included in net income for income tax purposes. The November, 1981, Budget of the federal Government brought about a change such that all social assistance payments, whether made on the basis of a means, need, or income test, would be treated as net income and deducted when calculating taxable income. As a result, workmen's compensation payments are now included in the items to be treated as income when calculating net income, and deducted when calculating taxable income. The Old Age Security Act was amended to reflect this inclusion of workmen's compensation benefits in determining eligibility for GIS payments, as were other types of disability income payments.
1 am concerned that workers' compensation payments should not be included in net income for income tax purposes but, rather, that these funds should be used to help defray some of the additional expenses and suffering encountered by those who have been injured or disabled in the workplace. I therefore urge the Government to review its current policy regarding inclusion of Workmen's Compensation Board payments in the calculation of eligibility for GIS payments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Canadian Transport Commission will begin a series of hearings on a CN application to remove the station agents at eight locations in northern Manitoba. These locations are Churchill, Ilford, Thicket Portage, Gillam, Wabowden, Sherridan, Lynn Lake, and Cranberry Portage. In addition, the CNR plans to downgrade the existing station building.
At the very time the Province of Manitoba and the federal Government are spending $93 million to improve the Port of Churchill, CN is destroying the train system to northern Manitoba. This is yet another example of a publicly owned transportation system taking action that is contrary to the interests of the public.
In the brief that I will be presenting to the Canadian Transport Commission I list some of the frustations that are experienced by northerners when dealing with CN and VIA. For example, people have been left at the station in Pikwitonei because VIA would not put on an extra car to allow for extra Christmas traffic. In other instances native people have faced a language problem when trying to deal with a remote phone system in order to make reservations.
It seems evident that CN and VIA have no desire to meet the responsibility of providing services in areas where the train is an essential link. The destruction of services appears to be a deliberate attempt to destroy Canada's railway system. The losers are the people who have no recourse but to use the system however much it neglects their needs.
We, the public, who own VIA and CN, must call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to re-examine the aims-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, hate literature is appearing all too frequently across Canada and is hardly a victimless product. Indeed, it is a malignant growth on the banner of freedom of expression, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has quite rightly called for the removal of two of the larger loopholes in the existing hate literature provision of the Criminal Code. That the existing Section is toothless is shown by the fact that there have been only four prosecutions under that Section in 14 years and that the one conviction was overturned on appeal.
As a former Crown and defence attorney, I believe that one major problem is the definition of hate literature in the Code,

June 4, 1984
Oral Questions
and I would propose the following replacement for the present definition:
Hate literature is defined as any printed or written material or communication which promotes hatred of, or violence toward, any grouping of persons on the basis of colour, religion, language or place of origin.
Two other legislative remedies would also be helpful, and these were proposed in Toronto over the weekend at my Party's conference on multiculturalism. One such remedy is that the Criminal Code should be amended to allow a court, upon conviction, to increase the sentence if it finds that a crime was motivated by racism. Second, the post office regulations should be amended to prevent people from sending hate literature through the mails. The inadequacy of the postal situation is well shown by the fact that Ernst Zundel lost his mail privileges but they were returned on appeal.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absences of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of State for Finance, I suppose I must direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister who, I believe, is also the Minister for External Relations. On Friday, June 1, Statistics Canada reported that in March the Gross Domestic Product in Canada was still 1.2 per cent below the pre-recession peak of June, 1981. In other words, Statistics Canada indicated that the Gross Domestic Product has not yet returned to its level of June, 1981. It also reported that capital spending in manufacturing will decline.
Since he has just come into the Chamber I will now direct my question to the Minister of Finance and I will repeat it quickly. On Friday, Statistics Canada reported that in March our Gross Domestic Product was 1.2 per cent below the pre-recession peak of June, 1981. In other words, Statistics Canada indicated that it was less then it was in June, 1981. As well, it reported that capital spending and manufacturing would decline in 1984 for the third year in a row, indicating that it would be $8.6 billion this year as compared to the $12.7 billion invested in 1981. The Minister knows the effect that will have on jobs.
Why did the Minister say on May 30, just last week, in reply to a question posed by the Leader of the Opposition on May 30, that in the first quarter of 1984 the economy recovered all of that which had been lost during the recession, when that was not the truth? Why did the Minister attempt to deceive the Members of the House and the Canadian public?
Second, could the Minister tell the Members of the House what he plans to do to correct the situation of a decline in capital spending in manufacturing and a GDP that has still
not returned to its pre-recession level? What is he going to do about it? Has he been given any advice by the seven candidates from the Liberal reform school who are competing for the leadership?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I stated in the Budget that in the first quarter of 1984 the economy would recover from the loss during the course of the recession, and this has been the case. I might also add that if the Hon. Member were to look at the Statistics Canada report he would see that in March the Gross Domestic Product increased 0.2 per cent following an upward revised figure of a 0.1 per cent decline in February; that in the first quarter real Gross Domestic Product increased 0.6 per cent following a 0.7 per cent increase in the previous quarter; and that goods and services production increased by roughly the same rate. There has been a record of continued increase. In March the real GDP stood at 7.1 per cent above that of the lowest point of the recession, which was in December, 1982, and 1.2 per cent below the last peak in June, 1981. These are the facts.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is as slippery as a seal that has just been sculped.
Last week the Minister said that in the first quarter of 1984 the economy recovered all of that which had been lost during the recession. The official publication of Statistics Canada of Friday of last week indicates that we are 1.2 per cent below the pre-recession peak. Either the Minister is deceiving the people of Canada or Statistics Canada is deceiving the people of Canada. I know who the public will believe is the one who is being deceitful, and that is the Minister.


NET INCOME OF FARMERS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let me try to ask a question regarding another aspect of this matter. The total net income of Canadian farmers did not go up but fell-and that is down that way-more than 24 per cent in 1983 as compared to 1982. The value of farm capital declined, and the net incomes realized by Canadian farmers went down. These figures are not adjusted for inflation, but there has been a net decline of 24 per cent, making it the lowest level for farm incomes since 1977. Does that indicate that there is a recovery under way?
Will the Minister advise the House whether or not he will now cancel the sales tax increase of 1 per cent that he set down for the fall? Will the Minister remove the sales tax on fuel products sold to farmers and fishermen, as this Party has requested him to do time after time, so that we can help farmers whose net farm incomes have gone down 24 per cent under the tutelage of this Government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to specific groups, and he knows that the farm sector is a sector where incomes tend to fluctuate
June 4, 1984

very substantially, depending on what happens in international markets in particular.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Under this Government, mostly down.


Marc Lalonde: We have had record sales in terms of agricultural products, wheat, and so on, during the course of the last few years. However, the Hon. Member knows, and the farmers know much better than the Hon. Member, that the prices of agricultural products have not increased significantly. As a matter of fact these prices have gone down in many areas, in many sectors. Obviously this has had an impact on the total income of farmers in particular areas and sectors. The Hon. Member knows this.
The Hon. Member also knows that I have eliminated, for instance, the natural gas and gas liquids tax, which represents an $800 million reduction in terms of taxes by the federal Government in that particular area. As far as the other questions raised by the Hon. Member are concerned, I have already answered them several times in the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers know that the Minister of Agriculture is talking through his big green hat, that that leprechaun has not done a thing for them. Since the Government came back into office four years ago, their total net farm income declined. It did not fluctuate. It did not go up and then down. Net farm income declined 24 per cent. For the third year in a row it declined. Is it fluctuating when it goes in only one direction-down?


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there are six members of the Minister's Cabinet out attempting to fool the public into believing they have some solutions. I will now ask the Minister, who is in power and who is responsible, and I will ask this Government, what action are you going to take to assist the farmers of Canada who have suffered tremendously as a result of your negligence and incompetence over the last three years?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, thank God the farmers of Canada have better brains than the Hon. Member for St. John's West. They know that they cannot expect the Government-


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not wear a hat. Is that why I have no brains? Be specific.


Marc Lalonde: -to provide them with their income. They know very well that their income will depend on what they will be able to sell on the world market, and at what prices. The Hon. Member knows the steps which the current Minister of Agriculture, and this Government, have taken over the years to help the farmers. There is before a parliamentary committee at the present time amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act, for instance. I could talk about the stabilization programs which this Government has implemented-


John Carnell Crosbie: What about the sales tax on fuel products?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: -to help the farmers. And I could talk about the various sector programs, whether in the area of dairy farming or other areas, where we have taken quite significant steps to help the Canadian farmers to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.
The farmers of Canada know that. The Hon. Member does not. The Leader of the Opposition does not. If there is anyone trying to fool the people in this country by travelling around, it is the Leader of the Opposition, who does not bother to show up in this House. He is even more delinquent than the Hon. Member for St. John's West who, at least, pays us the courtesy of a passing visit to the House once in a while.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, we all noticed with interest in this morning's Globe and Mail a statement by the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. He is quoted as saying:
We're not getting money into the hands of those who need it most... the jobless and the working poor.
There are those in our party-
Referring to his own Party.
-who are not really prepared to accept any reform. I'm talking about the power-brokers and vested interests. They like things the way they are. I promise if I'm your leader... Ill yank their noses out of the trough.
My question to this Minister who is responsible for economic development is this: who are those power brokers and vested interests which you mention are robbing dollars from the needy today, with so much unemployment in this country? Are they bureaucrats, civil servants, people on contract, or are they those in the Senate?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, that is a despicable mix of quotations taken from a speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: The Hon. Member takes one statement when I was talking about social policies and how they can be revised to put more money with those who need it most-perhaps that is not particularly appealing to the Hon. Member-and he combines it with an issue of internal party reform. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, seriously, I expect the Hon. Member to rise in his place and apologize.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Minister read page 5 of this morning's Globe and Mail. I quoted exactly what the Minister said.

June 4, 1984
Oral Questions INDUSTRIAL GRANTS SCHEME


William Henry (Bill) Domm: As the Minister responsible for economic development, you are reported in the same paper as favouring-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member address his remarks to the Chair, please?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The Minister is reported in the daily newspapers as being in favour of scrapping the $2.5 billion main industrial grants scheme which has failed to create jobs and the necessary infusion into the economy in order to turn it around to a better position. You said: "I get the feeling it is just not working".


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: My question to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, is this: would the Minister, through you, tell the House what program he is suggesting be put in place to replace his own program which he now considers to be a failure, bogged down in bureaucratic administration?


Donald James Johnston: Again, Mr. Speaker, I suppose if the Hon. Member is going to rely on the daily newspapers for the source of all of his information, I will have to live with that. The fact is I have suggested that for the small and medium-sized sector, for the entrepreneurial sector, there are ways we can attract capital into that sector and reserve the grants for major projects in the non-market sector or for regional development. That was the thrust of my remarks. If the Hon. Member will take the time to read my remarks, I will be happy to send him a copy of them, and a copy of the material I have released during this period.
I feel this is a better approach which we have evolved. My colleague, the Minister responsible for DRIE, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, brought in a program which was a vast improvement, I believe, over the program which existed before. This Party believes in making progress, and during the course of this leadership campaign I would hope you will see many of us coming forward with proposals so that we can build upon our achievements and create even better programs. That is what I was trying to suggest when I made those particular comments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it does indeed concern some people at the trough. It concerns a multi-million
dollar waste in terms of government spending. Specifically, it concerns the R and D boondoggle which the Minister of Finance announced in his last budget, and which came into effect in January of this year. When the Government announced this program it promised the people of Canada that it would only cost $100 million a year. It also promised that all the money allocated for R and D would, in fact, be spent for R and D. Would the Minister confirm that, instead of this program costing the taxpayers of Canada $100 million, it is likely to cost ten times that amount, $1 billion? Even more seriously, will the Minister confirm that the taxpayers of Canada could end up spending millions of dollars and potentially none of it will end up being spent for R and D?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not confirm either.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will not confirm it because the Minister, like his cabinet colleagues, never likes to admit the truth that they are using the taxpayers' money in a glaringly wasteful way. That is why he will not confirm it.


PAYMENT OF FUNDS IN ADVANCE OF EXPENDITURES
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the
Minister a more specific question. Will the Minister acknowledge, as an official of the Department of National Revenue has acknowledged, that companies can receive taxpayers' money in advance for research and development even if they never do the research and development? Will the Minister tell the House that the Government's program permits companies to receive millions of dollars and then never do the research? Will he tell the people of Canada that they are about to pay a multi-million dollar restaurant bill for a lunch they may never get?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not say that.


John Edward Broadbent: That is all too characteristic of the Minister of Finance. A billion dollars of the taxpayers' money being wasted, and he will not even deal with the specifics in the House.


COMPANIES' INTERNAL ACCOUNTING PRACTICES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister will not acknowledge that millions of taxpayers' dollars may go to companies which may not do the research and development, will he deal with another question? Will he confirm that under this program certain large companies or rich individuals, for example Imperial Oil, simply by involving themselves in paper transactions may benefit to the extent of millions of dollars without doing a single bit of R and D? Through a paper transaction they are going to get money from the taxpayers of Canada which ought to go for R and D. Will he at least have the integrity to acknowledge that in the
June 4, 1984

House, or, if it is not true, point it out? Will he stop avoiding the question?


Marc Lalonde: I am not avoiding the question, Mr. Speaker, I am answering the very specific question the Hon. Member asked, whether I would acknowledge this, admit this, and all that. He asked me whether I will acknowledge the last point, and I will not. I can tell him that if there is evidence of purely paper transactions, like he says, we will certainly investigate the matter and prevent any loophole from existing.
In his first question the Hon. Member started by saying I had promised $100 million of expenditures. I had made a forecast of tax expenditures in my Budget, like we do all the time. If, in the end, the actual tax expenditures are higher than those forecast, I will not complain because it means those measures have been even more effective than we had anticipated, and there was more research and development done in this country than I had foreseen, thanks to that program.


John Edward Broadbent: Not at all.


Marc Lalonde: I will rejoice about it rather than, like the Hon. Member, going into a kind of hysteria about the particular problem or issue.


John Edward Broadbent: You missed the point.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, in the absences of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. He will know that acid rain continues to be a major environmental threat. A great deal of the acid rain that falls on Canadian lakes, river and forests comes from the United States. He will also know that we have been unable to reach an agreement with the U.S. to control this problem.
The Minister of the Environment has indicated openly that he does not feel it is worth while to continue negotiations with the American administration at the highest level. In light of that, does the Acting Prime Minister feel it is important for the Canadian Government to gain the co-operation of the U.S. administration? If so, have there been any discussions between the Prime Minister and the President of the U.S. since negotiations failed earlier this year? And, finally, is there on the agenda of the Economic Summit the Prime Minister will be attending, anything dealing with acid rain and the importance of Canadian-American relations in dealing with this problem?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of State for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, some of the postulates indicated by the question appear to me to be quite true. Government Ministers, the Cabinet in general, have had a very difficult time convinc-
Oral Questions
ing the Americans of the urgent need to take action on acid rain.
I am not familiar with what my friend purports to be the opinion of the Minister of the Environment, to the effect that he was giving up on convincing the Americans of the wrongness of their ways. Ministers in the Canadian Government never give up when they have a good case, as in this instance. I would be very surprised if my friend, the Minister of the Environment, has said what he is purported to have said. It seems to me that on a number of occasions in the past the Canadian Government has taken lines that, sooner or later, sometimes later, the American Government has come to accept, and this might be another instance.
With respect to the Summit meeting, I read about the subject on the weekend and I have not seen the subject of the Canada-U.S. environment as one of the issues to be debated. My hon. friend will recognize that this is more a bilateral issue than a multilateral one, and consequently it justifiably might not be on the agenda.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER VISIT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to emphasize the importance that we feel there is to having these negotiations carried on at the highest levels between our Governments. Following the failure to negotiate an agreement with the United States, Canada took a unilateral position to reduce our emissions by 50 per cent by 1994. The Conservative Party strongly endorsed that position and we committed ourselves to that same objective.
Will the Acting Prime Minister ensure that the Minister of the Environment does two things, first, that he visits the two largest single point sources of acid emissions in North America, Inco and Noranda Rouyn, to make sure he knows what is actually going on at those places? Secondly, will he ask the Minister of the Environment to discuss with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister responsible for Treasury Board the importance of continuing research into acid rain? An acid control program depends very much on continued research to measure its effectiveness.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that my friends, the two Ministers referred to, will read the question with great satisfaction and will be thankful to the Hon. Member for the support he is giving them now.


FITNESS CANADA-APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport, who will know that recently he appointed a new director of Fitness Canada. He did that without a national competition or adver-

June 4, 1984
Oral Questions
tising. Can he tell the House why? Is he trying to replace the Minister of Employment and Immigration as the porkbarrel king?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the Hon. Member has got his information wrong. This person was hired before I was appointed Minister. He was interviewed by officials of the Public Service Commission in accordance with existing regulations. The person who was hired is very competent, and I am very satisfied with the choice made by the Public Service Commission.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has a bad memory. The director was appointed on February 20, some two months after the Minister was appointed to his position.
Can I have assurances from the Minister that all contracts affecting employees and/or the supply of goods and services affecting the Calgary Olympics will be let after public advertising and public tender, and there will be no sweetheart deals or patronage deals by the Minister? Can we have that assurance as it affects the holding of the Calgary Olympics?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I am too polite to call the Hon. Member a liar. I will not do so. I would just like to point out that when the Hon. Member starts talking about one thing, he tends to get sidetracked.
First of all, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Organizing Committee for the 1988 Olympic Games in Calgary is responsible for awarding contracts for all construction to the appropriate departments, and my Department is not involved at all.
Second, when we signed an agreement with the Organizing Committee for 1988 Olympic Games-perhaps the Hon. Member does not visit his riding often enough or talk very often to his constituents-everyone in Calgary was very pleased with the agreement we signed to the effect that we would be providing $200 million towards the cost of the 1988 Olympic Games. If his brother or sister did not get a contract, let them talk to the people in Calgary!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. There is a feeling that when it comes to jobs for western Canada there is lots of talk from the Liberals but very little action when it counts. While we welcome the Honda plant in Alliston, Ontario, for Ontario workers, the Minister must appreciate that western Canadians would like some of that, too. Can he explain to the House the determining factor for the location of those kinds of automobile plants? Will he confirm that he has been having negotiations with two other Japanese auto makers, Nissan and Toyota, about further expansion of plants in Canada?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the preamble to the Hon. Member's question, I just returned from Manitoba where my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I just announced a national centre for urban bus transportation. That is $50 million for the Province of Manitoba. Contrary to the Hon. Member's statement, the Liberal Party is very concerned about job creation in western Canada as it is in all parts of Canada.
With regard to the possibility of a Honda announcement, which will not be known until 3.30 this afternoon, we have tried to encourage some of the Japanese firms to look at all parts of Canada, western Canada, Atlantic Canada, as well as Quebec and the Province of Ontario. The key with respect to this potential announcement is the fact that they have a plant in Marysville, Ohio, where they have made about a $1 billion expenditure. The new production system called the "just in time" process, which the automotive industry is adopting all over the world, calls for part suppliers to be within a 75-mile radius of an assembly facility. Of course the bulk of the parts manufacturers is in southern Ontario.
The Hon. Member and all colleagues must remember that this is not Vancouver versus Toronto, Toronto versus Montreal, or Montreal versus Halifax. This is Canada versus the world. We must let these companies decide where the best place is to locate. Our real thrust should be to ensure that they invest in Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should understand that I am not knocking Honda going to southern Ontario. Far from it. We hope to sweep the seats there in the upcoming election.


BRITISH COLUMBIA SUGGESTED AS LOCATION FOR ASSEMBLY PLANT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that Honda had a plant in Marysville, Ohio, and
June 4, 1984

so on. Toyota has a $20 million wheel plant coming up in Delta, B.C. They have a joint assembly plant with GM in Fremont, near San Francisco in California. Would the Minister agree with me that the second biggest market for cars is in California? As he knows, California is south of British Columbia. Would he be prepared to undertake to tell the House that he will go to Toyota and try to push for an assembly plant in British Columbia on the West Coast so that they can be close to the other plants in that area?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the Hon. Member if I gave any indication that I thought he was criticizing the location of the plant in southern Ontario. I know of the Hon. Member's interest, and I understand his sensitivity, as all western Canadians want to have their fair share of the automotive industry because it is a national industry.
To indicate the Government's sincerity with respect to trying to develop the automobile industry in western Canada, the Hon. Member should be aware that the Government provided almost one-half of the financial assistance to get that Toyota plant to locate in the lower mainland of British Columbia, whereas we have not provided any direct financial assistance for this Honda plant which may locate in the Province of Ontario. We are still hopeful that the Toyota company will expand its operation in British Columbia as well as adding to it in terms of assembly. That will be a process for negotiation in the future.


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. On Thursday, May 17, just a couple of weeks ago, it was announced that Treasury Board would in fact be leaving its premises in the Bell Canada building and moving to L'Es-planade Laurier. Could the Minister indicate in which month the change is expected?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this is being worked out now. We are presently located in Place Bell Canada. The Bell company wants to occupy the entire building. It is our intention, along with the Department of Finance and the office of the Comptroller General, to make the move as soon as everything can be worked out. I suspect it will be sometime in the fall.


TERMS OF CURRENT LEASE
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, although Bell Canada may be interested in occupying the entire building, the Department has an option in its present lease which could have extended its right to stay there, at a
Oral Questions
considerable saving to taxpayers. Why did the Department not continue with the option and remain there?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to give my hon. friend greater details about the transaction. I can only confirm that Bell Canada was in a position to take over the entire space, and it is very anxious to do so. I am surprised my hon. friend does not want to encourage co-operation with the private sector on matters like this.


COMMUNICATIONS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Since radios in small aircraft are required by law, are absolutely essential, and are a safety device, why does the Government charge a licence for these radios?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member's question has been asked in the House before by Members who either pilot small aircraft or are interested in this question. The Hon. Member's question is undoubtedly related to the increase from $20 to $40 for the radio licence fee in aircraft. I believe that licence fee was increased for the first time in some seven years from $20 to $40. It is not outrageous to ask pilots of private aircraft to pay some of the cost of managing the spectrum system, the frequency allocation system in Canada.
The Auditor General of Canada had actually asked my Department to go on a cost recovery basis a lot more quickly than we have done. We have tried to ensure that costs would not increase too quickly. In the case of small aircraft we decided that an increase from $20 to $40 was not an inordinate amount to ask, especially in view of the fact that no increase had been made in about seven years.


REQUEST THAT LICENCE FEE BE REMOVED
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am questioning the advisability of a licence fee at all for small aircraft radios. You do not charge a licence on the jets of Air Canada or CPA. The United States recognizes the radio in small aircraft is part of the aircraft. Is the Government now going to start charging a licence for tires and carburettors on small aircraft? It just does not make sense. It is part of the aircraft.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that Members on the other side of the House have always felt that we should be implementing some of the recommendations of the Auditor General and that we should be operating on a cost recovery basis in some of these areas. There is a cost associated with allocating frequencies to small aircraft. There is a cost associated with managing the spectrum in Canada. We have tried to identify

June 4, 1984
Oral Questions
the amount of money which should be charged to each class of operator. We do indeed charge for radio licences for every type of aircraft. We also charge boats and anyone else who is receiving a frequency.
We have just recently issued and gazetted a discussion paper requesting the public at large to have input into how we should be re-allocating these costs.
The radio is an important part for the safety of the pilots and occupants of small aircraft. When comparing the cost of a private aircraft to the annual cost of operating a radio, it seems to me that a $40 annual licence fee is not an exorbitant amount to ask of the owner of a small aircraft.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and in her absence I direct it to her Parliamentary Secretary. I refer to the proposed increases to the Old Age Security which, of course, I welcome. However, in the past, seniors living in subsidized housing have lost federal increases because of the fact that their rents are scrupulously geared to income. In such cases increases intended by the federal Government to assist individual needy seniors have actually become another form of transfer payments to the provinces. What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that the proposed increases do in fact go to needy seniors?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has mentioned, there are various funds available to help senior citizens. It is the hope that all Members of Parliament will impress upon provincial Governments the desirability to pass the benefits of the amendments to the Old Age Security Act on to the pensioners involved, and that the provincial Governments should not reduce their welfare payments correspondingly to the increases in the GIS, as has been done in the past.


QUEBEC GOVERNMENT'S ATTEMPT TO BUY BP REFINERY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as one of the senior Cabinet Ministers from the Province of Quebec. Why did the Government of Canada turn down SOQUIP, the Quebec provincial energy corporation, and an individual from the independent petroleum organization, in their attempt to purchase the BP refinery which Petro-Canada acquired during the BP takeover? Subsequently, the Government turned a deaf ear to the approach from the Quebec Government and the
independent dealers, and allowed Petro-Canada to tear down that refinery.
Could the Minister explain to the House why the federal Government failed to respond to that request? Could he assure the House that it was not some kind of animosity between the federal Government and the Province of Quebec, which prevented Quebec from expanding its interests in the energy sector?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this question does not relate to my responsibilities as Minister of Finance. I can add that I am not aware of the allegations that the Hon. Member makes. Second, such a decision would have been one taken by Petro-Canada, but the federal Government has not intervened one way or the other in this particular situation as alleged by the Hon. Member.


INDUSTRY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the senior Minister would not know.
I will direct the second part of my question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It relates to the Petrochemical Task Force. He will be aware that Petromont, the petrochemical group in Montreal, is in very serious difficulty and is considering closing operations by the end of June unless there is assistance forthcoming.
First, would the Minister give us an assurance, because SOQUIP is a partner in that operation, that that is not one of the factors that has contributed to the Government's reluctance to respond to the task force report? Second, could the Minister indicate what the Government is prepared to do to ensure that jobs are protected in that petrochemical industry?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, first, I think the Hon. Member should go back and talk to the researcher who wrote that question, because he is about a year and a half behind the times. A year and a half, or two years ago, the Government of Canada committed financial assistance of $25 million to Petromont to ensure that it would still be in existence today. The Government of Canada cannot keep contributing money to companies to ensure that they will succeed. At some point in time the shareholders of those companies must make some very difficult decisions about their own future.
June 4, 1984


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I believe the Prime Minister just met with Dr. Carl Sagan. The Prime Minister will know that Dr. Sagan made the point to a number of people last night that a mutual verifiable reduction in nuclear weapons is an overwhelming need. Will the Prime Minister tell us what he believes Canada can and should be doing now to achieve a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons on both sides?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a certain number of steps which should indicate to the Hon. Member what I think Canada and others should be doing. In February I proposed in the House of Commons ten points on which I think both East and West could agree at least to begin finding some common ground between them before underscoring the points of disagreement. I think this would get the talks and the relations on a better footing.
Unfortunately, the proposal to have these ten points supported by the House of Commons failed, when the NDP refused to support them. Then it failed because the Tory Party refused to at least permit me to say I had the support for them from that Party. Therefore, I have written on behalf of the Government and the Liberal Party to President Reagan and President Chernenko.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary. It is not an easy question to answer in Question Period.


NUCLEAR FREEZE-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind what the Prime Minister just said, and to the extent that what he just said is true, would the Prime Minister tell us what he thinks Canada and Canadians can do, starting today-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is raising questions that are very difficult to answer in the time available in Question Period.


David Kilgour: Will the Prime Minister tell us where he stands on the principle of a verifiable bilateral nuclear freeze on both sides?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that the subject is not more discussed in the Hon. Member's caucus so that he would know the position of his Party, I believe, and of our Party. It is that a freeze at this point would be in conflict with NATO's two-track decision. However, this is so elementary that I am surprised that the Hon. Member would ask the question.
Oral Questions


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister may not feel that this is a very important matter, but I want to raise it because I believe it reflects on the Canadian image.
Recently a hockey team from Bottineau, North Dakota, went to Brandon for a tournament and had nothing to declare at the border. These were young fellows going to a hockey tournament. Suddenly they found that pins that are exchanged in hockey tournaments are liable for duty. Is that Revenue Canada policy, and will the Minister correct that situation?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the principles that apply to administration of the Income Tax Act also apply to Customs, and in specific situations judgment is very important. I am not familiar with this particular occurrence, but I think the regulations must apply.


REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there were duties paid of $71.58, and that we have been castigated in the North Dakota press, and castigated as a country by the United States, will the Minister look into this case?


Pierre Bussières: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Where in the mandate of the Canadian National Railway is the authority for the use of railway lands and railway money to build a domed stadium in Toronto?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not know of that mandate, but there may be some implications to the question that I have not understood. I will take notice of the question.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, has the Government of Canada directed Canadian National Rail-

June 4, 1984
Oral Questions
ways to produce plans for a domed stadium as part of its railway mandate? Is that how the Prime Minister believes the railway should operate? Has the Government suggested that the railway should be compensated somehow if it builds a domed stadium in Toronto? Is that how the Government intends to have that program projected as government assistance to Toronto?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is making many false presumptions. There is no government policy regarding the domed stadium. I know that many Members on this side would like to see it happen. They would like to see the Government support it. But there has been no decision taken as regards it, either directly or indirectly, through the CNR.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGULATION OF TELEVISION CABLE OPERATORS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. As he knows, the CRTC puts very heavy obligations on cable operators and the services that they provide to the community and also regulates them very carefully. Meanwhile, apartment block owners and hotel operators who install satellite antennae services can siphon off that industry. It has the effect of haemorrhaging the income of those cable operators.
Does the Minister have any intention of making certain that the CRTC relaxes the obligations placed on the cable operators, or does he have another plan to make sure that if there is to be competition rather than regulated monopoly in that marketplace, it will be fair for everybody?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's question is very basic and indicates a very clear understanding of the role of the cable companies in Canada. It also indicates a sympathy for the position that we in Canada should want to have a thriving cable industry and a strong broadcasting industry of our own. I would only encourage him to speak to his own House Leader to try to pass Bill C-20, since that Bill does indeed deal with the very problem that the Hon. Member raises. I think it is an important problem. I would very much hope that we would have the co-operation of the Hon. Member's House Leader to get this Bill through as soon as possible.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is not related to that last gratuitous statement by the
Minister of Communications, but is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Her colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has been quoted with respect to the tradition of the Liberal Party of alternating between English and French leaders. He was quoted as follows:
We have to select the best person. This (tradition) has to disappear. It's not an honorary post, it's the chief executive officer of the country.
"If we use a quota system, it will develop that we can, at some point, only have a Ukrainian woman."
Obviously the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources thinks a Ukrainian woman as leader of any political Party is a last resort, the last option. Speaking as the Minister does on behalf of the status of women, will she dissociate herself and her Cabinet colleagues with respect to this point of view expressed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that it was an unfortunate remark, but at the same time it must be taken in total context. I will certainly have a discussion with the Minister as to exactly how that remark was made.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT OF RULES
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. He is responsible for the administration of the CRTC. He is allowing that Commission to operate a two-track program, relaxed for the master antenna service and tough on the cable operators. When will he take his job seriously so that everybody operates under the same rules?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has been following the more recent CRTC decisions, he will see the rules that apply to master antenna television systems are the same as those that apply to cable operators. If the Hon. Member believes that the Government of the day and Parliament should have some say in deciding the architecture of the broadcasting system in Canada, including cable, he should once again speak to his House Leader, because Bill C-20 would give the Government of the day, after having tabled directives in the House of Commons, the opportunity to give directives to the CRTC on the over-all architecture of the system. I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. It indicates quite clearly that he, too, believes it is time that parliamentarians, the elected representatives of the people, should have more to say in the design of the architecture of the broadcasting system of Canada. That is our position in the House. We are simply waiting for the Opposition to indicate its willingness to go in that direction.
June 4, 1984



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 804, 805 and 806.
Province	(a) 'Employee Size
	1,000 and over
	$000
Newfoundland	1,312
Prince Edward Island	44
Nova Scotia	6,790
New Brunswick	11,581
Quebec	356,393
Ontario	799,992
Manitoba	51,325
Saskatchewan	6,754
Alberta	12,901
British Columbia	21,801
Yukon and N.W.T.	309
Unknown	
Total	$1,269,202
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Towers: In the Fiscal year 1982-83, by province, what was the total monetary value of contracts for goods and services awarded by the Department of Supply and Services to businesses with more than (a) 1,200 employees (b) 200 employees but less than 1,200 (c) one but less than 200 employees?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and  Services):: (b) Employee Size	(c) Employee Size	Employee Size200 - 999	1-99	Unknown$000	$000	$0001,906	22,132	17,920144	4,420	2,14444,405	75,037	35,5143,907	23,396	12,587396,187	252,694	153,156402,370	880,653	320,08138,332	36,606	27,9106,618	14,263	6,49324,988	46,781	34,90522,021	85,561	68,881136	6,772	3,527-	-	5,291$941,014	$1,448,315	$688,409
* Note: Employee size coding is restricted to 1,000 and over with no break available at 1,200 employees.


Mr. Towers: In the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts for goods and services offshore and, if so (a) what was the total value of all such contracts (b) did the Department determine if any Canadian suppliers could fulfil such contracts and, if so, approximately how much of the above total could have been supplied by them?


Charles Lapointe: (a) The total value for all contracts awarded offshore for fiscal year 1982-83 was $616,966,688.
(b) The policy of the federal Government is to support Canadian suppliers when possible. However, there is no record readily available to determine the value of offshore purchases which could have been supplied by Canadian based suppliers.
It should be noted that federal Government contracts awarded to Canadian suppliers during the same period amounted to $4,346,940,000, (more than seven times the value of contracts awarded offshore).


Mr. Towers: In the fiscal year 1982-83, what was the total monetary value of contracts for goods and services awarded by the Department of Supply and Services (a) in all of Canada (b) by province?


Charles Lapointe: $4,346,940,000	$000
Newfoundland	43,270
Prince Edward Island	6,752
Nova Scotia	161,746
New Brunswick	51,471
Quebec	1,158,430
Ontario	2,403,096
Manitoba	154,173
Saskatchewan	34,128
Alberta	119,575
British Columbia	198,264
Yukon and N.W.T.	10,744
Unidentified (Canada-wide or documents less than $250.)	5,291
Total	4,346,940


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 4, 1984
4330_____________________________________
Old Age Security Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, when we recessed for lunch I had been in the process of making what I think are two important points respecting amendments to the pension plans of Canada. The first concerns people who are vulnerable. They are the ones who as their total income upon retirement have the Old Age Security pension and the guaranteed income supplement. They are very unfortunate because they have to depend also upon government services. When those services break down, they are affected.
It would be a matter of pension reform if in the process the Government introduced the kind of tax system that would allow pensioners to diversify their retirement income. What about putting in the kind of tax amendments which would allow people to save during their lifetime and invest the money in such a way that when they do retire they would have various sources of income, instead of having to depend solely upon the Government OAS and other forms of pension.
My second point concerns workmen's compensation pensions. During the Minister's statement in the House, she was giving the general public the impression that all of these amendments deal with improving the position of pensioners, making them all feel better because they will be doing better under the pension system. That camouflages and disguises a section of this Bill that is really not to the benefit of pensioners, specifically those who are on disability pensions from workmen's compensation boards.
I know it is politically attractive to put the best face on things and make measures look as though everybody will benefit from them. What the Minister has done today is to let Canadians believe that everybody will be benefiting from this legislation. Meanwhile those people receiving income from workmen's compensation boards individually scattered across a Canada will lose income in relation to other pensioners.
I was glad to hear during statements made today support from the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki), together with the applause given to his statement by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni). There are members of the Government who are just as concerned as members of the Opposition about this provision. People who are receiving their income from workmen's compensation boards should not be jeopardized because of this particular amendment which the Government has introduced.
The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) mentioned a letter which the Minister sent to the War Amputees Association. Let me quote from one part of this letter. The Minister wrote:
To ignore income from sources such as Workmen's Compensation would result in inequitably, higher benefits for pensioners who have those sources of income than for pensioners without such sources.
That is the level of fairness the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) addresses and that is unfortunate. I suppose it is politically expedient to handle the matter that way.
My final point deals with the administration of the system. There are a number of amendments in this Bill which deal with the administration. I know the Minister was sincere in her comments during debate when she said that she wants to improve the administration of the pension scheme and make sure that the mechanisms in government do not create a built-in unfairness for pensioners, that there will be provisions in the administration of the pension system that will make it operate more fairly for all pensioners. I do not minimize the Minister's willingness to do this, her desire to improve things or her honesty in the statements that she has made today. I simply say they will not work because they are outside of her department.
I think all Members realize that, while we are passing provisions today under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and her administration, it is actually the Department of Supply and Services which does the work. They send out the cheques, they make the decisions, and when there are critical decisions affecting the pensions of senior citizens, they are not made as a rule by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. They are not necessarily made by officials in her Ministry. They are frequently made by members of the administration of the Department of Supply and Services.
I have a case in point and I will probably take the balance of the time allocated to me to illustrate the point I am trying to make. The case to which I should like to refer is that of a pensioner in my constituency whose husband had worked for the Government in the armed forces, in the post office and possibly in other government departments for most of his life. The couple had been married for 37.5 years at which point they were legally separated. In negotiating a legal separation the husband agreed that, upon his decease, his wife would receive all the death benefits. It was properly arranged in the lawyer's office and it was an amicable separation. Unfortunately the husband was an alcoholic, yet he realized he had an obligation to his wife. He wanted to look after her even though he was not living with her any longer.
Within a few months thereafter, having moved away and living in a different part of Canada, he signed a new agreement which denied to his spouse all death benefits. I realize the Bill we are discussing today deals with pensions, not with death benefits. In terms of a precise parallel it is not there except in the administration. I want Government Members to
June 4, 1984

understand that we are talking about the administration of these systems through the Department of Supply and Services.
There followed a nightmare of trying to negotiate some sense of justice. Indeed, the newly-named beneficiary was willing to waive her benefits and so announced to the Department of Supply and Services. She requested a form so that she could waive the death benefits. It so happened that the spouse was also the executrix of the will.
I should like to point out some startling facts. First, the Department of Supply and Services never had the courtesy of notifying the executrix of the change in beneficiary. Furthermore, departmental officials never offered an apology, never said that it was negotiable, nor told the executrix that the new beneficiary was willing to waive her benefits. I would like to point out what happened in the negotiations. The change in beneficiary was made six months after the signing of the separation agreement.
I see Mr. Speaker indicating that my time is almost up. I was told that I had 12 minutes remaining after the luncheon break and I do not think I have spoken for 10 of them. In any event, six months after the separation agreement was signed, the man was in the last days of his life; he was an alcoholic. There was no guarantee established that the new beneficiary had received that new status legally. Was he under the influence of alcohol? Had he already deteriorated in his health to the point that he did not know what he was doing? There was no attempt on the part of the Department to establish the legitimacy of that change in beneficiary.
Since my time is coming to an end, I underscore for the Government that earlier in the day I said we could not pass all stages today because there were some amendments which ought to be made that did not concern money; they concern the protection of the spouse under the administration of the Department of Supply and Services. When officials in that Department are engaged in nothing more than protecting their own backsides, in following precise regulations of the Department rather than looking after pensioners and their benefits, we need some very close scrutiny of the regulations. When a change in beneficiary can be so loosely worded as to deny a spouse who had been married for 37.5 years death benefits which were rightly hers, we need to tighten up the Bill so that there is justice for widows and spouses who would otherwise be denied benefits which ought to be accruing to them as a result of this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, in the nature of comments more than questions, I should like to refer to the Hon. Member's reference to myself as having applauded the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hudecki) today when he made a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21 about the fact that workmen's compensation payments are now included and therefore cause a deduction in the pension. I regret that very much indeed. Now that I am on the point of leaving, I can say that it was one of the few
Old Age Security Act
regressive steps ever taken by the Liberal Party. I believe compensation for disability should be ex gratia. It is society's only way to say thank you to veterans of war or victims of horrendous labour accidents. We should say thank you. We should not deduct money from them in any way.
Having said that, I challenge the Hon. Member in terms of another deduction from people who need the money most. We are talking about needy senior citizens to whom I made reference today during Question Period. My question was ably answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. As a Conservative Member, the Hon. Member will know that most provincial governments in Canada are Conservative. If they profess humanity, every time the federal Government, usually a Liberal Government, gives badly needed money to the poorest people of Canada, why do provincial governments consistently take back what we try to give so that those who live in subsidized housing will have their rents geared to income? Here again we must define what is income. It is one of the most horrendous acts perpetrated by provincial governments. The fact is that when we give the $25 increase, the provincial governments will probably take most of it back for rents.
Another point I should like to make was referred to by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). In his speech he referred to the fact that he and some of his colleagues had long advocated help for immigrant people. Many of the immigrant people who both of us know are generally very old and came to Canada when they were already quite elderly. Because of their age or because of other reasons, they were unable to learn either English or French, the two official languages. In her speech this morning the Minister referred to many of these immigrants who constantly lose out on some of the programs being offered to them.
I urge the Minister and all those who may be listening today that when we propose some kind of relief for immigrant people, we tell them in a way they understand. In this case I am speaking about talking to them in their own language. Perhaps the advertising of these benefits should be done mainly through the so-called ethnic press. We have to reach them. In my own small way I have reached my constituents who speak Italian because I happen to know that language. However many of my constituents speak only Polish, Ukrainian, Greek or whatever and I cannot reach them. Therefore it is the Government's job to reach them in the language they understand. They need to know. It is to their benefit.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, certainly I will respond to the Hon. Member's remarks which related to me. She mentioned that provincial governments tend to siphon the moneys transferred to them. I am not sure that is always the case. However, I urge the Minister to use her powers in negotiating with the provinces to ensure that the people out there receive the full benefit of this increase. It is her obligation to do that between now and when the time of the Government runs out. The Minister of Health has an obligation to make sure that the people receive all of the benefits of this legislation.

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
I would add to that that in the Province of British Columbia the provincial government tops up incomes over and above the OAS and the GIS. The Province of British Columbia has provision for a GAIN supplement, or a guaranteed annual income supplement, for those who are in need. The provincial Government of British Columbia and I suspect the provincial governments of other provinces are topping up the incomes of those who are already receiving OAS and GIS.
Third, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) mentioned the need for providing services in the language of the immigrants. I would agree that immigrants should not be denied any kind of help that they could possibly get. For example, I know that the father of the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) was once a translator in the courts. He translated for those who spoke only Russian or German and he provided that service through the years without any kind of government legislation obligating him to do so. The courts were generous and open-minded and they provided that service. Many of us in this House who speak more than one language do that in our riding offices all the time. We translate for those who speak German-the best language of all-or for those who speak other languages, and we do that constantly. I agree that we must accommodate those who do not speak either of the two official languages of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are there other questions or comments? If there are no further questions or comments, we shall continue debate.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in this debate today and indeed to be addressing myself to this Bill which on other occasions I have urged the Government to bring before the House just as quickly as possible.
When I was looking at the Bill, I thought of the number of occasions over the past few years on which I have spoken of the need for pension reform. I began to go back through my own files and look at some of the most recent speeches that I made on this subject. Hardly a week has passed in the last two or three years during which I have not in some forum, either here in the House of Commons, before organizations across the country or on radio and television broadcasts, dealt with the subject of pension reform.
I have pointed out time and time again the pressing and urgent need for pension reform. In fact, as I look at this particular Bill and consider the issue, I would say that there is probably no other issue that has taken so much of my time, and I would say rightly so, in the last number of years. That is one of the reasons I am pleased to see this Bill finally come before the House.
While the Bill does not address the issue in any major way, it does deal with one of the components of the issue. It is a partial solution to what I think is the overriding social issue of our time. I went through the Bill and paid a great deal of attention to what the Minister said about it this morning. As
well, I listened with great care to other speakers and to the spokesperson for the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who followed the Minister in the course of debate. At that time he gave the House the assurance that, as far as this Party was concerned, there would be speedy passage of the Bill. There should be no concern or doubt about that whatsoever.
Of course, there is one thing that we do wish to make very clear. There are items that are dealt with in this Bill that have not been mentioned previously. I am referring to some of the changes to the Act relating to spouses and some of the regulations with regard to pension adjustments that will be made for those who have emigrated to this country in recent years. Those are things which we will need to look at in some detail in committee, at least for a period of time, so that we do not make the mistake we made before of putting through legislation that we must subsequently correct. That has already happened two or three times with regard to various pension measures that needed changes. That happened in 1977 when we changed pensions for immigrants.
The House made mistakes and the Government made mistakes when it introduced the concept of a spouse's allowance. When the Conservative Government was in office in 1979, it took a step to correct at least one of the inequities with regard to the spouse's allowance that needed to be corrected. We were required to readdress legislation that had already been passed. I think it is very important that we take the limited time that will be necessary to look at this Bill in committee in order to ensure that we do not once again make mistakes that will create further inequities with regard to pensions across the country.
The Minister mentioned a couple of other things today to which I wish to allude. She herself mentioned the fact that single elderly persons require more than half the income of married elderly couples in order to get by; that when one spouse dies, the income of the remaining spouse should not be cut in half because the rent, taxes, transportation costs and heating costs are not automatically cut in half. I point that out because the Minister herself raised the matter.
It was on that basis that the parliamentary task force on pension reform brought in a proposal to increase the guaranteed income supplement for single elderly persons to at least two-thirds of the income of married elderly couples. We thought that that would be fair and even more fair than proposals that are now before us. The Government did not see fit to accept that recommendation. I think that recommendation would have done a great deal to alleviate the poverty of those most in need. They would have been the ones who would have been helped most. We in the all-Party Special Committee on Pension Reform felt that that would be the proper way to go.
The Minister has chosen to introduce an amendment which will increase the guaranteed income supplement for single elderly persons by $25 on July 1 and $25 on December 1. Certainly that is better than nothing. However, contrary to what the Minister said this morning, it does not bring the
June 4, 1984

incomes of all of those single persons who are over the age of 65 above the poverty line. She said that it would but it will not. In my own community of Kingston, for example, a city of moderate size, the incomes of single elderly persons will still fall $1,700 short of the poverty line even after these two increases are implemented.
We should try to put the increase in the incomes of elderly persons in proper perspective. This increase will allow the income of a single person over the age of 65 to become $20 a day. When one thinks of the expenditures that must come from that $20, one realizes that we are not talking about any degree of affluence. It is far from affluence. Out of that $20 a day must come money for food, transportation, taxes, health care and a good many other things. When those things are paid for, very little is left over for those things which I like to call things of the soul: concerts, plays and all such other things that many people over the age of 65 must deny themselves.
The Minister said this morning that the Government brought in the increase as soon as the economy permitted it. I take some exception to that. I would like to know why it took so long to find out that the economy permitted it. When I look at some of the Minister's earlier statements I find, for example, that in March of 1981 she said:
We have often repeated the commitment of this Government to bring all the senior citizens who now receive the supplement over the poverty line.
Two years later, in March, 1983, the Minister repeated her claim and qualified it somewhat. She said:
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.
June, 1984, is obviously when the Government thinks the first social spending should take place. However, the economy permitted in the last two years that $2.1 billion be given to Canadair; it permitted almost $1 billion for de Havilland; it permitted $34 million for Maislin; and it permitted the executives of Crown corporations such as CDIC and de Havilland to receive large bonuses. It permitted all of these things. The economy could afford all of those, but it could not afford the $450 million for increases to the guaranteed income supplement until just before an election. That is interesting. Nevertheless, having said this, there is no question that we want to see the Bill being given speedy passage.
The guaranteed income supplement goes to some 700,000 Canadians, either in part or in full. I would like to take a look at those 700,000 people. When we examine who they are and when we talk about who are the recipients, we look at the question of Canada's elderly poor. When we do that, we can determine very easily who it is we are really talking about. Eighty per cent of the single elderly today who live below the poverty line are women. Four out of every five of the people living below the poverty line in their retirement years-their so-called golden years-are women. Those women did not ask to be put in that position. They contributed throughout their lifetimes to build this country. Today they find themselves in
Old Age Security Act
very, very straightened circumstances. Eighty per cent of the elderly poor in Canada today are women. Eighty per cent of the elderly poor in Canada tomorrow will be women, unless we do more than provide band-aid solutions by coming along after the fact to address the problems of those over the age of 65. This is where I take the greatest exception to the present legislation: it does not address the issue of pension reform.
Pension reform cannot be undertaken after the age of 65. It must be addressed while people are still below that age-in their earning years; in their contributing years-from the point of view of being part of the labour force. We cannot wait until those people reach the age of 65 to carry out pension reform. The reason that I dwell on this and have dwelled on it increasingly over the years, is that I and my Party consider pension reform to be one of the major pillars in guaranteeing economic equality to women in this country.
Why do I put this emphasis on how important it is to the women of the country that something be done about it? Quite frankly, unless something substantial is done in the way of pension reform before people get to the age of 65, we will see many more women living below the poverty line 10, 20 and 30 years in the future. Let me say why. There are still-and people often try to dismiss this-almost three million people who work full-time in the home. The great majority of them are women. They are people who, at the present time, do not have access to pension plans in their own right. Many of them are in a marriage contract which could quite conceivably dissolve before they reach the age of 65. What will they have in their own right to allow them to carry on pension payments in the future? If we were to go beyond that and look at others who do not have adequate retirement income, we could focus in on the five million people who are in the paid labour force today, who have no supplemental benefits or access to a pension plan beyond the Canada Pension Plan. They are not in a defined benefit plan and they have no company plan. They have, perhaps, very little money to put into a retirement savings plan. There are five million such people in Canada today. The majority of them, once again, are women. These are people whose average income is probably between $12,000 and $25,000 a year. They could, with proper fiscal encouragement and tax credits, be encouraged to begin to look to their own retirement future. However, at the present time, many of them find it impossible to do so.
It is substantial pension reform which we really need to turn the situation around and to make it possible for older people to face their retirement years with some sense of dignity and self-worth.
I would like to quote from a speech which I gave two years ago this month in Toronto. I said to the group at that time:
Let us look at the situation of our elderly poor today, and call it what it is, a national disgrace.
These elderly are treated worse than many whom we convict and condemn for crimes of theft and violence. Yet what did they do wrong? Do they ask to grow old? To outlive friends and relative? To be widowed or divorced? To be denied gainful work by age or inexperience or health? To be written off and forgotten? To live in small and dingy rooms, seldom eating a nourishing and balanced meal?

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
Sometimes, when I have spoken of these elderly Canadians, most of them women, I have been reminded of the millions around the world far worse off, caught in wars, and in famine. And it is true, very few of our elderly, even those hundreds of thousands of women over 65 who live below the poverty line, actually die from starvation or pestilence. None from war or political terrorism. Ours is a benign, not a wilful neglect.
It is that, above all, which is so shameful about our present pension system and its treatment of the Canadian woman.
I made this speech two years ago. I went on to say:
There was no deliberate intention to bring about the situation as it exists today. It just happened. It happened because we were not sufficiently alert. We weren't interested enough. We didn't know.
No one can pretend to have all the answers to such an immense problem and the causes behind it. But I do know that if we are now to rebuild our pension system we must do so as comprehensively as possible. We must not do it by half measure. We must not overlook, underestimate, or ignore any part of our society. Especially women.
That is what I have been saying, Sir, for the last two, three and four years on this subject.
I am pleased to see this Bill come before us today. Yes, I am pleased to see the measures which are incorporated. However,
I do point out to you, Sir, that it is just a very timid step. It does not begin to address the major problem of pension reform. We here in this House must feel the responsibility to address this problem. We must take it on, because if we do not, Sir, those people who will be in the senior citizen bracket 10, 20 and 30 years down the road will point to us, and rightly so, and say, "When you had the opportunity for action, you failed to take it. You failed us and, particularly, you failed the women of Canada". That kind of condemnation, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to receive, and I will do everything possible to make sure that that does not happen. That is why I say that this Bill does not go nearly far enough. We must have much more than this legislation in the way of pension reform.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a period of ten minutes for questions and comments. As there is no one wanting to put any questions or make any comments, we will continue debate.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to enter into the debate on the Bill before us this afternoon. I have listened to the various speakers who have spoken prior to myself and what concerns me the most is the little regard which Hon. Members opposite have for the actual advantages and benefits of the Bill which is before us today. I do agree with the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and other Hon. Members, that perhaps it would be nice if more could be done in this Bill, or in general, for our senior citizens. I believe that is true. I do not believe there is an Hon. Member in this House who would disagree with that philosophy. I agree with the statement that more should be done for people over the age of 65 and, in particular, women in need. And I agree, as the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands points out, that women do form the majority of those in need over the age of 65. I
disagree, however, with the Hon. Members opposite for the little regard they hold for this Bill. I believe this Bill is a very significant step forward and I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands and other Hon. Members have suggested that this Bill should contain more benefits, that it should contain more changes, that perhaps it could be meatier, more in respect of the whole question of pension reform. At the same time Hon. Members opposite have criticized the Government for not bringing the Bill forward earlier, in spite of the fact that the provisions which are in the Bill today were mentioned in the Budget of February 15. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands herself, on an Opposition Day or May 10, criticized the Government for not bringing forward these amendments. In spite of the fact that she knew that the first $25 increase would take effect on July 1, she was still pressing the Government to do something. We are now doing something. We have this Bill before us today.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why did it take you so long?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The New Democratic Party moved a motion that all stages of this Bill be dealt with today. We on this side agreed to that, but members of the Progressive Conservative Party said that they needed more time to study certain aspects of the legislation. If members of the Progressive Conservative Party are sincere in their intention to study positively and quickly all aspects of this Bill, then that point of view is acceptable to us. I do hope they are sincere when they say they do not wish to prolong debate on this Bill and want it to come into effect as soon as possible. It is very important that this Bill go to committee. I hope that the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who is the health critic for his Party, would agree that, if there are amendments or questions he would like to bring forward in committee, those questions will be dealt with as quickly as possible, not to shorten the time spent on it, but so as not to delay the meetings in committee so that this Bill can receive swift passage.
The Hon. Member for Provencher has mentioned, and I feel rightly so, that there are two Bills before the committee at the present time, Bill C-221, which deals with the therapeutic use of heroin, and Bill C-5 dealing with the question of radiation. He is a member of the steering committee and knows that the dates for hearings on these Bills were agreed to by all members of all Parties in this House. If he wishes to change the order of the hearings before the standing committee and bring Bill C-40 before the committee prior to the other Bills, I will support him in that. However, to say that because these Bills are before the committee the Government is not sincere in dealing with the provisions of this Bill I feel is totally false and really very misleading. I would hope that he will state his preferences in this regard.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands is concerned about the welfare of women in this country and, I feel rightly so. However, I would like to say, in all fairness to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, that she does not have a corner on this concern for women and for the pension-
June 4, 1984

ers in this country. We listened to the comments of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) stating her concern that the provinces pass along to the pensioners in their provinces the benefits of the increases in the guaranteed income supplement, that they not do what they have done in the past and reduce the welfare payments correspondingly. When we increase our GIS payments on July 1, they should not reduce their payments to those very same people by the same amount of $25. I believe it is the duty of all Members of this House of Commons to present to their respective provinces their concern that the provinces pass along the benefit of this GIS increase to the people in those particular provinces. I do not doubt that that will be the case. However, I want to emphasize the importance of Members of Parliament taking a stand on this very important question.
I would like to mention also that when we are talking about women and poverty, Mr. Speaker, we are not only talking about women over the age of 65. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands knows, as we all know, that there is a problem in other areas. The Hon. Member has said that the problem of income for pensioners is probably the most serious social question facing this country today. I do not disagree that it is a serious question. However, there are other serious questions.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I said pension reform.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Pension reform is one of the most serious questions, that is true. I still disagree with the Hon. Member but I appreciate her clarification. There are other social questions of very great importance to our country at the present time which involve women in their role as single parents, as mothers and wives. There are unemployed women and men without jobs who, along with their children, are living below the poverty line. There is the problem of our young people who have been out of college perhaps for two or three years who have not yet been able to get that first job. Their problem will be compounded as they go through life because, through no fault of their own, they are picking up the stigma of being unemployed. And when jobs do become available, as they will, they will see those jobs offered to those who have just graduated from high school or university because, supposedly, these new graduates have not been unemployed, have not come in contact with what is seen in the minds of some employees as the stigma of unemployment. These are the social problems we face and they must be addressed.
Bill C-40 is an important step for pensioners. Hon. Members opposite say that the Bill should contain more, and at the same time they say we must get it passed as soon as possible. They know that if clauses are added, the Bill will, in their opinion, become more contentious, and the more they will want to debate it, the more they will pick holes in it in committee. I did not arrive here yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I have been here for five years and I have been watching Members opposite. I know the way they work.
Old Age Security Act
This morning the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said that 55 per cent of Canadian workers do not have pensions. Imagine if we tried to put forward in this Bill an ever so slight requirement for mandating of pensions in the private sector. Imagine the outcry from Members opposite. Imagine how long it would take to deal with this Bill. We want to get these provisions to the people in need, the pensioners, as soon as possible. In order to do that, we have to present a realistic Bill which will be passed, and that is what the Government has done. It does not provide all the answers; no one says it does. But it does provide answers to some very serious problems. We hope Members' opposite realize that and deal with it constructively. I recommend that they do not posture on this very important issue.
It was mentioned by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston that there are relatively new elderly citizens in our country who are not aware of these benefits. This Bill deals with this question in that it would make payments to pensioners retroactive for five years, whereas it is one year at present. This is very significant. Mind you, it may only affect 50 people a year, but it shows the concern of the Minister and of the Government for the well-being of even 50 people when provisions such as this are included in the Bill. In addition, the Minister has agreed to advertise these benefits in the ethnic press so that people of various ethnic origins can read in their own language about the benefits now available to them. Of course, we will then have allegations from the Opposition that the Liberals are trying to advertise what they are doing for the people of Canada. It will not be termed as a benefit to the people concerned; it will be termed as advertising for the Liberal Government. How are you supposed to do what the Opposition asks without being open to unfair allegations such as that?
The question of British pensioners, Mr. Speaker, is of concern to the Opposition as it is to the Minister. Pressure has been put on the British Government. The Minister is now considering following up this question as far as she possibly can.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: About time.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I think the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands knows very well how sincere the Minister is on this question. As Members opposite know, economic dossiers associated with questions of foreign countries are dealt with through the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). The Minister is prepared to bring this question into the economic dossiers through the Department of External Affairs in the hope that it can be resolved. Once again this indicates the consideration the Minister is giving to these very important questions.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands talked about the inability of people over the age of 65 to attend concerts and listen to music and so on. She knows there are areas in this country where concerts are not available except through radio and television. That underlines once again the fact that social issues must be looked at through the perspec-
4336

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
tive of need and that all questions of social need in this country must be considered.
She also mentioned that we are bringing this Bill forward before a federal election. This issue was mentioned in the Budget of February 15. We all know what the polls were like then. They certainly were not as favourable to the governing Party as they are at the present time. Whoever assumed on February 15 that there would be an election this summer would have had to have been a clairvoyant of the highest order. What brings this matter before the House today is the seriousness of the question and the need to do something about pensioners, particularly those numerous pensioners living in poverty. It is a sincere attempt by the Government to do something, and the Government does not have to apologize at all for the way it has dealt with this very important question. It has moved as quickly as it possibly can, and we will see how serious Members opposite are in dealing with the question now that the Bill is before the House.
There are questions which are not going to be resolved. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) mentioned a concern in his constituency. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, we are not going to put lawyers out of business. There will always be cases where an individual pensioner feels he or she is maligned and will have to seek legal counsel to deal with it. Had we gone into the detail that Members opposite wanted, Mr. Speaker, they would be the ones crying foul and saying that we should split up the Bill, that we should put forward these questions separately and apart from the others. They are doing this with the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. That is the reason we do not have this Bill before the House at the present time. Members opposite cannot give serious consideration to the very important clauses in that Bill. The Government has moved this legislation with the interest of the Canadian public at heart. The Government feels that this very important question must be dealt with as soon as possible. We hope that Members opposite will agree, not only by their words, but by their actions as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. MacLellan) made mention, not only of the position our Party is taking, but also of some of the comments I made earlier this day. I really do not know what else I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary. I know him well and I know he did his Parliamentary Secretary duty today rather than doing his personal duty or expressing his personal feelings. Generally, words said in the House are accepted as factual and we respect that. On behalf of our Party I and other Members of our Party have reiterated that we want speedy passage of this Bill. We have said that we intend to see second reading of this Bill completed today before we conclude Government
Orders. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to say that that is delay of any kind. Surely if this Bill is so important, and I agree that it is, he cannot make the point that one day's debate in principle on pensions is in some way delaying the Bill.
I think the problem he faces is that we could have looked at a lot of pension reform if we had started debate on pension reform earlier, even if we had the Bill as early as May 10 when the Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) put the motion before the House to bring the Bill forward. That would have given us almost another month. However, that matter stands.
In terms of the committee, we have also said that the Member is correct when he says that Bill C-5 and Bill C-221 are before the committee. Those Bills have been scheduled. As a member of the steering committee, I say that as soon as the chairman, who is a Liberal, calls the steering committee together, I will be there. We will negotiate. Because of the point he had made, we are willing to schedule extra meetings outside the block system so that that this Bill can be discussed and dealt with. None of those are problems from our point of view. That is not the issue.


Mr. Cullen:: What about Committee of the Whole?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) says, "What about Committee of the Whole?" That is the whole point. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and Welfare mentioned the matter of spouse's allowance. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) mentioned another problem. There is the matter of the War Veterans Act. I think, in all fairness, that Members opposite must keep in mind that when this matter was mentioned in the Minister's budget on February 15 these issues were not in the Bill. In fact, the Hon. Member will notice that only on May 29 when this Bill received first reading were the issues made public. I give that commitment again to the Parliamentary Secretary. We want this Bill through.
Our dilemma as Canadians is that with the Canada Health Act we had the very same experience. We dealt with certain aspects of health. Every one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee wanted to use that legislative opportunity to look at the health system in the future in order to put into place methods and models whereby the health system could be enhanced. We are saying the very same thing about this Bill relative to pensions. When we make this point today we are talking about looking at the pension system and reforms. Unfortunately, time does not allow us. These are the last days of this Parliament. These are the last days of a corrupt, tired, weak Government. We agree with them. Let us get this Bill through and get on with the election.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Provencher for his remarks. In my speech I did not say that by not passing the Bill in all stages today he was stalling it. I said that we hope to proceed with it as quickly as possible. I could
June 4, 1984

understand the delay if there were genuine concerns. Speaking generally, I said that it was our hope that we could deal with these concerns as quickly as possible, as he has reiterated to us they would do. I thank him for his remarks, except for the last remark about the tired Government. That I take very great exception to.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: 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 Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Bank Act-Royal Bank's automobile financing plan, (b) Request for amending financing plan; The Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart)-National Revenue-Barrie hospital fund raising campaign-Refusal of tax deductibility, (b) Request that Minister resign; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission-Vancouver television station's application to relocate transmission tower.(b)Impact on Public Broadcasting Service.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, for more than 40 years my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has been the most eloquent, persistent and passionate exponent and advocate for better treatment for retired Canadians that this country has ever had. Because his advocacy was so frequent, I had seldom spoken on this subject. However, I have tried recently to fill, in a small way, the gap which was created by his illness.
Old Age Security Act
We are discussing today a Bill which proposed to raise the guaranteed income supplement for those fortunate enough to receive it, or I could say those unfortunate enough to need it, by $50 a month in two stages. We in the New Democratic Party will support this proposal because it is a small step in the right direction. I want to make it clear that it is only a very small step. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that it is anything but a very minor, hesitant move in dealing with the problem which is growing in seriousness every year. Canada's pension system is in a shambles today. Hundreds of thousands of retired Canadians now live in poverty. The standard of living of most Canadians drops at retirement. If that is not bad enough, when one spouse dies the survivor usually suffers a further sharp drop in his or her standard of living.
The fact is that more and more Canadians live in poverty every year. It has been estimated that at least one-quarter of all Canadians over 65 years of age live in poverty. Over 60 per cent of single women over 65 years of age live in poverty. That is a national disgrace of which all Canadians ought to be ashamed. Even the retirement years of most of those Canadians who do not live in poverty are characterized by a sharp reduction in their family income by an average of 40 per cent or more.
Why are the incomes of the elderly so low? There are two reasons for that. The first is that Old Age Security and the guaranteed income supplement simply pay too little to meet the basic needs of the elderly. As of April 1 in my City of Winnipeg, a single pensioner receiving both the OAS and GIS would receive $825 a month. That is $291 below the poverty line as calculated by the National Council on Welfare. This Bill proposes to give the poorest of the poor another $50 a month. They will still be almost $250 a month below the poverty line.
Let me digress for a moment and talk about what is happening in most Canadian cities. The vacancy rate for rental accommodation is a fraction of one per cent or 2 per cent at the highest. Rents are going up very sharply every year. Since the cost of accommodation is a very major part of the expenses of retired people, they simply cannot get affordable accommodation. Furthermore, since they must pay more than they can afford to have a decent place to live, they must cut back on other necessities such as the amount and quality of food they eat. They must cut back on their recreational expenses or such things as travelling to visit children and friends. This has happened because too many Canadians believe that pensions should be considered in the same manner as welfare benefits are considered. This is also the attitude of the federal Government and of most provincial governments. There is also the opinion that a pension should be subject to an income or means test.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that an adequate retirement income is the right of all elderly Canadians, regardless of their economic status or wealth. Canadians have accepted that health care is a right and that education, at least up to

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
the high-school level, is a right of all Canadians. We believe that pensions that provide a decent standard of living is the right of all senior citizens in Canada.
Let me review briefly the history of pensions in Canada. The old age pension was first introduced in 1926. Incidentally, it was introduced because in the minority Parliament at that time the Members of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre and Winnipeg North made it a condition of their support for the Liberal minority Government of Mackenzie King that he introduce an old age pension plan in Canada for the first time. When that pension was introduced in 1926, it was $20 a month at age 70 with a means test. Since that time members of my Party, which was then called the CCF, and now members of the New Democratic Party have advocated the improvement of our pension plans, advocated doing away with the means test and advocated a universal old age pension that is payable to everyone at age 65. We are now saying that pensions should be paid to everyone at age 60.
It was not until 1952 that Old Age Security payments were made universal and paid to all Canadians at age 70. In the 1960s, Parliament enacted for the first time the Canada Pension Plan which was universal for all Canadians who work. They paid into a pension plan an amount based on their earnings so that when they retired at age 65 they qualified for payments under the provisions of that plan. It was acknowledged that it would take at least ten years for that plan to be phased in and allow full benefits to be paid, when it was enacted in the 1960s. Therefore, there was a special temporary program brought forward called the guaranteed income supplement. This was to be made available on an income tested basis for the poorest of Canadians and for the elderly whose wages or salaries were too low. This supplement would help them until the Canada Pension Plan provision came into full force.
It was said at that time that when the Canada Pension Plan was in full operation the GIS would all but disappear because most Canadians who work, of whom there is an increasing percentage, both men and women, would be receiving both the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security benefits. It was thought that these two amounts would be enough and that the GIS payments would be reduced and would probably disappear. That has not happened. The GIS has grown in comparison to the other components of the pension system. In 1967, a single pensioner's guaranteed income supplement equalled just 40 per cent of Old Age Security payments. Now it is more than 100 per cent of Old Age Security. As a result of the increase we are discussing today, it will be raised to 120 per cent of the Old Age Security payment.
The guaranteed income supplement is now a permanent part of the pension system, despite the increasing number of Canadians who are receiving Canada Pension Plan benefits.
Today, in most Canadian cities a single person who has not participated in a private pension plan but who retires with the Canada Pension Plan benefits of $387 a month will still be eligible for partial income supplement payments and will still be living below the poverty line. This sad fact is true because
the majority of working Canadians have no pension plan or if they do, it is inadequate.
We have been told that we cannot do better and that many businesses cannot afford to pay more. The fact is that virtually every western European country, including Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Belgium, has done much better. The universal government pension plans that are based on contributions made at work are providing a pension for the bulk of their people that permits them to live in dignity and comfort.
In discussing pension programs and this proposal in particular, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has said that the Government is doing all that it can. She said that the Government has not done better until now because it could not afford it, but that it is bringing this $50 increase to the GIS now because the Government can now afford it. The Government says we cannot afford to do better for our pensioners, for retired Canadians, who have worked all their lives to make this country the modern, prosperous country it is. This is a Government which says we can afford a tax system where more than 250 Canadians with incomes over $250,000, in the last year for which we have figures, paid no income tax at all. It is a Government which has brought forth a tax system in which corporations with profits of millions of dollars a year can avoid paying taxes or pay very little in taxes.
Let me give you one illustration, Mr. Speaker. In 1982, the Bank of Montreal paid no tax at all. It got a tax credit of over $20 million. We believe that that is not good enough. We believe that Canadians who have reached 65 years of age, and even those who have reached 60 years of age, should be able to retire with a pension if they want to. We believe this country can do, must do, and should do much better for retired citizens than it has done. We intend to continue to fight for federal action to ensure that every elderly Canadian has an income at least equal to the poverty line, that everyone in the paid work force has an opportunity to provide for his or her retirement through a fully portable, fully indexed contributory plan. That means that federal and provincial governments will have to bring in legislation requiring every employer to establish a pension plan and to help fund that pension plan through contributions by the employer and employee jointly, that everyone who has had little or no attachment to the paid work force as a result of child care and like responsibilities should have an equal share of pension credits acquired in the name of his or her contributing spouse through public or private pension plans, and that the federal Government should follow the lead of those provincial governments which have improved portability protection of part-time workers and ensured equal treatment of women and men, those provinces being Saskatchewan and Manitoba which have or have had NDP governments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments.
June 4, 1984


Mr. Dingwall:: I have a comment, Mr. Speaker. Before the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) rises in his place to get involved in this debate, I have a few comments on Bill C-40 in relation to the comments made by the previous speaker.
The increases in the GIS for both July 1, 1984, and December 1984 are certainly ones which are needed. I can agree with the Hon. Member who has just spoken that they are long overdue. We ought to proceed very quickly to make sure that these provisions are passed through all stages and thereby implemented into law.
There is a certain aspect of the increase in the GIS of which we should all take judicial notice. I have raised this matter in the House previously, as has my colleague from Oxford. It concerns the effects of a previous Bill, Bill C-139, which ties in with the content of Bill C-40. Through Bill C-40 we are increasing the GIS. In Bill C-139 we have said that for the purposes of calculating the guaranteed income supplement we are now going to include workmen's compensation. For 10 to 15 years, the tradition in Canada was that when one was filling out his or her card for the GIS, it was not necessary to include any form of income received for compensation. That has been changed by the provisions of Bill C-139. As of today's date, compensation is included. The effects of Bill C-139, which I might add was considered by all Members of Parliament when it was passed some months ago, are to reduce substantially the income of those Canadians who I believe are in need the most.
I have a host of constituents not only in my own riding but in many areas throughout my province who are greatly affected by that measure. Although I welcome this increase in the GIS, I do not think it will compensate those individuals, previously receiving the GIS and the workmen's compensation, because their total income has been reduced substantially. I think of different organizations, such as the Pensioners' Union in the town of Glace Bay under the presidency of Mr. Peter Murray who has gathered a petition and has forwarded it to me in Ottawa. I am waiting for a second petition from the Town of New Waterford and its Senior Citizens' Club with regard to the provisions of Bill C-139. The total income of those Canadians has been reduced substantially as a result. Bill C-139 amends the Income Tax Act in Sections 81, 56, and 110. Those three sections of the Income Tax Act, when taken together collectively, have the effect that I have outlined.
Some individuals in my constituency have experienced reductions. I can think of Cecil Boutelier who has had a $37 a month reduction. Maybe with this $25 and $25 there will be a topping up. There are others who have a had a reduction of $90 a month. As the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has pointed out so well, I do not think one has to wear a political colour to agree or disagree, but the fact is that there have been substantial reductions. I think of Mr. and Mrs. Michael Murray.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member. I was prepared to recognize him for debate. He indicated that he was standing up in the
Old Age Security Act
ten-minute period allowed for questions and comments. There should be a limit to the time he speaks under that provision. Alternatively, he can be recognized for debate and could continue his remarks.


David Charles Dingwall: Do I have the consent of the House to continue for a short time, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: First I must ask whether there is anyone else who wants to put a question or make a comment to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who, I notice, has now left the House. I see the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). Is the Hon. Member rising for a question or a comment?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment and then ask a question, if the Hon. Member returns. I find it difficult to understand the comment of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton East-Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). There is no need to convert people on this side of the House in connection with classifying workmen's compensation as wages. Almost everyone of our speakers this morning, including myself, pointed out that this money is not wages, it is compensation, particularly for permanent partial disability and permanent total disability. It is not wages in any sense. The man lost part of his body for which he is compensated, and it should not be considered as wages. The Hon. Member does not have to convert us over here. I suggest that he should take the matter before his own caucus. That is where it originated and that is where it was passed.
I see the Hon. Member has not returned to the Chamber. He has had considerable experience with compensation. I was about to ask him whether or not he agreed with my interpretation of compensation, namely, that compensation for a permanent partial disability and for a permanent total disability is not wages. It is compensation because part of the body has been lost. We cannot emphasize that too much.
In answering questions the other day, the Hon. Minister showed that she just did not understand what compensation was. She included ordinary compensation as wages, which was right, but as a pension it is not wages and should not be considered in that category.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It would appear that the response to that comment will have to wait for another occasion. For continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have agreed with the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) that as he was to follow me I would try to be brief. Since I have been given the luxury of speaking at this point in time on Bill C-40, I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacLellan) for his diligence in ensuring that this piece of legislation was brought before the House of

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
Commons. I think it will benefit greatly those individuals who are in desperate need.
Bill C-40 is a good Bill. I will vote for it wholeheartedly. I am sure Hon. Members on both sides will do likewise. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said that we have not done anything in our own caucus. Unfortunately he is not a member of our caucus, so he does not know.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Fortunately.


David Charles Dingwall: The door is open for Hon. Members if they wish to attend.


Gordon Edward Taylor: No thank you.


David Charles Dingwall: I have a large number of constituents who have received substantial reductions in the moneys they previously received from the Government of Canada as a result of workmen's compensation being included in the calculation for the purposes of GIS. I could talk about Cecil Boutelier and a $37.77 reduction; Mrs. Michael Murray and her $134 reduction; Russell McLean and his $46 per month reduction; Mr. and Mrs. Bill Pittman and their $90 per month reduction. All those cases are ones of hardship and ought to be rectified.
I have listened to the Hon. Member for Bow River on a variety of topics in the House. In answer to his question, Hon. Members on this side of the House have echoed the same sentiments I am expressing this afternoon. However, I tell him and all Hon. Members opposite that when Bill C-139 was passed in the House, not one Member was on his feet arguing its provisions as they affected senior citizens and those in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement because it was a very technical inclusion. We could talk about Section 81(l)(h) as it affects Section 56(l)(v) and how it affects Section 110(l)(f)(ii). There are many sections tied into the Income Tax Act which Hon. Members did not recognize until notices were sent out to the individuals that compensation was to be included for the purposes of GIS. As a Member of Parliament representing such individuals in my constituency, I do not like the provisions of the Bill. I want to have them changed. I am seeking the support not only of Hon. Members opposite but of Hon. Members on this side as well.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Come to committee and you will get your chance.


David Charles Dingwall: I am glad to hear the offer of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I will follow it up with her. It is unjust that individuals in the greatest need can be hoodwinked by a piece of technical legislation which has been missed by all Members of Parliament. It was only raised in the House of Commons when individuals affected by the legislation filled out for the very first time papers as they had done for the last 10 years or 12 years. The situation is a serious one which all Hon. Members should look at realistically and carefully. We ought to do something about it.
There are Hon. Members on this side of the House, many of whom I cannot speak for, who talk about the concerns of senior citizens and those in greatest need. Likewise there are those on the opposite side of the House. Now is the time to put their money where their mouth is. We can change this injustice if there is the will in the House, an injustice which is affecting individuals all across the country.
I have named a few people, but I could talk about Mabel MacNeil of Reserve Mines, Dick Buckland of Glace Bay, Shirley Reid of Donkin, John MacNeil of New Waterford, David Maxwell of Sydney Mines and, as I mentioned, Peter Murray, President of the Senior Citizens' Club of Glace Bay. This issue should not be tossed aside lightly. Any Minister or any representative of any Minister who wishes to toss it aside is doing a great injustice to individuals in the greatest of need.
The Hon. Member for Oxford was kind enough to allow me to make these comments. He now wishes to speak, therefore, I will say in conclusion that I am hopeful that we can get together either with the Minister privately or in committee to try to change what I believe is an injustice. I want the record to show that the Hon. Member for Oxford has been very helpful in bringing this issue to the floor of the House of Commons. With some political will on that side and on this side, I am confident we will resolve it in favour of those individuals who have been dealt an injustice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether there are any more of his constituents whom he did not name.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a very long list of names.
I know the Hon. Member is not trying to be disrespectful to the individuals I have mentioned, as he is an honourable gentleman. The individuals I have mentioned have suffered a great loss. I do not want to minimize their loss, nor do I believe that he wishes to minimize their loss. In answer to his question, there is a great number of individuals whom I have not named. The ones to whom I have referred are some of the more glaring cases who volunteered to allow me to use their particular circumstances as examples for the attention of bureaucrats and politicians. There are a great many individuals in that circumstance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions or comments, for continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday).


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to follow the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). The issue before us today is not really a small one even though the number of people affected is a relatively small one. However, today could well be a momentous day in the life of the Parliament of Canada.
June 4, 1984

I have long awaited the time when there would be the kind of exchange that we have seen in the House today. In the past year and a half, not only have we been able to ask questions and give responses and comments following major presentations of 20 minutes or 40 minutes, a practice which I think enhances debate, but we now have an example of back-benchers being able and prepared to tell us what they really believe about an issue.
I give the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond full marks for having had the courage and the conviction to say what he believed should be said regarding a Bill that was handicapping some of the citizens in his riding as well as citizens in all ridings across Canada. I look forward to the time when there will be more debates like this, and I submit that if we had more debates of this nature and if back-benchers felt that they could say what they should say more often, we would have a much better attendance here in the House. People would be interested in hearing what others had to say if they thought that the others were speaking from their hearts, the way the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond just spoke.
I would like to point out that I would not be standing in the House of Commons this afternoon if it were not for the stubbornness and obstinacy of either the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) or her colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Many Hon. Members of the House, including the Hon. Member who just spoke, have brought to their attention the fact that there is a real problem with Bill C-139 as it affects old age pensioners who receive GIS.
Today we are debating Bill C-40, a Bill which, according to the Minister responsible, is intended to be of assistance to about 25,000 potential GIS recipients. However, this morning she forgot to tell us that a few months ago when Bill C-139 was before the House, benefits were taken away to a greater or lesser extent from another 25,000 GIS recipients. That is what the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond was talking about and that is the matter to which I would like to devote my few minutes this afternoon.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who is the Party health critic, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), have both explained very well and in some detail our concerns with regard to Bill C-40. As we have all acknowledged, all of us in the House are favourably disposed to this Bill itself. There is nothing particularly wrong with it, although some small points could be improved upon. However, we feel that as a substantive piece of legislation on pensions, this Bill is inadequate. Any criticism we have is directed to the inadequacy of this Bill and not because of a desire on our part to hold up the Bill. As the Hon. Member for Provencher has indicated, we had intended to see this Bill put through second reading this afternoon.
When I was listening to the debate this morning, I was very pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)
Old Age Security Act
rise and speak in no uncertain terms about the problem as he saw it with Bill C-40 and its attempt to help GIS recipients. He mentioned that the Government that brought in Bill C-40 is the same Government that harmed another 25,000 people through Bill C-139 a few months ago.
The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) touched upon the matter of the adverse effect of taking into account workers' compensation benefits on certain GIS recipients. As well, the Hon. Member for Beaches looked at the issue from the point of view of the work of the Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped which met for three years and reported by way of a document entitled "Obstacles". As he said this morning, we received a fairly sympathetic hearing from the Government, which agreed with the committee's feeling that there is room for a great deal of help for the disabled and the handicapped people of the country. The Government appeared to be sympathetic, and then, a few months later, it turned around and came up with Bill C-139, which took away benefits from those same handicapped people. Now, three and a half months after the Government told us it was going to do it, it is bringing in this simple piece of legislation, which offers some benefits to those single pensioners who are in need of extra help by way of GIS.
There is a feeling among Members of all three Parties that there is a deficiency in this Bill because of the way in which it fails to coincide with Bill C-139. As the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond suggested, I too would hope that when we get to committee on this Bill, we could prevail upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare to deal with this deficiency.
I suspect that it was not the fault of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that appropriate changes were not made earlier. I suspect that it was the fault of her colleague, the Minister of Finance, who does not seem to understand the difference between a compensation benefit that is paid to a worker who has been injured and remuneration for services rendered. This difference was well explained by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River, this morning and again this afternoon.
I listened very carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacLel-lan) who spoke a few moments ago, and I believe that he spoke very well. I have come to respect that Hon. Member because he and I were the parliamentary representatives of a recent delegation to the World Health Organization in Geneva. We got to know each other better at that time and I have a great deal of respect for him. For the benefit of those who might not be aware of it, WHO is the World Health Organization, an organization which holds an annual assembly in Geneva which is attended by representatives from some 150 countries who discuss issues of health care that are of general interest to all represented countries.
While at that assembly, the Parliamentary Secretary and I got to know each other to the point where I think we gained mutual respect. As the Hon. Member for Provencher said a few moments ago, he is an honourable Member and a sincere

June 4, 1984
Old Age Security Act
person. I frankly feel sorry for him because he had to stand up and apologize for his Government. In his speech, and I am practically quoting him, he said that the Government did not need to apologize for Bill C-40. He is quite correct. The Government asked him to do the apologizing on its behalf. I think it is unfortunate that he was placed in that position since he is such an Hon. Member and a man of integrity and sincerity. I feel quite certain that he would agree with the feelings of his colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, that a change should be made with respect to the moneys that are received by pensioners who are single and in need of extra assistance.
I would like to say a few words to elaborate on what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River, said so eloquently this morning. I am talking about the failure of the Government to understand the difference between compensation payments and remuneration. As far as I know, this issue first came to light on December 28 last when the secretary in my constituency office received either a phone call or a letter from a constituent of mine who was upset because he was being asked for the first time to report workers' compensation benefits when calculating whether or not he would be entitled to receive GIS benefits.
My secretary, Mrs. Whittingham, was not aware of this problem. She made literally dozens of phone calls to the OAS offices in the London and Toronto districts and to the Revenue Canada offices in the London and Toronto districts. After making these dozens of phone calls, she was still unable to find a single person who knew anything about this matter. Finally, after a couple of weeks, information began to trickle back which indicated that there had indeed been a directive issued in July, 1983, from Revenue Canada that the Workmen's Compensation Board payments were now considered taxable. Some officials were aware of that directive, but officials in other areas were not. My constituency office worked on that problem for about a month.
About four days before I raised the matter in the House, my colleague opposite, the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) asked a question on this matter and received an answer that was quite insignificant. On January 31,1 asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question on this matter in the House. I received an answer that had been designed to answer another question. I do not fault the Minister personally, but it was obvious that even she had not been briefed by her officials regarding what was actually happening to these 25,000 people who were recipients of GIS and WCB benefits and would suffer a reduction in income.
On January 31, I asked a supplementary question of the Secretary of State. He as well was completely unaware of the issue, as was evidenced by the answer he gave. A few days ago,
I again asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She was obviously embarrassed to answer the question. She apologized to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for answering in a way which would not please him. However,
she had obviously been instructed by the Minister of Finance on how to answer the question and that she was to consider a compensation benefit through the Workmen's Compensation Board as being income that should be reported in the calculation of GIS benefits.
I would like to cite an example. It is one which I had in mind this morning and which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River used as an example. However, it bears repeating because it is the kind of example that convinces a person that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the Hon. Member for Bow River and others are right. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will see that. Moreover, I hope that the Minister of Finance will see it.
Let us say that a person is working in a plant and, through an accident, losses both eyes. That is very serious and will probably mean that that person will be disabled for the rest of his life as far as being employable is concerned. If our medical technology were sufficiently good, we would be able to replace those two eyes with two workable eyes. Or, if a worker lost a leg we could replace that leg. That day may come. But I would submit that if we were able to replace those two eyes, surely we would not charge that as income to the patient in the calculation of GIS benefits on a subsequent date. Surely we would not say that the replacement of those two eyes should be taken into account when that person is being assessed for GIS benefits. That is exactly what Bill C-139 did, and it has been overlooked again in Bill C-40.
The kind of benefits which we pay to a worker when we cannot replace the two eyes is known as compensation. That was the term used by my colleague from Bow River this morning. It is compensation. It is not remuneration, nor is it income. Society has no other way to recompense that person other than through a cash payment. We are not able to give two new eyes to that person. Therefore, in lieu of two eyes, that patient is given a sum of money. That is the next best thing we can do. That is compensation, not income from a disability plan to which a person may have paid premiums. It is not like income from the Canada Pension Plan into which that person has paid premiums. It is entirely different. That compensation attempts to provide the best which society can provide in this day and age-a recompense to that person for the loss of two eyes. That does not bring that person up to the level of people who have two eyes with which to see. That is what annoys me about the attitude of the Government vis-avis the handicapped. It has failed to recognize that handicapped people must be brought up to the level of the rest of us who are able-bodied. The Government is assuming that because a person gets a compensation payment for the loss of two eyes, somehow that person has received something extra which should be compared with a benefit that the rest of us who are able-bodied may receive. It does not make sense.
I would like to speak in the strongest terms to supplement what was said earlier by my colleague opposite, by my colleague from the NDP, the Hon. Member for Beaches, by my colleague from Bow River and by the Hon. Member for London West who asked a question of the Minister on January
June 4, 1984

Public Service Employment Act PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
27, as well as other Members in the House who have asked for the same approach.
I would hope that with support coming from all sides of the House, something will be done by way of Bill C-40, or by some other mechanism which the Government House Leader might devise. We must not deprive those 25,000 Canadians who are eligible for GIS solely because they are recipients of a compensation payment in lieu of the restoration of their limbs, eyes, nervous system or whatever, which we cannot do physically. The best we can do is to give them a sum of money. Surely that should not be taken into account in calculating GIS benefits. I trust that that will be heeded by the Minister.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is in the House. He did not address that question in his comments this afternoon. I thought he might have done it inasmuch as it was raised two or three times prior to his presentation. Obviously it meant that he did not have an answer to the question. I hope he will go back to the Minister, who I know is concerned about people, and impress upon her the need to do something about this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that if you sought the consent of the House, we could call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans). Is it agreed that we proceed to the next order of business?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore, it being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["There is not unanimous consent. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding item 106 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan) moved: that Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it would be proper for me to indicate that while my name is on the Bill, the work which has been done in putting the Bill together has been done by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Blaker) who is also the Hon. Member for Lachine. However, as a Parliamentary Secretary I am informed that he cannot be the author of a Bill. Therefore, I will say a few words and will move a motion at the end of my remarks.
I am concerned about the people who work for Members of Parliament. They have given faithful service, are well-acquainted with the operations of Government, have worked long hours, and have gained a great understanding of the various departments and what government is all about. But, for one reason or another, when the Member of Parliament for whom they work ceases to be a Member at the end of a particular term or at any particular time when the Member is defeated or when he decides not to run in the election, they are out of a job. I am told that in every Parliament approximately 100 Members cease to be Members of Parliament for one reason or another. What this Bill says is that after approximately three years of service, these people should have the same priorities as a public servant. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that these priorities, in terms of moving into the civil service, are held by people working in Minister's offices and so on. We feel that those persons who work hard for Members of Parliament should have that same privilege after three years of service. I, therefore, feel this Bill is very important. I understand there is some disposition on all sides to let this legislation go forward. There may be some amendments which will be required but, certainly, we hope that this Bill will be accepted by all Parties.

In view of the fact that I was not the author of the Bill, although I was certainly involved in and very much in favour of it, and in view of the fact that the author of the Bill is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, the Hon. Member for Lachine, I would ask for unanimous agreement of the House to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to speak for the next few minutes in my place so that the balance of my time would be given over to him. I believe that would require unanimous consent, but if that is possible I believe it would give a better understanding of what is in the Bill and would not necessitate the Hon. Member's speaking at a later date. If it is possible, I would yield the floor, as is common in the United States, to the Hon. Member, with unanimous consent.

June 4, 1984
Public Service Employment Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan (Mr. McRae). The Chair should observe that the Hon. Member is recommending a procedure which is followed in the American Congress. This is the House of Commons. However, by unanimous consent the House is master of its procedure. Does the House agree to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Blaker) to speak at this time?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I believe it should go on the record that all things which happen in the Congress to the south of us are not always precedents we follow here. However, having said that, I would hope that when we form the next Government, Hon. Members opposite will be as willing to accept that our Parliamentary Secretaries speak in support of their Bills as we are prepared to consider allowing their Parliamentary Secretary to speak on this occasion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair gathers that there is unanimous consent. Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) who has very kindly presented this Bill in his name, because under the procedures of the House of Commons, a Parliamentary Secretary cannot do so. I also wish to extend my thanks to the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), who has recognized my difficulty in that I could not speak on this Bill without the consent of the House. It is my intention to be very brief and to indicate simply to Hon. Members of Parliament-and I see the Hon. Member from Hastings has just arrived, and I presume he will be speaking on this Bill as well-that this is a relatively simple proposition.
Certain staff members of the House of Commons now have the right in law to be considered-and I say "considered" not "hired"-by the Public Service of Canada in the event they are judged by the Public Service to qualify for a position. It is one of the benefits they might receive. However, if they, for some reason, do not appear to qualify in the eyes of the Public Service of Canada then they would not have an opportunity to be hired for a position. I believe the easiest way to explain this is by referring to the Explanatory Notes in this Bill. I would like to ask Hon. Members to consider the following wording:
The purpose of this Bill is to provide equitable treatment to the staff of Members of the House of Commons-
And I would point out that this refers to all Members of the House of Commons-
-(including the staff of the Speaker of the House of Commons) when their employment is lost as a result of Members ceasing to be Members, by according them the same priority to be appointed to the Public Service that employees in the following offices now enjoy:-
In a moment, Mr. Speaker, I will refer to staff members of Members of Parliament and how they compare to staff members of certain people in our House of Commons who do have
the qualifications, rights and privileges to be considered for employment by the Public Service. I say again "considered". It does not mean a guarantee of employment.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of all Hon. Members now sitting in the House of Commons to a very remarkable situation. The staff members of the Speaker of the House of Commons are not entitled to be considered for employment by the Public Service. I believe it is astounding that people who have given their time and service for three years and more to Members of Parliament or to the Speaker of the House of Commons cannot be considered to have a preferential right of consideration-and I underline the word "consideration"-so that if, as and when a Member of Parliament decides to leave, dies or fails to be re-elected-and that includes the Speaker of this House-they are not entitled to be considered as possible employees of the Public Service.
What we have, however, is a situation in which staff members of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and, I believe, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), together with staff members of Cabinet Ministers, if they have completed a term of three years or more, are entitled to be considered, and again I use the word "considered", by the Public Service for purposes of employment. It does not mean that they are given a guarantee to be hired. It simply means that if a position opens up, these people are given preferential consideration within the Public Service.
I believe that each and every one of the Members of the House of Commons who is sitting here today knows that as much as we put our loyalty, our care, our concern and our commitment to the service of Canada, so, too, do our staff. That is what we are talking about. That is all there is to it.
Hon. Members on both sides have no right to be considered as automatic, potential or specialized employees of the Public Service. All I am suggesting is that the men and women who work for us and have done so for a period of at least three years should be given consideration for employment by the Public Service. The proper definition of that expression is that they must first qualify in the view of the Public Service. Second, if they do qualify, they should be given that small extra advantage whereby they might be appointed without competition. It would still remain the right of the Public Service to say, no, we do not need that particular type of qualification, that particular personality, or those particular abilities. However, I believe all sides, whether it be the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party, or the Liberal Party, ought to recognize the kind of tremendous commitment these people have given to Members of Parliament and to the House of Commons, and we ought to say, yes, it should be possible for them to be considered for employment by the Public Service. That privilege is extended to members of the staff of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Cabinet Ministers. However, that privilege is not-as an example of what I would regard as governmental idiocy- extended to the staff of the Speaker of the House of Commons, which is a remarkable concept.
June 4, 1984

Simply put, the Bill would allow members of staff who have three years of service to be in a position where, should an opening arise-and I am rather careful about my language in that regard-should an opening arise in the Public Service for which these people would be qualified, as determined and judged by the Public Service itself, they would be permitted to enter the Public Service without benefit of an examination. That is all that is being asked. This is the same consideration given to the staff of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Leader of the Opposition.
Before presenting this Private Members' Bill this afternoon I have had the opportunity of speaking to the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). I do not know their decision, individually or on behalf of their Parties, but I believe there is a hesitancy on the part of the Government, which I find surprising. I have beside me the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Foster) and it may be that we will be able to get this Bill through all stages this afternoon if there is all-Party agreement. It may be that we could look to a motion for reference of this Bill to an all-Party committee. However, I hope and think that I have explained decently the kind of moral obligation we owe, not to our personal secretaries and staff, but to all the people who join elected Members to serve us with such loyalty and effort. We should try to give them a chance.
I should explain what the numbers are. They are so pitifully small that I wonder why anyone might object to this Bill. Basically, at every election we lose about 100 Members of Parliament out of 282. That means a staff component of about 300 people. The administration of the House of Commons tells me that we could not reasonably expect to see many more than 100 people who might not find a job again in the House of Commons. Therefore, I think we are looking at anywhere between 35 and 50 staff members of the House of Commons, once every four years, who may not have found a job but who can use their experience for the benefit of Canada in the Public Service. We are talking about piddling numbers of people, but we are also talking about recognizing their loyalty and their commitment, and their continuing ability to serve Canada.
I have asked, Mr. Speaker, that the officers at the Table have the forms ready for putting the Bill through all stages. I do not know the situation on either side of the House, whether this might be acceptable. If that does not work, then possibly we could send the subject matter of the Bill to committee. But again I say, and I think this is perhaps typical of me, that this is not a partisan Bill. This is a Bill to take care of people who have cared for us for many years.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of this Bill has very clearly and concisely set out exactly what it does. He has given the details, and there is no need for me to repeat them. I want to say that the Committee on Management and Members' Services, of which I am a
Public Service Employment Act
member, has recommended to the Speaker in the past month and a half a number of changes in the status of our staff. Those changes include the subject matter of this Bill. This is another way that some of us felt we might help to promote the subject matter of Bill C-215. That committee is not really a very partisan committee and Members on all sides felt that it was a worth-while topic indeed and something that should be done for our staff.
The House of Commons is created for Members of Parliament. Everything that happens around here, from the service provided by the ladies and gentlemen who take down our every word, to that given by the staff in the restaurants, the bus drivers, elevator operators and messengers, clerks, everything that is done here, is for the benefit of Members of Parliament. Yet I doubt there is a Member in this House who would not concede that without his staff he is not really capable of doing very much on his own. They are the ones that make it work. While some of us might be impresarios or prima donnas, they are the ones who do the daily dog work, put in the long hours for what is really minimal pay by comparison to their counterparts in other parts of the Public Service. They are perhaps not badly paid by comparison to the real world, but given the pay scale in the Public Service, they are not overpaid. What is so very important is that they really do not have much in the way of security. They are personal staff. I happen to have been extremely fortunate in that one member of my staff has been with me since the day I started on the Hill. I shudder to think sometimes how I would run my office without her. I know that many of the suggestions made in the past few months by the committee to the Speaker reflect the gratitude to the staff which I am expressing now.
I suppose it would be too partisan of me to agree that the Hon. Member's figures are almost exactly right, and that truly, come the next election, there may well be 100 less Liberals re-elected and, therefore, 300 members of Liberal staff who are looking for jobs. You will recall those were his numbers, not mine, Mr. Speaker. I only put a lable on them to make it just a little bit more accurate. However, I will not add that connotation to it.


Roderick Blaker: A point of order.


John Raymond Ellis: You do not have a point of order, and you know it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order, I hope.


Roderick Blaker: I am not sure if this is acceptable under our rules, but I felt I had been misquoted and I want to explain something. I did not refer to any number of staff who might become unemployed as a result of changes of Liberal Members of Parliament. I indicated quite clearly that in every election the House of Commons has a change of approximately 100 Members. That applies to all sides, not any particular political Party.

June 4, 1984
Public Service Employment Act


John Raymond Ellis: I merely made the clarification, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you heard me clearly. I just clarified where the 100 Members were going to come from in the next election. However, the Hon. Member has researched his Bill reasonably well and I do not think he has anyone specific in mind as to staff members on that side of the House.
Our Party is quite prepared to support this Bill. I have already indicated that this subject matter has been put before the Speaker in the past few months. I see no reason to stand in my place for 10 minutes, as one could, extolling the virtues of the Bill. If the Member can get the support of his Party to put the Bill through this afternoon, we are prepared to support it.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation at all in indicating to both the Liberals and the Conservatives that I have discussed this question with my Leader. We will look kindly upon hiring their staffs after the next election.
It is true that the staff of Members of Parliament are probably the most exploited group of workers in the country. They work long hours. They bring a lot of energy and dedication to the job. In the main, they are highly non partisan. In fact, it has been said to me many times that when a person works for a Member of Parliament the political affiliation is very rarely a factor on the Hill. Certainly that has been my experience with my staff.
As far as I am concerned, this particular Bill is a bare bones measure to give some protection to people who work for Members of Parliament. As some Members who are present in the House know, I would go much further than this. I would give them the right to organize and form a trade union to give them the kind of protection which every other worker in the country enjoys, and which we deny to the people who work for us. Having said that, I do not want to spend any more time on this. I would be quite prepared to give the unanimous consent of my Party to deal with this Bill this afternoon prior to the adjournment hour.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise to discuss Bill C-215. I think the purpose of the Bill is admirable. I would like to join with the people who preceded me in stating that Members of Parliament owe a great deal to their staffs. We should be very concerned and interested in allowing for serious study and consideration of matters such as job security and career opportunities within the Public Service of Canada. However, I do think that the Bill requires some study. I would like to discuss some of the matters at hand rather than just say that I agree with it. I would like to look at the Bill a little more attentively and possibly agree with others that a committee of the House should look at it seriously with a view to recommending certain amendments to the Public Service Employment Act so as to include some of our personnel on the Hill.
Who among us could perform alone all the duties which our constituents and the House of Commons require of Members of Parliament and Senators? I have had the very good fortune
of having excellent staff in the 11 years that I have been here. In many instances they have been the ones who have supplied me with the needed support, information and professional assistance to do a job which is, as all of us know, demanding and sometimes very tiring. We could not do it without the assistance of these dedicated people, both here in Ottawa and in our ridings. The riding assistants are very special to us. They play an essential role for the Members of Parliament in bringing forth for day to day consideration the problems and difficulties which constituents bring to our attention regularly.
Being on the staff of a Member of Parliament is indeed a demanding and time consuming job. In my office my assistants have no time limits. I have seen them work weekends, in the evening, and early in the mornings. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a great case to be made for the eventual possibility of these people finding themselves without a job come an election or another situation where a Member of Parliament resigns or, for health reasons he or she, must withdraw.
I would like now to review the contents of Bill C-215. The Bill proposes to amend the Public Service Employment Act to give the employees in our offices some of the privileges accorded to the staff of Ministers of the Crown. Of course, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) is included in this category. Section 37 states:
(1)	A Minister may appoint his Excecutive Assistant and other persons required in his office.
(2)	A person who is employed in the office of a Minister ceases to be so employed thirty days after the person holding the position of such Minister ceases to hold that position.
(3)	A person who
(a)	was an employee immediately before he became employed in the office of a Minister, or
(b)	during the time that he was employed in the office of a Minister, qualified for appointment under this Act to the Public Service ...
(4)	A person who for at least three years has been employed as Executive Assistant, Special Assistant or Private Secretary to a Minister, or in any of those capacities successively, is entitled, for a period of one year from the day on which he ceases to be so employed, to be appointed without competition and, subject to section 30 and subsection (3) of this section, in priority to all other persons to a position in the Public Service, at a level at least equivalent to the level of private secretary to a deputy head, for which in the opinion of the Commission he is qualified.
I read that in extenso because it is interesting to look at the annual report of the Commission, which was tabled in this House recently to see what has been going on. I looked at the 1982 annual report. I find that no one used this section of the law. In 1983, 13 people exercised their rights and three did not, for a total of 16 who were eligible.
It is also interesting to note that this priority which they have is priority 2 in terms of the Public Service Commission. Those who have been on leave and are returning from a sabbatical or other type of leave have priority 1 under Article 7 of the Employment Act. Priority 2 refers to Ministers' staff. Priority 3 concerns people who have been laid off because of reorganization, privatization or decentralization. This is provided for in Section 29.
June 4, 1984

There is a statutory list of priorities. Of course, there is another list that is called administrative priorities. It deals with the reorganization, privatization, decentralization, and language training courses. It also includes people whose spouses have moved to another city. There may be serious consideration given to transferring the other spouse on a priority basis.
The Bill would give the Public Service Commission a priority list No. 2 for virtually any job. The Commission will be responsible for determining the qualifications that an individual must meet for a job. The aim of the Bill appears to be to provide some form of job security for our employees. I agree with that. I compliment my colleague on what I may call his philantropic objective. I do not say this pejoratively in any sense.
In response to the Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), I would say that if the aim of the Bill is to give some benefits to the staff of Members who cease to be Members or who are defeated in an election, I can assure him that it would benefit those on his side of the aisle more than those on this side, because we intend to make sure in a few weeks from now that some of the benches on the other side are vacated.


John Raymond Ellis: How many weeks?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A few weeks.
As I said earlier, the Bill proposes to amend the Public Service Employment Act. Currently, Section 37 of that Act gives priority for employment to the staff of ministers and the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that in the last year three or four people from that office benefited from that section. It also provides for priority in instances where a person was a public servant previously. It also provides priority should someone serve a Minister or one of the other groups for a period of three years or more. The Act specifies that such a priority, however, is only given in the instances of employment as a special assistant, executive assistant or private secretary.
When I first read the Bill which we are discussing today, I thought that it appeared similar to the current Section 37 of the Public Service Employment Act which I have been explaining. I thought it was an expansion of those protections and benefits. Upon closer inspection, however, I feel that the Bill would provide greater protection to our staff than that which is accorded currently to the staff of Ministers and the Leaders of both the Government and the Opposition in the other place and here. There is a fundamental difference. Bill C-215 does not explain how the amendment affects employees whose Member of Parliament may have vacated his seat for any reason. It simply states that, after three years in the employ of a Member of Parliament, Clause 4(1) of amended Section 37 would be triggered and the individual in question would be able to ask for priority consideration from the Commission. This is not actually the case in existing law. The Minister in question whose staff has been with him for three years, would have to be either relieved of his ministerial duties, resign from his duties, or leave the House before the clause in
Public Service Employment Act question would be triggered, and give his former staff the priority listing which was accorded by this statutory clause.
There is one additional problem which I hope the committee will consider when, hopefully, it studies this Bill. It is that the Bill applies only to the House of Commons. Perhaps we would want to extend this privilege to the other place as well where there are also very devoted people who work for Senators and who are, in my view, equally entitled to this kind of consideration if a Senator dies after three years or perhaps removes himself from office.
In closing, I will say that I view this Bill favourably. I think it is a good initiative. I suggest that there are difficulties with the triggering of the priority listing. If the staff of Members of Parliament are to be included, they should be included in the same way as the staff of a Minister, that is, that the staff should be allowed to exercise that priority if a Member leaves this place either of his own volition or as a result of being defeated. I believe that this should also apply to the Senate.
I would like to hear further comments in the committee with respect to the other amendments, which possibly could be made to improve the Bill.
Having said that, I would like to state very firmly that I think the Bill is appropriate and would give our staff more security and well deserved consideration in the near future.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to abuse the time of the House or of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), but I think there was a misunderstanding. The Bill simply provides that the staff of members who have been staff for three years will come under the qualifications of Section 37 of the Public Service Employment Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair is uncertain about what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is attempting to do at this time. Does he wish to put a question to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier?


Roderick Blaker: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure that I am qualified to speak on a point of order in this regard. I will give way to you and to Hon. Members. However, the Bill is relatively clear. It refers to the Public Service Employment Act.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on a very important subject today, that of giving some degree of job protection to the staff of a Member of Parliament.
Bill C-215 proposes to amend the Public Service Employment Act to provide staff of Members of Parliament the same priority to be appointed to the Public Service that Ministers' staffs now enjoy. An analysis of the wording of the proposed amendment to the Public Service Employment Act indicates that, if approved, it would provide priority for appointment, without competition, for all staff of Members of Parliament who were formerly employed in the Public Service, are quali-

June 4, 1984
Public Service Employment Act
fied for appointment under the PSC Act or have been employed for at least three years in the office of a Member of the House of Commons.
Let us look at the existing order of priority for appointment to the Public Service. The Public Service Employment Act currently provides three levels of priority for appointment to the Public Service of Canada. Public Service employees returning from leave of absence have top priority; Ministers' staffs are second in the order of priority, and former indeterminate employees who are in lay-off status for one year following the lay-off have the least priority.
There is growing concern about the existing order of priority for appointment to the Public Service relating, for the most part, to the low priority for reappointment of lay-offs. Government initiatives over the past few years, including general over-all restraint programs, decentralization or discontinuance of functions and, specific program cuts, have resulted in increased numbers of indeterminate employees being added to the lay-off lists. At the same time, and for the same reasons, the number of job opportunities in the Public Service is declining progressively.
The situation is summarized as follows. At the end of March, 1984 there were more than 600 persons on lay-off lists, 13 Ministers' staffs remaining to be placed, and close to 800 employees were in surplus status prior to lay-off. The indeterminate job opportunities in the Public Service decreased by one-third in 1983. In addition, the number of such opportunities in the first quarter of 1984 is down 16 per cent from the same quarter in 1983.
In 1983, there were 800 surplus lay-off priorities in the National Capital Region. At the end of March, 1984 there were 300 persons yet to be placed. Based on estimates and past election history, a general election could add an immediate 190 to 200 more persons to these growing NCR figures should the proposed amendment be approved.
Until now the Public Service unions have been co-operative in implementing our work force adjustment measures. There is a risk, however, that by providing the close to 1,100 persons employed in Members' offices with a higher level of priority entry into the Public Service than that given to ex-union members who are on lay-off, we might jeopardize this co-operation. Resulting increased union resistance could, predictably, include demands for longer notice periods and extension of the period of lay-off status.
The stated intent of Bill C-215 is to provide staffs of Members of Parliament the same priority entry into the Public Service as is presently enjoyed by Ministers' staffs. It should be noted, however, that what the actual wording of Bill C-215 proposes is to provide Members' staffs with the same priority as that of senior members of Ministers' staffs. Technically speaking, the wording of the amendment to the PSE Act contained in Bill C-215 would provide a higher priority for Members' staffs than for any Ministers' staffs, including the senior members. Priority entry into the Public Service without
competition after three years' employment in a Minister's office applies specifically to ministerial aides, for example, a Minister's executive assistant, special assistant and private secretary. Support staffs in Ministers' offices enjoy this priority only if they were formerly public servants, or if they qualified for Public Service appointment while serving in a minister's office.
Since Members' employees are primarily support staff people, their position vis-a-vis employees in comparable levels in Ministers' offices would be vastly superior if Bill C-215 were approved in its present form.
Section 37 of the PSE Act provides for the payment of salary to Ministers' staffs for a period of 30 days after a Minister ceases to hold office, which means that their priority for appointment to the Public Service can only commence after completion of this 30-day period. Since there is no similar pay provision included in the proposed amendment, the priority for appointment for Members' staffs would start 30 days sooner than for Ministers' staffs. This 30-day headstart could be an advantage following any general election, particularly for support level employees.
The primary concern of the Public Service Commission is, understandably, for protection of the merit principle.
Since 1918, when it was first introduced, the protection afforded Ministers' staffs only changed when the Acts, the Civil Service Act and later the Public Service Employment Act, were opened to over-all reviews. The last changes were made in 1967 and were part of an over-all review of personnel management in the Public Service and related legislation.
The amendment to Section 37 of the PSE Act proposed in Bill C-215 could be similarly reviewed. The provision should be considered on its own merit and not as an add-on to provisions designed and approved for another group of employees.
The best procedure for achieving changes to legislation governing personnel management in the Public Service is through detailed review of the situation at hand in both existing and in proposed legislation rather than by approval of an isolated amendment presented in a Private Members' Bill.
A Members' staff who have served a term of employment of at least three years should, in my opinion, have some protection. This would be moving in the right direction. These people who have worked for three years in an MP's office have gained a tremendous wealth of experience which would stand them in good stead for most government related positions.
This is a serious problem which needs to be addressed in an in-depth manner as quickly as possible.
I therefore recommend that this Bill be given top priority by the House. It is an urgent matter:


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: I am happy to speak on Bill C-125. I know this principle has been widely canvassed and discussed in the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. I believe it finds much support on all sides of the House.
June 4, 1984

We are especially appreciative of the work our executive assistants and other assistants do. They operate at a senior level, working with senior public officials through our committee system here in the House of Commons and in dealing with Ministers and so on. I do not think Members' assistants are accorded anywhere near the respect or prominence they should be. This is true as well of the wages paid them. An assistant to a Member of Parliament receives a certain level of pay. A person working for the staff of the House of Commons, say for the Clerk at the Table, will get 30 per cent or 40 per cent more in wages. I think Members are very conscious of this. They would like to see the same kind of assistance accorded to assistants of MPs as is provided to the staff of Ministers with regard to this provision in the existing Public Service Employment Act. The PSE Act provides that Ministers' assistants can have a priority entry into the Public Service after three years of employment. I think that is why the recommendation has come forward from the Members' Services Committee.
There are a couple of questions which should be considered. As far as Ministers' assistants are concerned, that special privilege is only accorded to executive assistants, special assistants, and private secretaries, as I understand it. Employees at a lower staff level can be accorded this priority after three years only if they have been in the Public Service previously to coming on staff with a Minister. There are a number of questions in that regard. I do not believe the Government has canvassed this Bill to the extent it needs it before giving it second reading. I do know that around the House of Commons there is a great deal of support and encouragement for this Bill.
I would like to suggest to the House this afternoon that perhaps, if there is agreement, we could send the subject matter of Bill C-215 to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates so that it can be more fully canvassed with regard to the implications for employment, its relationship vis-a-vis Members' staffs, and the relationship of the Ministers' staffs with the Public Service unions and so on. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Public Services Employment Act (staff of
Members of the House of Commons) be not now read a second time but that
the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof
referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Foster, seconded by Mr. Evans, moved an amendment thereto, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons), be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Public Service Employment Act


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment to the amendment, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the said committee submit a report to the House of Commons within a period of 10 days.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vani-er (Mr. Gauthier) would be patient for a moment, the Chair will consider the subamendment.
Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moved an amendment to the amendment that the said committee submit a report to the House of Commons within a period of 10 days.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendment as Chairman of the Committee, and I will be very brief. I would like to ask for the co-operation of the Hon. Member and his Party and of the Official Opposition. If they can pass Bill C-24 through committee in a short time, I would be more than happy to deal with this matter expeditiously. The question is that we have 11 witnesses scheduled for tomorrow. We will be sitting all day tomorrow, possibly the day after the day after that on Bill C-24. If we can get through Bill C-24, the first item of business, we will consider this one after that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is really a matter of half an hour to protect a lot of people who served us well. The subamendment of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) requires no more than half an hour of the time of the committee to look at it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) that in fact the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates is seized with a very important Bill. I believe that every time slot is tied up for the next 10 days. I would be afraid that the Bill would not receive the proper consideration it needs.
I am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who is Chairman of that Committee, would do everything possible to expedite the work in consideration of this Bill if we refer the subject matter to the Committee. To have it back in the House within 10 days is highly unlikely. Since the Committee will be tied up for at least 10 days in discussions on a very important Bill, and in view of the very important event which will be happening in the last three days of next week, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that we provide a little more time, perhaps 20 days, on the understanding that the Chairman of the Committee, who is a very active and capable Chairman, would report it as soon as possible. Otherwise, it is impractical to expect the subject matter to be reported back with the due consideration it needs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) seeking to be recognized to speak again?

June 4, 1984
Public Service Employment Act


Neil Young: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just very briefly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That could only be done with unanimous consent of the House, because the Hon. Member has already spoken. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I was involved in discussions with other members of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, and I can tell the House that this subject has been thoroughly aired within that group. It consists of Members from all sides. Also, there was unanimous agreement that this measure should be adopted by the House, because of the many arguments which have been used in support of the Bill.
In the spirit of co-operation, and since we have been told that the committee is tied up for 10 days, I would be more than delighted to accept a friendly amendment to extend my amendment to 12 days rather than 10.


John Leslie Evans: Oh, come on!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course the Hon. Member is not making a formal proposal because there cannot be two subamendments before the House at the same time. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moved an amendment to the amendment that the said committee submit a report to the House of Commons within a period of 10 days. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


John Raymond Ellis: There are only two Members rising.


An Hon. Member:: Get up.


John Raymond Ellis: Now there are only four. They cannot struggle up like that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


John Leslie Evans: No, Mr. Speaker.


Neil Young: The amendment was carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the House will allow the Chair to clarify the proceedings. The Chair proceeded with putting the amendment to the amendment to the House. The Chair then invited Hon. Members who support the motion to say yea and proceeded to invite Hon. Members who opposed the motion to say nay, and, in the Chair's opinion, the yeas had it.


John Raymond Ellis: Very definitely.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my impression that we have now passed an amendment to the amendment, a subamendment. Now we have an amended motion before the House, and that is debatable, is it not? I was rising to debate the main motion as amended.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had a different understanding. If you are agreeable, may I just indicate my understanding of what happened, because I was involved with the Bill. First, a subamendment-


Neil Young: Rod, you are trying to talk it out.


Roderick Blaker: First, as I understand it, a motion has been made to refer the subject matter to the committee. I have not heard that motion being put to the House. A further subamendment suggested that the report be made within 10 days. I understood, on a voice vote, that the ten-day subamendment was rejected. I then understood-


John Raymond Ellis: No, no.


Neil Young: It was carried.


David Orlikow: It was carried very clearly.


Roderick Blaker: Then I have a misunderstanding, my apologies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, I would recognize the Hon, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans), however, the Chair should indicate to the House that at this time, the hour provided for Private Members' Business has elapsed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a motion was put by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Foster) which moved that the order be withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee. No debate was held on that motion, and an amendment was subsequently put to that motion by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) adding: "and a report should be made in ten days". We voted on the subamendment to have the report made in ten days which changed the motion, and now that motion as amended is before the House for debate. I was rising to debate that motion as amended which was put by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not the world's best expert on procedure and there are two very
June 4, 1984

fine advisers at the Table but, very clearly, the voice vote carried. If five Members stood, then the bells must ring. I did not count them, but if five Members did not stand, then the motion was carried. We will take it either way-with a bell vote or as having been carried.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think what has happened is quite clear. There was a motion and the amendment was that the subject of the motion be referred to the committee. The amendment made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), was an addition to that amendment, the addition being that not only should the subject matter be referred to the committee but that the committee should report back in ten days. That matter was voted on, and that finishes the debate. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the subject matter of the original motion was referred to the committee with the instruction that the committee report back to the House in ten days.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must admit that there was some confusion in my own mind as to what Hon. Members were attempting to do. That matter clarified itself following the words of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. In my understanding, some Hon. Members rose, not to force the House to proceed to a vote, but to seek the floor to make further comments.
The Chair is in a position where it must normally put a stop to Private Members' Hour. That is obvious in the mind of every Member. We may only proceed with the consideration of the amendment as amended which is now before the House by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on May 11 I addressed a question to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) regarding a new plan of the Royal
Adjournment Debate
Bank of Canada to enter into the business of leasing of automobiles.
The big five Canadian banks are powerful and rich. They control virtually all of the financial services in Canada. They have been one of the most powerful influences in determining Canadian economic policies since the time the white man first came to this land that is now called Canada. Not only do they dominate the financial life of the country, because of their business relationships with all other sectors of our society- manufacturing, agriculture, resource development, retail and service industries-and because the directors of our major banks are also directors of virtually every major Crown corporation, they have a decisive say in every economic decision or plan made in the country.
Over the years banks have been permitted by the Government of Canada and by Parliament to expand into fields from which they had previously been prohibited. Until a few years ago, banks were not in the mortgage loans business and they were not in the personal loan business. However, now that they have been permitted to enter those fields, they play a dominant role. In recent months, some banks have entered into the stocks and bonds business; in competition with companies which have traditionally been in that business.
It was argued by the banks and their proponents that entry into these fields would create more competition and provide better service at lower cost to the consumer. That has not happened. What has happened is that bank profits have gone up substantially almost every year. The last year for which I have figures is 1982. According to The Financial Post survey on industrials, the net income of the Royal Bank was $357 million, the net income of the Toronto-Dominion Bank was $307 million, the net income of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was $280 million, the net income of the Bank of Nova Scotia was $272 million, and the net income of the Bank of Montreal was $257 million. I would like to point out that 1982 was not a particularly good year for the banks.
When the Bank Act was last revised, after a great deal of debate and representations by the auto dealers, a new section was included. It was believed by the Government and Members of Parliament that the section would prohibit banks from getting into the business of leasing cars and small trucks. The Royal Bank has now implemented a plan under which customers can appear to purchase a car or truck. They borrow the money from the Royal Bank and after three years they can pay off the rest of the loan and take possession of the car or- and this is the important part-they can just return the car to the bank and the bank will take the vehicle over. The bank also makes arrangements with the insurance company so that they will not take it over. By making such an offer, the Royal Bank is able to appear to be facilitating the financing of the purchase of the car through a much smaller loan requirement than is usually required by the purchaser of a car. This is made possible because the bank agrees in advance to buy back the car at the end of the loan period, which is usually three

June 4, 1984
Adjournment Debate
years, at a guaranteed buy-back price. Neither the bank nor the customer has any way of knowing what the actual real price of the car will be after three years. However, it gives the bank the opportunity to appear not to be leasing the car. The bank claims that it is not a leasing plan. In fact, it is a loan with a balloon payment.
The bank, I suggest, is proposing to do through the back door what Parliament and Government, in enacting the last revised Bank Act, wanted to prohibit the banks from doing. I do not believe that the banks should be permitted to do this. I know that Parliament did not intend for the banks to be in the car or truck leasing business. If, as the Minister indicated, the advice of the legal officers of the Government is that what the bank is doing is in fact legal under the present provisions of the Bank Act, I would call on the Government to put into effect what it intended when the Bank Act was last revised. It should plug the loophole in the Bank Act so that the Royal Bank, or any other bank, is not permitted to get into the leasing of cars through the back door when it is not permitted to do it in the normal way.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Bank Act does allow banks to enter into some financial leasing contracts through subsidiaries, but specifically excludes them from entering into financial leasing contracts involving most motor vehicles. This exclusion reflected a number of considerations. Generally, banks are prohibited from dealing in goods under the Bank Act. There was concern that banks would be able to deal in goods through car leasing. There was also some concern expressed over the effect bank lessors would have on other lessors, such as car dealers. Thus, the Bank Act excluded banks from the business of leasing cars.
While the Royal Bank Buy-Back car loan program has features that are very similar to a leasing arrangement, the Department of Justice has concluded that in fact it is not a lease and that the Royal Bank is in compliance with the Bank Act. This reflects the fact that, unlike a leasing arrangement, the bank at no time owns the car. It is owned by the borrower. Further, the bank never deals with the cars. It is not involved with the physical purchase or final marketing of the car, although it appears to guarantee the price of the vehicle at the end of the time span of the repayment schedule, subject to several conditions.
From a strictly legal perspective, it would appear that the Royal Bank program is not a leasing program, but an innovative financing technique. In this regard, if one accepts the intent of the legislators that the Bank Act provisions are aimed at prohibiting banks from dealing in goods, the program would also be in accord with the spirit of the Act. However, if the Bank Act is aimed at providing protection to other lessors, the Royal Bank program will have to be examined carefully to determine if it is consistent with that objective. The issue clearly requires further study before any action could be considered.


NATIONAL REVENUE-BARRIE HOSPITAL FUND RAISING CAMPAIGN-REFUSAL OF TAX DEDUCTIBILITY. (B) REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, during question period on May 14 I raised an issue of considerable importance to the constituents of my riding. The response of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) was less than satisfactory, although it demonstrated very clearly that his attitude toward the taxpayers of this country has not changed at all, despite the controversies in which he has been involved and which have been raised in this House for the past half year.
Let me recall briefly the circumstances which led to my question, Mr. Speaker. Canadian artist Ken Danby had agreed to assist the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie with its fund raising drive by autographing 250 limited edition prints of a painting which he was commissioned to do for the Barrie recreation building. He would, of course, pay tax on the $20,000 commission that he was paid to do the painting.
The hospital wants to give one of these prints as a token of appreciation to each person who makes a donation of more than $500 to the building fund. In this way the hospital would raise a minimum of $125,000, if not a lot more, without resorting to any government assistance whatsoever at a time when we need such help in medicare. It is an innnovative way of raising money without having to go to the Government for any help at all. However, an official of the Minister's Department has ruled that if these prints are given to donors, tax deductible receipts cannot be issued for their donations. This will surely put a damper on an important and worthwhile fund raising project.
The Minister is well aware of the details, and when I asked him whether he would consider reversing the decision of one of his officials his reply was that I did not have all the facts and intimated that it was against the Act, and that I was, and I quote "stupid". Mr. Speaker, this is an insult to every constituents of Simcoe South. It is also a prime example of why the Minister has come under so much fire recently. Who is stupid, Mr. Speaker?
I telephoned the office of Revenue Canada today, the charitable and non-profit organization section, and spoke to a Mrs. Bennett. She assured me that at present there is nothing in the Income Tax Act which states that a donation cannot be deducted from taxable income if a gift is given to the donor in return. There are discussions going on about having this put into the Act in order to avoid much of the confusion which has arisen lately. However, at the present time, the Minister has the power to determine whether a donation will be allowed for the purpose of deduction from taxable income, even if a gift is received in return for the donation. The fact that the Minister is discussing this matter with his officials, and with the parties concerned, indicates that he has discretion in this matter. So it is up to the Minister to allow the fund raising scheme to go ahead. He has the authority to do so and nothing in the Act prevents him from doing so. Why does he not allow the Royal
June 4, 1984

Victoria Hospital to proceed instead of stone-walling in the House and calling me stupid?
In Langley, British Columbia, tax collectors seized $37 from the bank account of an eleven-year-old boy because his parents could not come up with the money which Revenue Canada said they owed. The boy's father suffered a nervous breakdown because of the harassment by those officials. Who is stupid, Mr. Speaker?
In 1982, William Rowe, a St. John's lawyer, was appointed to report on the alleged heavy-handed techniques of tax officials in Newfoundland who were demanding that fishermen sell their houses to pay off assessments, and were threatening to garnishee the wages of fish plant workers. Rowe recommended that Revenue Canada clean up its act. He noted that the Department's search and seizure powers may be an infringement of the Bill of Rights. He called for a special task force to investigate these charges. The Rowe Report was neither published nor acted upon. Had it been, the present controversy could have been avoided. Who is stupid, Mr. Speaker?
The 1983 edition of Inside Taxation, a Revenue Canada publication, says that the mandate of the Department is to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the tax system by administering tax and related legislation fairly, uniformly and courteously. I ask you to talk to some of the people who have been inside Revenue Canada offices lately on tax matters. It states further that a self-assessment system can work only when taxpayers readily comply with the law.
Revenue Canada, Taxation, recognizes the importance of maintaining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of such a system. How does the Minister meet these commitments? By adopting a hard line approach to the administration of the Act. This has left a trail of angry taxpayers who feel there is no such thing as justice and fair play when it comes to dealing with the Department. His aggressive and confrontational style has replaced reliance on dialogue and negotiation as an approach to problem solving. The Minister's response to mounting public criticism of his Department has been to ignore the problem. We have seen him operate this way in the House for six months. Who is stupid, Mr. Speaker? I ask you: who is stupid?
After defending the heavy-handed tactics of his Deputy Minister for six months, the Minister then fired him in an attempt to deflect criticism of the Department. Who is stupid? When the Opposition called for a full parliamentary inquiry into Revenue Canada, the Minister spent $1.5 million to hire Mr. Farlinger to conduct an in-house study, not a public inquiry. The Minister thinks that throwing a cloak of secrecy around his Department's operations is the way to satisfy public discontent. Ignore the problem and it will go away. Again, who is stupid?
Incidentally, 80 per cent of my constituents who responded to a questionnaire in my Spring Householder declared themselves in favour of our demand for a full public inquiry. We set
Adjournment Debate
up a task force and we listened to the people of Canada. In far less time and at much less cost than Mr. Farlinger we made 76 recommendations designed to make the tax system more fair, more accountable and more effective. Our task force set out to correct an injustice, one the current Government seems prepared to ignore. To make it even more ludicrous, Mr. Turner, who would lead the Liberal Party, supports the report of the Progressive Conservative Task Force in its entirety. Who is stupid?
The Royal Victoria Hospital affair is indicative of the Revenue Canada approach that so many Canadians have become so fed up with. Why does the Minister not intervene in this case, as he did in the case of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, and reverse the decision of his Mr. Robert Young? Why does he not encourage fund raising in the private sector? What does he have against private money at a time when we are spending billions of dollars on medicare? I know this is a concept foreign to this Government which likes to get its hands into every segment of the economy and society-state control. But it would be a great thing to do and it is so simple.
The Minister is also responsible for customs and excise. The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) brought up in the House today the matter of an American hockey team which came to Canada and exchanged pins. They went to Customs and were charged $72 in duty. They came up here to play hockey with Canadians and the Government made us look ridiculous in the eyes of our largest trading partner.
Being called stupid by that Minister, given the events I have described, does not bother me. Coming from him it is really not offensive. But my constituents deserve better treatment from his Department and from this Government. I hope Revenue Canada will smarten up in a hurry.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to respond to the Hon. Member in terms of who is stupid or who is not stupid. I do not think it is relevant to what we are talking about today. It is certainly not relevant to the matter which he has raised, and did raise, in his question of May 14, 1984.
I am responding to the question raised at that time by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) concerning the Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie Foundation and the Department's refusal to allow tax deductions for payments of $500 made to the Foundation by taxpayers in exchange for a copy of a print of a painting by the Canadian artist, Ken Danby. The Hon. Member also seems to feel that the Department's position discriminates against hospitals in their fundraising campaigns. This is just not so.
In the matter at hand regarding the Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie, I would like to point out that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) is precluded by the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act from discussing the particulars of the Department's dealings with this organi-

June 4, 1984
Adjournment Debate
zation. However, in general terms, it is the Department's practice to encourage, to the greatest extent possible, the acquisition of funds by Canadian charities. I am sure the Hon. Member will agree with that. Nonetheless, the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, must apply the law as it currently exists in this respect.
There are restrictions, however, as to what may and may not be considered a gift for the purposes of issuing an official tax deductible receipt for purposes of the Income Tax Act. In other words, there has to be an interpretation. Although the Minister may have discretion, he must listen to the advice he receives from his officials. He is obviously going to be very concerned about the whole question of precedent setting.
To be entitled to a tax deduction in such cases a taxpayer must have made a gift to a registered charity. As the Income Tax Act does not define the term "gift", it therefore takes on the common law meaning; that is, a voluntary transfer of
property without expectation of return, compensation or other consideration. Where a taxpayer receives an element of consideration in exchange for a payment to a registered charity no gift has been made and, accordingly, no tax deduction may be claimed. I would stress that the Department's position in this respect does not preclude registered charities from extending consideration to taxpayers in exchange for payments made. A charity may sell articles to a limited extent. However, as I am sure the Hon. Member will agree, there is a distinction to be drawn between payments made to a charity by a taxpayer in return for which no consideration is received, and those payments in return for which the payer receives something of tangible value. The former constitutes a gift for which an official tax deductible receipt may be issued. The latter can be considered as a payment for which consideration is received and thus for which no receipt may be issued.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 5, 1984