1985-02-04

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-26, 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. This Bill will always have special significance for me in that it is the first piece of social policy legislation that I, as Minister of National Health and Welfare representing the Government of Canada, have the opportunity to present to the House. This Bill will correct a very serious social problem which has long concerned myself and almost all Members of the House of Commons.
The Bill before us today will extend the protection of the spouse's allowance program to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 regardless of the age of their spouse at death. This proposal was a firm commitment made to the people of Canada during the last election campaign. It was formally enunciated in the Speech from the Throne in November. I am pleased that the Government of Canada is fulfilling another of its election promises this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The group I am referring to today represents approximately 85,000 Canadians who are widowed and between the eligible ages which I have already announced. It is important to note as well that the vast majority, an estimated 72,000 of the 85,000 who are eligible, are widowed women. I do not think there is a more important cause to which the House of Commons can address itself than the financial situation which these people are now in. This legislation does not and cannot consider the separation, sense of loss or loneliness which these people experience. Those highly personal conditions can be addressed only by individuals interacting with those people. I believe that, within the economic restraints of the country, it is incumbent on us as legislators to address the economic realities these people face.
Since coming into office the Government has had to face up to the very sad fact that the state of finances of the Government of Canada were in even worse shape than we had been led to believe. As the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has told Canadians, tough measures will be required to reduce a deficit which has been allowed to skyrocket over the past decade.
However, we cannot and will not allow a very vulnerable segment of Canada's near elderly population to continue to suffer because of circumstances completely beyond their control. There is an urgent need which has been consistently identified by present and past Members of the House of Commons as well as other members of society. Low-income widowed persons aged 60 to 64 do not have many of the options available to most of us. For instance, the vast majority of the persons who will benefit from this Bill are women who have been financial dependants for most, if not all, of their lives. They did not question this financial dependence because society deemed it appropriate. Societal norms dictated that the husband would enter the labour force and earn the money while the wife stayed in the home and performed the unpaid role of mother, housekeeper, companion, nurse, guidance counsellor and community worker-the list is endless. If the wife did take a job it was most often as a secondary earner to supplement the family budget.
I believe that the Bill before us today recognizes that contribution in part. I know that one cannot quantify that contribution in financial terms. So often in our society we want to put a financial value on service or work. No matter what Members may feel about the Bill with regard to whether it goes far enough, I think they would agree that the contribution these people have made to our society goes beyond financial measure. All of us realize that today is but a small recognition of the contribution that they have made to each one of us.
While there will be men who benefit from this proposal, there is no denying that poverty is largely a woman's problem and that widows in particular are among the poorest. These women have held down numerous responsible jobs throughout their adult lives and are more experienced and capable than many people are after spending 40 years in the paid labour force.
Let's not kid ourselves: in most instances, the 60 to 64-year old widow is not the one the personnel manager will hire. Why hire someone who might have only a few years until retirement while there are other young and perhaps better educated people competing for job openings available today? Therefore society must show compassion for these near elderly widows.

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
Compassion is what Bill C-26 is all about. Widowed persons aged 60 to 64, effective September of this year, will be guaranteed a level of income with which to meet their basic living costs. They will not be well off by any means, but they will no longer be destitute.
I believe that the best way of explaining this proposal is first to look at the evolution of income-tested assistance for persons in the 60 to 64-year age group. In 1973 the federal and provincial Governments undertook a complete review of Canada's social security system. During this review various options for a program of income support and supplementation for all low-income Canadians was studied. The federal Government advanced a proposal to the provinces in early 1976, but due to a lack of clear response on the part of the provinces, the proposal was withdrawn in 1977.
In the meantime the federal Government had already introduced the income support concept for elderly couples by means of a spouse's allowance program. Under this program which began in 1975, an income-tested benefit became payable to the 60 to 64-year old spouse of a low-income old age security pensioner. This step was taken in recognition of the fact that many of these elderly couples had no income apart from one basic old age security pension and a single guaranteed income supplement. That was little enough for one person to live on and far too little for two.
Since the beginning of the spouse's allowance program, there has been continuous pressure for the federal Government to expand this benefit to include other needy persons in the near elderly category. To date there have been two extensions to the spouse's allowance program. Originally, the spouse's allowance ceased to be paid when the pensioner spouse had died. In 1978 the federal Government introduced a Bill which resulted in the allowance being paid for six months following the pensioner's death. The theory was that this would give the widowed spouse time to adjust to a changed situation before losing the benefit, but it really just prolonged the agony of a situation that was often inescapable. In truth, there was no good reason why 60 to 64-year old widows and widowers who had been relying on the spouse's allowance program to make ends meet should lose their allowances until they became eligible for the old age security pension at age 65.
For this reason, when the Progressive Conservative Government came to power in 1979 we further amended the spouse's allowance program. As a result of that legislation, a widowed spouse's allowance recipient in need can continue to receive the allowance until age 65. I am proud today, on behalf of the Government, to extend that commitment that we made in opposition and that step we took in government in 1979. Those objectives and commitments for those less fortunate than most Canadians are again being extended further today.
During the debate on the amendment, Members of the Government were the first to admit that many more elderly persons in need were still excluded from the spouse's allowance program. Nevertheless, we did not feel we could go further
until such time as an extensive review of Canada's retirement income system was concluded. Such a review was conducted in 1983, by a special Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform which released its findings in December of that year. Among the Task Force's many proposals was the extension of spouse's allowance to all low-income widowed persons 60 to 64 years of age. I am pleased that the Task Force on Pension Reform made that proposal, and I am pleased that this Government is coming forward in a legislative forum to give life to that proposal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I would be remiss at this point if I did not give recognition to Members in this House who are members of that Task Force. The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) was the Chairman of that Task Force, and as Chairman he signed the report. I commend him for his foresight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Minister for Employment and Immigration, the Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), throughout the period of time she has been in this House of Commons, has given attention to the plight of these Canadians. I commend her today for another advance in the cause she has espoused.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There are other members of the Task Force whom I cannot name at this time, but I know they represent members from all political parties and I thank them.
There are two people, possibly three, apart from the ones I have recognized today, whom I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker. One is the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) who, throughout the period of time he has been in the House, has kept before our caucus and the Government the recognition that Canadians of this age group have made a contribution and that in legislative form we must recognize that contribution. There have been two others. I know it is not the habit of Members to give away caucus confidences, but I will this morning. I want to speak of the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) and the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Time after time these two Members have spoken to various members of our caucus on this issue and I see the Hon. Member for Bow River in the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There is one aspect of this legislation, possibly two, that Members will want to identify as not going far enough. First is the matter of whether this Bill could extend the same benefits to Canadians who are separated, divorced and single. I do not have the ability to take each
February 4, 1985

individual case of people who would fall into those categories and say that they are not as much in need as the group to which this legislation addresses itself. I think Members would recognize that the most urgent as a group-and I am not arguing individual cases could not be raised to make the other point-to which this legislation addresses itself are those in greatest need.
The other point I raised for the consideration of the House is whether legislation of this type, with a Charter coming into effect on April 17, and other social policy legislation could be challenged under the terms of the Charter. When you look at our social policy legislation, Mr. Speaker, you will note obviously that it discerns on the basis of age. Those 65 and over get an old age pension and those who are younger do not. It discerns on the basis of people who are eligible for family allowance; for example, if they have dependent children. An argument might be put forward that the legislation discriminates on the basis of marital status.
If I could speak personally for a moment, I had some involvement with the discussions on the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. No matter what viewpoints were put forward, either for or against the Charter, when the discussions were completed I do not believe any Member of the House wanted the Charter to be interpreted in such a manner that legislation such as we have before us today, and principles upon which social policy legislation is founded, could be brought into question or jeopardized.
While some might want to raise it as a point of discussion, I suggest that if that argument is taken to its most logical conclusion, the only manner in which one could address social policy and benefits would possibly be by providing a guaranteed annual income for everyone. While I am not deprecating that viewpoint, I place that caution before the House. Before that position is taken too strongly, proponents of that view should look very seriously not only at present legislation but at collective agreements, for example, and how they could be affected.
I should like to make one further point; it is the real reason this legislation appeals to me. In the years I have had the honour to represent my constituency in the House since 1972-I think both Members who came into the House in this Parliament and those who have been here a longer period of time would agree-without question the most difficult cases with which I have had to deal were those of women who made the contribution of which we have spoken as mother, spouse and so forth. They had made that contribution but were unable to contribute to a pension plan because they were "not earning a regular income". They had lost their spouse and if he was a person of pensionable age, that pension was gone. Not only had they suffered a personal loss, they had limited financial resources. We went through the various steps of what the pension might be for which they might be eligible and came down to one quiet statement-and I am sure all of us have made it; "Well, Madam, there is always social assist-
Old Age Security Act
ance". That is not good enough for the contribution these women have made to Canada. It is not good enough to tell individuals that the best we can do for them is welfare.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As I said, this proposal will extend important financial assistance to an estimated 85,000 widowed persons. These are low-income Canadians. I have already given the estimates of the number of people involved in terms of male and female. These widowed persons will be guaranteed the same minimum income as that already being provided to other widowed spousal allowance recipients. The monthly benefit, which is $536.26 currently and which will be somewhat higher by September due to quarterly cost of living increases, certainly will not put these low-income 62-to 64-year olds on Easy Street. Nevertheless, it will give them an income which is enough to live on and place them in a better situation than they are now. It is something many have gone without for much too long.
This proposal is not inexpensive. To provide this very necessary financial assistance will cost approximately $190 million in fiscal 1985-86 beginning in September, while in the first full year of implementation, 1985-87, the cost will be $350 million. As I have said, the cost is high, but I am sure Hon. Members will agree it is an expense that the country must afford.
Just to elaborate the point a little further for those who say the Bill does not go far enough, the cost estimate of including everyone is in the order of $1.5 billion. When we look at the financial resources of the country, there are two questions to answer. The first is, if we cannot include everyone, should we not do anything? The other question is whether we do what we can for those in greatest need. Obviously that is the approach we have taken. While this Bill proposes that the extended spouse's allowance benefit become effective in September, 1985, it is very important that this legislation be passed now. Given prompt passage, we will have ample time for potential beneficiaries to apply, for the advertising campaign, so that they can become eligible by September, 1985. I do not have to remind Hon. Members, I am sure, that a fair amount of personal paperwork as well as governmental organization has to take place before the program can be implemented.
There are 85,000 Canadians that this Government has to contact, 85,000 applications that have to be completed and sent in and 85,000 new payment files that have to be prepared. On top of this, it is imperative that we co-operate with the provinces to ensure that where a provincial program is affected by this SPA program, the transition be made as smoothly as possible.
This Government is the first to acknowledge that there are other near-elderly persons in need who remain excluded from the important financial protection provided by the spouse's allowance program. However, as was recognized by the all party Task Force, the Government of Canada, in other words the Canadian people, cannot at this time go much beyond the

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
proposals we have made. What we can do and must do, given current economic circumstances, is to take this next logical step in extending the spouse's allowance program. The other most logical step after this legislation is seriously to take the pension reform proposals that have been made both by the task force and by other groups and give them life over the course of the mandate of this Government. That is the commitment that we have made. As Members will note, this is but one element of a commitment to a goal we have as a government.
In conclusion, I am filled with great gratitude, which I extend both to my Cabinet colleagues and my colleagues in the House. No matter what is said of Parliament and its lack of response, to me, on this issue they have all responded and I thank them for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the main elements of my speech today I want to indicate-this may come as a surprise to some of the political novices in this House-that there are times in the life of a Parliament in which all Members of the House will congratulate and applaud a decision by the Government. The announcement today by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is the kind that will receive the acceptance of Members of all Parties in this House.
With regard to the goodwill and importance of this legislation today, I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I also congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Over the years she has spent a great deal of time promoting the cause of the extension of such legislation to include largely the women in our society but also others who have been left out from some of the social legislation which has been introduced in the House over the years.
While I am in the congratulatory phase of my remarks, the one person I think should be recognized is not here today but usually sits at the table of the Officers in the afternoons. I am speaking of Stanley Knowles, the former Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I recognize his personal contributions. It has been a lifetime quest of his to improve benefits to the elderly in our society. Had he still been sitting here as a Member of Parliament, I am sure he above all would applaud the decision made by the Government today to extend the spousal allowance to ail those between the ages of 60 and 64 who are widows or widowers.
I do not wish to make the congratulatory phase of my remarks too long. I noted that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was rather non-partisan in his remarks except on a couple of occasions. He was mildly partisan on those occasions and I will say that my two interventions in that sense will be mild as well.
The Minister mentioned earlier in his discussion that part of the problem of not being able to extend the measures beyond those put forward today was caused by the economic situation in which the Government found itself when it took office. However, I would like to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that above and beyond his duties as a Minister of the Crown, one of the prime responsibilities of a Minister of Health and Welfare within the Cabinet system is to be a protector of the poor and those with modest incomes.
I congratulate the Minister on being able to win round one of the battle by getting the $190 million required to extend this program today. I would also indicate that past Ministers of Health and Welfare have also been faced with the same economic difficulties in the large context. I point to the record of Monique Begin, a former Minister of National Health and Welfare who in 1980 increased the guaranteed income supplement by some $35 a month and, in the last year of our mandate, found the money, despite the economic difficulties and the size of the deficit, to increase the guaranteed income supplement by some $50 per month in the year 1984.
To a large extent this is an issue that extends beyond the bounds of politics. Therefore, I would like to indicate that many of the sentiments expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare are probably shared by most of the people in this room. Very early on he mentioned that of the 85,000 people who will be affected by today's decision, some 72,000 are women. In percentage terms that means that some 87.5 per cent of the recipients of today's announcement are women. This indicates that the problem about which to a great extent we learned through our work on the pensions task force is that we have almost institutionalized poverty among women in the country. This is not just a product of the inadequate system but a product of a society that has never really moved to address the issues of divorce reform, employment opportunities for women as compared to those for men and the discrepancy that exists between the pay levels for women and men in our society. A number of factors affect the final lifestyle of women in our society as they reach their retirement years.
At the outset, I would like to indicate that we as well would like to see some improvements made to the legislation that is being tabled today. I noticed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that part of the problem with this legislation concerns whether or not it contravenes the Charter or Rights. The indications that I have from a legal perspective is that it would not. It may in fact contradict the human rights code because we are not supposed to discriminate on the basis of marital status. A decision would have to be made by the courts to determine whether or not this is a good or a bad service. That is part of the problem, from a government standpoint, of trying to extend this provision to cover others in our society between the ages of 60 and 64 who are divorced or single. Members of any caucus will eloquently plead the case that the Government should extend the guaranteed income supplement to those individuals as well.
The Minister briefly touched upon the other problem that exists. He indicated that there are some 85,000 new recipients
February 4, 1985

of this benefit and this will require the Filling in of a great many forms. There is bureaucratic process that must be undergone in order to put these people on the guaranteed income supplement scheme. If possible, I could speak to the Opposition House Leader and indicate to him that quick passage in committee could speed up the process so that we may be able to have this measure instituted by June rather than September.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: In addition, I want to talk a bit about the reason why we have allowed our society to evolve to the extent that we find that 87 per cent of the people who will qualify for this measure are women. Members of all three political Parties have advocated very eloquently the necessity for improvements in various pieces of legislation so that the next generation of Canadians will not find itself in the same situation in which this generation has found itself of having in fact institutionalized poverty among women in our society.
We spoke a bit about the requirement for pension reform. I know the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I were probably the first to promote within our own committee the extension of the Canada Pension Plan to include homemakers. I know as well as I know that I am standing here that pension reform is high on the list of reforms planned by the Government. The situation would have been the same if the Liberal Party had been in power. In fact, there are periods in our history in which a particular goal may be achieved. I believe that pension reform is here. It is my understanding that there has been a consensus package agreed to for reform in the private pension plan systems. With some small amount of negotiation, I believe a package could be ready to be put forward to all the provincial Governments in the next 12 months. I think that would go a long way toward removing for the next generation of men and women alike the spectre of poverty in their elderly years.
I now return to the homemakers' pension proposal. I know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I spoke a bit about this but were never able to convince the majority of the committee members to undertake this kind of reform. In light of announcements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the last two weeks, there may well be the possibility of allowing members of the Cabinet within the Cabinet structure to promote that idea. I hope they will listen as I outline it to them.
There is a need for pension reform. There is a problem with pension coverage. However, I must admit that today's generation of Canadians, women and men alike, are not facing the same demographics that were faced by our parents' generation. As a result, with some adequate improvements in the Federal Standards Benefits Act and in April's Budget, I think we can begin taking steps toward improving the situation for the Canadians of today's working generation.
The way the pension legislation exists today, one must be age 45 or have worked for ten years for the same company in order to receive both one's own pension contributions and the
Old Age Security Act
contributions of one's employer. Very early on we recognized there are two emerging trends that indicate that the existing pension legislation is not adequate. First, the emerging work pattern indicates that many more Canadians of this generation can be expected to be more mobile in their quest for employment and perhaps may work in two or three different provinces. More than likely they are going to have to undertake periods of retraining in their lifetimes. Today's fast-emerging technological changes in the workplace indicate that workers will probably require some retraining in their lifetimes. This means that work sharing or part-time work will be more prevalent than it has been in the past.
Workers will have to be more mobile in their quest for employment and therefore it is imperative that we change the pension legislation to reflect that reality. There should be an earlier locking in of the employer and employee contributions and the system should be made more portable. Part-time workers should be covered in the same way full-time workers are by pensions. Pieces of legislation must be changed federally as well as provincially. I hope all of us are cognizant of the need for speed in the passage of these kinds of improvements to our legislation.
The issue of part-time work is a women's issue as well. Far more women than men find themselves being part-time workers or shared workers. To a large extent, the issues of improved survivors' benefits and divorce reform are women's issues as well. Under the existing laws, today's pension assets are not divisible upon marriage breakdown. I do not particularly like the emerging family pattern which is evolving, but as legislators we must realize that the divorce rate is affecting 50 per cent of the population. The laws must reflect the emerging family pattern. As well, the laws must reflect the emerging work pattern. Other critics from my caucus will be indicating their desired improvements in the legislation, particularly with respect to women's issues.
I want to return to the subject of homemakers; I know it is at the heart of the negotiations between the federal Government and the Provinces. As we are aware, it requires the approval of two-thirds of the provinces, representing two-thirds of the population, to effect changes to the Canada Pension Plan. In effect, the Province of Ontario, because of its size and population, has the power of veto. I assume that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance will be involved in the negotiations for the inclusion of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan. I want to reiterate the importance of allowing that inclusion. I want to stress the importance of including homemakers in the pension plan, in the hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Employment and Immigration will take my arguments before Cabinet and convince their colleagues of the intelligence of my contributions.
There is a very poor understanding of the way in which the public pension system operates in Canada as opposed to the private pension system. It is at the heart of the political debate

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
and it will be at the heart of the ability of political parties to generate the political will to undertake the necessary reforms which must be made to the pension system. Many people are worried that when they retire in 2004 there will not be a viable Canada Pension Plan which will allow them to have an adequate pension.
I want to go back almost 20 years, to 1966, to indicate to the House why the existing pension plan evolved to the state it is at today and the improvements which can be made to it. In 1966 there were 14 workers for every person over the age of 65. Had we allowed the public pension plan to be funded the same way as a private plan, there would have been a rapid increase in the surplus of the fund, to the extent that the Government could have purchased 58 per cent of the Toronto Stock Exchange. There was concern in 1966 about the magnitude of the surplus which was being held in the hands of the Government. Therefore, the funding mechanisms for the public pension plan were devised in a manner totally different from the private pension plan. In essence, a "pay-go" system was allowed. In other words, enough money was collected each year to pay the pension requirements and to have a two to three-year surplus. That was the essence of the funding mechanism for the Canada Pension Plan. Basically, the plan considered only men in 1966. That is why homemakers were not included.
In 1966 our fathers did not have access to private pension plans and were facing retirement without adequate pension assets. In their lifetimes they paid taxes which built up the infrastructure for universities, roads and hospitals. Therefore, we transferred the burden from one generation to another. In 1966 the young workers in Canada indicated that they would supply their fathers with an adequate pension in order that they could live their twilight years in relative comfort. The younger generation accepted the burden of paying for that pension. Everyone who has collected a pension in the last 20 years has paid only 17 cents of every dollar which was taken. The remaining 83 cents was paid for by the next generation. No one quarrelled with the transfer of that burden. However, in 1966 women were not included. Why did we not include our mothers? They worked just as hard to build a family life and they allowed Canadian society to expand. Therefore, I would plead, along with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, that homemakers should be included in the revisions which will be made to the Canada Pension Plan.
If we are going to change the contribution rates to the Canada Pension Plan, there should be a debate on the floor of the House of Commons to improve the plan beyond the inclusion of homemakers. Two weeks ago the Minister of Finance met with his provincial counterparts in Montreal. At that meeting it was agreed that the contribution rates to the Canada Pension Plan would be increased significantly. The definition of "significant" will determine the extent to which the surplus beyond our expectations will develop within the Canada Pension Plan. The Minister of Employment and Immigration will remember the debate in which the Liberal Party recommended that the "pay-go" philosophy should not
be altered significantly. As I indicated earlier, the "pay-go" system meant that the money which was collected in one year was adequate to meet the pay-out level of the fund, with a possible cushion of a two to three-year surplus.
Those were the demographics which we witnessed when we made the recommendations some 18 months ago. It meant that significant increases were not required to the pension plan premiums. It required some increases, but the increases could have been phased in very gradually to the point at which, to have it fully paid by the year 2030, it would require approximately 10 per cent of the average take-home pay to cover the costs. If the decision of the provinces is to go beyond the "pay-go" system-and that is the heart of the matter which is before Cabinet-with a two to three-year cushion, and if the decision will mean significant, front-ended increases, it will result in a massive build up of surplus funds.
In our Task Force report on the Canada Pension Plan, we indicated that if the decision was made to go beyond the "pay-go" system, then three questions had to be asked. First, what will be the size of the surplus? Second, who will control the funds? Third, to what use will those funds be put? We indicated that those questions had to be addressed if the Government ever changed the "pay-go" philosophy of the public pension plan system. I realize it is theoretical, but if the decision is made to go beyond the "pay-go" system in order to build up a surplus, then I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare might want to advocate other changes to the plan.
I agreed with the Minister when he mentioned earlier that in our political day-to-day life the major problem which we face is that of individuals who are between the ages of 55 and 64 who, through the death of their spouse, divorce or breakdown in the family pattern, Find themselves impoverished. The other area in which we face significant problems is that of an individual, male or female, who is the primary breadwinner in the family and who Finds himself or herself disabled through no fault of their own and has no access to long-term disability beneFits in the workplace. That person must rely solely on Canada Pension Plan disability payments.
I believe all of us recognize that that is an area which is woefully under-funded. In terms of improvements to the pension plan, I do not think any of us would stand in the way of improving the payments to disabled persons. I recommend that that cause should be advocated with respect to the increased surplus in the Canada Pension Plan.
I agree whole-heartedly with the inclusion of homemakers in the plan. That would go a long way to removing the stigma of poverty among today's elderly. I spoke earlier about the intergenerational transfer. In 1966 we told our fathers that we would give them a reasonable standard of living in their retirement years and, because we had jobs, we told them that we would accept the burden of paying for their pension. However, the problem today is of a different magnitude. The greatest problem which faces all political parties today is that of unemployment. Largely, but not exclusively, we have a youth unemployment rate which is significantly higher than
February 4, 1985

the national unemployment average. I am not trying to take away from those individuals who are middle-aged and find themselves unemployed, but specifically, I want to talk about youth unemployment.
In 1966 our youth transferred a gift to their parents. That gift was a retirement with reasonable expectations. If we talk to the people of Canada between the ages of 60 and 65 years who have paid off their mortgages, we find that they would like to have an early retirement but cannot do so because the Canada Pension Plan kicks in at age 65. There are also those who would like to have an actuarially-reduced Canada Pension Plan.
Perhaps the solution would be to transfer from that generation to the young generation the availability of a job and then they would receive the benefit of early retirement. I note that the Province of Quebec, which is the first province to go out of synchronization with the other provinces under the Quebec Pension Plan, allowed for the first time in history an actuarially-reduced Quebec Pension Plan. Some 50,000 Quebecers then decided to take early retirement. I do not know if there is a direct correlation between that and the unemployment rate in the Province of Quebec which has dropped from a year ago, but these are statistics which one might want to study.
Certainly, I would say that a beneficial use of those surplus funds, rather than giving them back out to the provinces at lower than prime rates, and a better use of those social funds, would be to address the number one problem in the country today, namely the unemployment problem. I say that not with any great knowledge of the statistics which would be required, but I know the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands, well remembers Mr. Michael Wolfson, and another person who has earned a great deal of our respect for his contribution to the pension task force and who now works for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Michael Hatfield. It seems to me that one might want to be able to use some of those statistics in order to determine perhaps a better use of those surplus funds than others might envisage around the Cabinet table as those discussions take place.
Let me end, Mr. Speaker, by reiterating my congratulatory message at the beginning of my remarks to the Government for having brought in this particular piece of legislation. I cannot disagree with it. It reflects the recommendation which, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated, was one of the prime recommendations our Party made through our own pension task force.
Second, I would hope that in committee one might want to explore the possibility of improvements to the legislation by perhaps speeding up the process for a June delivery date rather than September.
Third-I know that others in my Party will want to promote this-would be the extension of the plan for people between the ages of 60 and 64 years on the basis only of income and not
Old Age Security Act
marital status. I know as sure as I am standing here that the Minister of National Health and Welfare fought hard for that.
I recognize that there are saw-offs around any Cabinet table when it comes to the distribution of dollars. I recognize the problem the Minister faces with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), the Hon. Member for Yukon, and the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, and I wish him well in trying to convince his Cabinet colleagues. I know some of his colleagues around the table probably think the same way he and I do and I would hope that he could convince the other neanderthal members of the Cabinet to see the progressive necessity of such a measure.
Finally, I want to say that I hope that in this particular session of Parliament we will see legislation which would allow the federal Government to become the most progressive in terms of Governments in our country which recognizes the need for pension reform, which recognizes that the issues of unemployment, pension reform and tax reform are very interrelated and, to a large extent, are women's problems. I hope that progress will be made in these areas, Mr. Speaker, and if progress can be made, let us hope it is accomplished with swift passage.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for bringing forward this measure to expand the application of the spouse's allowance. He should be especially congratulated, Mr. Speaker, because he chose this as the first piece of legislation to introduce into the House for debate. I am quite sure that the passage of this particular measure is guaranteed by all sides of the House.
Having made those complimentary remarks-I see the Minister is smiling; he did say earlier that he did not introduce this Bill without anticipating some negative comments and that perhaps he would be criticized for not taking the measure far enough-I want to assure the Minister that his predictions are absolutely right on. I intend to make a few comments about what I think are serious omissions in the measure brought forward by the Minister, although, as I have already indicated, this Bill will have the full support of myself and my caucus. We will do nothing at all to prevent its speedy passage.
I am, perhaps, at the point of making the Minister an offer which he cannot refuse. One aspect of the Bill, obviously, with which we are disappointed is the length of time it will take to put this measure in place. I believe there will be a ten-month delay until September. If it will accommodate the Minister in terms of bringing such a measure in by the end of this month, my Party would agree that I would be the only speaker. We could then get it through all stages as quickly as possible, if that would accommodate the Minister. If the Minister would agree to that, all he has to do is to send me a note and we will look upon it as kindly as possible.
The most serious criticism, of course, is that this Bill, while it goes a long way toward removing some of the really serious problems which many individuals have faced in the past, still excludes those individuals who have never been married; that

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
is, the single pensioners. I know the Minister tried to head off some criticism in that area in his remarks. However, I believe it is still incumbent upon Members of the Opposition to point out in a very serious way that many of those individuals who are excluded are really having a hard time making ends meet, for a number of reasons which I will get into during my comments.
The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), in the course of his remarks, spoke very kindly about the former Member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, and the contribution he has made to the whole question of pension reform and, indeed, the structuring of the pension system in our country. In fact, I would even suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if any Hon. Member wishes to determine how pensions have been formulated in this country and how policy has been determined, the required reading would be the speeches of Stanley Knowles in the House and his questions and comments in the course of his political career. As a matter of fact that is what I have done, especially his speeches related to spouse's allowance. I went back quite a way and found that this is something which Mr. Knowles had concerned himself with over the years.
For the purposes of today's debate, however, I think it is sufficient to go back to the debate which took place in this Chamber on May 26, 1980. Mr. Knowles, with respect to the improvements, small as they were, to the pension system at that time, said: "While the movement has been good to improve pensions, we are still labouring under what I think is one of the most unfair pieces of social legislation ever introduced in this country, that is, the spouse's allowance". He went on to explain why he thought that was unfair. Later on, on the following day, Mr. Knowles said as reported at page 1456 of Hansard'.
Second, I ask the Minister, and I press this upon her as strongly as I can, whether in this term of office she is enjoying she is going to do something about the disgrace of the spouse's allowance legislation.
He went on to say that especially for women between the ages of 60 years and 65 years, for the most part there is applied a marital test. He continued:
If a woman has a man or has one that dies while she is in that age bracket, she gets the pension. But if she does not have a man because she is a spinster or divorced, or became a widow before age 60, or she became a widow before her husband was over 65, there is no pension there.
I read a speech that the Minister made last June in which he made much the same argument. It is to his credit that the first thing he did was to live up to the concerns which he expressed six or eight months ago. However, that still leaves a large number of women who are single, having never been married, without that extra amount of money which they could well use. Even at this late date as we go through committee perhaps we can still persuade the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to do something for that large group of people.
I was surprised and a bit curious over the last week or two when I received two pieces of correspondence from a member of the former Government, the Hon. Member for Montreal-
Saint-Marie (Mr. Malepart), who expressed some anxiety and concern about that large group of single women who were excluded from this Bill. If the situation were not as serious as it is, I would find the flights of rhetoric used by this Member quite funny. I would simply ask the Hon. Member for Mont-real-Sainte-Marie where the hell he was over the years when Stanley Knowles was pressing the Government on this particular issue. I went through Hansard to see whether this particular individual was even mentioned as expressing a concern about this while he was a member of the Government. I could find no reference to it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I tried to find a reference too.


Neil Young: The Minister tried to find a reference also. We welcome the Hon. Member's support, albeit newly-found, while he is in opposition. However, I would be much more impressed by his arguments and concerns if, while he had an opportunity to do so, he had pressed the Government of which he was a member to do something about that inadequacy in the pension legislation.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not say something about the present Government's previous commitment to pension reform and why it has not done something about it now that it forms the Government. I looked up Hansard for May 10, 1984. I read with some interest the motion that was put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party on that date, being an Opposition Day. I would feel comfortable moving that motion today, with a few changes in the dates, of course. For the interest of new Members in the House I will read the motion:
That this House profoundly regrets the two-year delay of the Government in bringing in promised legislation to improve guaranteed supplements for low-income single elderly Canadians, and condemns the Government for its failure to respond to the innovative proposals of the all-party Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform to expand opportunities for Canadians under age 65 to make adequate provision for income in their retirement years.
That motion was put forward by the present Government while it was in opposition on May 10, 1984. It was moved by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the present Minister of Employment and Immigration. I know that that Minister feels strongly about the issue of pension reform. I wish her every success in lobbying and making her voice heard within Cabinet to bring forward the much-needed improvements which she spoke about in the course of her remarks on that Opposition Day. In fact, I intended to make much the same argument to the present Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The age-old argument is heard again. The Government says that it would love to bring in real pension reform for all senior citizens who gave their lives to make this country as great as it is, but it does not have the money. It says that it will make those improvements when the economy picks up and we are rolling in loot again. That argument has been made as far back as I can read in Hansard.
In 1951 an end was brought to the means test for old age pensions. At that time Stanley Knowles referred to debates that had gone on years and years before. The old argument
February 4, 1985

was used then as well. The Government said it would love to do something for pensioners but the country could not afford it.
I recall reading what Tommy Douglas, the former leader of my Party and the former Premier of Saskatchewan, said on the subject. He said that Governments have used that argument time and again until it is shop-worn. He said that Governments can never Find money for social programs to allow people to live with some social dignity in this world, but in order to finance a war they can grab oodles of money out of nowhere. I think the same arguments hold true at this time.
I would like to quote the comments made by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands on May 10, 1984. I am sure Members on the Government side will find this interesting. I certainly do. She said:
The fact that we have 600,000 elderly Canadians living in poverty in a country as rich and bountiful as Canada, in a society suppposedly as compassionate and humane as ours, is a national disgrace. The fact that this has been allowed to continue month after month, year after year, is a telling indictment of the Government. The Government is bereft of ideas, drained of decency, and unable to recognize the priorities which must be dealt with in this society. 1 know the Government has its priorities: bail-outs of de Havilland, Canadair and Maislin; bonuses for executive officers in de Havilland and the Canada Development Investment Corporation; and the purchase of Petrofina gas stations. We know what the priorities of the Government are. For the people who have, throughout their lifetimes, worked for and contributed to the development of this great country, there is only a promise trotted out time and time again that some day, some time, they too will become a priority.
Is it any wonder, Sir, that today we condemn the Government? We condemn it not only for its failure to introduce legislation that would meet the current needs of today's elderly poor, but also for its failure to bring about long overdue pension reform of the whole system so that we can ensure that the poverty of today will not be meted out to those who will be senior citizens in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. We must begin to come to grips with this issue and reverse what is happening.
I wish I had made that speech, Mr. Speaker, and I just did. The same arguments hold true today as they did on May 10, 1984, during the debate in 1951, and during the debate in the early 1930s when pensions first began to be spoken about seriously by the decision-makers in this and other countries. It is time that the Government did something about it rather than talk. When the Minister tabled the child and elderly benefits consultation paper, I thought he would have taken the opportunity to say something serious about this topic. I have no doubt that the Minister is a sincere person. The Minister is a man with integrity and I thought he would have taken the opportunity to say something serious about pension reform.
However, he said in his paper that while not proposing changes at this time in the elderly benefits system, the Government invites proposals and comments regarding the age exemption and the pension income deduction, the elderly benefits system and so on. We do not need another study on pension reform because the issue has been studied to death over the years.
I was an alternate to my former colleague, Ted Miller, on the Pension Reform Task Force. Incidentally, I also want to congratulate that committee for dealing with a very difficult and complex subject and proposing the recommendations that
Old Age Security Act
it did, even though I disagree with some of them. I believe the committee could have made stronger recommendations on some of the issues it was studying. In any event, I believe it is time for real pension reform in this country.
I would be remiss if I did not also mention the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) who, two years ago, headed our Party's task force to look into the problems of older women across the country. She issued a very impressive document as a result of those investigations and I would be more than happy to provide the Minister with a copy if he has not seen the document. I believe it deals with these problems in a very human, warm and compassionate way.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is appropriate that I end my remarks by referring to some statements which have been made by the Council on Pension Reform for Singles. The Hon. Member for Sudbury may recall that Miss Cheevers, the secretary of that Council, appeared before the Task Force on Pension Reform and gave testimony that astounded everyone in the room at that particular time. Miss Cheevers is a woman in her late seventies, I believe. She was brought up in an era when the money that was available to a family usually went to the male in order to provide him with an education.
This was her testimony at the hearing. She said that there were two children in her family, herself and her brother. It was assumed that since there was a shortage of money at the time and that only one of the two children could receive an education, her brother would receive the education because he would eventually be the breadwinner. Miss Cheevers was denied the right to an education because of the lack of money in the family. It was expected that she would grow up to be married and raise children in the usual stereotype situation that we would not accept today.
The First World War broke out when Miss Cheevers was growing up. Most of the males in Canada who went overseas returned with spouses and many never returned. According to Miss Cheevers, this is one reason why she never married. Not only was she involved in the war effort at home, but her parents had become elderly by the time the war was over. Since she was expected to look after her parents she did not enter the workforce until she was in her mid-fifties. She did not have an opportunity to make contributions to a private pension plan and it was too late for her to make contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. Registered retirement savings plans were of no use to her because she did not have an income that would allow her to buy an RRSP. What happened to Miss Cheevers and thousands like her who are members of this Council is that they are now living on a very meagre pension. They are excluded by this legislation that is being brought forward by the Minister and they are having a hard time to make ends meet in this country.
Let me quote from a newsletter that was issued by the Council on Pension Reform for Singles. It says more than I can say because these people are speaking from their own experience. I am sure Members will be interested to hear what they have to say:

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
In the last administration it was the Minister responsible for the Status of Women who said that singles who had not married and not had children and contributed nothing to Canada. With that kind of representation who needs enemies?
Our kind friend should have been around during two great wars and a real depression, 18 years out of what should have been the most productive period of their lives when it was the single women who turned in to keep the home fires burning and were acclaimed as heroes and the backbone of Canada. In those days we did not advocate leaving the country helpless against the enemy. We had to defend it and did so with every ounce we possessed. There being no men left to marry following the wars, they turned in to support their war widowed mothers and young brothers and sisters, only to find that a grateful Canada has abandoned them pension wise as though they don't exist-
We know what we are talking about. We are of an age who went through it all and we feel that we have as much reason to be proud of our achievements as any women who sits in the House of Commons and it is time we were recognized. There are not many years left.
Having got off our chests that which has been choking us so long, dare we hope that the House of Commons members will take the time to do some homework by reading and learning something about the roots of Old Age Security. It is very evident they need the education.
I think that sums up any contribution I have to make to this debate. I wish the Minister well. If Members of my Party can be of assistance to him in pressuring other members of his Cabinet, he will always have our support and I hope he will use it and act as quickly as possible.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Minister on this overdue Bill. Let me also congratulate the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) and the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) for adopting a reasonable attitude in this debate. This may be one of the rare days in the House when we will take the action that the country has asked for with a minimum of rancour.
I have been a long time supporter of pensioners, veterans and other Canadians who have found themselves disadvantaged by the sins of omission or commission in various forms of our legislation. I heartily welcome the progressive initiative taken by the present Government.
I am pleased to have this opportunity, my first in this Parliament, to speak on this topic. The main purpose of this Bill is to broaden the eligibility of widows and widowers in financial need for a spouse's allowance by allowing applications to be made by a surviving spouse between the ages of 60 and 64, regardless of the age of the deceased partner.
The spouse's allowance was first introduced into the Old Age Security Act in a 1975 amendment. Since that time its scope has been extended on four other occasions, making this the fifth amendment relating directly to the spouse's allowance.
While this amendment is not discriminatory-men and women are both able to benefit-by far the largest beneficiaries will be women. For some reason unknown to me but adequately supported by statistics, women tend to outlive men and therefore many more of them will receive assistance as a result of the amendment. Our Government maintains a commitment to ensure the legislation in this and other areas reflects accurately the needs of the population. It is progressive legislation.
In my 12 years in Parliament on both sides of the House I have advocated, with the full support of my colleagues, several important issues along the same lines as this amendment to the Old Age Security Act. In each instance an injustice had been brought about by legislation which was too restrictive or did not address the problem that had arisen. Now that we are in a position to implement the progressive measures that we have proposed over the years, I am sure the Canadian public can expect many more. Indeed, the Speech from the Throne outlined measures which are outlined expressly "to ensure that social measures in Canada keep pace with the changing needs and circumstances of our people".
I, too, would like to mention two former Members of this House who shared my concerns about the inequities of legislation, especially that affecting pensioners and their spouses. The first is the late Hon. Walter Baker. He was a tireless worker who, with his obvious legal skills, combined with large doses of compassion, spoke often about the needs of pensioners and about the lack of will demonstrated by the former Government to amend legislation to remove certain inequities. 1 am sure he would be sharing my enthusiasm for this amendment to the Old Age Security Act if he were here.
The other former Member who has been mentioned by everyone preceding me this morning and who still graces the House with his presence at the Table at times is, of course, known far and wide for his interest and advocacy on behalf of pensioners and veterans. I am referring, of course, to the Hon. Stanley Knowles. Incidentally, he was a great help to me as a new Member many years ago with his advice on all pension matters. Throughout his decades here as the Member for Winnipeg North Centre he was always a champion and watchdog of government. He did not miss an opportunity to remind the government of the day of its obligations to the people who worked and fought for the rest of us and then found their government less than generous in providing for their retirement years. I shall do my best, along with other colleagues who share these concerns, to continue that tradition.
My constituency, Victoria, has almost 89,000 individuals living and, my notes say, working in it. Unfortunately, a very large number are no longer working because of the difficult economic times that we have. Of the 89,000 people, a very significant proportion are over the age of 60. As a matter of fact, 29,000 or 32 per cent of the population of Victoria are over 60. Of that percentage, about 61 per cent are women.
It was, therefore, a great day when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tabled the discussion paper on elderly and family benefits. The paper has reinforced the concept of universality for elderly benefits by stating that removing universality is not an option being considered by our Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in the days leading up to the election, promised that. The Government has repeatedly maintained its commitment in this Parliament and now the Minister has confirmed that commitment.
February 4, 1985

In a statement last November, the Minister said:
-our goal is to strengthen the integrity of universality, its goal of comprehensiveness and fairness ... Canadians have never had a version of universality in which the theory and the reality are absolutely the same.
My constituents can be assured of continuing benefits which they richly deserve, as indeed do all elderly Canadians.
This Old Age Security Act amendment is only the latest in a series of progressive legislative initiatives which my Party has supported. One in which I was proud to have played a part was that involving pensions for those who defended our country during past wars and their spouses. In fact, the last time I spoke on this side of the House in favour of a Government Bill was on my own Bill on this very subject. While I was Minister of Veterans Affairs in the 1979-80 Conservative Government, I was privileged to introduce, with the support of my colleagues, amending legislation which applied to the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
Among other things, that Bill, which was Bill C-28, did away with two previously ignored inequities. First, it provided the widow of a veteran who had been in receipt of a disability pension of less than 48 per cent with a proportionate pension. Up to that time the widow had been unable to claim a dime if the disability pension had been less than 48 per cent. Second, the other significant change in that legislation was to provisions of the Veterans Land Act. Previously, the spouse of a veteran had not been entitled to any interest in land acquired by a veteran under the Act and court orders were ignored by the director of the Veterans Land Act administration. With the passage of that amendment the spouse would be able to make application through the courts for an interest in the veteran's property, and the Director would be obliged to take notice of the claim. It is hard to believe that a provision such as this was not even considered prior to 1979. In any event, our Government came to an end two days after introduction of the Bill so I was unable to see it come to fruition at that time. I was thankful it was adopted by the succeeding government as Bill C-40 and given speedy passage, and it is now the law of the land.
In 1982 there was another Bill of this nature introduced in Parliament and passed without much fanfare at the time. This Bill was entitled Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. However, proclamation of Parts II, III and IV of the Act were inordinately delayed. The purpose of the legislation was two-fold: to remove constraints against public servants being garnisheed and to allow spouses to obtain direct from the Government all or part of a public servant's pay or pension where there is a court order for family maintenance. The intent of this portion of the legislation was to circumvent difficulties some spouses had and were having in collecting maintenance orders. This sort of thing was leaving them in precarious financial circumstances. Seventeen months later this Act still had not been proclaimed, leaving many spouses who were anticipating proclamation swaying in the wind.
At that time I proceeded by way of correspondence, questions and speeches.in the House to have the problem resolved,
Old Age Security Act
which was finally done by passage of a second Bill. I expect that some of the senior staff of the House of Commons are more aware of what held up the proclamation of Bill C-35 than I am. Eventually, the impasse was resolved by the passage of an additional Bill which said that yes, employees of the House of Commons would have to come under the provisions of the Bill as passed by the House of Commons.
That is a brief record of the Party's and my own position on legislative initiatives in the same vein as those before us today. Anomalies and inequities will continue to be revealed in our legislation. The reasons they occur are legion, but I believe those relating to changes in social attitudes are slowly but surely coming to be recognized and omitted.
Once again, may I read from the Speech from the Throne two statements to confirm our commitment to social equality:
-there is some distance between the principle of equality, widely accepted, and its reality, still far short of achievement. It is the duty of Parliament and Government to help ensure that Canadian society travels that distance as quickly as possible.
Further on in the Speech we find:
Canadians value and support the comprehensive social security system that has been put in place over many years... Many areas of the system must be strengthened to respond to the changing nature and needs of our society.
What is much more difficult to bring to light are those inequities created by our economic situation, a situation created in large part by profligate spending by our predecessors, an economy shaped by political expediency, short-sightedness and reactionary measures. Now that the Conservative Party has an unambiguous mandate from Canadians to set to right the damage inflicted over the last 16 years on our economy, this legislation is proof that it will be done judiciously. It is proof that our Party will cure our society's economic ailments while at the same time ensuring protection and fairness to those whose finances are limited.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Our Government is fortunate to have the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is known for his compassion, sense of fairness, and capability. I am confident that this needed amendment is a harbinger of further equitable legislation. Canada's elderly citizens can share my confidence.
There are some parts of Bill C-26 which are somewhat puzzling. I realize that the committee is the place in which to study the Bill very carefully and either have its parts satisfactorily explained or changed. I am rather concerned about Clause 1(1) which defines a spouse and about the part which speaks of the bar to remarriage. I trust in committee we will ensure that we are not making moral judgments or reinforcing a moralistic attitude by denying funds to people who need them just as much as if they were the most moral people in the world. I do not think it is a part of federal legislation to set out absolute moral lines as to who can qualify.

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
I should like to see other legislation come on stream. Now there is a possibility of this. I look forward to the day when we might be equal to the country of Belgium which has a pension for women at age 60. It would ensure that inequities would not be disclosed only after legislation is put into effect. At the present time, and even after this Bill is passed, in the case of 62-year old twin sisters, one will be able to draw this pension because she was married and the other will not. That does not seem fair, but the facts of the Bill are generally pleasing. As I understand the Bill, with zero income the monthly payment will be $536.26. This will be gradually reduced. If there is outside income, it will have to go over $10,500 before the allowance will be cut out completely. It is an understanding Bill.
In summary, my wholehearted support for this legislation is what I wish to express. It is an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. It derives from its compassionate nature. It addresses some of the issues about which we care a great deal-those issues affecting elderly Canadians, in particular women. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will share my enthusiasm for this Bill and give it quick passage so that its benefits can proceed without undue delay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech? If not, we shall resume debate with the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the issue of spousal allowance and applaud the decision of the Minister in this regard. The Government is extending this benefit to help an estimated 85,000 elderly widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65 regardless of when their spouses died. For this group it is an excellent first step. I support this measure in the hope that it will evolve even further and that at some point in time we will be able to consider the 80,000 to 85,000 who are left out of the provisions of this particular Bill. I am sure the Minister felt as badly as I do in having to exclude this segment of single elderly Canadians from the proposal. The prospect of poverty for them is very real and very frightening. I am sure the Minister shares that concern.

I want to congratulate the Minister on presenting this legislation, which is in the best interests of all Canadians. We do not intend to oppose the passage of a Bill that was examined by a task force set up under the previous Government. The task force was headed by one of our Members, the Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). Incidentally, this Government is introducing quite a number of Liberal measures and seems to be abandoning the reactionary Conservative measures advocated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I am delighted that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has been able to make his contribution to the wellbeing of our society.

I am basically very concerned because I believe it is often the case when we talk about these kinds of measures that we really do not stop to think of them in terms of a total portrait or picture. We often say that all these measures are from the bleeding hearts of society and that we cannot afford them. What we really cannot afford is a society which allows people to live in abject poverty. This has an impact upon their families, their children and themselves. In the long run this is very costly to society.
I should like to tell a story about my friend Jeanne. She is in her late fifties. She works in a large company. Her task is to train employees to run computerized machines. She earns about $18,000 per year. She considered herself well paid at one point, but now she has come to certain realities. After 12 years on this job, other men and women start with the company as clerks and secretaries with salaries of $19,000 to $21,000 in their first year. This seems unfair to Jeanne, and it is. What is even more unfair is that the men she trains for the job are immediately put into higher positions than hers. They are promoted and receive higher salaries, and she has trained them.
She would like to fight the system in order to be treated more fairly, but she is afraid she will lose her job. She does not think she could get another job because she is too old. She has no other income and no pension. She cannot change the world alone. She needs all our help as legislators.
I should like to suggest that the Canadian economy and the subject of women's income is one and the same thing, in a sense. I will be told that these are two separate issues, not one issue. I believe that for far too long women's issues and issues related to the Canadian economy have been considered separately when in fact they are one issue. Too often political and business leaders, economists and public officials say: "Today I will take a speech and talk about women. Tomorrow I will talk about social policy. Then maybe on Friday I will outline our economic policy". To treat the income problems of more than half the population separately from major economic questions is to short-change women, for their role, welfare and wellbeing are synonymous with economic and social policy. I am quite pleased to note that in the economic summit which the Government is planning the voice of women will be heard. It is almost too late, but certainly it is a step forward.
The reality is that today and for too long women in Canada have been losing out economically. The harsh fact is that two-thirds of Canadians working at the minimum wage level are women. The startling fact is that over half of all Canadian women can expect to be poor at some point in their lives. Another sad fact is that 2.5 times as many women as men are forced into part-time work because that is all they can find. The bitter fact is that when couples separate, although a man can generally look forward to rising income the woman anticipates only diminishing income. Only 27 per cent of employed women are enrolled in private pension plans and only one out of four widows has a pension. To quote one of the great North
February 4, 1985

American Liberals, "When is a buck not a buck?" It is when a woman earns it and it is only worth 62 cents.
Now, some will say: "There she goes again, talking about spending taxpayers' money on social policy". I have discovered that the real difference between social policy and economic policy is when someone else is describing the life of a single woman working and raising a family on a minimum wage or a woman without any income at all. When we talk about that, we are talking about social policy. If you happen to be that woman who is living on the minimum wage or has no income at all, what is happening to you is an economic reality.
It is time to change economic realities. It is time to act. It is time to devise and implement a national economic policy that counts women in rather than dealing them out. We must make a commitment to end the historic economic injustices that have been done to women in this country. We must make a commitment to the working women of Canada, those who want to work outside of their homes and those who have no choice but to work outside their homes.
If you go to work in Canada to support your family and yourself and contribute to the wealth of this country, you will receive equal pay for work of equal value. We cannot wait. We must commit ourselves to action now. We must do nothing less. That is fairness and equity. We must start with the premise that in the workplace women are not different from men in their abilities, in their energies, in their drive to work and in what they can produce for their families and for the nation.
We must accept the fact that many women are not paid fairly for what they do. This inequity is found at all levels of income. It is also true for women with university educations. For example, women who have MBAs who started with the same salary as men find they are thousands of dollars behind their classmates in a few short years. Therefore, we must act now.
The federal Government must pay its employees equal pay for work of equal value. We must be pro-active in this matter and lead the reform, not simply leave the onus on those who feel that they have a grievance. The federal Government should contract only with Canadian companies, professional firms or institutions that provide to its employees equal pay for work of equal value.
There are those who would argue that such policies must be gradual and depend on a growing economic tie in Canada. We can work at being just if we just get a bigger economic growth, a bigger pie to share and to cut.


Miss MacDonald:: Exactly.


Sheila Finestone: I am glad to see the Minister in the House.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have been here all along. Where have you been?


Sheila Finestone: I have been here. I just looked your way.
Old Age Security Act
The economic boom of the 1960s and 1970s proved that this was not the case. While the nation's wealth grew dramatically, the gap between the incomes of women and men did not close. Whether the Canadian economic pie gets bigger, and we are all working to ensure that it does, or smaller, which I doubt, or remains static, which is the fear of some, whatever the size of that pie we must divide it more fairly. The slice women have had has not been a fair slice, and it should be.
In addition to a commitment for equal pay for work of equal value, which I know the Minister is presently studying-and I await with a great deal of interest her reaction and that of her ministry to the Abella commission-there are two other areas where we can act.
As a person who feels that there is a tremendous need to see increased equity, we must act to help the low-income single head of the household who is raising children. We must do more to help Canadian women in their late fifties and sixties who suddenly lose all sources of income. The action undertaken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is one step. I mentioned the other which I hope some day we can realize.
Allow me to deal first with the major economic question of women who are single heads of households, unable to work or working at the minimum wage or not much more. The situation in Canada is that there are over 580,000 Canadian women today who are single heads of households. Forty one per cent of these women live below the poverty line. Most who have married and are now separated are unable to enforce child maintenance orders. In fact, only 30 per cent are receiving the awards allocated to them. What is more, the trend in our country is that half of those who marry under the age of 30 will separate. If we do nothing, we will see a worsening situation in which women find themselves. Three out of four women in Canada either do not marry or lose their husbands through death, divorce or separation.
In my talks with women and women's groups, I have been told the same story over and over again. It is the story of a single person with a minimum wage. Most of those people are women who must pay rent, feed and clothe their families, pay their own transportation and look for daycare. The harsh reality is that she cannot stretch that minimum wage to cover the rent, food, clothing, transportation and daycare. That amount of income just will not cover the cost of the basics.
The question is what do we do for women faced with this situation? I do not have all the answers, but I ask Hon. Members to consider what is happening when women are forced to quit. We lose her productivity and her work outside the home. We lose her contribution to the economy. We pay the welfare costs for being at home and out of the workforce. We destroy the spirit of one more Canadian who has given in and given up on herself and on society. There has to be another way. I think it is a lack of political will sometimes to resolve to meet these problems and find answers.
Let me turn to the second group of Canadian women who require change in our economic policies. I speak of the woman who has never been in the workforce but who has had to work
1954

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
all her life in her home. She is a worker and by working with her family she has contributed enormously to the social and economic infrastructure of Canada. Suddenly her husband dies and she is alone, or he leaves and she is alone. I am not talking about hypothetical situations. I could take you by the arm, Mr. Speaker, and introduce you to scores of women whom I have talked to and know the situation. They have no income. Only one in four widows has pension benefits. Only 6.7 per cent of women have survivor benefits in private pension plans if their husband dies before the age of 65. We need pension reform. Portability, vesting and survivor benefits all need to be reformed. We need to act so that women are not caught forever in this situation.
A person just widowed, never having worked outside the home, with no training for today's workplace, looking for a job in a community with unemployment running as high as it is, describes the life of many human beings in serious difficulties with no possible hope for the future except Government supplementation. This is not what we want in the future. We want people to be able to provide for themselves. We need the necessary incentives. These women need the support of the entire society and they should receive it. Those women can have it this year if we are prepared to act. I believe the support should go to both men and women in this predicament with no financial means of support, no private pension, not having had the opportunity of being able to save for RRSPs so that they could have a decent lifestyle.
These important measures must be considered. There are scores of economic issues that affect women, such as daycare, pension reform, skills training, technological change and their treatment within the tax system. We must proceed with reform in all of these areas. Pension reform, for example, is urgent, but these pension reform measures will not help right now. We need to take the interim step in order to support them.
We must work at all the economic issues in Canada and, as politicians, we must also have priorities and the courage to pursue them boldly. I urge action in these most pressing areas because action will help those Canadians who need it most now. I urge the implementation of a new economic policy for all Canadians but one that will create greater income for women. That is why I urge a vigorous pursuit of a policy of equal pay for work of equal value, of income support for low wage single heads of households and of a basic income for Canadians and especially women in their late fifties and early sixties who have been forced into an incomeless life. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, many individuals reach retirement age without having achieved a minimum of financial security, and I think it is vital that we should continue to demand changes in private pension plans and old age security pensions so that our elders, those who built this society, can have the security and the kind of life that is a reflection of ourselves and our values. I am sure you have heard I think it is an old Chinese saying that we can judge a society by the way it treats the elderly.

Therefore, I believe it vital that we treat our elders as we would like to see ourselves treated in this society, put into place those measures that are needed in the short term and plan those economic measures that will have in their fiscal impact the kind of results that will not see poverty, and particularly the face of feminism in poverty, in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make followed by a short question. I as one Member of the House, welcome this Bill. My own mother was one of the people who did not receive a pension after my father died because of the existing legislation. I think this step is certainly long overdue and I would hope that the legislation passes without too much opposition.
I hope the Minister will respond to the offer of our spokesman, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who suggested that if the Minister was able to have the enactment of this legislation moved up from next September, we would certainly be willing to help facilitate the passage of this legislation through all stages. I believe that was the offer he made.
As has been mentioned by Members of all three Parties, the former Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Stanley Knowles, was one of the leading advocates of this type of legislation in the House Commons for many, many years. I believe that the weakness in this legislation was pointed out by something that Mr. Knowles said not only to our caucus but to the whole country through his speeches in the House of Commons, and that is that it is completely unfair for a women to receive a pension based on whether or not she has a man or whether or not she had a man. Her entitlement to adequate pension should be based on the fact that she is a human of a certain age group who lives in this nation, and I would hope that the Government would move quickly toward that position. In this day and age we should not be looking at whether or not someone was married when she was 40, 50 or younger; we should be saying that if she is of a certain age and has a limited income, she would be receiving that pension. I would hope the Government would act quickly on that.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) spoke of the economic pie being large in the 1960s and 1970s. Why did the Liberal Government not act in those years when there was a lot of money in this society?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of answers to the question asked by the Hon. Member. First, Liberal policy regarding the interests of women has been very forward moving. It has not been fast enough in my view, but certainly within the larger picture of social reform, it has moved ahead. Liberals brought in the guaranteed income supplement and increased the guaranteed income supplement. The entire Old Age Security Act and the income supplement were Liberal initiatives. The spousal allowance was a Liberal initiative.
February 4, 1985

In 1979, as president of La Federation des Femmes du Quebec, I can remember having a very serious concern about the poverty face which was a feminine face. We ran a major conference on aging and poverty and looked at new policies for aging in our society. At that time the Quebec Minister concerned and the federal Minister, Monique Begin, were our guest speakers. Interestingly enough, and I believe the present Minister of National Health and Welfare will be interested in this, Madam Begin came before us with a whole series of facts and figures as the present Minister did, and outlined the cost to implement spousal allowance. Needless to say, that is where her heart was, as I believe that is where the heart of the present Minister is. However, she was having a very difficult time with her caucus.
We should take a look at who was in that caucus. It was mostly men who were in that caucus and there are few men who have as broad a concept of the role of women as partners in society as the present Minister has. I would imagine that Madam Begin had somewhat of a difficult time pushing through what eventually did go through, which was the spousal reforms.
I believe we have been effective. We have trained men to think in much more feminine terms. I am very proud of what the Liberals have done in the past, and will continue to support and do in the future.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make and a question to ask the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). First, I would like to acknowledge the great debt that we all owe to the former Member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, for the pioneering work that he did over the years for pensioners in this country. Without the advocacy that he carried on throughout the length of his parliamentary career, we would not have a pension system upon which to improve. I believe that, as Canadians, we all acknowledge our debt to the Hon. Stanley Knowles.
What are the feelings of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal with regard to lowering the age of eligibility for pensioners? Is it adequate to leave the age of eligibility at 65 or, as has long been advocated by this Party, do we need to lower the age of pension eligibility to 60? Together with that, this legislation before us is taking a good step toward extending spousal benefits to married people. I wonder what the Hon. Member's views are with regard to extending those same kinds of benefits to single people.
If the Hon. Member sees the need to extend benefits to single people as well as to married people and is sympathetic to lowering the age of eligibility, how can she explain the fact that her Party when in government failed to take action on these matters? What is there to give us any confidence that if that Party were ever to approach that side of the House again at some future time, it would act any differently when in office than it did the last time around?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out that the word "consultation" was not a word that was invented during the reign of the newly elected Conservative Government. Certainly Hon. Members on the other side will remember the times we went to the population on pension reform with green papers, white papers and all kinds of consultative documents. We have travelled, we have talked, we have listened and we have looked. From that point of view, I feel no discomfort and I feel a great sense of pride.
They say that imitation is the finest form of flattery. I am so flattered that they have copied our style and are out there consulting with the population. I just thought of that. Isn't it great?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on December 17 a Montreal woman committed a murder with a hand-gun which she had bought legally only a few hours before from a registered gun dealer.
In this case the woman was able to get the firearms acquisition certificate and hand-gun permit in a total of three hours, despite the fact that the law requires a check into an applicant's history, including their criminality, mental stability, and violent activity. It is obvious that in this case the checks were either not made, or not properly made.
One of the principal reasons for the checks which were imposed by Parliament was to assure a cooling-off period, and to impose a delay in obtaining a gun, to reduce the murders which are a result of emotional crises. When the law was passed a few years ago it was thought that the checking procedures should take from one to three weeks. The three hours' time which was taken in this case is ridiculous and makes a farce of the law. The Montreal coroner took a similar view.
I urge the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) to look into this matter immediately and to take steps, by regulation, to impose a minimum waiting period on all applications for firearms acquisition certificates and permits.
[Stage Direction]
February 4, 1985


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak to a subject that is causing great concern to red meat producers in my region. I am referring to the red meat stabilization program.
There are more than 900 red meat producers in my riding. Pork producers have been particularly affected by unfavourable market prices over the last five years. Many will soon be on the brink of bankruptcy, so the situation is extremely urgent.
Mr. Speaker, production costs for producers differ according to the region where they are located, and we must allow for this difference if we want to avoid creating disparities among the provinces. Under the former legislation, the Liberals were maintaining this unfair situation, and not only in this sector, and as a result they were repudiated by Canadians during the last election.
The producers' contribution to the Quebec Stabilization Fund has tripled over the past year, and the Federal Government offered no compensation to help relieve the pressure on producers who were participating in the provincial program. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as far as red meat stabilization is concerned, a tripartite agreement with each province is necessary to establish a degree of equity at the national level, and this is aside from the existence of provincial stabilization plans-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sorry but 1 must inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, Liberal double-talk and deception, when it comes to the nuclear arms race, have reached new depths in the mouth of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), whose hypocrisy on the issue seems to know no bounds.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has said that his Party will be demanding a full parliamentary debate on NORAD and star wars. Where was he when millions of Canadians wanted a full parliamentary debate on the Cruise testing, and the Liberals refused? There would have been no debate in the House at all if the NDP had not used one of its days to provide for such an opportunity.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry now claims that the Liberals were unwaringly sucked into the Cruise testing. They thought they were only re-signing a defencesharing agreement with the Americans, and they ended up testing the Cruise. Those poor innocent Liberals!
What happened to all the morally pretentious arguments about how we had to test the Cruise because of our NATO commitments-not our NORAD commitments, but our NATO commitments? That Liberal lie was promulgated from coast to coast. It is now to be officially forgotten by Liberal Party historians.
The Hon. Member's last refuge is ignorance, claiming that he did not know what was really going on. The truth is that he still doesn't. The Liberals never have, and they never will. Blinded by years of deceit and wilful ignorance, they deserve to become the laughing stock of those who are concerned about nuclear disarmament. The future of the planet is too important for anyone to seek comfort in the next chapter of Liberal grandstanding on issues of peace and disarmament.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, now hear this! Today I want to talk about women-REAL Women. A growing organization in our country is the R.E.A.L. Women of Canada. "R" stands for real; "E" for equal; "A" for active, and "L" for life. Put together, it spells R.E.A.L.. It is a splendid name.
These women believe that the traditional family is the basic unit of society, and that strong families mean a strong nation. The organization has realistic and positive views on marriage; believing that marriage is a sacred contract based on love and commitment, which adds survival, enrichment, and strength to meet the stresses and strains of everyday life. This is quite different from the views of the feminists who urged young women "to think of marriage as a mating with a fruit fly and an elephant... with a great financial and physical deal for men and a high risk activity for women".
The objectives of R.E.A.L. Women of Canada encourage high principles and good living, based on the best traditions of the past. It is pro-life and it will fight for women's rights, but not at the expense of human righs. Motherhood is enhanced, and it places equal value on women who stay in the home, nurturing their children, as on those who work in the marketplace.
REAL has put into words what millions of Canadians of both genders believe in their hearts. I salute the R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, the real women of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


February 4, 1985



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was ill-informed on Friday, February 1, when commenting on acid rain negotiations with the United States. He is not aware of the facts.
With respect to the emission of sulphur dioxide, the United States produces 26 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide annually. Canada produces 4.5 million tonnes, or one-fifth.
Second, in Canada we are cutting our SOz emissions by 25 per cent between 1980 and 1990. The United States is not.
Third, parallel to this program, there is a unanimous commitment which was made by federal and provincial Environment Ministers, who on March 6, 1984, agreed to cut our SOz emissions by 50 per cent by 1984. On that date, and again in June, 1984, federal and provincial Environment Ministers declared their unanimous will to go it alone.
Fourth, we are part of an international movement called "The 30% Club", whose members have pledged a minimum cut of 30 per cent of S02 emissions by 1993. Twenty nations have joined; so far the United States has not.
Fifth, United States regulations on NOx control standards are much more stringent than ours. Our public consultations were concluded in December, 1984-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is currently reviewing the past leasing practices of the Department of Public Works. The Auditor General, in his latest annual report, wrote:
-there appears to be no effective mechanism to ensure that the Department and its client departments comply with the directives and policies of Treasury Board.
This failure to comply has resulted in approximately $63 million of wasted tax dollars.
Canadians simply will not tolerate this kind of government mismanagement. They suffered long enough under the previous Government and its practice of careless spending and high deficits.
I urge the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) to ensure an effective mechanism of control over the leasing activities of Public Works and to ensure that this kind of over-spending does not occur again. I have every confidence that the Minister
and this Government will manage the finances of Canada with care and responsibility.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, in response to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) said that he would take whatever steps he could to resolve the dangerous conflict at Meares Island.
Since then the Minister has done nothing but back away from his earlier commitment. He now says that he will get involved only if both sides to the dispute request him to do so.
Meares Island is not just another part of MacMillan Bloe-del's tree farm licence, to be logged at the company's convenience. Neither is it simply another part of a general land claim by the Nuu-chalnulth Tribal Council. Meares Island is at the very heart of aboriginal claims in British Columbia. As a specific site, it has been used for hundreds of years by the Clayoquet and Ahousaht peoples.
[DOT] (MI0)
Indian people have said that Meares Island will not be logged, and intend to back up their words with their bodies. They will be joined by hundreds of concerned environmentalists who recognize the unique features of Meares Island, one of which is Canada's oldest and largest trees.
We should hear the words of the Indian people not as a threat but as their reaction to a threat. A threat to their land is a threat to their culture and to their future as a people. Instead of paying attention to another "Zimmerman telegram" from the head of MacMillan Bloedel, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) should honour his earlier obligation-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, as an impartial and objective observer of the political scene, it has been my observation that the Opposition, especially the Official Opposition, is falling apart. I am sure, on occasions, the Leader of the Opposition Party waxes elequent, but sadly he stands alone. Last week he vehemently condemned out of hand the Investment Canada Act legislation, but the effect was entirely lost when only 14 of his supposed supporters bothered to turn out for the vote.

February 4, 1985
As the Liberal Party self-destructs, and as its front-bench members spend more and more time at their lucrative law practices, and less and less time in the House of Commons, it appears that the New Democratic Party is taking on the real job of opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: In order to reflect this reality and to be fair to both mini-opposition Parties, would it not be a good idea, Mr. Speaker, if the second question of Question Period be taken from the Liberals and given to the NDP? I throw that out, just as a helpful suggestion. If the Liberals refuse to use even their very limited-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, after five months there is so much division within the Progressive Conservative Government that there does not seem to be any hope for serious reform.
First of all, in Quebec the real power does not lie with the members of the Caucus but with the National friends of the Prime Minister, with people like Fernand Roberge, Jean Bazin and Michel Cogger.
The Quebec council of Conservative Ministers is so ineffective and confused that the Prime Minister is letting the quarrel between the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Communications run its course in the hope that it will finally produce a real leader, which is highly improbable, Mr. Speaker.
As far as their new policies are concerned, their main objective is to keep up appearances. Last Sunday, the Progressive Conservative Parliamentary House Leader even had the nerve to say on "Sunday Morning" that Canadians did not vote for new policies but for a new approach.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives have always criticized metric conversion and they have always done so for the wrong reasons. The Prime Minister has now decided to appease his ultraconservative supporters by bringing back imperial while keeping the metric system, the latter to satisfy the progressive elements of his Party. And he himself is putting the blame on small- and medium-sized businesses.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of these facts, I have no compunction in saying that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to inform the Hon. Member that his time has now expired. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, "Ten Days for World Development", an education program of the relief and development agencies of the Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and United Churches of Canada, is once again drawing the attention of Canadians to the crisis in Central America and the need for peace. These churches are to be commended for their continuing efforts.
The Canadian Government, as well, has a part to play in striving to bring peace to Central America. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government must actively urge the United States Government to listen seriously to the peace proposals of the Contadora group of Mexico, Columbia, Panama, and Venezuela, which is calling for a diplomatic rather than a military solution to the crisis in central America.
Second, the Canadian Government can make a commitment to signing the protocol to the September, 1984, Contadora peace Treaty, thereby demonstrating Canadian support for it. Twelve European nations, including our allies, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, have signed this protocol.
Furthermore, we can inform the United States that we are opposed to U.S. military intervention. Let Canada act, and be counted amongst the peacemakers.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose some questions to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. He announced this morning an investment by Korean car manufacturers in a new auto parts plant in his area. This raises some very important questions, Mr. Speaker, about the lack of any over-all automotive policy of the Government. In less than seven weeks there will have to be a decision taken on what to do with the quotas, yet the Minister has yet to meet with the automotive task force, nor has he had specific negotiations with either the Americans or the Japanese.
Can the Minister tell us whether the deal between himself and the Korean auto manufacturers for this investment in plant is in return for continuing the duty-free status which the
February 4, 1985

Korean auto manufacturers presently enjoy? Or does the Minister intend, in fact, to change that status?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to hear a question put by the Official Opposition critic for regional industrial expansion on Day 45. This is the First opportunity 1 have had to wish him the best in his role as critic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: And may he stay there a long time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In direct answer to the Hon. Member's question, I am sure he will be very pleased to know that, leading up to the Hyundai decision to open a plant in Canada, there were no negotiations. It is all being done with its own money. As was said at the press conference today, it feels there is a good opportunity in Canada to open up, and it wants to share in that type of opportunity.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that the Hon. Minister did not find it possible, with his own timetable, to attend any of the debates on the Investment Canada Bill- he was not here one day during that debate-


Mr. Gauthier:: That's right.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is difficult to ask questions when the Minister is not here to participate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FIRA REVIEW PROCEDURES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, considering the comments made by the Minister about the investment decision, I assume the Minister knows that the decision by Hyundai to invest is part of an agreement which was made by that manufacturer under the provisions of the Foreign Investment Review Agency in terms of new business. Now that the Minister has seen the advantages of a foreign manufacturer making an agreement under FIRA to invest in Canada, is he prepared to bring back those review procedures into the Investment Canada Bill?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again in reply to the Hon. Member, I would like to assure him that I was indeed here many days during the debate on Investment Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, no, you weren't.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In fact the record will show that I answered questions, but not from the Hon. Member.
In answer to the question put by the Hon. Member, I would like to assure him that in no way does the investment which Hyundai is proposing alter our view with respect to the Investment Canada Bill. In fact I believe that the Investment Canada Bill will ensure that there will be even more Hyundai
Oral Questions
and other non-Canadian investment made in Canada, if the Opposition would just stop defeating job creation by blocking the Bill in the way it has been doing.


IMPORT QUOTAS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would again simply point out to the Minister that it was this Party, when it was in Government, which established the legislation that made sure that Hyundai invested in Canada in the first place. Any continuation will simply be because of the commitment which was made.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What's the punch line?


Lloyd Axworthy: The punch line, Mr. Speaker, is this-we have less than seven weeks in which we have to make a decision on what to do about import quotas for Japanese autos. We would like to know whether the Minister agrees with the report by the Combines Investigation Branch that such quotas should not be implemented. Is he prepared to meet with the automotive task force and agree that we need more Canadian content in those arrangements? When is the Government going to ensure jobs for Canadians by coming up with a position on what to do about Japanese quotas?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I know you noted that the Hon. Member went full circle. His original question queried me on the terms and conditions I have settled with Hyundai with respect to their opening. His final question indicates that it was all as a result of their agreement.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, the fact is that we have had discussions in Japan and Washington with the industry and labour leaders. I think that in due course there will be an announcement concerning the continuation, or otherwise, of quotas. I can assure the Hon. Member that jobs for Canadians will be our paramount consideration.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister is aware, the heartland of Quebec has been severely affected by factory shutdowns: Wabasso at Trois-Rivieres, involving 1,250 jobs; Merchers at Berthier; and Le Carbure at Shawinigan. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the heartland of Quebec. Before inviting the Hyundai corporation to set up a plant in his own riding, did

February 4, 1985
Oral Questions
the Minister give the Quebec Minister of Industry and Trade a chance to make offers that might attract this industry to Quebec, at a time when the heartland of Quebec and the province in general have lost thousands of jobs since the Conservatives came to power?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that the suggestion of Hyundai opening up in the fine riding of York-Peel is something I first learned of when I read it in the press last week.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That was certainly in no way the result of any negotiations such as the Hon. Member would have the House believe. In relation to the situation in Trois-Rivieres, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that only last week we met with a group that is attempting to take some constructive steps to get the Wabasso plant re-opened. We have given them every encouragement to try to put their plan into a more concrete form so that jobs will once again be created in that area.


TEXTILES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker,
although I am pleased that the Minister met with representatives from our area, I still wonder why, since October 30 of last year, he has refused to meet with representatives of the Canadian Textile Institute who wrote to his office in the last week of October, requesting a meeting to discuss the textile situation in Quebec and in Canada in general, since cities like Winnipeg and other areas of Canada are also affected. The Minister has refused to meet them ever since the last week of October in 1984.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that there has been no refusal whatsoever on our part to meet with representatives of the textile group, or individual companies within that group. The Hon. Member will probably be very pleased to know that we have even met several times with the creature of his previous Government, the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. In fact the head of that Board is now the commissioner of FIRA and may even be the head of Investment Canada. Therefore, we are very much in touch with the problems in the textile field.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is for the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism. The Minister will know that yesterday the President of the National Association of Japanese Canadians met with the executive of that body, and that they in turn reconfirmed their confidence in the approach that he has been taking on their behalf in meetings with the Government of Canada.
It is of profound importance that we reach a settlement on this important tragedy in the history of our country which all Parties in the House can accept and agree upon, and more important, that the Japanese Canadians will feel at home with. Will the Minister assure the House that he will follow up on Mr. Miki's request to meet with the Prime Minister, by urging that the Prime Minister agree to such a meeting?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot speak for the Prime Minister in terms of whom he will and will not meet. I have indicated to Mr. Miki and any other members of the Japanese community that I am prepared to meet with them at any time they see fit to discuss this very important matter further. My offer and invitation still stand.


REQUEST FOR NEGOTIATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House thank the Minister for his reply. Will he also indicate clearly to the House that the Government is willing to fulfil its own previous commitment to have serious negotiations with representatives of the Japanese Canadian community before any particular matter is brought before the House for the purpose of agreement?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, my reply to the Hon. Member will be roughly the same as my first reply. I am prepared to sit down and discuss this matter with the Japanese community at any time. They understand that. I would expect some overtures by Mr. Miki and his group this week. If that takes place, I will be prepared to sit down and talk about any matters that may arise from one end of the spectrum to the other.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, from past discussions on this matter, which have taken place both in and outside the House, the Minister knows that there is an important distinction to be made between the terms" consultation" and "negotiation". Is the Minister now prepared to say that the Government will continue with the negotiating process on this important matter before any legislation or resolution is brought before Parliament?
February 4, 1985


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I have communicated to the Japanese Canadian community that I am prepared to have discussions. One of my major concerns is that, if we get into a negotiating position, which I understand some members of the Japanese Canadian community would like to see, with their lawyer representatives at the table, that inherently puts us into more of a confrontational type of position. I want to try to do everything in my power to stay away from that. I would like to have the question discussed at great length, if necessary, so that both sides are firm in their understanding of the direction we should go. I do not think it would be in the best interest of either side to sit down and start to negotiate, as such, at the present time.
I am very much concerned, as I know the Hon. Member would be, that it could lead to more confrontation.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Recently General Motors announced that it was looking for a site for a $3.5 billion assembly plant for its new Saturn project. It is also known that some 19 Governors of States in the United States are pressing to have that plant located in their areas. Exactly what are the Minister and his officials doing to get that plant located right here in Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member for Windsor West that we are very much in touch with the officials in the Canadian head office of General Motors, as well as in Detroit. We are working with the provinces and federal officials to ensure that Canada is considered and hopefully will be able to win the type of development that General Motors is talking about.


GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister realistically expect to have any chance to get that plant located in Canada when, in the face of very extensive incentives being offered to General Motors by the 19 State Governors I have mentioned, to have the plant located in their areas, he and his Government have reduced support for the auto industry that was previously available to it through the Industrial and Regional Development Program? Will he not agree now that he must reverse those cuts if he is to have any chance of getting that plant located in Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the Hon. Member that he get a better researcher, because the fact is that this Government has in no way reduced the amount of funds that are available under the Industrial and Regional Development
Oral Questions
Program. In fact those that might be available to help the auto industry are very much still available.
As the Hon. Member must recall, when it was proposed that General Motors put a substantial plant at Ste. Therese, Quebec, of course we were there offering assistance, along with the Province of Quebec. We would do so in the future if it meant more jobs for Canadians.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the discussions with respect to renegotiation of the NORAD Treaty. As the Minister knows, in 1981 the previous Liberal Government deleted the clause dealing with the ABMs, thus paving the way potentially for our entry into star wars. Would the Secretary of State assure the House today that, in the negotiations taking place now and in the weeks to come, his Government will make it abundantly clear to the Americans that we want that clause put back in, and thereby prevent us from getting involved in an offensive star wars program?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct when he points out that there was a deletion of a clause. I have naturally inquired as to why the Liberal Government agreed to that deletion at that particular time. I am informed that, in fact, that particular clause was deleted precisely to avoid any suggestion that either Canada or the United States might take actions which would breach the ABM Treaty.
I would be prepared to discuss that matter at greater length with the Hon. Member, with others in the House who are interested, or to make officials available.
To the best of my understanding, after inquiries, that was the reason for that clause being deleted. Consequently, I would be surprised if Members of the House who are anxious to have the ABM Treaty respected would want to reinsert a clause which might contain the suggestion that it would open the way for the United States to depart from the obligations of that treaty.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE EXAMINATION
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I find the logic a little difficult to follow. I believe the only way to clear this matter up is to ask the Secretary of State if he will undertake to make sure that the complete NORAD Agreement is brought before the House Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for complete examination before it is signed by anyone, either on this side of the border or the American side of the border?

February 4, 1985
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be aware that there was a recommendation from the Standing Committee a year or two ago calling for a review of the NORAD arrangement prior to its renewal. Its renewal occurs in March of next year, which is more than a year away.
The Hon. Member will know that there will be a reference to the committees of Parliament of both a white paper from the Department of National Defence and a green paper from External Affairs, which will cover those questions, among others. If parliamentarians, after seeing those papers, conclude that that does not provide an adequate opportunity for that kind of study, the Government certainly will be prepared to consider any requests for any further opportunities to ensure that there is wide public understanding of all of the implications of renewal of the NORAD Agreement 13 months hence.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE HON. LORNE HEPWORTH, MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE OF THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt proceedings to advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Lome Hepworth, Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, and it concerns the Richard Hatfield marijuana case. In view of today's press reports and the many questions that have been raised about this case, will the Solicitor General initiate a complete and independent review of the investigation and prosecution of the case so that the public can be assured that our criminal justice system has worked fairly and objectively in the matter?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Hon. Member's question. At this time I must respectfully decline to give any such assurance.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, given all the circumstances surrounding this case, will the Solicitor General not agree that a public, independent inquiry is necessary to ensure that the public continues to have confidence that all persons are treated equally before the law?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the very tenor of the question, and some of the comments that have been made, are rather contrary to that noble principle which he has just advanced.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I do wish to assure him that I will take his representation seriously, but I repeat that I do not believe at this time that it would be appropriate or necessary.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Minister of Transport, concerns the remarks made by the Prime Minister on Friday about acid rain and the need for Canadians to clean up their own backyard before we can negotiate from strength with the Americans.
Will the Minister tell us today, in keeping with the spirit of the Prime Minister's remarks, whether Canada will soon move to adopt the recommendation of the parliamentary subcommittee on acid rain that the current standard of 3.1 grams per vehicle mile be tightened to one gram per vehicle mile, which is the current U.S. standard with regard to emissions of nitrous oxide?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter that is currently under active consideration by myself and Cabinet colleagues. Of course, we will be cognizant of the statements made by the Prime Minister on Friday.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister be more definite? He knows that he must make this announcement by April 1 if it is to take effect by the 1987 car model year.
Could he give us assurances that he will make that announcement before April 1-indeed before President Reagan's visit-so that the Prime Minister would be able to point to some concrete Canadian action in his discussions with the President of the United States about acid rain?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, any announcement relative to exhaust emissions will be made in due course.
February 4, 1985


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could he clarify the $30 million cut-back to the Medical Research Council's budget? Is the $30 million part of the MRC's basic budget A? Was it for normal MRC's granting programs, or a special one-time capital expenditure and equipment purchase purpose?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the MRC plan is for five years. There was an acceptance of a five-year plan. Second, there is what is known as the A base budget, which is generally shown on the estimates. Furthermore, for the first year of the five-year plan there was a $20 million appropriation beyond the A base. Last year it was $30 million. There were no provisions for placing this money on the A base for the next three years. It is obviously that issue with which the Government has concerned itself.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. There has been widespread concern, expressed by agricultural groups such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union, about the cut-backs in Canagrex. For instance, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture stated in its brief to the Minister last week that it was angered and surprised by that Minister's and the Minister of Finance's arbitrary action.
Also, in view of the tremendous success this corporation has had in its first year when it sold over $16 million worth of farm products, and has another $160 million under consideration, would the Minister be prepared to reconsider his decision and allow this corporation another year of operation to prove that it actually can improve on its first year's successes?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I must indicate to him that, as far as I am concerned, and as far as this Government is concerned, Canagrex is really history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: The Hon. Member should know that since the Government took the decision with reference to Canagrex I have been in a position to receive representations of all kinds from all regions of the country. Other than the two or three exceptions which the Hon. Member has mentioned, the vast majority of representations that I have received have all been positively in support of the decision taken by the Government.
Oral Questions


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT'S DECISION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister does not know what the two national farm organizations are. I am referring to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union.
Let me ask the Minister of Agriculture why it is, when the United States and the EEC countries are more aggressively marketing and selling agricultural commodities, that we are shutting down the one organization that is set up to sell our commodities abroad? Why is it that we are going in one direction while very other country in the world is more aggressively marketing farm commodities?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that this Government will very aggressively follow the export market for agricultural commodities. We are satisfied, given that very dismal record of Canagrex, that we can do it far more successfully, far more efficiently and effectively, with officials in my Department. Indeed, some reorganization has already begun, and we do not need an additional Crown corporation to provide the much needed export guarantee package. Our Department has already entered into negotiations and had discussions and that role will be carried on more effectively and more successfully with the Export Development Corporation properly financed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to thank him for his help to date. As he is well aware, a Canadian citizen Mr. Roberto Starita, of Prince Rupert, has been held by the Brazilian police at the Praca Maua Prison in Rio de Janiero for three weeks now, without charges. Since Mr. Starita was recognized by the United Nations as a political refugee in 1977, at which time he was in Brazil, has the Minister taken any steps with the United Nations in attempting to secure his immediate release and return to Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have taken no steps with the United Nations yet, but the Hon. Member will know that, due to his own very active intervention in the case, and his contact with me and with my officials, representatives of the Canadian Embassy have been in touch regularly with Mr. Starita, and we are doing everything we can to ensure his security and to prevent any worsening of his situation. If it appears to be appropriate that we make appeals to other bodies, we will do that.

February 4, 1985
Oral Questions CONDITIONS OF DETENTION


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the Brazilian authorities are content to hold Mr. Starita in a windowless, black cage, without even sanitary facilities, without charge and without trial, does the Minister not think it is about time to place a call to the new President-elect of Brazil, Mr. Neves, to protest vigorously to him about this abuse of a Canadian citizen?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will consider any action that would be productive and helpful in easing this situation. If it comes to a call to Brazilian authorities, we will naturally make that call, but I would only want to make that call after we were sure that other avenues open to us were not going to be productive.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In his 1983-84 annual report, the Auditor General referred to a serious problem in Public Service job classifications. He pointed out that 19 per cent of Public Service positions were overclassified, at very high cost to the taxpayer. When my colleague from Windsor West was President of the Treasury Board, he announced serious measures aimed at correcting this overclassification. Could the Minister inform the House what he has done and what he intends to do to deal with this very serious problem?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as far as job classifications in the Public Service are concerned, the Government generally agrees with what the Auditor General said in his annual report. In fact, all this was already very obvious from the Treasury Board's own audits in
1983.	Corrective action was taken in 1984, and the situation has improved considerably. I can assure the Hon. Member that I intend to keep a very close watch on the process to ensure that the new measures are indeed being effective.


CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, one of the countless election promises made by the Conservative Party was that staffing procedures, classification, technological change, designations, and other issues would be made negotiable in public service contracts in the future. The Minister will also know, I am sure, that job contracts for 62,000 public servants expire in the first six months of this year. Will the Minister tell the House that when new contracts are
negotiated with the Public Service Alliance or with public service unions in general, job classification will be made negotiable?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting on those election promises which the Hon. Member mentioned.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Do you find the time?


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, I try to find time. I have been meeting very regularly with our labour leaders. We have had a number of meetings over the past few months and I am happy to report to the Hon. Member that we are making some very interesting progress on all six issues that we are discussing at the moment.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It has to do with the recent tour of the NDP action group on jobs in Atlantic Canada and in western Canada. During that tour, business groups and individuals on many occasions brought to our attention that the present government purchasing policy discriminates against businesses in Atlantic Canada and western Canada, since less than 15 per cent of all government purchasing now comes from Atlantic Canada in combination with western Canada.
Considering that discriminatory purchasing policy is in place, and considering the need for jobs in both of those areas, is the Minister prepared to consider placing targets for government purchasing in those two regions?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member I would like to assure him that it also concerns us that there is not more purchasing as far as government procurement is concerned in regions such as the west, including British Columbia, and Atlantic Canada. I do not know whether it is fair to say it is a discriminatory practice. I think what is needed are more measures to ensure that whatever opportunities there are, are known to the local businessmen so that they can at least bid on the business. If the setting of targets, as the Hon. Member has suggested, would help, we will look at that. If, in order to encourage it, the greater selling and the buying of products in regions such as Atlantic Canada and the western areas would be helped by the setting of quotas, we will do it.


PROCUREMENT FROM SMALL BUSINESS SECTOR
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. He, on many occasions, has indicated that
February 4, 1985

90 per cent of jobs created in Canada are being created by the small business sector.
Considering that 90 per cent of new jobs are created in the small business sector, the Minister will be aware that less than 30 per cent of all government procurement comes from the small business sector. Is he prepared to consider setting targets and government purchasing policies to assist small business, to assist the real job-creation sector of the country?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, we are taking a very serious look at the area of government purchasing from small businesses, and consultations will be held throughout the country to give business people a chance to tell us their views, and I will be able to give the Hon. Member an answer at some time in the weeks to come.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his forthcoming trip to the Soviet Union on December 29, will he discuss the continued presence of Soviet armed forces in Afghanistan and, second, will he talk about the dissidents of Ukrainian and Jewish origin?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and his continuing concern about these issues. The answer to both of his questions is yes. I will be discussing the continuing Soviet presence in Afghanistan, and I will naturally be bringing to the attention of Soviet leaders, as I have in the past, the situation of dissidents imprisoned or badly treated in their society.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, my question is directed to the Acting Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the Minister promised a Bill redressing fundamental injustice and discrimination against Indian women in the Indian Act within the next week, Indian women's groups have been pressing for a clarification of just exactly what the Minister meant when he said specifically that he would be presenting a Bill on "the restoration of their rights".
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I was looking around is that the Minister has a very competent Parliamentary Secretary and, obviously, it was in his right to consider answering the question. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is involved in discussions both with Cabinet and with appropriate groups. When he is ready to make the announcement public, I am sure the Hon. Member will be pleased with it.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope we will be happy with the announcement. Pressure groups would like to know whether it means automatic restoration or reinstatement. Will it include Indian women? Will Indian women have to apply to band councils? Will it include their children, and back to what generation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member that those questions are valid. She will see them answered when the Bill is presented.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last week John Inglis in Stoney Creek announced that it was moving part of its operations to a plant which was previously part of the Admiral chain in Cambridge. Will the Minister investigate the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Government of Canada and John Inglis which afforded John Inglis $3 million of Canadian taxpayers' money for the acquisition of Admiral, to determine what job guarantees are in the agreement to protect 150 people and their families from the loss of employment?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do that for the Hon. Member, and I will be in touch with him.


EFFECT ON EMPLOYEES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in addition to looking at the contract, would the Minister arrange to discuss with Inglis the inappropriateness of its actions over the course of the last number of months with regard to the moving of parts of its operations out of existing plants to other parts of the country which, albeit provides employment in those areas, dislocates the lives of many families in the areas where they were previously located?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would

February 4, 1985
Oral Questions
agree that he should first give me an opportunity to read the agreement, if there is such an agreement, and to take appropriate action after I have had an opportunity to read it.


FINANCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the meeting today of Premier-designate Frank Miller of Ontario and the Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -and in keeping with that good old family tradition and principle of consultation and consensus-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -and as a result of their discussions to this moment, is the Minister of Finance now in a position to inform us when he will be bringing down his next Budget, which the Prime Minister has indicated will be so horrendous?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the unpaid commercial which he has given us, and encourage him to keep doing that. The answer to his question is simply that I do not have a specific date. I think he is aware that we are looking to bring down a Budget in the spring. As we move close to that date, I will be giving the House a specific date.


ONTARIO GASOLINE TAX
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the Minister's comment about commercials, he will need all he can get.
Also with reference to the same meeting, could the Minister of Finance indicate when the next provincial election will take place in Ontario?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Will the Prime Minister and the Premier-designate be discussing or reassessing federal-provincial taxes on gasoline, in view of the fact that the Province of Ontario has always collected twice as much tax on gasoline as the federal Government in the past? I am wondering whether the Prime Minister is talking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am unable to provide all the answers to the questions posed by the Hon. Member. Perhaps those matters are being discussed by the two gentlemen today, right now. Obviously, as the Minister of Energy has indicated, we are
working very hard on getting a resolution to very complex tax matters relating to energy policy. I would hope that they will be a part of the Budget.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A tax court decision recently resulted in an unemployment insurance overpayment to about 350 persons. In one case an individual owes an overpayment of $40,000. Is the Minister prepared to review the situation and exercise ministerial discretion and consider for unemployment insurance purposes only that these individuals, between 1978 and 1982, were indeed covered under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the problem to which the Hon. Member refers has arisen as a result of a court ruling that reversed the previous legislation. As a result, once the court had ruled, individuals were not able from then on either to pay into the unemployment insurance fund or to draw benefits from it. If they had, as has happened in this case, the Unemployment Insurance Commission is required by law, under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, to pay back moneys which were paid in improperly, and to retrieve benefits which were paid out improperly.
However, I inform the Hon. Member that if these payments are to be retrieved, it must be done in a fair and humane way. I have instructed that anyone who is on unemployment insurance, welfare, or in that sort of situation, must not be asked for repayment at this time.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO LEGISLATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister consider changing the law-and she has our commitment on this side of the House that we will give it speedy passage-to alleviate the pressure and stress which are being brought to bear on many of these families? Can the Minister assure us that she will bring in a law which will put them onside and avoid the overpayments?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give the suggestion that has been put forward by the Hon. Member every consideration. I understand the concern that he expresses. I want to assure him that, at the moment, under the terms of the legislation both I and the Commission have very little discretion with which to act.
February 4, 1985


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif) on Friday, February 1, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of many hundreds of people from the constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap who are concerned that the CN double tracking in the City of Kamloops has caused damage to more than a hundred modular homes and many other regular homes. The residents urge the House of Commons to request the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that CN Rail compensates the residents for all damage resulting from its double tracking program in the vicinity of Kamloops.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of my constituents in Espanola, Massey, Nairn, Webbwood and other communities in that area petitioning the House of Commons and the Government to reinstate the Summer Canada Program which has provided between 500 and 700 jobs to young people across the Algoma constituency for the past many years.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES POLICY AND PROGRAMS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
January 31, 1985-The Minister of State (Government House Leader):
That the quorum of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages Policy and Programs be six members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses, the government and the opposition are represented, and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when four members are present so long as both Houses, the government and the opposition are represented; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 25, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and
Old Age Security Act
ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 202.


Mr. Malepart: Which regions of the country will be affected by the delay of capital investments in dredges delayed by the Department of Public Works?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: The delay of capital investments in dredges by the Department of Public Works will affect mainly eastern Canada. Shipyards obtain supplies from all over the country, so that other regions will be affected to a lesser degree.


Paul Wyatt Dick: 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 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-26, 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. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The House is ready for the question. Mr. Epp (Provencher), seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Ms. Mitchell:: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak to the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not one to intrude in the debate, but I thought you had put the question. I was just wondering, as a matter of clarification with respect to this matter, if the question was put, whether it is incumbent then for somebody to stand after the question has been put. I may have misunderstood what happened.


Mr. Speaker:: No. The Chair asked if there was anybody who wished to speak. Is the Hon. Member seeking to be heard on this point of order?


Sheila Finestone: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair asked if there were any further speakers on the matter, proceeded to read the motion that was before the House and started to get to the point of putting the question. With due respect, I had not at that moment put the question. At that point I saw the Hon. Member for Vancouver East and I recognized her.


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in a difficulty. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) would now like to be heard on a point of order on which I have already ruled. Is that correct?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is a point of clarification. When the time lapsed at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) was still on her feet. She had a couple of minutes left. She also stood to be recognized.


Mr. Speaker:: In the first place, that is the second point of order. In the second place, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) was present. If she had time left, she should have risen or else somebody else would be seen. In the thrid place, the Table advises me that her time had expired. If the Hon. Member for Mount Royal thinks that her time has not expired, I am advised by the Table that it has. An extension of her time is possible if the House were to give unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. I must therefore recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Members of the House agree that this is a
very important subject that we are discussing today. There are many ramifications that should be raised in addition to the specific parameters of the Bill. I would like particularly to speak to those in my remarks.
When he spoke this morning, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) presented the New Democratic Party position with regard to Bill C-26. We will not oppose this Bill since it extends benefits to widows and widowers. It also includes common law partners who have lived together for three or more years. It corrects some of the language which was sexist.
We will not unduly delay this Bill. However, we would like to speak out again on how limited the coverage of this Bill is, considering the needs of older citizens, particularly those aged 60 to 65. While the Government has removed the sexist language, and we do not object to that, by the nature of the Bill and the limitation of its coverage it continues to practice sexual discrimination against single persons 60 to 65.
The former Member for Winnipeg North Centre, now sitting at the Table, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, stated many times in this House that spousal allowance legislation is sexist. It discriminates against single people. It requires that a man or a woman must live with a partner in order to qualify for the special allowances. There is a glaring omission in the Bill which discriminates against single persons aged 60 to 65, of which there are many in our society today. Statistics Canada estimates that 10 per cent or one in 10 women between the ages of 60 and 64 years are single or divorced.
The task force on older women which this Party conducted several years ago stated that these people in society are the poorest and least secure financially. The number of women in this age bracket has more than doubled since 1971. Women are the poorest of the poor in our society. In many cases they are much worse off than women aged 65 who at least receive the old age pension.
I again remind the House that the Hon. Stanley Knowles spoke to this matter repeatedly. I would like to remind the new Members of the House of one of the speeches he made on May 26, 1980, in regard to this matter. As reported on page 1400 of Hansard, he said:
I want to speak about some of the groups that are still left without the consideration and the attention they deserve. That group consists mainly of women who are alone or unattached. A good deal has been said about this $35 supplement that we are going to give now, and are giving in many cases to single women.... But we are still labouring under what I think is one of the most unfair pieces of social legislation we have ever produced in this country, and that is the spouse's allowance. No amount of trying to fix it up, as the former Liberal government did just before it was defeated or as the Conservative government did while it was in power, got us away from the fact that the spouse's allowance continues to be an unfair arrangement, f know this works both ways; it applies to men if they are the younger ones, but there are not that many of them.
I would say that there are more such men at this time than the Hon. Member may have realized in 1980. He went on:
According to this arrangement, women in the age bracket 60 to 65 who might be in need get no consideration at all unless they are married to, and living with, an older spouse. The woman in that age bracket who is a widow, divorced or single receives no consideration at all. I know there are a few cases of women in
February 4, 1985

that age bracket who were spouses and were receiving the spouse's allowance but then lost their husbands and now receive the spouse's allowance until they are 65 years of age. That touches only a small part of the problem.
Mr. Stanley Knowles went on to say:
The only way that it can be corrected is by providing whatever you are going to provide to the spouse between the ages of 60 and 65 without regard to marital status.
I would stress that, Mr. Speaker. I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) would hear this. These allowances should be provided regardless of marital status. Mr. Knowles went on to say:
This business of saying to a woman, "You will get consideration, you will get the pension, you will get the allowance, only if you have a man,"-
-was quite rightly criticized by Mr. Knowles.
I would also remind the House that in July of 1981 I spoke to a resolution put forward by the same former Member for Winnipeg North Centre which dealt with this matter but took it one step further and really looked at the entire question of eligibility for allowances for persons who are not in the workforce, persons who are unemployed or choose to apply for pension at age 60. At that time this resolution, which was presented several times by the then Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, concerned old age security and the guaranteed income supplement as well as the Canada Pension Plan. The recommendation was that these plans should be available at age 60. I said that they should not be available for everyone but should be for those who are not in the labour force or for those who choose, and they should have the right to choose, to retire at age 60.1 also said that they should have the assurance that they will have adequate incomes on which to survive.
In many of his remarks, the then Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre went on to say that we should also have a flexible retirement age and that persons such as himself, who at that time was over seven years beyond the age of retirement and indeed now is several years beyond that again and still sits at the Table, should not be forced to retire but should retire as a matter of choice.


Mr. Benjamin:: The Minister isn't listening anyway. He's been very busy.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I think he is not listening. Perhaps he will read these words and ponder them later.
The Minister's own officials in the federal Department of Health and Welfare estimate that there are 80,000 men and women between the ages of 60 and 64 who are being excluded from the provisions of this Bill on the basis of marital status. In effect, Mr. Speaker, this represents the discrimination and perhaps even the sexual discrimination which is prevalent in this legislation. To quote the Government's own discussion paper on equality issues in the federal law which was raised in the House last week, I would say the following:
The question is whether marital status is an appropriate reason for choosing between equally needy people, particularly when the criteria for receipt of an allowance is need.
There should not be any reason to choose. In fact, this Bill condemns the estimated 80,000 needy people who are in the 60
Old Age Security Act
to 64-year old bracket who happen to be single to the tender mercies of their respective provincial Governments, because if they are in need they have no other alternative but to apply for welfare. We know that welfare payments are so low that many people are lining up at food banks.
I would like to refer, as did my colleague, to a task force on older women that we put in operation which presented resolutions that were accepted by the New Democratic Party in 1983. This Party, unlike the Liberal and Conservative Parties, is very proud to tell the public and the House about the type of policy which we believe is very important and which is a part of the goals that we are advocating.
As a result of our task force on older women, we presented a number of policy resolutions that apply to older women which I have advocated in this House. We advocated employment programs for women, particularly targeted to women in their middle years so that those women who have raised families and who have not had many years in the workforce would have an opportunity to pay into the Canada Pension Plan and would have equal opportunities for adequate benefits at the point of retirement. We also approved the following resolution which would provide adequate incomes for older women:
Until such time as a universal guaranteed income system is implemented-
-if ever-
-the federal government should lower the eligibility age for OAS-GIS for all unemployed people to age 60;-
Again, this is following on the resolution of Mr. Knowles.
The Old Age Pension must be raised above the poverty line with full indexing;
In view of the increasing number of unemployed and especially the number of older women living in poverty, that the NDP press the federal government to establish an action study group with a view to instituting a guaranteed annual income for older people under 65 who are unemployed-
We went on to talk of other pension reforms that were needed. I mention this because when we are looking at revisions to legislation that will affect our senior citizens and citizens in the pre-retirement ages, we should be looking at these matters in a very broad context. In many countries the pension age itself is lower than age 65. I think it is pretty regressive that we are not looking at universal pension eligibility at age 65. Until such time as we can persuade governments to look at that in a major, progressive way, we feel that the benefits for those who are covered by spousal allowances should be extended to include single people. I think this is important not only for single women but also for single men.
A recent study done in the City of Vancouver looked at unemployment in the Province of British Columbia, and I am sure the situation is the same in all provinces. This study concluded that there is a whole new group of chronic unemployed in our country which consists of older, experienced, skilled men, many of them skilled tradespeople and professionals who have now become redundant. These men are in the age group 55 to 65. I am sure many of us have encountered very tragic situations in our constituency offices. Certainly I have had many cases in my riding of construction workers, many of them immigrants from Italy, who have come to Canada, worked hard all their lives, raised families, often built their

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
homes and who never received a cent of unemployment insurance until they reached the last year or two of their working lives. Now, those people are not only out of work and judged redundant, but they cannot qualify for retraining programs. They are on the scrap-heap. It is a terrible situation. When those people reach the age of 60 it is important that they have the option to have a minimum level of pension income until they are able to receive the full amount at age 65.
I present these points to urge the Minister not to be complacent and not to limit his planning and social policy review to the extension of the spousal allowance. We will not object to the passage of this Bill, but we must pass it with the understanding that it is very limited and that the needs of our older citizens are great and are becoming greater because of the unemployment situation which affects older people more than many of us in the middle-age group.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? If not, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson).


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for recognizing me, as this is the first opportunity I have had to address the House of Commons. I would also like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on the contents of the Bill.
As the Member for Hamilton West, I follow in the path of two very distinguished Conservative Members. The first is the Hon. Ellen Fairclough. She has the distinction of being the First woman Cabinet Minister in Canada. In fact, last Friday she was honoured by women in Toronto. The second is the Hon. Lincoln Alexander, who was the first black Canadian to serve in the House and the first black Member of Cabinet. Both of these people contributed in their own unique way to the betterment of the City of Hamilton, this Chamber and Canada. It is certainly my hope to use their performance as a yardstick to ensure that the people of Hamilton West are properly represented.
In addition, I would like to extend my gratitude to the electorate of Hamilton West who have expressed confidence in me and in the Government.
It was 17 years ago when Lincoln Alexander, my friend and former MP from Hamilton West, rose in the House to address the Speech from the Throne. In that address he challenged the Government of the day to be socially compassionate. I agree with his remarks and I quote: "In a just society it should be the continuing responsibility of government to be constantly aware of and concerned about the degree of the quality of life which Canadians experience. If there is any disparity, no matter how little, then the Government should set itself immediately to reducing it, thereby assuring that each and every individual can live a full and productive life and become an essential part of the mainstream of Canadian life". That, coupled with the Government's commitment to a comprehensive social security system-one which responds to the changing nature and needs of our society-is encompassed in the Bill before us. The
legislation to amend the Old Age Security Act represents one of the many positive policy decisions which our Government has promised and which it will implement.
In the debates during the week prior to the Christmas recess there was a lot of heated discussion on the concept of universality of social programs. Nothing was really accomplished by the Opposition except a lot of television footage. I had the opportunity to watch those exchanges and, in the context of this Bill, I would like to offer my own thoughts on universality in our social programs.
Bill C-26 will amend the Old Age Security Act. It will amend a social program which was introduced in 1975. That social allowance, then or now, has never been universal. This Bill proposes that all low-income widowed persons aged 60 to 64 should become eligible to receive the spouse's allowance, regardless of when their spouse passed away. The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated in his news release of November 15, 1984 that income support for older Canadians-the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance-are programs which are not universal but available only to those who are in need. If these were truly universal social programs of the type that some would advocate, then all widows and widowers aged 60 to 64, regardless of their income, would receive the spouse's allowance.
If such were the case with this Bill, then the widow of our famous but fictitious $500,000 bank president who is living comfortably on investment income would also receive the benefit. Is this what some who oppose it mean when they speak about universality of social programs? I do not feel this is the logic which Canadians want their Government to apply to social programs at this time of economic restraint. Such Utopian thinking should be left to those who ponder it.
My constituents and I applaud the Minister's grab-the-bull-by-the-horns approach. It is a hands-on approach which recognizes the needs of older Canadians. It couples those needs with sound fiscal management.
Some may ask why we did not go further with this Bill and why we excluded low-income persons in the 60 to 64 age group who are single, divorced or separated from the spouse's allowance program. Estimates indicate that there are some 80,000 such individuals. In addition, there are 250,000 low-income married couples in this age category who have not received financial assistance in the form of security benefits. For the most part, assistance for any of the people who are in need will continue to be provided and administered by many of our provincial Government programs, with assistance from the federal Government, until such time as further extensions can be made responsibly. Similarly, if the spouse's allowance was provided to all low-income persons in the 60 to 64 age group, it would cost approximately $1.5 billion in the first year.
If the Liberal Opposition during their regime had exercised fiscal responsibility, the ability to provide more resources for social programs may have been possible. However, as a result of the previous Government's policies, we are prevented from
February 4, 1985

further extending the social expenditures required to facilitate all the needs of our senior Canadians. But, we cannot use the fiscal shortcomings of the previous administration as a scapegoat. Instead, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated, "even in this period of economic restraint we have an obligation to those who most need our help".
With this Bill it is clear that we are fulfilling that obligation. It is an obligation which provides for widowed persons who are nearing age 65, but are not yet eligible for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits. It is these Canadians who are consistently identified as being the most urgently in need. In fact, it is estimated that over 60 per cent of widowed Canadians who are age 60 to 64, most of whom are women, would qualify for the proposed extension to the spouse's allowance. In December of 1985 there will be 93,000 beneficiaries collecting spouse's allowance. The proposed extension to other widowed persons aged 60 to 64 will increase the number of beneficiaries up by 85,000, with only an annual cost of $190 million in the 1985-86 fiscal year. This initiative by the Minister represented the next logical step in the provision of greater income assistance to the near elderly.
In 1979 the Conservative Government's amendments to the spouse's allowance program extended entitlements for 60 to 64-year old widowers or widows who had been receiving the spouse's allowance benefits prior to the death of the pensioner or spouse. This extension of SPA to all needy widowers or widows in this age group, as recommended by the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform, would further remove some of the inequities which currently exist in the treatment of widows or widowers who are aged 60 to 64 under the Old Age Security Act.
This proposed amendment to Bill C-26, Mr. Speaker, results from a firm commitment made by our Party during the 1984 election campaign. In the Speech from the Throne on November 5, 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated that "during the coming session of Parliament we would be asked to consider legislation to extend the income-tested spouse's allowance to widows and widowers aged 60 years to 64 years regardless of the age of their spouse at death". It is indeed, Mr. Speaker, truly positive to see another campaign promise, reaffirmed in the Throne Speech, translated into legislation. This action goes a long way in restoring the faith which Canadians once had in our parliamentary system. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this Government is responding to the needs of all Canadians.
This is international youth year, a year of great concern for our youth, Mr. Speaker, and across Canada and throughout the world, Governments, organizations and private business should be sponsoring a wide range of awareness programs for our youth. Our Government has done so, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) will be announcing employment incentives geared for our youth. We
Old Age Security Act
recognize the important contribution made by our young people to Canada.
In Bill C-26 the Government is showing sensitivity to the needs of our near senior Canadians, a group of Canadians who have already contributed to the wealth of our country, and nowhere is this contribution more evident than in the City of Hamilton. What is in the Bill, in my view, is necessary. It is timely and deserves the attention of the House in terms of quick passage. I can foresee no obstacles which would preempt the swift passage of this Bill through the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech?


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, not to ask any questions or make any comments but, rather, to congratulate the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson) on his maiden speech. I know that he will follow honourably in the footsteps of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We shall resume debate. [Translation]


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that finally, after five months, the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson) can speak to the Canadian people. I regret, however, that it has taken complaints on the part of the Opposition to the majority in this House and especially to those Members elected in the Hamilton area who have refrained from rising in the House until today. I expect to hear many more speeches by the Member for Hamilton West and also by the Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin). I know the Hon. Member is following in some very important footsteps, those of Mrs. Fairclough, among others. I was indeed delighted to be a guest last Friday at a dinner with Mrs. Fairclough. This Progressive Conservative is an example to all Canadian women, and I was very happy to be one of her guests.
He has a big pair of shoes to fill with regard to his predecessor, the former Member for Hamilton West, whom the Hon. Member did not name or perhaps forgot to name, the Hon. Stanley Hudecki, who, I think, had a reputation among all Members of this House as a member who rose above party politics and interests. He was truly an Hon. Member in every sense of the word. I just want to say, as a Member of this House, that we miss him very much.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the women of Canada, on behalf of my Party and on my own behalf, I am very pleased to support what has been said so far on the subject of the spouse's allowance. However, and I think the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) referred to this point before, there is a small problem with respect to the present wording of the Bill. When the Bill indicates that the spouse's allowance is transferred to Canadian widows or widowers, it reflects, and I would say it does so by omission rather than by design, to recognize the economic problems facing Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64 who are either separated, divorced or single.

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act

I know, for example, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has introduced a measure which we will all support. At the same time, however, I believe we have to recognize that there is an inherent discrimination, as has been pointed out by Hon. Members on this side of the House, with respect to this particular piece of legislation. I would suggest that the Minister and his officials, in making the decision to extend the spouse's allowance to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64-which, by the way, I think is a terrific move- should have gone that extra step and extended those same benefits to people who, for whatever reason, have chosen never to marry or who have not been as successful in their marital endeavours as others and have ended up as separated or divorced Canadians.
I know that in my own province-having had the privilege of working on the amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code which was introduced by another Conservative Government some three years ago-that particular Government decided that within the context of the Ontario Human Rights law, there would be a non-discrimination clause on the basis of marital status. I would suggest to the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) that, prior to the implementation of this law in which there is an exclusion of separated, divorced and single Canadians, the Minister in fact investigate whether this particular proposed law is in fact in contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Human Rights Code does in fact specify that goods and services must be made available to all Canadians with no discrimination on the basis of marital status. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the current legislation in its present form is clearly discriminatory, not only toward those Canadians who have chosen never to marry but towards those who are no longer married.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, if I can speak on behalf of a number of the women in this House, that there are a number of politicians in general who, for whatever reason, have chosen to devote themselves to political life and have either not married or their marriages have not been successful. I believe there are a number of people in this House who would agree with me that the status of being a divorced or single Canadian is not one which should subject anyone to government discrimination such as will happen under the law represented by this particular Bill.
I would suggest that the original intention of the law was good, that is, to extend the current benefits which at this time are not made available to those Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64 who happen to have been widowed.
Only last weekend I had the opportunity of speaking in my constituency office with a woman who will be able to benefit through this particular Act. However, we are putting ourselves in the very difficult situation, Mr. Speaker, of actually discriminating not only on the basis of marital status-because the law will not cover separated, divorced or single Canadians-but we are also putting ourselves in the situation of discriminating against married people between the ages of 60
and 64 who naturally, notwithstanding their financial need, will not be eligible for this particular benefit as long as they remain married. I will use as an example the situation of the woman with whom I dealt most recently. She happens to be 61 years of age. Her husband was 64 when he died in the last few days only. As a result of his decease, this woman, when the Act comes into force, will be actually eligible for the benefits which would have formerly only accrued to those spouses who are married. At the same time, even though her family happens to be a family in need-neither she nor her husband were wage earners at the time of his death-if her husband had not died, he would not have been eligible for any benefits under the spouse's allowances, nor would she, until he reached the age of 65 years, which would have meant that her benefit would have been at least one year in abeyance. Therefore, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we not only have a clear case of discrimination against single, separated and divorced Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64, but we also have a possible case of discrimination against married couples, both spouses of whom happened to be between the ages of 60 and 64, who would not, under this current rather limited extension of benefits, be eligible for any assistance.
I believe, if I can read into the rationale of the Minister in introducing this legislation, he is recognizing that there is an age group in our society which under certain special circumstances needs special short-term assistance. I feel that the original introduction of the spouse's allowance as a concept, the original introduction of the guaranteed income supplement as a concept, and the original indexation of those supplements under previous Liberal Governments, were introduced because the Government recognized that, certainly in the short term, we needed to provide direct financial assistance to those individuals who were not immediately benefiting from the kind of pension reform which we are suggesting over the long term.
I certainly concur with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) with regard to the absence of programs available to widows between the ages of 60 and 64 as well as to other unfortunate individuals who may be married and who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, have not been able to compete in the technologically changing market-place, and have been left to the vagaries of the provincial welfare system. In an effort to address the discrimination issue which has been raised in this document, the Minister should consider working with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and developing programs which will assist those Canadians who, through no fault of their own, have become disenfranchised because of the technologically changing market-place. I refer to construction workers in my own constituency.
I think it is important that we speak for all Canadians, men and women. It is certainly of interest to me as a women that this is probably the only Bill before us in the House of Commons to date in which the nomenclature used is "she" and is relating to "her", i.e., the feminine gender. I think it is implicit in the Government's approach to things that it sug-
February 4, 1985

gests that the only people who are in need of pension assistance or supplements are women. I certainly agree that it is time the Government introduced an over-all pension reform package for people across Canada and that the major beneficiaries of such a package should be the women of Canada. However, it is also about time that we recognized that we have a responsibility to all Canadian women and men between the ages of 60 and 64. We must guarantee them some kind of an economic security.

Mr. Speaker, in its present form, the Bill is clearly discriminatory. It not only discriminates against people who are single or were never married or whose marriage failed, it also discriminates against those who are married today to a woman or a man between sixty and sixty-four years old. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has taken a small step, but I think he should now take a bigger one. If he really intends to tackle this issue courageously, he should immediately bring before the House a complete package of changes to our pension system to help those who are in need, men and women, men between 60 and 64 and women between 60 and 64, whether they are single, widowed or still married.
We know there are couples who need help. The husband or wife, for some reason, and I will give you another example... Last week, in my riding, I met a family where the husband who had worked for more than twenty years for a company called Canron, was fired as of February 1 because the company closed down. His wife worked for Arrow Shirts for fourteen years, and last year in November she was laid off because of lack of work in the textile industry and because this Government had failed to take certain measures in this area. It means that two people between the ages of sixty and sixty-four who have worked all their lives are now being fired by their employers within three months of each other. It will be almost impossible for them to find work.
To help these families it is not enough to bring in a small package of reforms that apply only to widows and widowers. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) should set up a clear-cut plan to reform the pension system, which I think would have the support of all Canadians, and especially Members on this side of the House.

We need more than simply very small reform in pension benefits for a very restricted group of Canadians. We need an over-all pension and re-employment strategy involving the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) with respect to the ILAP designations, which have been helpful in certain sectors. The Minister of Employment and Immigration must also be involved. A designation under ILAP could assist many of the workers at Consolidated Bathurst in my own community who are facing financial ruin and bankruptcy and will be reduced to welfare
Old Age Security Act
roles. The majority of them had combined years of service of over 25 years when the company chose to close its doors.
We need more than the measures which are being introduced. We need an over-all strategy. In expressing his concern for older Canadians, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should act with the Minister of Employment and Immigration to develop programs which will assist our seniors financially and help them re-integrate into the workplace when that is possible.
The only thing that many older Canadians have been offered by the current Government is a threat that if they remain on unemployment insurance benefits for too long one of Flora's private police force will ensure that they are removed from them. In the context of the employment programs that are going to be launched by the Government, it behooves all of us to remember those Canadians who have been disenfranchised by the technological age and have found themselves on the street when companies have closed their doors.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What is the relevance of this?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister of National Health and Welfare may find it terribly irrelevant that I am talking about older workers who have lost their jobs. The Minister will be aware that we must ensure that widows as well as divorced and single people are receiving assistance from the Government when they need it most. We must also ensure that those workers between the ages of 60 and 64 who happen, through no fault of their own, to be married, can receive some assistance from the Government. The Minister is suggesting that my concern for workers between the ages of 60 and 64 who happen to be married are not covered under the legislation. It is a concern, and that is the relevance of my remarks to this particular Bill.
Excluding married couples, separated, divorced and single people between the ages of 60 and 64 suggests that the Government has no programs to assist them and is directing its efforts only toward one rather small segment of the demographic population between the ages of 60 and 64. No one would argue that the Government should be ignoring the small, albeit deserving, group of widows and widowers. At the same time the Minister must work with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to ensure that older workers who have been contributing for 20 or 30 years and, through no fault of their own, find themselves out on the street, will receive an indication from the Government as to the action it is prepared to take. Rather than doing away with the general training incentives and cutting back on the amount of government based job creation through Canada Works, the Government must come forth with innovative programs. These programs should be targeted not only to young people who need job opportunities but also to the older workers. Most specifically, they should be directed to the target group that is being addressed in this legislation.

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
Members from all sides of the House who have had a chance to meet with those workers in their constituency on a daily or weekly basis will know that there is nothing more heart-rending than to meet a grown man in tears because he has lost a job after 30 years and is on the street with nowhere to go.
I ask the Minister to work with his colleagues to make sure that there are programs to assist those workers. The Government cannot simply turn its back on those workers between the ages of 60 and 64 who may not come under the category being addressed by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare says that this has nothing to do with the Bill. It has quite a lot to do with the Bill, for had he had an opportunity to meet with those workers aged 60 to 64 who have lost their jobs, who have been laid off as a result of plant closures, he would know indeed that those workers, widows and widowers alike, need assistance under the programs, they need from this Government very specific help measures such as they do not have at this time.
Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you might urge the Minister to join forces with all interested parties in the various departments-the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Labour, for instance-with a view to implementing a genuine economic policy for all needy Canadians without jobs between ages 60 and 64. What we do not need is a Bill which discriminates against unmarried people, those who are divorced or separated, or those who are still married and whose spouses are under 65. Give us that kind of policy and you will have our full support, because we in the Liberal Party realize that the people most in need in our society right now are those people between 60 and 64 who have been laid off through no fault of their own and who are without hope, who have not been promised anything, or who have had lots of promises but no action on the part of this Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers).


Mr. Desrosiers:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one thing to the Hon. Member who has just resumed her seat. The dear lady can say that we are responsible for all our woes, but I would rather suggest that if anyone has to be held accountable for the current situation throughout Canada, it has to be the Liberal Party which has been in office for over twenty years. We all agree that elderly Canadians deserve more than they are getting, and I think that for the first time in history the Progressive Conservative Party is deeply concerned about the most needy Canadians. That is what I wanted to tell my charming colleague, for I am sure she knows that her Government is responsible for the sorry mess we now have in this country. She might even commend the Progressive Conservative Government for trying to make the situation better. That is the comment I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he ought to commend the Minister of Employment and Immigration for announcing in the House a kind of security plan to throw out all workers aged 50 to 65 because, she said, they are not looking for work. We will need over 700 public servants to force them to give up filing unemployment insurance claims. Mr. Speaker-

Is the Member asking us on the Liberal side of the House to congratulate his Government when the only concrete and substantial move we have seen it take with respect to employment programs for older workers has been to suggest that we extend our security force by 700 workers so that I can insist that older Canadians who are not looking for work have their unemployment insurance benefits removed? Are we supposed to thank the Government for those initiatives?
If the Member and other Ministers can table specific programs in the House which are geared toward older working Canadians and can show Canadians what initiatives the Government has taken since it was given its massive mandate on September 4, I will be first to applaud. However, I will not applaud when the only initiatives I have seen from the Minister of Employment and Immigration has been a suggestion that older workers do not want to work-


Mr. McDermid:: What nonsense!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Show some common sense.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and the suggestion that they are staying on unemployment. If any of the Members had happened to show up at the hearings on supplementary estimates for labour, manpower and immigration, they would have been apprised of what I am talking about.


John Horton McDermid: What has this to do with the Bill?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am responding to the question about why we are not applauding the Government. We will not applaud it when it brings in punitive measures to cut off older workers from unemployment insurance benefits and punitive measures which will do more to hurt older Canadians than the Minister of National Health and Welfare can do to assist them.
If the Member can clarify the measures which have been implemented by the Government to assist those older disenfranchised workers, I invite him to do so. The record of his Government to date has been a punitive one against older workers, which it will live to regret in the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments have now been completed. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
February 4, 1985


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say to the Minister, quite frankly-why is he shaking his head? Are you paying attention or just sitting there fooling around?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has the floor for debate.


Ian Deans: That is what I thought you said, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A point of order.


Ian Deans: We can't have the floor at the same time.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I want to tell the House Leader of the NDP that he has also occasionally risen on points of order for clarification.
I would like some clarification from the Chair. When someone from an opposition Party has spoken, in terms of numbers in the House, do you not then go to the government side?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that Citation 301 on page 99 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition indicates that the Speaker has the right to recognize any Member he sees rising in the Chamber. I did not see another Member rising except the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. Therefore, I recognized him.
I now recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have thought that the Minister would want me to rise and speak. I was about to say, before I was so rudely interrupted by him, that we did in fact applaud this somewhat small but nevertheless necessary measure. I was taken aback when he leaped to his feet to try to stop me from saying that. I began to wonder whether I should be re-evaluating my position or whether perhaps I did not understand the nature of the Minister's efforts in this regard.
I want to say to the Minister that I was reading my Hansard, as I frequently do in the evenings when the House has risen and I am Finished with the three or four hours of work in my office. I went home the other night, made myself a cup of coffee around 11.30 and got out my Hansard from April 26, 1982.


John Horton McDermid: Which your researcher found for you.


Ian Deans: No, my researcher did not, strange though it may seem. I happen to read Hansard every evening before I go to sleep just to keep abreast of what the Government is doing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That explains a lot of things.


Ian Deans: Members may recall that last week, when the Minister rose, he was pointing out how he went home and read over the reports and came to the conclusion that what he was doing was right. I went back and read over Hansard and came to the conclusion that, to the extent that the Minister, the Ministry and the Government are doing anything at all in this regard, what they are doing is right. In fact, not only is it
Old Age Security Act
right, it is consistent with what our Party has been suggesting the Minister ought to do for many years. In fact, as I was saying, as reported on page 16597 of Hansard, when the Liberal Party was in government, my good friend and former colleague, the previous Member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, now frequently seated at the table, asked the then Minister of Health and Welfare, the Hon. Monique Begin, the following:
My question this afternoon relates to my concern about the unfairness of the plan respecting old age pensions under which certain women-there are some men but it is mostly women-between the ages of 60 and 65 can get a pension provided they are married to someone who is 65 or over. However, persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who are single, whose husbands died before that age, are not allowed any such pension. Will the Minister seriously consider a plan to change that, so that persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who are in need will get that kind of pension?
The Member went on to explain some other regrets. This was his first day back in the House, Mr. Speaker, you may recall, after he had suffered that rather serious illness from which be made a remarkable and miraculous recovery.
When I started, I wanted to congratulate the Minister for having recognized the need, and I do. I understand that for those who will receive this, it will be a godsend. They will be delighted to have it, and have it they must. I say to the Minister though that he has not quite gone far enough. The cost of going the extra distance is difficult to determine, I must say, but nevertheless it is a cost that I believe ought to be borne.
It is unnecessary, I suggest to the Minister, to restrict this payment to those individuals who have been married. The former Member for Winnipeg-North Centre, Mr. Knowles, made reference to that. In his question, in 1982, he indicated his concern for those between the ages of 60 and 65, who were single and who found themselves unable to continue to work for a number of economic or, for that matter, health reasons and who found themselves without any regular adequate income.
The Minister frequently speaks about compassion. I know him well enough to know that he speaks with conviction. He speaks with compassion about compassion. I do not in any way question him, and I think this would be an opportunity for him to display that compassion beyond what the Government may well have identified it wants to do in the meantime and to take into account the submissions of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). He has suggested that perhaps this would be the time to enlarge the scope and to look at ways of taking into account the needs of those who were never married but who nevertheless are between the ages of 60 and 65-I want to talk about other people in a moment-and who are frankly in very difficult Financial straits at this point in the history of Canada.
I must be honest and admit that I do not have an economic analysis of it-I do not know whether the Minister has or not and if he does, I would be interested to hear it-nor do I have any kind of accounting that would show me clearly and in

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
accurate terms exactly what the cost would be to extend this level of benefit to other than simply the spouses of those who have been in receipt of the old age pension. I do want to suggest to the Minister that, whatever the cost, I do not think it is impossible for us to find a way to fund it. I do not think for one moment it is impossible for us to reallocate funding from other less worthy causes. I do not think it is impossible for us to look into ways of making this available.
It strikes me that an allowance based on need-which this allowance is I think we all agree-that has as its primary criterion that one has to have been married is unfair. It is unfair, Mr. Speaker. If an allowance is based on need, it ought to be paid to those who are in need on the same basis. If you are in need, you are in need and whether you were or were not married does not alter the fact that you are in need. If your circumstances are the same in terms of your financial capacities, then quite clearly you should be treated in the same way by your Government.
I think the distance that the Minister has gone is fine, but I seriously urge the Minister to go the other short distance and attempt to find a way to accommodate the question to which my colleague who formerly represented Winnipeg North Centre, my colleague from Beaches, and probably my colleague who now represents the riding of Winnipeg North Centre would want him to give some consideration.
I know the Minister himself is aware of the speeches made in the House of Commons by his colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), as recently as May 10, 1984. She made speeches on other days going back to June and February, 1984. There were statements made by another colleague on those occasions with regard to the problems of people in Canada who, because of the economic conditions that now exist, and which did not exist in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, are unable to find employment. They have not yet attained what we consider to be the normal retirement age and, as a result of that, they are unable to continue to hold on to what they accumulated throughout their lifetime as a result of hard work.
I do not doubt, when the Minister goes back to Provencher, that he meets in his constituency office every weekend or at the church on Sunday mornings with citizens who are in their middle fifties, maybe in their late fifties, who have worked hard all of their lives and who have been employed perhaps in many instances by the only major employer in the area. Perhaps that major employer has ceased to operate for any number of reasons, and if he has not ceased to operate, at least is operating at a dramatically reduced level. I am confident that there are people who have brought to the Minister's attention the terrible situation in which they have found themselves.
On the weekend in Hamilton-I am sure it is the same in every constituency, I do not doubt that for a moment and no doubt my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson), meets the same kind of people I do-I had an opportunity to discuss with a family its particular difficulty. Here was a man and his wife who over the many years raised a
family, had worked at one of the plants in Hamilton and worked there for the better part of 30 years, not quite, but almost. He had an excellent work record but suddenly discovered that the plant in terms of its management was redundant. This plant no longer manufactured a product that was saleable in the consumer market-place. It was not his fault. Every day he went in and he made the product he was asked to make. He made it to the best of his ability, and the company sold it. Gradually, with the passage of time and the introduction of new technology, it became unnecessary for that product to be made. This man, it could be said as an aside-and I am not sure if one can make an aside to something one says oneself-was the victim of two things, neither of them of his own making. He was a victim of a changing market condition and of a rapidly changing economic climate. He may well have been the victim of bad decision-making on the part of the management of the company, which ought to have been able, with proper planning, to alter the manufacturing process, seek out additional markets and manufacture new products. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
Here he is at age 56. He has been to many employers. I have personally sent him to a number of people who I thought might give him a job, but he cannot find one in the Hamilton area, he travelled to Toronto, Kitchener and down to St. Catharines, but there were no jobs. He came to the conclusion somewhat reluctantly that his age is working against him. Although we all know that we cannot discriminate because of age, there are hints that that sort of thing happens. It is not unreasonable to think that at age 56 maybe he is being overlooked just because of his age. He offered to take anything. He cannot find anything. He ran out of unemployment insurance benefits and therefore has no income of his own. His wife works but only part time because she cannot find a job. They have to pay what is left on the mortgage which they assumed 20 years ago. It is not a great deal, but nevertheless it is there. They cannot make their payments. What do we do for a man like this? What do we say to someone like this? He is representative of a host of people.
The Minister brought forward this particular amendment to the Old Age Security Act. Again I say to him in all fairness and honesty that I applaud the initiative. However, it does not really address today's problems. It addresses a part of today's problems, a very small part, but it obviously does not address the much larger, if not more important, problem confronting many workers in the 55 to 60 age group. We have reached the point where we in the House of Commons as Members of Parliament have an obligation to look seriously at the plight of those people about whom I am talking today in a representative sense. We have an obligation to find the ways necessary for them to re-enter the workforce. The Government would love it to happen, but it is realistic and recognizes that with tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in the age bracket of 20 to 30 also looking for work, the chance of our being able to entice employers to hire those in their later fifties and early sixties is somewhat difficult. Also, we would be put in the
February 4, 1985

position of playing off one age group against another. I find that offensive, to say the least. We have reached the point where this administration, if it wants to make a mark on Canadian history politically, must move to reform basic pension plans.
This legislation will not do it. Tinkering will not be enough. There is nothing as devastating as to have worked all your life and to reach the point where you are finally looking ahead seven, eight or nine years to retirement, only to discover that not only do you not have a job, not only do you not have an income of some reasonable proportion, but during the period of time you had anticipated you would be working you are not contributing to a pension plan. This reduces pensionable income and therefore reduces the income received when you reach what is generally accepted as the pension age. You are caught in a catch-22 situation. On the one hand, you have no income while you are supposed to be working because you cannot find work and you are losing the assets you accumulated through your labour. On the other hand, because you do not have that income you are detrimentally affecting, if not eliminating, the potential pension income you would have had, had you been able to work to the normal retirement age.
It is unacceptable that we as a Parliament are not dealing with that issue right now. I know the Minister feels as strongly as I do about it. This has to become one of the highest priorities of Parliament. We cannot afford to gloss it over, neither can we afford to be overly lavish in our praise of the small change. We are thankful for the small change. Those who will receive it will be grateful for it and it is right that they should get it, but it is insignificant when viewed over and against the need.
I want simply to say to the Minister that whatever else the Government believes it has on its agenda, we have to deal with this matter. We must deal with it. We cannot put if off. There is no way back for those individuals. With every passing month, with every passing year, the dilemma confronting them becomes even more enormous and the hardship more unacceptable. We cannot apologize to them eight years from now and say, "We really wish we could have done something for you; unfortunately it was just not possible". That will be too late for them. Therefore, it is necessary that we agree together in the House that we will find the time to deal as expeditiously as possible with the dilemma confronting those particular people about whom I speak today.
If the Minister will commit himself to bringing forward legislation in this regard during this session of this Parliament, I will commit this Party to making sure that we put forth every single effort we can to guarantee the success of the legislation. I ask him to recognize that delay compounds the hardship. We simply cannot have delay on this matter.
Old Age Security Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)-Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements (a) Consultation with provinces (b) Reviews of equalization payment made to Manitoba; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Nuclear Energy (a) Request for parliamentary inquiry into industry (b) Industry's accountability; the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy)-Employment (a) Student summer jobs (b) Allocation of funds, (c) Government consultation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-26, 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. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for recognizing me. I started a diet this morning and I thought for a minute that I was having excellent success and would not be recognized.
This is the first time I have risen in the House to speak formally in a debate. I would ask for your patience for a few moments so that I might acknowledge and congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker. I know you will do a great job, as you have done to this point. Also I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). This is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I know he will do an excellent job. I had the opportunity of working with him when I was a Minister in the provincial Government. I know how dedicated he is to his position of responsibility and his desire to do well for the Canadian public.
I also take this opportunity to thank my constituents for showing me that they had faith in my ability to be their Member. I will try to live up to their expectations. Particularly I thank all those people who worked for me during my campaign.
Winnipeg-St. James is a relatively new riding. It was assembled in 1979 with the redistribution and was represented by a friend of mine, Mr. Robert Lane, a Progressive Conservative.

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
It was then held by the present Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). For some reason he decided to move to the constituency formerly held by the Hon. Stanley Knowles. Whatever were the reasons that made him decide this, it seems to have worked out well for both him and me.
Winnipeg-St. James is an urban riding. The Winnipeg International Airport is almost in the centre of my riding. As the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg-St. James, I cannot guarantee that I will welcome you every time you arrive there, even though that may be the custom. That gives a general idea of the location of our riding.
The riding is a good cross-section of Manitoba. Citizens of over 20 ethnic backgrounds form an integral part of the social fabric of Manitoba. Like most Manitobans, they are very hard working citizens. Some are long-time residents, some are immigrants, and some are new Canadian citizens. We have a good cross-section of the various citizens in our province in my riding.
We have blue collar workers, executives and free entrepreneurs, so we have a cross-section of the business community as well. Without getting you too excited, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is the home base of the Grey Cup champions for 1984, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. I tried to congratulate them under Standing Order 21, and I almost got it through. At this time I would like to congratulate the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, the reigning Grey Cup champions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Clement George Minaker: I did not want to say that the Speaker used to be an Edmonton Eskimo. I am proud and privileged to represent Winnipeg-St. James. Having made those few comments, I would now like to speak to the Bill.
As a former Minister of Community Services in the Province of Manitoba, I had day-to-day contact with the very problem that this Bill will help to alleviate. I know the sincerity and commitment of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). I applaud him for the first step he has taken in alleviating the problem that exists for the 60 to 64 years olds in the low income bracket. I support his approach to consultation with the- public and the provinces. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) commented on the former Liberal Government consulting with the provinces and being leader in the consultation field. That was not the case when I was Minister of Community Services. If being called to a meeting, sitting at a table and having the federal Minister say what the Government was going to do is consultation, I will not agree. I know the present Health Minister will not follow that approach.
The objective of this Bill is to provide assistance to low income widowed persons in the 60 to 64 year age group who meet the same 10 year residence rule as other spouse's allowance recipients without regard to the age at which the spouse died. As a result of this reform in the present law, about
85,000	widowers and widows aged 60 to 64 will qualify. There
is a definite need for this. I understand that when this Bill is passed and the program comes into effect in September, about 61 per cent of the entire widowed population in that age group will qualify. This clearly indicates that there is a need in this area and we will be alleviating part of that need.
The maximum benefit will be $536.26 per month and will be income tested. This reform will remove the inequities which currently exist in the treatment of low income widowed persons. It represents the next logical step in the provision of greater income assistance for the needy elderly. The proposal to extend the spouse's allowance was a firm commitment of our Party during the election. It was a promise in the Throne Speech. I am happy we are meeting that commitment. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the legislation at this time.
I wish to comment briefly on the general background of the development of pensions. I think it comes into play with what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) talked about. It has been accepted in the past and is at present that the federal Government has the prime responsibility for pensions such as the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan. The reason is primarily the immense cost to fund these types of programs. The provincial Governments have taken on the share of responsibilities with the federal Government on other social services such as income security programs, welfare and rehabilitation. I am confident the Minister will look into these because there are now areas of responsibility being split and, in some cases, being duplicated.
What is the economic impact of our spouse's allowance program? I understand that in December, 1985 there will be some 93,681 recipients of the spouse's allowance with program costs in the area of $11.5 billion. Therefore, it has a big economic impact on the budget of the Government of Canada. The proposed extension to all widows and widowers will be in the order of some $350 million when the program is in the full year of operation. It has a fairly heavy economic impact on the Government's expenditures.
What are the long-term objectives for the low income single individual? We in this House would like to see the step taken whereby any single person between the ages of 60 and 64 and is needy will qualify. I am confident that the Minister will work to that end. It amplifies the problem which the Government faces. The Minister indicated many times in this House that we need economic growth in order to provide these extended services which all Members would like to see. It stresses the importance of our program of regaining confidence in this country by both investors and citizens so that we as private entrepreneurs can reinvest in creating jobs and creating the revenue for financing these programs.
We are all concerned about those who are not covered by this Bill. The low income person between the ages of 60 and 64 who may be single or divorced, and there are 80,000 such individuals, will continue to have assistance provided through provincial programs. I want to mention this because the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain hit on a fact of which many
February 4, 1985

of us might not be aware, that is, that there are provincial programs. They vary from province to province. They look after some of the problems he cited. Given the current economic situation, it would be difficult to meet the needs of all persons in this age category through federal benefits. If the spouse's allowance were provided to all low income persons, we would be looking at something in the order of $1.5 billion. Again, that is more money from the taxpayer.
I would like to remind Members of the House that governments do not have money. Governments spend taxpayers' money. That was taught to me approximately 18 years ago when I was first elected to the City of St. James Council. Do you know who taught me that, Mr. Speaker? It was a Liberal, and I might say he was a very fine and hard-working man by the name of Reg Wightman.


An Hon. Member:: Must be dead now.


Clement George Minaker: Yes, unfortunately he is.
The former Liberal Government did not recognize that fact. What did it do? It spent and spent and spent, and then it spent again. Then it borrowed and borrowed and borrowed some more until it had borrowed to the tune of $190 billion. I believe that governments must have a conscience. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is right to borrow money continually on behalf of our youth and our future taxpayers, committing them as citizens of this country to pay back these debts without even consulting with them. That is what is happening when we have a deficit.
I might remind the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who spoke about discrimination that having no regard for future taxpayers by spending wildly is, I suggest, a form of discrimination against the future taxpayers of Canada including the women of Canada. If we create such large debts that interest expenditures approach 75 per cent of what we borrow, then we will have to restrict our social programs, and that will affect the very women to whom the Hon. Member for Hamilton East was referring.
I think it is wrong to borrow money continually on behalf of future taxpayers. Our Government is committed to reducing that deficit with which we are now faced, and that is one of the reasons why we cannot afford to take that one extra step which all of us would like to take at this time to help the needy in the age group of 60 to 64. In my estimation, the taxpayers cannot afford that $1.5 billion per year. Some day after our economy keeps growing and after the Government puts its own House in order, we will be able to afford that.
Because of the earlier comments of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, I would like to comment on some of the provincial programs that are available in Manitoba for the needy, programs which are federally cost shared through the Canada Assistance Plan. I believe this amounts to somewhere in the order of $3.9 billion in total across Canada. As Minister of Community Services for Manitoba, I was part of a Progressive Conservative Government which instituted the new pro-
Old Age Security Act
grams and extended existing programs to deal partially with the needy aged 60 to 64. I say that we dealt partially with those needy people. One of the major steps that the Sterling Lyon Government of Manitoba took was to lower the qualification age from 65 to 55. We found that there is a need felt not only by those of the age group of 60 to 65 but also by those of the age group of 55 to 60. Furthermore, an individual could qualify for some of these programs if at least 50 per cent of his or her income came from a pension. Those were the basic criteria we established.
The particular age group to which we are referring right now is unique. I do not believe that the problems this age group faces now will exist in 20 years because of the fact that we are entering a stage in life in which both the husband and wife work and are paying toward pensions. We may have to adjust some of these programs down the road to accommodate that.
To give you an idea of some of the programs that we developed, Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba supplement for pensioners which was already in existence that paralleled the guaranteed income supplement was doubled. We were a very progressive Conservative Government. We doubled the amount of money the citizens received and lowered the qualifying age to 55. We also developed what we called a shelter allowance for elderly renters, and this allowed someone who was over the age of 55 to qualify for up to $1,448 per year in allowance toward rent if he or she fell within the income bracket about which we are speaking. In addition to that, we provided an additional rebate on education tax for homeowners or renters. We expanded that so that if homeowners or renters fell into a certain income bracket, they would receive an additional rebate on their education tax. As we all know as Members of Parliament, there is as well what is called the income security through the social allowance, which is always the last resort and is very demeaning to the individual who must receive that allowance. I hope that some day that allowance will not be required by people aged 60 to 64.
I hope that I will have an opportunity to speak on a future Bill which will provide an allowance for single needy citizens aged 60 to 64. I am confident that I will, for the more our economy grows, the greater is the probability.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) on a very excellent speech and one which made real sense. In spite of what we do through this Bill, and this Bill is filling a great deal of the gap, there will still be a gap because most provincial Governments and this Government have not as yet been able to deal with single women between the ages of 55 and 65. There is a real need in that particular area.
The comment I would like to make is that I do not think there is anyone who does not want to do everything possible for everyone they can help. However, the problem in this country is productivity. We have been borrowing ourselves into debt.

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
We owe $200 billion. Until we are able to start reducing our deficit and increasing our productivity, there is a real danger of even holding on to the social programs we have today.
When speaking to people in my riding who need help, I find that their biggest fear is that governments will go overboard and eventually leave them with nothing. If we go too far, we finally find that we do not have anything because we do not have the productivity to cover anything. I would urge all Canadians to increase productivity at the fastest possible rate. Let us get our entrepreneurs investing so we will have jobs. When we do that, we will get closer and closer to being in a position in which we can fill that gap and look after all the people who need help. It is the productivity that will determine it in the final run.
I would like to commend the Hon. Member for touching upon these points. Certainly there are many programs across the nation, but there are very few if any programs designed for single women between the ages of 55 and 65 and there are some real needs there. Let us increase our productivity so that we can look after these needy cases. That and not borrowing will be the answer.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I agree with the comments made by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and I thank him for asking the question.


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


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I think that many congratulations have been extended today and when I heard what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) said about you, I thought for a moment that you would leave the chair but you decided with humility not to do so.
I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) could stay and listen to what Hon. Members have to say about Bill C-26 which I consider quite important. I would have liked to congratulate him and I also wanted him to attend-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) on a point of order.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the Hon. Member is referring to the attendance of the minister in this House. Those remarks are contrary to Standing Orders and practices of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but this is not a point of order.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I said before that I was sorry not to see the Minister, who has now left the House-probably to attend to certain duties at his department-because I would have liked him to hear what I have to propose or say to him at the end of my speech. I know the Minister is a very dedicated person. I have known him for quite some time, and I am sure he is the right man in the right job, and as I said earlier, I want to congratulate him on presenting a bill, Bill C-26, which, I think, complements the Old Age Security Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to repeat what has already been said: how many people are involved-about 85,000; that the Bill mainly affects widows and widowers; and that it neglects a segment of the population that is in similar circumstances, namely, 80,000 people who are single, divorced or separated. It is an excellent piece of legislation, one in a long line of old age security programs established by the previous Government, and it clearly shows the evolution that is taking place with respect to the old age security system.
This has been happening since 1975. The first step was to give the spouse who had not yet reached the age of sixty-five and was married to a pensioner of sixty-five the right to receive a spouse's allowance, provided certain conditions were met. Around 1979, another amendment was added to deal with the fact that if the pensioner died, the surviving spouse who had not yet reached the age of sixty-five was automatically eliminated from the program. That, as I said earlier, was another step in the evolution of our social security legislation.
However, 80,000 Canadians are being left out. I suppose it is understandable that for budgetary reasons and other considerations, this Bill is not as complete as we would have hoped. However, it is absolutely essential that we review the entire question of old age security-I would suggest the words "golden age" instead of old age. We must find a mechanism to provide all Canadians who are in need and who have reached the age of sixty some kind of guaranteed income, which would automatically eliminate the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security Pension and any other allowances involved, such as income security, for people who have reached the age of sixty.
Before we reach that goal of course, there are many ways of trying to improve the existing system. In Quebec for instance, the Regie des rentes has amended its regulations so that people aged 60 years and over who are no longer active on the labour market can draw a pension at age 60 subject to a penalty.
I do not know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare has done this, but the former Minister, Miss Begin, was due to meet with her provincial counterparts in June last, to discuss the important issue of amendments to the Canadian Pension Plan along the lines developed by the Quebec Regie des rentes, to allow taxpayers to retire at age 60 and draw benefits from the Canada Pension Plan, provided they are no longer on the labour market, and subject to a certain penalty. In so doing, we would have put many more people to work. We could also have satisfied the needs of those who are in need, as
February 4, 1985

was mentioned earlier, but have no program to help them adequately. I am not suggesting that this would have solved all the problems, but it could at least have solved some of them and it could have given people something to help them out of misery, at least temporarily.
However, this has not been done. I wonder why. But I think we should think very seriously about amending the Canada Pension Plan, along the lines developed by the Province of Quebec last Summer.
This is causing exceptional and extraordinary hardship to people especially to those hundreds of thousands of civil servants who have worked all their lives in the Province of Quebec and now live in Ontario, and to those in Quebec who have worked all their lives in Ontario, as this does happen in the Hull-Ottawa area where there are 100,000 federal civil servants. Actually a civil servant from Quebec who has worked all his life in Ontario, cannot retire at age 60, while his Ontario counterpart who has worked in Quebec all his life can retire at 60.
There is inequity in my view, something we should change. Because when the Canada Pension Plan was established and the Province of Quebec decided they would have their own plan, the agreement was that both plans would work along the same lines, which means that whenever the Province of Quebec or Canada would amend their respective pension plan legislation, there should have been, if there were not in fact, consultations to avoid the current inequities. I suggest the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be well-advised to very seriously consider what I just listed in the way of possible changes as between the Quebec Regie des rentes and the Canada Pension Plan.
In my view, as it has been so often repeated in this House, this is a complementary bill, a very good bill.
I hope that we shall go much farther, not only in providing assistance, but also in giving those who have contributed so much to Canada some security in their old age which is itself unfortunately a natural handicap whose consequences we must all endure as we grow older. In addition, available income is much lower for this group of Canadians.
It is therefore imperative that we find the means to provide a guaranteed income for needy people who have reached a certain age, such as 60. I can also tell the House that, according to actuarial projections, we should consider this problem as soon as possible since the birth rate in Canada seems far from what we might describe as "healthy", and if the present trend continues, there will be a reversal in the normal pyramid of ages with many young people at the bottom and fewer older people at the top in view of the decrease in the number of young people. There will eventually be a great number of older people or of people about to reach the age of 60, which will represent an enormous danger for the Canadian
Old Age Security Act
society, the Treasury and Government budgets, whatever the party in power.
When we say that the provincial Governments have excellent bridging programs, that is programs to provide support for people before they reach the age of 60 or 65, we should remember that the federal Government is the one to foot the bill since 50 per cent of the costs of all social security programs in Canada are paid by federal taxes, by transfer payments to the provinces so they will be able to pay for their own social programs.
This is what I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker. I could go on much longer but everything has already been said and I do not want to be repetitive. I simply want to point out to the House that eligibility for pensions plans in Canada should be lowered, so that a contributor can decide when he reaches 60 and no longer works that he will receive his pension subject to a few penalties, which I have already explained. This would provide employment for many more people and meet the needs of a forgotten group of citizens with virtually no income, and it would allow these people to live their remaining years with relatively few problems.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I wanted to say, and once more, I want to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare for having thought of those who unfortunately cannot protect themselves or see to their own needs. I hope that he will continue in this spirit and that he will introduce in the near, and even the very near future, a bill which will cover old age security benefits and guaranteed income supplements for the people who have been forgotten in this bill, namely those who are single, divorced or separated and who number 80,000 in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there no more questions and comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate, even if I can only begin my comments today.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: It will be the best five minutes the House has had today.


Cyril Keeper: I appreciate the complimentary comment made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).
I would like to begin my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by paying tribute to the former Member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Hon. Stanley Knowles. I would also like to pay tribute to his predecessor, J. S. Woodsworth, and to the social and political movement in this country of which I am a part, the CCF and the NDP. I begin that way, Mr. Speaker, because both Mr. Knowles and Mr. Woodsworth and the Parties of which they were a part had a very significant impact on pensions in this country. Without the contribution of these individuals and

February 4, 1985
Old Age Security Act
without the political movement of which they were a part, we would not have the pensions we do today.
In 1926 the old age pension was first enacted, and it was only enacted because of pressure from J. S. Woodsworth, who was the first Leader of the CCF. He was able to bring pressure to bear on the Government of the day because it was in a minority situation. Because of the dedication of this man and of the people who supported him, and because of the vulnerability of the Government of the day, pensions were first introduced in this country. Obviously, not only members of the CCF Party were involved, but people in the labour movement and people of social concern right across the country were pushing for this innovation.
In 1966, again facing a minority Government, the New Democratic Party was able to pressure the Government to establish the Canada Pension Plan. I think it is only fitting that I take this brief opportunity to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, in this important area. We are fortunate to have him here in the House today during this debate on pensions. He serves as a reminder that the fight for adequate pensions in this country has been going on for a long time. Obviously, we have much more work to do in this area. We are really building today on the shoulders of those who did the work before us.
In 1973, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party, and Mr. Knowles, were once again able to force a minority Government to take further action in the area of pensions and establish the full indexing of the Canada Pension Plan. So I wanted to begin my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by paying tribute to the work of Mr. Knowles, who is with us today, and to Mr. Woodsworth before him and to the socialist movement of which I am a part, the New Democratic Party which arose from the CCF.
We in this Party are prepared to support the legislation which is before us because it does extend additional benefits to some 85,000 Canadians who are in need of those benefits. These beneficiaries are elderly women between the ages of 60 and 64 who are spouses of people who are eligible for the pension. This legislation which is before the House will therefore receive our support.
Hon. members of my Party who have already spoken in this debate have pointed out that not only those who are married and the elderly need additional benefits. There is also a group of people who are single, who have never married, who also need the extension of pension benefits. We are, therefore, bringing to the attention of this Government the need of these people and pointing out that simply to deal with the needs of those who are married and to forget the needs of those who are single throughout their adult lives is discriminatory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 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-MOTIONS

["It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Order No. 73?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Maurice Brydon Foster: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Farm Credit Act in order to provide for a guarantee to any person that takes or holds a mortgage on farm property.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion before the House this afternoon in Private Members' Hour was before the House in the form of a Bill in the last Parliament. It simply provides for an amendment to the Farm Credit Act to enable the Corporation to guarantee mortgages. This cannot be put forward in the form of a Bill in the House by a Private Member because it has financial implications. However, I hope that the Government will be in favour of having this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I believe the idea would be very beneficial. If we cannot pass it as an amendment to the Farm Credit Act, at least it could be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. If it was found to be acceptable there, there would be a positive report to the House to make this amendment to the Farm Credit Act.
If this motion were to be adopted by the Government, it would have two very important applications to the Act. It would enable a farmer who is retiring and selling his farm to his son or a neighbour's son to take back a mortgage. After proper appraisal of the property, the Farm Credit Corporation would be able to guarantee that property. There could perhaps be provisions that if the farmer selling the property passes away the guarantee would be implemented.
The greatest problem in agriculture today is the financial crisis. It is due to many things. Clearly, a simple amendment to the Farm Credit Act cannot solve all of those problems. During the past 10 years, farm commodity prices have stayed approximately the same or gone down a little bit. Input costs have continued to rise. Farm interest rates went up very high and then dropped down to some extent.
The most serious aspect is that farm land values have dropped by up to 25 per cent and in some cases up to 50 per cent during the last two or three years. The agricultural community, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the National Farmers' Union, is asking for a system of agricultural financing in the country with interest rates far below the regular
February 4, 1985

commercial rates. Many farmers who are retiring would be willing to sell their farms and take back a mortgage at lower interest rates of perhaps 8 per cent or 9 per cent if they had a loan guarantee by the Farm Credit Corporation. This would achieve two purposes. Retiring farmers often have difficulty finding someone with the capital or long-term debt money to purchase the farm. Young farmers often have difficulty getting a mortgage at reasonable interest rates.
This proposal of providing a loan guarantee would be very beneficial to our agriculture community. It would be of assistance to young farmers starting out looking for relatively low interest rates and to retiring farmers. The retiring farmer knows that if he takes back a mortgage and provides a reduction in the interest rate the mortgage will be guaranteed. I think that is a very important aspect. The crisis of dropping land values would be helped by this situation because longterm money would be available.
The second aspect of this motion is with regard to the emergency situation which we face in our country today. Land values have dropped by 25 per cent or 30 per cent. Farmers who were in a strong equity position have suddenly lost their equity position. Last Thursday members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had consultations with Members of Parliament from Ontario. One of the members spoke about his hog operation in northern Ontario. He purchased a farm for $320,000 about 10 years ago. He took out a $240,000 mortgage with the Farm Credit Corporation. The hog operation was appraised last year at $165,000. In other words, he had lost half of his equity. The Government must take some action to resolve this problem. Simple foreclosures just drive down land values.
The United States government has established a set aside program under its farmers' home administration program. It has some 273,000 loans. It has lent about $25 million or $27 million. On approximately September 18 it notified farmers that it was establishing a farmers' loan set aside program whereby it would set aside one-quarter of their mortgage for a period of up to five years, provided that that would put their farming operation in a positive cash flow situation with a 10 per cent margin. I believe that in the long run that type of program will save a lot more farms than the Minister will with his little three point program which will allow some farmers to reduce their mortgage interest rate from 14 per cent to 12.75 per cent. They can appeal a decision by the Farm Credit Corporation if it is going to foreclose. In a number of counties in southwestern Ontario there is a review board consisting of an agriculture representative, an FCC representative and others from the community. Such a consultation and appeal procedure is of some benefit because it gets the creditors together. However, there is no legislative authority to set aside a portion of the loan.
With respect to the U.S. system, besides the set aside program for the direct farmers' home administration loan, there is a program whereby other lending institutions such as
Farm Credit Act
banks, credit unions and production co-ops will forgive a portion of the debt to at least 10 per cent. The farmers' home administration will provide a loan guarantee of 90 per cent of the balance of the mortgage.
My motion would provide that kind of loan guarantee. This type of program has been adopted in the United Sates and, I understand they have already set aside some $3,000 in loans under the farmers home administration.
Those are the two applications that I see for this provision which I am suggesting for the Farm Credit Corporation Act. We would then be able to provide that kind of loan guarantee, and I think it would help young farmers in financial difficulty as well as retiring farmers who want to give a favourable interest rate to young farmers who are just starting out. They would also have their position protected by the guarantee, and the Farm Credit Corporation would be protected also because it would do a proper appraisal, they would have a loan guarantee, and I am sure there would be supervision over the loan to ensure that the obligations were met.
The more urgent problem is that of the short-term set aside program. I believe the Minister will act in the near future to establish a program in this regard. I do not say that because I am in the Opposition and do not have the responsibility of a government Member, but because I believe that it is the right step to take. If one examines farm bankruptcies or foreclosures in Canada, one finds that the average loss to the Farm Credit Corporation is $80,000 to $90,000. If the Farm Credit Corporation were to set aside a portion of the loan for a period of four or five years, as has been done in the United States, surely the interest on that portion of the loan set aside will not be the $80,000 or $90,000 which now the corporation loses.
The number of farmers in difficulty in this country today is the most disturbing figure since the 1930s. This is due to the devaluation of farm property. I have already described the case in northern Ontario.
The Farm Credit Corporation conducted a survey last summer. It was a sampling of 6,000 farm operations across the country and was properly carried out under Statistics Canada guidelines. It showed that some 39,000 farmers are in serious financial difficulty.
There are three criteria for classification of those in serious financial difficulty. First, a farmer's equity must be less than 15 per cent. Second, payment on the debt is more than 40 per cent of the gross. This means that a farmer with a $100,000 cash flow would fall under the criterion of being in serious financial difficulty if he was paying more than 40 per cent of that gross amount to meet the mortgage and interest payments. The third criterion is that the borrowings be greater than the capital investment. In other words, the farmer is borrowing to keep the farm in operation. A farmer would be in serious Financial difficulty if he met one of these three criteria.
While 39,000 farmers are in serious financial difficulty, the survey also showed that 1,700 of those surveyed had no equity left in their property. The fact that their debts were greater than their assets put them in a particularly difficult situation.

February 4, 1985
Farm Credit Act
The more remarkable aspect of this survey, as stated by the Chairman of the Board of the Farm Credit Corporation in the interview, is that the 39,000 or 17 per cent of farming operations in Canada in serious difficulty had risen to 45,000 or 20 per cent. The problem is becoming greater and the spinoff factors are also serious. I hope the Government will seriously consider my proposal that we provide the Farm Credit Corporation with the authority to give loan guarantees to individuals or corporate groups.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais).


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that we certainly appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). Perhaps it is regrettable that so few of his colleagues in the previous Government were here to pay close attention to his remarks, because we might not be in such a difficult economic situation as we are in now to come to grips with our agricultural problems, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member is suggesting that the Government ought to consider the advisability of amending the Farm Credit Act. In fact, he recommends that we provide for a guarantee to any person taking or holding a mortgage on farm property. I presume that there is no difference between the working proposed by the Hon. Member and his own thoughts, for I see in his representation an appeal to the Government to entertain the possibility of underwriting private mortgage loans rather than loans made by banks or other types of lending institutions, for if such is not the request of the Hon. Member, I can tell him right now that the Government is not prepared to consider that possibility.
However, Mr. Speaker, if his request is aimed at suggesting a new approach to promote greater participation by individuals in agricultural funding, I will say that our Government has already looked into that issue. Indeed, I think that the Hon. Member for Algoma is in a position to appreciate-he does not say so very often-the work and efforts of this Government to stabilize and improve the situation in the agricultural sector.
It is time members of various economic sectors in Canada regained control of their own destiny. Agriculture is one such sector. The Progressive Conservative Government's priority is to promote job creation and economic recovery. Agriculture is an important sector of our economy because many Canadians are directly engaged in it and even more work in a related field.
I would like to give a few figures which will help Hon. Members better understand the importance of agriculture in
the Canadian economy and, consequently, the priority given to this sector by our Government. In 1983, farm income amounted to $18.7 billion, which includes only the income earned in 1983, for a net agricultural income of over $3 billion. In that same year, all lending institutions granted farm loans totalling just under $10 billion. This includes banks, caisses populaires, trust companies, credit unions, mortgage loan companies, public financial institutions such as the Canada Farm Credit Corporation and its provincial counterparts, farm equipment dealers, cooperatives and, naturally, since this is what we are now discussing, private lenders.
Still in 1983, Mr. Speaker, banks provided $844 million in long-term credit to farmers. During the same period, the Canada Farm Credit Corporation granted $854 million in loans. In third place, private lenders provided approximately $376 million in loans. The average interest rate charged by the banks on these loans was 13.42 per cent, while the Farm Credit Corporation charged just under 13 per cent or 12.95 per cent. However, and this is worth mentioning, private lenders charged only 11.5 per cent.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the interest rate on the $1.1 billion in long-term outstanding loans granted to private citizens in 1983 averaged 11.68 per cent, while commercial lenders charged more than 2 per cent more, namely 13.76 per cent on the $2.2 billion in outstanding loans.
Hon. Members will agree that the parties concerned can play a major role in agricultural financing. In this regard, we agree with the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). It is absolutely essential that we see to it that more individuals agree to finance the sale of their operation themselves. Such initiatives will help to restore confidence among Canadians, and our Government is determined to encourage this type of financing.
However, it must be kept in mind that, if interest rates which are generally lower than the market rates are to the advantage of the purchaser in this type of transaction, the process must also benefit the seller. If through some mechanism, the Government decided to provide a certain guarantee to private citizens who take mortgages on farm properties, three important results would ensue.
First, such an initiative would make this form of credit more attractive for farmers. It is easy to understand that a farmer who has worked all his life to build up his operation is not willing to sell it off. In addition, he is not necessarily willing to take over its financing. We should examine the fiscal consequences of such a transaction. With present provisions on capital gains, that procedure is not very profitable for farmers. To make such a measure efficient, the scope of the bill should be widened. This is the reason why the matter needs careful consideration.
A second consequence of such a guarantee would be felt in the level of capitalization of this particular industry. Agriculture is an industry where the income depends on many factors
February 4, 1985

on which producers have no control. Therefore, it is an industry where the return on capital is low and difficult to forecast on the short term. By encouraging retiring farmers to keep safe investment in the agricultural industry, for example, the capital accumulated through years of farming could be left in that sector.
A third consequence of such a program would be to provide individuals with an opportunity to invest directly in farming. The result would surely be a decreased demand of cash which the Government has to invest through its direct loans programs.
If I may, I would like to return to the costs of farm financing. I said a few minutes ago that interest rates set on transactions by individuals were usually lower than those of other lenders. A larger number of such transactions would increase the credit available at reasonable rates for farmers, especially young farmers. Some sort of guarantee offered by the Government could probably reduce the interest rates below the market level and would obviously reduce the costs of middlemen. Such a program could also greatly simplify the process of private financing.
I fully appreciate the motion moved by the Hon. Member, and I must emphasize that, as he can see, neither the Government nor I are against apple pie and motherhood. However, I should like to remind him of a number of issues which must be addressed before a federal guarantee program can be set up for privately financed transactions in the area of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, there exist already some federal and provincial programs which guarantee in various ways the loans granted by commercial lenders. Naturally, these guarantees are given within the framework of programs with very specific objectives and vary from 10 per cent to 100 per cent of the total loans.
We are being asked to amend the Farm Credit Act, so that the Government may provide a guarantee to whoever is taking or holding a mortgage on a farm property. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may be unaware that under certain circumstances, privately financed transactions are already covered by guarantees. For instance, a private mortgage which is followed by a second mortgage is essentially a first mortgage which is guaranteed by a second mortgage. The frequency of this phenomenon is poorly understood and requires a more in depth analysis.
Before deciding to set up such a program, it is necessary to properly identify the principles which would underline its operation. One of the conditions such a program should meet would be to make long term credit more affordable for farmers and especially new farmers who are beginning or want to expand.
We should also establish as a priority the conservation of capital in the farm industry. That should be a major consideration. This could be translated into long and short term fiscal benefits. Every precaution should be taken, however to prevent
Farm Credit Act
such a program from negatively affecting other areas of the economy. And private investments should not be made at the expense of other industries which are in such dire need of them.
As a matter of fact, if we had only this industry in which to work and correct past mistakes, it would be simpler, but there are several areas where the Government must intervene.
If ever the Government should implement a system of guarantees for privately financed mortgages, we should have to minimize the capitalization of benefits in the evaluation of assets. I can already hear the opposition blaming us for our material concerns, but we must face up to reality. There have been too many farm assistance programs which served only to put off the inevitable or, what is worse, which have hurt a whole generation of young farmers. We shall have to make sure that if the Government decides to provide mortgage guarantees, the prices of farms is not artificially inflated. Today, as Hon. Members are well aware, the price of land is dropping. Unfortunately, not only land values but also the value of many farmers' assets, paid for in years of hard work, is dropping as well. However, it would seem that when the price of land stabilizes, it will reach a level that is fairer and more equitable, considering the return on investment. What we would not need at this point is a Government that with a well-intentioned but poorly prepared program, becomes a major factor of inflation in the agricultural sector. Mr. Speaker, we can hardly be expected to introduce legislation that would reactivate the inflationary spiral we have been trying to control.
Those are the lines along which we would approach this question, and I would now like to explain some matters of a structural nature, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know whether the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is aware that a program similar to the one he is asking us to consider is in effect in New Zealand. I mention this particular country, Mr. Speaker, because its economy is very dependent on the performance of its agricultural industry, and as a result, on the New Zealand Government's agricultural policies. In New Zealand, tax exemptions, certain forms of guarantees and Treasury bonds have been used to encourage farmers to take the responsibility for financing the sale of their farm. Without necessarily intervening directly by guaranteeing mortgages, the Government helps the buyer take advantage of the vendor's terms. I have given this example, Mr. Speaker, to show Hon. Members that an effective program does not necessarily involve direct Government intervention. We know of course that the previous Government was extremely fond of this kind of direct intervention at every point in our daily lives. We must not continue along those lines, and it is our policy to get rid of this kind of intervention.
As far as Canada is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we must determine the total amount that could be guaranteed. What would be the ideal term for a given rate under such a pro-
1986

February 4, 1985
Farm Credit Act
gram? Ten years? More? Less? We would also have to calculate the level at which interest rates would have to be set. Should they be set according to the yield on Government of Canada bonds for comparable periods? Should they be set at a higher level? Could someone who already has a guaranteed loan borrow for a subsequent mortgage? How would a guarantee application be approved? There are many questions, Mr. Speaker.
And there are more. Since the Farm Credit Corporation is responsible for administering the Farm Credit Act, would it also be responsible for administering this program? Or should the program be administered by provincial agencies, by the vendor or by the buyer?
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is not as straightforward as some Hon. Members would have us believe. I must say, however, that last November, at the agricultural financing conference, all provincial Ministers of Agriculture-the word "all" is important because there was a unanimity that we did not have before September 4 and that has been apparent in most of the meetings we have had with the provinces- recommended that this kind of guarantee be established. The federal-provincial task force on agricultural financing has also been considering this question.
One aspect I have not yet discussed but which must absolutely not be disregarded is that of the program funding, whether we like it or not. Clearly, this is not the Opposition's main concern. At least it has not been in the past. Whether we like it or not, this program will cost the Government something. But even before discussing any potential losses, we must look at how that kind of program would be funded.
I am quite aware that the costs would not be huge, but we must decide who will pay for them. Some will say that the Government should. But we, the Government Members, are not so sure of that. I can tell the House that, in view of our experience with other direct loan and guarantee programs, losses under such a program could reach 1 per cent of the principal lent out. Of course, during the first years, losses could be reduced to a minimum and their cost, if there was a need to recover the guarantee, would depend on the very structure of the program. The loss potential could be reduced to a minimum by only guaranteeing loans on real farm property. Losses could be controlled by a precise ratio of loans to guarantee, or still charges could simply be added to cover the losses. Those are various possibilities.
We cannot either get into loan guarantees without assessing what the demand would be for such a program. We know that in 1983, $376 million were loaned to individuals. How much guarantee should we provide to increase those transactions to the level required? The aim is not to launch a new program just for the sake of it. Success must be seen to be there, it must be obvious.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, some kind of bureaucracy would be needed to implement the program. Unfortunately, the previous Government created plenty of bureaucracy. We have no shortage of that! We must now work with what we have and try to maximize our returns. I think that the Farm Credit Corporation could play a role in this area, but its limits must be clearly defined.
I briefly referred to this earlier. A program of this kind would require amendments to the Income Tax Act. At the present time, farmers may defer capital gains over ten years if they sell the farm to a member of the family. The term is reduced to five if the farm is sold to someone outside the family. This will therefore have to be discussed with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, remind Hon. Members that this type of program would be of no help to farmers who are in financial difficulty. We will therefore have to consider and consult as well on new programs to help producers who really need assistance. All Members are concerned about this.
The Government is prepared to consider any realistic proposals to help Canadian farm producers. This is a priority, Mr. Speaker, and we have shown this quite clearly by certain concrete measures we have taken in the last three weeks, and I am sure no one will deny that. I am aware that the Hon. Member who proposed this amendment to the Farm Credit Act did so with the best of intentions. The proposal is an admirable one. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this motion referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. First, however, I would like to make the wording of the motion more precise. I move, Mr. Speaker, an amendment to the motion.

I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That the motion be amended by striking out line 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"individual that takes or holds a mortgage on farm property."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question just for the purpose of clarification.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member would require unanimous consent to ask a question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question about the use of the term
February 4, 1985

"individual" rather than person. When drafting motions I simply use the term "person" because I understand, in terms of law, that a person is either an individual or a corporate entity. I assume that the Parliamentary Secretary in using the term "individual" rather than "persons" was advised by the Department or the law officers of the Crown that this is the more proper legal terminology to use. If that is the case, I am delighted to support the amendment. Is it true that the use of the term "individual" rather than "person" would mean that such a loan guarantee could be provided to either an unincorporated person, to an incorporated farmer or to another incorporation? I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could comment on that.


Pierre Blais: That is the case, Mr. Speaker. It is meant for an individual who is unincorporated, either as a company or a corporation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, the debate is on the motion as amended.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this motion, as amended, is one that I would strongly support. Most of us who have been in the House for a number of years have been addressing this type of problem of the general farm financial distress situation and farm financing difficulty almost ad nauseam. We have done so to the point where we have considered almost the whole range of things possible, broad sweeping changes to the Farm Credit Corporation and so on. We had an Opposition Day to consider a number of the measure that could be undertaken by the Government to help assist in resolving some of the financial difficulties in agriculture.
I take pleasure in being able to participate in this debate and debate to join in support of the motion to have the Standing Committee on Agriculture consider the motion as amended. This is one of the possible solutions to the difficulties that we face. It is one way that we might approach assisting agricultural financing.
Needless to say, if farm prices were high enough, we would not have a need to discuss this or a number of other measures in farm financing. The real world does not function that way. The prices that farmers and agricultural producers have been able to achieve have not been sufficient to provide adequate returns. We are left with the situation where there are a number of pressures and economic stresses that have to be addressed, unfortunately in piecemeal fashion sometimes.
Since World War II, Canadian agriculture has become a capital intensive industry that is subject to volatile world markerts. This suggests that farming businesses have become sensitive to various economic pressures, including variability of the cost of capital. However, we must be careful in our search for solutions not to look solely at isolated variables. It is the interaction of a number of economic factors which causes
Farm Credit Act
problems for the agricultural sector, and we must understand these if we are going to devise policies that are in harmony with the needs of the industry.
In the 1970s, farm real estate values were increasing faster than the rate of inflation. This had a strong impact on farmers entering the industry, on established farmers expanding their operations, on the transfer of land by retiring farmers, and on non-farmers who purchased farm land for investment purposes.
The net result of the farm investment decisions made in the 1970s about farm real estate is that the total level of farm debt has risen dramatically. Farmers borrowed money to buy or expand farms. Farm debt ballooned from $5 billion in 1972 to over $20 billion in 1982. The largest growth occurred in the long-term credit market because long-term credit tends to be used to purchase land. Long-term credit outstanding in Canada rose from $2.1 billion in 1982 to almost $10 billion in 1982.
In the seventies, land prices increased so rapidly that purchasing a farm, even at 100 per cent financing, seemed to be a good investment. In some years, the inflation of land prices provided a handsome return on investment even after paying interest costs. To give an example of how this worked, let us take a look at a peak year for land price inflation, that is, 1974. In that year, land prices inflated 27.7 per cent. Nominal interest rates were 7.3 per cent. This means that the real agricultural interest rate, which is the nominal rate minus land price inflation, amounted to minus 20 per cent. The impact of this is that farmers were in effect earning about 20 per cent on the money they borrowed to buy farm land.
These returns resulted in the demand for credit to expand. Commercial lending institutions began moving to the farm mortgage market. Producers bought land, acquired modern buildings and purchased new equipment, betting that land prices would keep on going up. In the 1980s the bubble burst.
Today, land prices have dropped. Interest charges are higher than in the 1970s. The real agricultural interest rate in 1984 was over 20 per cent, which meant that farmers' investments were eroding. Consequently, the demand for credit has sharply declined. To give an example, as of January 15, the Farm Credit Corporation has committed only about $200 million. This compares to about $700 million for the same period the year before.
The consecutive declines in cash flows and purchasing power have forced many farmers to reduce their debt by offering some or all of their land for sale, but there have been few buyers. This has reduced or stagnated land prices. Those who could wait no longer to sell were forced to leave farming, producing a record number of bankruptcies. We know that some commodity groups, such as beef and hog producers, have been harder hit than others.
The trends that I have described show the general economic framework affecting farmers. Not all farmers are in difficulty. A Farm Credit Corporation survey carried out earlier this year indicates which farmers are experiencing problems.

February 4, 1985
Farm Credit Act
The survey shows that the over-all equity position of farmers has declined. In the first farm survey in 1981, farmers owned on average 85 per cent of the assets of their farms. Three years later, their equity had declined to 82 per cent. This is still a strong equity position. However, the industry averages do not tell the full story.
The equity positions of farmers in each region were, as analysed by dividing farmers, in three equal groups according to the amount of equity they hold-low, medium or high equity. While the numbers change from region to region, the average equity of the low-equity group is far below that of the remaining two-thirds of farmers.
In Alberta, for example, the top equity group has an equity position that approaches 100 per cent. The middle group's equity average is 91 per cent. The bottom group's average equity is only 62 per cent. Across Canada, the low-equity group, or one-third of farmers, holds over three-quarters of the farm debt. If production were distributed equally, that would not be a serious problem.
The significance of this finding is that the farmers holding most of the debt tend to be the nation's youngest and most productive farmers. It is not a question of the debt being concentrated in an unimportant sector of agriculture. It is a question of the debt being concentrated in the mainstream of commercial farming. About half of the farm product sales come from this low-equity group.
The farmers across Canada who are experiencing severe and moderate stress are not necessarily headed for bankruptcy. It is estimated that some 1,700 of the farmers in the severe stress category may be on the verge of insolvency because their debts exceed their assets. This means that out of a national total of over 228,000 farms, less than 1 per cent of farmers are in immediate danger of financial collapse. However, the farmers in the severe and moderate stress categories are probably experiencing cash flow problems. They may be falling behind in the payments on their debts.
As of January 1, 1985, about 16,500 or 21 per cent of FCC's 79,000 loan accounts were in arrears for a total of about $197 million. I believe there are two broad considerations when looking at policy to meet the financing needs of Canadian farmers. The first is that we must devise programs so that we can help farmers in difficulty. The second is to consider policies that will meet the long-term needs of the industry.
I want to spend a moment talking very specifically about one thing. Before doing so, I would mention the support that has been given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to agriculture and our agricultural producers in the last three or four months. The Minister of Finance started in his November 8 statement by helping to reduce input costs by relieving some of the tax burden on farm fuels. That was one thing. The second thing he has done, and followed up in the last week with a background paper, is to indicate that there will be a House of Commons standing committee or subcommittee to consider capital gains, agri-bonds and Section 31 aspects of agricultural financing.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Doesn't sound very hopeful.


Gary Michael Gurbin: It is with the hope that they will at least produce an interim report prior to the budget that will be brought down in the spring. Those are solid things that the Minister of Finance has done specifically and all together. I think they represent probably three or four times the level of support in three months that we had in the last four or five years from the Ministers of Finance of the previous Government.
The Minister of Agriculture has also made his mark in a very short time by reducing interest rates of the Farm Credit Corporation. All of those interest rates were above 14 per cent and some of them were as high as 16.75 per cent. Those rates are now down to 12.75 per cent, and this represents a real contribution toward reducing some of the pressures on the agricultural borrower.
As mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, we hope that the stabilization Bill will be before the Standing Committee in the very near future. As well, the federal-provincial Ministers' conference that has been held to look at agricultural lending is another important step in looking at the broad perspective. In a very short time, I would suggest, we have made our mark on trying to work out some of the problems that have gradually built up over the last number of years.
One of the final points about which I will spend a moment or two speaking is the effort to assist the people who are in difficulty now and who have problems that they may not be able to resolve no matter how well we can get some of these changes like the changes to the Farm Credit Corporation on track. The Minister of Agriculture indicated that there would be a moratorium on farm credit bankruptcies, and that was in place until January 15 of this year. As that moratorium was lifted, the Minister indicated that there would be an appeal board process through an expanded appeal board of the Farm Credit Corporation across the country. That process is now in place and is looking at those cases of the Farm Credit Corporation which could not see viability.
At the same time, the Minister lent his support to a pilot project in the Counties of Bruce and Grey, which will end on March 21 of this year. This project saw an extraordinary level of co-operation from the local agricultural community, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Farm Credit Corporation and the provincial Ministry. This seven-person board is now meeting, hearing cases and making proposals, some of which have very creative aspects, and these proposals will then be returned to the Farm Credit Corporation and other lenders for their consideration. The process itself is working very well. It has the respect and co-operation of all those involved to this point in time.
I think the final determination of whether or not this or other processes will be useful will have to wait until they are finished and we see the reaction and response of the lending institutions. However, in the end, I think it will be another example of how the Government is actually attempting to solve
February 4, 1985

some of the problems that have been allowed to exist over a long period of time. I lend my support to the Hon. Member's motion as another example of things to which we can look in an effort to create additional support in the agricultural lending field.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit concerned that you did not recognize me as third speaker as that is a tradition of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Perhaps that is something the Hon. Member might be able to take up with the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and his parliamentary committee. Perhaps Private Members' Hour should be extended to two hours. The Chair cannot recognize everyone in the House during a one hour period.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this approach to farm credit is not unique and it is not new. It has been suggested on many occasions, and the previous Government had the opportunity to put it into place. It sounds very good. Perhaps it is even very practical. However, I could say many things about it that would make it seem unacceptable.
I thank the Hon. Member from the Government side who gave us a very technical approach to the possibilities for and against the motion as it stands. However, what we really need to discuss here is not farm credit but the situation in which agriculture finds itself. We are now in a position in which farm credit is only one of the very small issues for which we have some concern. In fact, this particular motion which might change a small part of the Farm Credit Corporation Act is a band-aid upon a band-aid. It is suggesting that we will help farmers who are in trouble to get more money by providing guarantees to the lender. The banks can tell us right now that there is no shortage of money to lend. The guarantee is necessary, and for that reason I will support the motion put by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).
In many ways, this band-aid is not a very effectual one because credit is only one of the problems facing agriculture. If it were possible for farmers to face the need for credit, then we would be talking about something that would be worthwhile. We would be having a worth-while debate. As the previous speaker suggested, perhaps all we need to do is to put into effect some kind of a guaranteed price for the products of the farmers. Then we would not have to worry about all these little band-aids which will take care of credit or the cost of farm fuel or things like that. We need to have a global debate on the problems of the farm and look at those problems all together rather than look at each small problem as it comes up.
Over the years, the input cost of farmers have increased by about 300 per cent. In the same period of time of eight or ten years, the commody price has not increased perceivably. We have a situation in which incomes are going down or staying the same and the costs are rising. There are many other solutions at which we could be looking. We should be looking at them now and we should be looking at them all together.
Adjournment Debate
This Government and apparently the previous Government were afraid to look at parity as a possibility which would help farmers. They were unable to suggest reducing the price of credit entirely so that it would not become a factor in the elimination of farmers from the business.
We need to be debating a straightforward income security program for farmers which would make these kinds of band-aids unnecessary. Then we would be going in a direction which would allow farmers to know that if they produce well, they will survive and make a good living for themselves and their families. If we can have that kind of government-sponsored global approach to agriculture, it would be worth-while. These band-aids are not worth bringing before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion as amended is as follows: Mr. Foster, seconded by Ms. Copps, moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Farm Credit Act in order to provide for a guarantee to any individual that takes or holds a mortgage on farm property.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as submitted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Foster) as amended agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, 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.

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again I want to use the opportunity that this adjournment debate offers to bring to the attention of the House the very serious economic position which the Province of Manitoba faces and the need for immediate action by the federal Government both to come to grips with the serious problem of equalization payments and to fulfil the commitments which were made by the previous Government to provide information and a review of the equalization formula, which is essential for the provision of jobs and economic growth.
On November 27 I raised a question with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had gone through his somewhat unusual technique of releasing information by dropping it in a hotel lobby. At that

February 4, 1985
Adjournment Debate
time, I asked whether the instructions which were given by the Deputy Minister of Finance-which was to keep Manitobans loose and easy, but that no commitments were to be given- was in fact the position of the Government. Of course, we did not receive an answer to that question.
What concerns me most is that when the original formula for equalization came forward, the previous Government agreed to a transition period in which the payments would go from $400 million a year to $480 million a year. The previous administration recognized that there would be a transition period which would provide a cushioning effect during the time that the new formula was being put into place.
We all know the reason for the new formula. It was implemented during the time of the economic downturn, when the formula went from a ten province average to a five province average. If that had not been done, some of the richest provinces in the country would have been able to cut into equalization payments. There was a very clear rationale for it. An adjustment was required and the previous administration provided a three-year adjustment period. However, by 1983 it was clear that because of the economic repercussions of the recession, the formula which was originally devised in 1982 and the forecasts which were based on that formula would not be fulfilled. At that point in time our Government agreed that it was important to review the formula and the equalization agreements and to share that information with the Province of Manitoba in order to renegotiate a settlement. On behalf of the Government of the day, I communicated that information to the Manitoba Government in July of 1984.
The important question is: Has that review been undertaken, and if so, why has the new Government not been prepared to bring forward the results of the review and share those results with the Government and the people of Manitoba? It is quite clear that conditions have changed. We recognized the changing conditions and therefore we recognized the need to renegotiate the settlement. If that is not done, the Province of Manitoba is likely to suffer a loss of approximately $72 million in its new fiscal year, which begins in March. It will have a very severe impact on education, social services and the provisions of a wide variety of activities in the Province of Manitoba. It is important for the Government to come clean and put on the public record-and certainly with the Government of Manitoba-what it discovered in the review that the financial officials were asked to undertake and, as well, to renegotiate a new settlement.
At the same time as there has been a reluctance to deal with the equalization payment issue, we have also experienced an enormous number of severe cut-backs in the Province of Manitoba. For example, the cut-backs in the National Research Council laboratories, the substantial reduction in grants under the IRDP, and the recent cancellation of the VIA Rail centre. The estimate, as a result of those cuts, is that over
4,000	permanent jobs will be lost and 2,000 jobs will not be there for summer students. Manitoba has perhaps suffered more than any other province because of government cutbacks, and at the same time the situation is being compounded by the lack of response to the equalization problem.
The Minister of Finance of the Government of Manitoba and a number of people from social services and educational institutions in Manitoba visited Ottawa last week. They simply asked for a willingness to come to grips with it. It is our hope that the Government will now respond and recognize that it has inflicted major economic damage on the province through its cut-backs and it should not further enhance and aggravate that damage by not coming to grips with the equalization problem. There was a commitment made by the last Government to come to grips with the program, to negotiate it, review it and reach a new settlement. I believe it is incumbent upon the Conservative Government to live up to the kinds of commitments which were made last year.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on the subject of Manitoba's equalization entitlements. As he well knows, the principle of the equalization program and the important role it plays in ensuring that all provincial Governments have sufficient revenues to provide an appropriate level of services to their populations, have never been a matter of debate among the three Parties represented in this House. This is reflected in the fact that those principles are now enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982. However, the Hon. Member expressed concern that this Government is not consulting with Manitoba in reviewing a specific part of this program, the transitional guarantee which the previous Government, of which he was a member, was responsible for introducing.
The Hon. Member seems unaware that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has been consulting continually with all of his provincial counterparts, most recently with all provincial Finance Ministers on January 15 in Montreal. This was the reason he met with the Manitoba Minister in Winnipeg on November 26. The Minister of Finance had a very productive meeting with Mr. Schroeder, and the issue of the transitional equalization payments was discussed in a frank and cordial manner. The Hon. Member will know, too, that the two Ministers met again last week.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry also asked whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was aware of the previous Government's commitment to review the transitional guarantee and to share information from this review with the provinces. The Minister of Finance is indeed reviewing this matter and, as I noted, has been consulting with Manitoba and other provinces. The issue of the transitional guarantee is indeed an important one, both for Manitoba and for Quebec, which is also affected. The Minister of Finance is currently examining this matter in the over-all context of the fiscal situation we inherited and how our policies will affect all provinces.
February 4, 1985

Our policy of ongoing consultations and openness with the provinces since September 17 on these and other matters Mr. Speaker, is a good one. I might add, it is a policy which was not pursued by the previous Government. These consultations with the Provinces have continued and will continue. The transitional payment in question will be fully reviewed and the Government will soon be in a position to come to some conclusions on Manitoba's stated concerns.


NUCLEAR ENERGY-REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO INDUSTRY. (B) INDUSTRY'S ACCOUNTABILITY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question I asked of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) on November 20. At that time I asked if the Government was going to be true to the intentions of the Progressive Conservative Government in 1979 and initiate a parliamentary inquiry into all aspects of the nuclear industry in Canada. The Minister's answers to me at that time were very disturbing in so far as she indicated that she would be consulting only with officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the nuclear industry in Ontario and New Brunswick as to whether or not such an inquiry was a good idea.
What kind of advice does the Minister expect the AECL and the nuclear industry? Does she expect them to invite public scrutiny by telling her to go ahead with an inquiry? Why did she not also make a commitment to discuss the usefulness of such an inquiry with the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, for example, or others who take a more critical and less self-serving view of the nuclear option?
It is over two months now since I asked the question of the Minister and she has said nothing about an inquiry. If you look at her answer of November 20, you see that the writing was on the wall. She said to me that, "The problems may perhaps lie more in the marketing area", a statement which reveals very clearly the uncritical attitude she takes toward the nuclear power question. The kind of inquiry I have in mind would be one that goes deeper than she is obviously prepared to go and asks whether things like nuclear reactors are what we ought to be marketing at all, even if we could successfully market them, which we have not been able to do to date.
Tragically, the Minister seems to be able to reflect on the nuclear power question only from a commercial point of view rather than from an ethical or environmental point of view. This kind of myopia on the Minister's part is very frightening.
Take, for example, her view of the concern expressed by many Manitobans over Atomic Energy of Canada's underground research laboratory at Lac du Bonnet. In answer to a July 20, 1984 letter from the town council of Gimli, she responds to their resolution of concern about the disposal of radioactive waste by saying with respect to the disposal of radioactive waste from other countries that "such a project could offer considerable commercial benefits". This statement, taken together with the fact that the Americans are now
Adjournment Debate
considering making an investment in the underground research laboratory at Lac du Bonnet, is hardly reassuring to those of us who want to stop and reflect on the nuclear option as a whole and who want assurances that under no circumstances whatsoever will Manitoba become a radioactive garbage dump for the rest of Canada, the United States, or the world.
I call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to answer the letter he received from the Committee of Concerned Citizens of Manitoba, and to meet their request that he publicly instruct AECL that, as a matter of policy, Manitoba is not and will not be a location for radioactive garbage dump. I also call again on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to initiate a full parliamentary inquiry into the nuclear industry as recently asked for by the British Columbia Medical Association who, like myself, has been pressing for such an inquiry for several years.
In introduced a Private Member's Bill to this effect in 1980 and I intend to do so again in this Parliament as I try, in any way I can as a Member of Parliament, to stimulate the debate which is so necessary on this issue. The fact that so far the Government has been able to get away with business as usual on the nuclear side, and massive cuts in the renewable energy research, environmental monitoring, and wildlife conservation, does not bode well for the future. I invite those who share my concerns to let me know so that we can work together to change the mind of the Government.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for the question and the follow-up which allows us to discuss this tonight.
Over the past decade the various aspects of Canada's nuclear fuel cycle have been the subject of a number of comprehensive federal and provincial inquiries and reviews. Two major inquiries were undertaken in Ontario, the producer of 85 per cent of the country's nuclear generated electricity. The Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, commonly known as the Porter Commission, devoted a considerable amount of time to scrutinizing Ontario's nuclear power program, as did the Ontario Select Committee on Hydro Affairs. As of the present time we are awaiting the report from the interfaith hearings on nuclear energy sponsored by a number of groups including the Anglican diocese, the Jewish community, the Roman Catholic archdiocese, the United Church and the Baha'i community.
In Saskatchewan, the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry-the Bayda Commission-examined the expansion of uranium mining in that province. While like the two Ontario inquiries, the Bayda Commission studies all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining to radioactive waste to disposal, it also examined nuclear ethics highlighting the nuclear proliferation issue. It is encouraging to note that all three inquiries supported the continuation of Canada's nuclear programs.
In addition to these large scale inquiries a number of smaller, more specific inquiries have been conducted. Federal-

February 4, 1985
Adjournment Debate
ly, an environmental assessment review panel reported on four different locations for a new uranium refinery in Ontario. A panel report was also presented on a proposed uranium refinery site in Saskatchewan. Provincial inquiries relating to uranium mining have been conducted in Newfoundland and Labrador and in British Columbia.
A federal study entitled the Nuclear Industry Review was released by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the summer of 1982. The report concluded that long-term prospects for the domestic nuclear industry are favourable as nuclear power is the most economical choice for new electricity generation in many parts of our country today. Despite the current downturn in demand, CANDU remains an attractive generating technology both for domestic and some export markets. While this report recognized that Government initiatives might be required to preserve manufacturing in the short term until domestic demand is sufficient to sustain it, the immediate positive economic spinoff of such initiatives cannot be discounted.
As the federal Government enters a new era, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has indicated her interest in investigating the usefulness of such an inquiry as was suggested by the Hon. Member. The Minister has stated that such an inquiry could consider, among other things, what role the industry might play within the energy sector, the international marketing of CANDU reactors, which the Hon. Member seems to criticize, the electricity exports to the United States and the production of heavy water.
The Minister reiterated just two weeks ago her commitment to review nuclear matters. The Hon. Member says she has not mentioned it in two months. She mentioned it just two weeks ago when commenting on the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada's report Connections: An Energy Strategy for the Future. At that time she promised to study closely the Council's recommendations dealing with nuclear energy, particularly those relating to continued government support of Canada's nuclear technology. I can assure the Member that this investigation is going on and we will be reporting the findings to the House in the not too distant future.


EMPLOYMENT-STUDENT SUMMER JOBS. (B) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS. (C) GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, on January 28, I directed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss Macdonald) about a document which describes a program called SELF, which stands for Summer Experience and Learning Fund.
I asked the Minister if it was not true that the document described expenditures amounting to $140 million which would provide summer employment for some 65,000 students. On that occasion the Minister indicated that a program would be announced after she has had an opportunity to consult with
all those sectors of the community that were worthy of consultation.
In response, I pointed out that the Canadian Federation of Students were told, in response to a request for a meeting, that essentially the Minister would not be able to meet with the Canadian Federation of Students in the foreseeable future.
On the subsequent day the Minister discovered that indeed, as the document indicates, she had seen and agreed to a program called SELF which is described in intimate detail, with the implication that it will be the basis for the implementation of a summer student employment program after approval by Cabinet. Furthermore, I determined on that same day that in spite of the previous denial of an opportunity for the Canadian Federation of Students to meet with her, she had indeed agreed to meet with them.
There has been some change in direction. I hope that this change in direction will continue and that these consultations with the Canadian Federation of Students and others will bring about a modification to some elements of the program that I think are subject to criticism and concern.
I should point out that the program's very title indicates a considerable shift in emphasis from a job-creation program to a training program. In fact, what has been done is to use Summer Career Access as the basis for a $108 million program. There are difficulties with that because I think most of us realize that not every job available will be appropriate to the particular kind of vocational training or education that a student is pursuing in a college or university. There will be some problem of fit. I do not want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a basic objection to the appropriateness, indeed the value, of having summer jobs which are matched to the degree or diploma a student is pursuing. The difficulty is that the entire program will be of that character, and I think this suggests considerable difficulties.
One of the major difficulties is that last year the deadline for applications for Summer Canada projects was February 24, with an announcement made in December. I think that should make it clear to you, Sir, that we are already very late in the year in advancing a program that will be accessible and useful to students. I think it is not going too far to suggest that students must feel some considerable insecurity and doubt about the availability of jobs.
First, let us focus on the fact that the Minister has reiterated the point, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in describing the cuts applicable to Summer Canada, said that $85 million was involved and 40,000 student jobs. Although $85 million was budgeted, $201.9 million was spent creating
86,000	jobs. Will the Minister consider advancing a program that will at least ensure that the same number of student job placements will be created in 1985 as were created in 1984?
Will it not be reasonable, in view of the lateness of the hour, to consider reducing the career access portion, that is ICE and centers for the career employment portion to the level of the pilot programs or at least to introduce more flexibility in the
February 4, 1985

program to counter the eventuality that there will not be enough career places to satisfy the needs for student employment?
There are a number of other aspects of this program that I think are subject to considerable concern. There is the concern, first, that Summer Canada was previously a project-oriented program that served the community needs of a number of people in this country who suffered one difficulty or another. I am speaking of the disabled, women, the unemployed and so on who were served in many communities by student groups. There is a great deal of concern about that. It would be very desirable from the point of view of this vast number of community organizations helping the deprived and the dispossessed, if that portion of the program were again introduced, that is to say, that the project-oriented portion be given increased emphasis compared to what is suggested in the document, and that the community benefit aspect of Summer Canada be considered again as appropriate.
I should point out that in the past there was an affirmative action aspect to the program requiring that places be reserved for the disabled, women, natives and so on. We would like to see that reinstated.
There is another element in the program that concerns me also. There is a portion of the program which is based on a United Way type of campaign which depends upon private business to create jobs by a kind of propaganda effort. What worries me is that it is recommended in the document, and I hope this will be turned down, that moneys will be withdrawn from ICE, that is a wage subsidy program, in order to encourage the successful implementation of the voluntary program. I think that speaks of considerable dangers to student employment.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: On behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question of my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).
I must admit that I am a little bit surprised that the Hon. Member should raise his question this evening because, if we
Adjournment Debate
look at Hansard, it first came up last Monday. The question was raised in the House by my colleague on January 28, and the Minister did say that programs would be announced within about two weeks. Still, I am glad that my colleague has mentioned the fact that the consultation and the points raised last week have led to some results. Mr. Speaker, it goes to show that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is open to all suggestions, be it to meet with students or to answer a question on a document which has now been put into circulation and which, at the request of the Hon. Member, is the subject of a special study.
Very soon, the Minister of Employment and Immigration will announce new programs. As you know, she is now consulting the provinces, the Northwest Territories, companies, workers, students and young Canadians.
As to the questions raised by my colleague, namely: Will the same number of jobs be guaranteed? Can existing programs be replaced by other programs so as to save the same number of jobs, community projects and positive action projects, I should think that the Minister will consider the question, that it is the subject of current consultations, and that it will be included in the announcement which the Minister said last Monday would be made within about two weeks.
The Government is perfectly aware of the situation of young people, that what they need most is good job opportunities. They do not want to walk down a dead-end street as they did before. Mr. Speaker, that is why I think a distinction has to be made between being late in the year and being late, period. I know that this year the summer programs will be announced later than last year, but that does not mean we are too late. Hon. Members of the Opposition have been raising a fuss because the programs have not yet been announced, but I rest assured that all Canadian youths are patiently waiting for those new programs and, as the Minister told me, I can assure you that the announcement is forthcoming and that nobody will be disappointed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.28 p.m. the House adjourned.

Tuesday, February 5, 1985