1985-06-20

Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, Members will note the change in business for today with respect to certain items. There have been consultations between the Parties and, accordingly, we have agreed that we will deal today with certain items of legislation. Bill C-44, to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, will go to second reading, and be referred to the standing committee; followed by Bill C-26, which 1 understand will be concluded in third reading today; followed by Bill C-27, the Bill relating to equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, amendments of statutes, which will go to third reading and, finally, Bill C-36 which is a Bill relating to amendments to the Aeronautics Act.
Later today I can monitor the progress of these items of legislation. We will be proceeding with Bill C-39 and Bill C-24 in due course. I will continue to consult with the Opposition House Leaders with respect to these matters, for tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on the same point of order.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the time of the House since there was agreement between the House Leaders, but 1 wish to say that I am very disturbed at the change that is taking place because the House Leaders had made excellent progress, at page 5753. For once we were happy, we knew what we were about to discuss and now it is all changed again. 1 must say, and I would like to be on the record, that I am very disturbed by that sudden change when we were doing so well in the debate to attract the attention of Canadians on an issue that is very important.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, on the business as outlined by the Government House Leader, it is true that we have been meeting continuously over the course of the last two weeks or even longer to find ways to make progress in terms of the legislative program. The outline as we have heard it is indeed the outline of the legislation that we agreed to deal with today and tomorrow. I am hopeful that we will in time not only deal with that legislation but of course return to the other legislation and continue our assault on the Government's inadequacies with regard to the pension program.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It should be a short debate then.


Ian Deans: However, what the Government House Leader has indicated was, in fact, what we did discuss and agree upon.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader's statement a few minutes ago does reflect the discussions we have had. I also want to say that we look forward with great anticipation and desire to the return of Bill C-51 to the floor of this House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and speak on second reading of Bill C-44 which was introduced in the House on April 26 last. I presume by now that all Members will have had a chance to look at the Bill and will recognize that it is a Bill that, among other things, covers a number of housekeeping items, but in addition contains some very positive and constructive provisions.
Bill C-44 contains amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act. During the previous debate which took place in this Chamber in 1983 and 1984, it became clear that there were a number of deficiencies in the Act and a number of amendments, amendments which should have been considered and incorporated at that time but were not. It is with that in mind that we are presenting this Bill.
Further, during the course of the application of this Bill, the experience has brought about a number of other deficiencies such as the propensity for the very wide and erratic fluctuations in the producers' freight rate and the fact that certain producers are excluded from being represented on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. In recognition of this, our Party while in Opposition identified a number of these issues and made a number of commitments to correct these deficiencies, and to introduce a number of improvements into the Act

June 20, 1985
Western Grain Transportation Act
which will provide a better, more simplified and stable system for the producers of grain in western Canada.
In our Party's western caucus meeting in Prince Albert last July the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated and I quote:
Any legislation affecting western grain transportation must be designed to work for producers... A Progressive Conservative Government will make the amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act required to guarantee a growing and confident agricultural sector in western Canada.

Bill C-44, in conjunction with other initiatives undertaken by this Government, represents a fulfilment of that undertaking. In the Prince Albert declaration, we outlined our policy with respect to grain transportation, and I would like to take a few moments to review those commitments and our actions as a Government.
In Prince Albert, we made a commitment to freeze the existing freight rates paid by producers from any further increase pending the results of the legislative review of the Western Grain Transportation Act as it applies to the producers' ability to pay. Bill C-44 contains a ceiling provision ensuring that for the next two crop years, the crop years of 1985-86 and 1986-87, producers' freight rates cannot rise above the existing level, which is on average $7.70 per tonne. The amendment does allow for the rate to drop, and I am pleased to note that the CTC has indicated that on average, producers will be paying $6 per tonne to ship their grain in crop year 1985-86.
Second, we made a commitment to remove the 31.5 million tonne volume cap contained in the legislation which acts as a disincentive to increased production and exports. The volume cap provision in the Western Grain Transportation Act has been strongly criticized by most of the major farm groups in western Canada. The proposal to remove the cap contained in Bill C-44 was developed in western Canada by the Grain Transportation Administration and has been endorsed by the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, which represents a cross-section of the entire grain industry, including the producer groups and representatives of the elevator companies. We believe that given this broad support and the clear benefits of the tally system which we are proposing and have agreed to implement in the system will address the basic problems caused by the 31.5 million tonne volume cap which exists in the current legislation.
Third, we committed ourselves to imposing a moratorium on branch line abandonment and to stop any tampering with the physical aspects of any line until the legislative review is completed and all other options and innovations for continued branch line use explored. The moratorium is in place. In December, there was a request of Commissioner McDonough of the western CTC to undertake an examination of alternatives for branch lines affected by abandonment and Commissioner McDonough is due to report by June 30. I look forward to his recommendations.
Fourth, we made a commitment to immediately examine ways and means to provide improved services and equitable
rates for grain producers who are discriminated against geographically. I am pleased to inform the House that we are currently negotiating with the British Columbia Railway an agreement whereby producers in the Peace River block will benefit from the Western Grain Transportation Act. Given the importance of transportation links with the West Coast and the new Pacific Rim markets, this agreement will help develop the agricultural potential of the Peace River area. As well, the Commission under Commissioner McDonough is mandated to bring forth recommendations with respect to grain transportation services in this area and other frontier areas as well.
Fifth, we promised to include in the Western Grain Transportation Act the federal Government's commitment to branch line rehabilitation. Bill C-44 will ensure the provision of a branch line rehabilitation program funded by the Government of Canada until at least March 1990.
Sixth, we made a commitment to ensure that the railways will be much more accountable to grain producers and that they will hold annual accountability meetings with producers. Bill C-44 requires that the railways publish an annual statement of grain investment plans and will require the railways to hold annual producer meetings in all western provinces similar to those which have been held by the CNR this year and similar in nature to the accountability meetings that are held by the Canadian Wheat Board on a regular basis.
Seventh, we made a commitment to protect all the specialty crops under the Western Grain Transportation Act from railway demurrage charges. I am happy to report that no demurrage is currently being levied by the railways in this area.
Eighth, we made a commitment to remove the distortion in freight rates applying to grain and oilseeds and the processed versions of these products consistent with maintaining equal opportunities for economic development in all regions of Canada. In connection with this, the process which has been established has been done so by events over which we have had very little control.
The Hall inquiry, which was created as a result of the legislation, has completed its findings and issued a report. The Hall Report was tabled in the House on April 30. We are currently engaged in discussions with producer groups and all representatives of the grain transportation, production and handling industry. We are looking forward to the reaction to that report. The Government will have more to say on that issue in the next few weeks when the review process is established. The recommendations of the Hall inquiry are included as part and parcel of that total review.
Ninth, we made a commitment to examine ways and means to improve access to, and utilization of, producer cars which producers in all parts of Canadian Wheat Board designated areas considered to be an important and very basic right. My colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), is currently consulting with those involved to ensure that the producer's ability to order his own
June 20, 1985

car is maintained. Producer cars remain an important and vital element of the grain transportation system.
These commitments represent a comprehensive grain transportation policy. We have acted promptly to turn the commitments into action. Both the Prince Albert statement and Bill C-44 are based on considerable consultation and discussion with producers and their organizations. We have listened to their concerns and we have acted to address the problems which they have identified. We have acted in such a way that, we believe, is consistent with their desires. I am pleased to note that the contents of Bill C-44 have been well-supported generally and endorsed by producers, producer groups and all those engaged in the production and handling of the transportation of grain.
Essentially, Bill C-44 can be divided into three groups: first, the clauses dealing with the freight rate ceiling, second, the clauses which put in place the tally adjustment proposal and remove the volume cap and third, the clauses which provide a greater voice for individual producers and increased railway accountability.
With respect to the freight rate ceiling, we believe that this amendment will provide an important degree of certainty for producers in planning for the next two crop years. During the past several years, producers have been severely affected by unstable prices, rising input costs and high interest rates. Added to that burden has been a rapidly increasing freight rate that has gone from an average of $4.85 per tonne on August 1, 1983, to $7.70 today. That represents an increase of 58 per cent in less than two years.
We recognize that no one action alone will cure all the problems which face our agricultural sector. However, we believe that measures like the ceiling, combined with other initiatives such as the fuel tax rebate, the Western Grain Stabilization pay-out, the reduction in interest rates, the red meat stabilization plan, the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures, the capital gains initiative which is in the Budget and relief from high interest rates for those farmers who were locked into severely high interest rates under the provisions of the FCC, should help to break the spiral of rising costs and thereby improve the financial health of the farm community. That is the goal of our agricultural policy. I am pleased to bring in this Bill which will complement and reinforce the actions which have been taken heretofore.
These initiatives will go a long way to help restore a healthy and vibrant agricultural environment. I would indicate that if the ceiling provision is triggered, the savings experienced by producers will be absorbed by the railways. We believe this should encourage the railways to be more sensitive in controlling their costs so that any rate increase will remain below the ceiling.
To provide further stability and certainty to the western farmer, we are going to institute a tally adjustment system and remove the 31.5 million tonne volume cap. One of the principal benefits of the tally system will be to eliminate the wild year to
Western Grain Transportation Act
year fluctuations in the producer's share of the freight rate which were caused in party by the volume cap. Also eliminated will be the complex interim and final adjustment provisions which have been severely critized both inside and outside the House.
The result will be a simplified rate setting mechanism generating fair, stable rates. The producer rate will be more closely related to the actual costs incurred when his grain is shipped than it is at present, thus providing the producer with a more accurate and predictable picture of his total cost. Under the current system, rates in the future could fluctuate by $5 per tonne year over year. This kind of instability could lead to distortions in shipping patterns, which makes planning more difficult for producers and shields any true sense of the costs involved.
The tally system is quite straightforward and simple. Any amount of the Government's commitment, which is essentially the Crow benefit plus its share of inflation costs, not utilized in one crop year will be carried forward as a credit for producers. Any over-payment by Government will be set off against this credit. It is anticipated that over and under-payments will tend to balance out, leaving no significant outstanding credit remaining over the long term.
There is a $150 million limit which will act as a protection device, ensuring that no excessive balance remains in the tally. In farming, as in any business, it is important to know your costs and the tally system will give producers the stability they need to plan for the years ahead. The Senior Grain Transportation Committee recognized the value of this proposal and I hope all Hon. Members will agree that it represents a significant improvement over that contained in the current legislation.
Bill C-44 also contains a number of changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act to strengthen the role of producers in shaping the grain transportation system. Producer representation on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee will be increased from four to eight. Alberta will now have two, Saskatchewan will have three, Manitoba will have two, and for the first time British Columbia will have a representative. As promised last November, B.C. producers will have the right to choose their representative, which will take place after this legislation is passed. As a further change to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, we are making the specialty crops representative a full voting member instead of just an observer in recognition of the growing importance of these products to western agriculture. Under the current legislation, that representative sits on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as an observer only and does not have voting rights. This will be changed in this legislation and that representative will be a full voting member.
Bill C-44 will also require the railways to publish their annual statement of grain investment plans which now goes only to the Minister, the CTC, the grain transportation administrator and the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. We believe it is important that the railways demonstrate publicly their commitment to grain transportation in return for

June 20, 1985
Western Grain Transportation Act
the substantial benefits they have received under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
As I said earlier, to further enhance their accountability, we will require the railways to hold meetings with the producers in each western province every year in order to discuss grain transportation issues. We think this will not only provide an opportunity for producers and railways to iron out some difficulties, but as well it will probably be most productive in giving the railways an opportunity to put forward what they see as their future plans regarding technological change and improvements in the system, and perhaps get a better spirit of co-operation in the grain production, handling and transportation system as a whole.
This is much more than just a public relations exercise. Both producers and the railways, we believe, need a better understanding of each others problems and opportunities if we are going to have a transportation system which best serves our farmers. The railways are doing this already with some degree of success, and I think that the encouragement in this legislation will make it a process which will be expected and which will be productive.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, these are the amendments we are bringing forward. Bill C-44 does not pretend to address every issue. It deals with a number of specific and pressing matters which we felt needed immediate action. As well, the initiatives which are contained in this Bill fulfil a commitment which was made during the course of the election campaign and prior to it. There are many other issues surrounding the Western Grain Transportation Act. We believe these can most appropriately be dealt with during the comprehensive legislative review. I can assure Hon. Members that all aspects of the Act will be included in that review.
We believe that these amendments are positive. We believe they will improve the legislation and provide a better system for producers. We believe they are non-controversial and reflect representations made by farm organizations in western Canada. We believe that these amendments deserve the support and speedy passage by this House. We have the opportunity now to make these changes in time to benefit the producers during the 1985-1986 crop year. I urge all Members of the House to keep that in mind during the course of our future deliberations on this measure.
This is not an end, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that over time more changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act will be required. However, I believe it is a start in improving the Act and I hope that the House will support that objective.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to say a few words on behalf of my Party with respect to Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act. I believe the most interesting thing about this Bill is that the Minister had a lot of concerns and hesitations in supporting the Western Grain Transportation legislation when it was brought into the House a couple of
years ago. However, we see in the legislation before us today only two substantive amendments and a number of housekeeping amendments to the Bill. Clearly the Minister must have been very supportive at the time the legislation was brought into the House.
As I recall, the Minister had some 14 objections to the legislation which was originally introduced in the House and now it seems that most of those objections have totally vanished, at least to the point where the Minister is concerned about bringing in amendments to the legislation. For instance, he was very concerned about the distortion between raw grain transportation prices as well as processed products. He was very concerned about increases in the transportation costs to the agricultural community. In fact, the initial price of grain has been reduced.
The Minister was also very concerned about distortions in the diversification of the western economy, yet there seems to be nothing in the Bill with respect to that. He felt the original Bill was far too generous to the railways and yet there is no action with respect to that. He was concerned about the erosion of the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, yet there is no action in the Bill relating to that. I think we have a Bill here about which either the Minister has changed his mind or he is not concerned enough about to propose any more than two substantive amendments.
The press release issued by the Minister when the Bill received first reading said that the amendments would help western producers this coming year and give them more certainty in planning future crops. I would be interested to know exactly how this Bill provides additional help to western farmers in the 1985-86 crop year. The Minister has talked about the commitments of the Prince Albert declaration. He has talked about the actions which the Government is taking in agriculture. Any farmer in the red meat or grains industry will tell you that there has never been such a desperate situation with regard to commodity pricing. The Government has allowed 17 million pounds of subsidized European beef to come into the country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went to the United Kingdom saying that he would have great relations with the United Kingdom and solve all the problems. That is the problem with the Prime Minister. He is trying to solve every problem himself rather than giving some of that responsibility to his Minister. He is clearly making a bollix of it. At least,
1,000	carcases of subsidized beef are coming into Canada each week. There is a countervail on our hogs.
When the Minister talked about solving problems for the Canadian agricultural industry, he certainly was not referring to the red meat industry. When the President of the United States returned home after the Quebec summit, he imposed a countervail on hogs and unilaterally established a bonus program of $2 billion from reserves of grain to subsidize their wheat sales. That will have a devastating impact on western agriculture. It will reduce the price of grain by 10 to 15 per
June 20, 1985

cent, all of that in spite of the great song and dance team in Quebec City.
1 will not take the time of the House to recite all the other promises in the Prince Albert declaration which the Government has broken. However, it has reimposed 9 cents a gallon on farm fuel. In Western Canada that is called the "harvest tax" because it goes into effect on September 1. The Government broke its promise on agri-bonds. It is imposing a 1 per cent sales tax. The Minister talked about action in the farm debt crisis, but there has been no action in that area in the Budget or the Estimates of the Department.
Perhaps one of the worst breaches of promise by the Prime Minister was his failure to freeze freight rates at the 1983-84 levels. This Bill freezes them at the 1984-85 levels which are at least 20 per cent higher than those of 1983-84. Three days before the Bill was tabled in the House, the Canadian Transport Commission reported the rate scale for the upcoming year. The new rates for 1985-86 are in fact 22 per cent lower than the rates for 1984-85.
The Minister rushed the Bill into the House for first reading on April 26 because he knew that if he did not he would look very silly after April 29 guaranteeing that the rates would not exceed a level 22 per cent higher than what they already were. If this Bill had frozen rates at the 1983-84 levels or the 1985-86 levels, it would mean something. By choosing the 1984-85 rates, the high point in the cycle, the Minister is giving nothing to western farmers. His freeze is meaningless. The Minister is trying to take credit for a rate reduction which occurred naturally in any event.
The gift for which the Minister is trying to take credit is more or less like giving away the sleeves of his vest. With the reduced volumes, the rates in the crop year 1986-87 are not likely to exceed the levels which he froze them at last year. In Prince Albert last July, the Prime Minister made the very serious promise that he would freeze the rates at the 1983-84 levels rather than at the higher 1984-85 levels. Western farmers are very aware of that commitment and feel the Government should have carried through on it.
The Minister spoke about removing the volume cap. I feel that the amendments proposed in this Bill are commendable, but they do not really remove the volume cap. They simply create a new system for setting rates where the increases in volume over the cap in one year are set against years when the cap is not reached. It is assumed that over time these years will even out so that the producer will pay the same amount, but will not see the large fluctuations in rates which have occurred in the last two years. Unfortunately, while the new tally adjustment is fair for the system as a whole, it is not fair to individual producers whose year-to-year shipments do not necessarily reflect the over-all swings in the system. For example, a farmer who pays a higher rate than he should in one year is not necessarily the same farmer who will benefit from a lower rate the next year.
We support the changes scheduled for the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. We are in favour of seeing the
Western Grain Transportation Act representation increased. We would be interested to know why there have been no elections to fill the existing positions.
The branch line abandonment agreements have been signed with the railways, completing the promised program. The full commitment has been kept. It is the present Minister who has cut back the work to be done this year and moved the whole program back. Perhaps it is a good thing to put the commitment in the Act. It will save future cuts by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).
We are all aware of what the Deputy Prime Minister is doing in that regard. He chooses a couple of bankers from Toronto or Montreal who study the Estimates of the department under consideration and make massive cuts. Each year for the next five years, $50 million will be cut from the Department of Agriculture. That will have a devastating impact on that department. We do not know exactly where the cuts will be made, but there is clearly a commitment in the Budget to cut the expenditures of the Department of Agriculture. I would like to know if any of those cuts will apply to western grain producers. I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has access to that information. It would be very useful if he would provide that to the House this afternoon because from reading the budget documents, it is not clear where those cuts will occur. There is great apprehension.
Yesterday, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture met to plan action in response to the Government's lack of action in its Budget and the increase in farm input costs as a result of increased sales tax and excise tax on fuel.
The Minister mentioned the Hall committee report which came out in April. He has had ample time to consider its recommendations. He certainly objected to the current method of payments when the Bill was originally introduced and favoured a freedom of choice with regard to the Crow benefit payment. However, he never clearly identified what that freedom of choice position meant.
Many of his caucus colleagues were opposed to railway payments. That was one reason for the establishment of the Hall commission. Although it has reported, the Minister, to my understanding, has not yet indicated his preferred method for making that Crow benefit payment. The Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard), has taken a clear stand. He supports the UPA position in Quebec. Many of his caucus colleagues from Alberta favour a direct payment.
We would like to know if the Minister's position with regard to the Hall committee is to pay the railroads, pay the grain producers or a combination of those? Clearly, while this legislation makes a few substantive amendments, it does not deal with the 14 main objections made by the Minister when the original Western Grain Transportation Act was passed. Some of the objections he made at the time were the reduction of the power of the Wheat Board, the distortion in pricing between raw grain and processed products, the increased cost
6018

June 20, 1985
Western Grain Transportation Act
to the agricultural community, a concern about diversifying the western agricultural economy and the too generous payments to the railroads. This Bill does not address those concerns or many other recommendations made by the Minister at that time.
When this Bill goes to the Standing Committee, I hope he will be able to clarify his position on those more substantial issues. While we agree with a freeze on transportation rates, the campaign commitment was to freeze them at the 1983-84 level, not at the higher level as the Minister has done.
Essentially he is giving away nothing. It will not only have a zero impact in the coming year, it will have a zero impact in the following crop year. In light of all the other objections he raised to the original Western Grain Transportation Act, we can only assume that these amendments are the only ones that the Minister believed essential to be introduced at this time. Either he has forgotten about those other objections or it was simply a smoke and mirror operation.
We are looking forward to the Minister clarifying his position on these many other points and objections which he has made in the past and therefore we support this Bill in order for it to go to committee.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Only by unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this Bill with some mixed feelings. The Minister will know from the bitter times of 1982-1983 and part of 1984 why my feelings are somewhat mixed. Of course, one definition of mixed feelings is watching one's monther-in-law go over a cliff in one's new car.
The system for sharing the cost of transportation of grain and other agricultural commodities in Canada, particularly from western Canada, has been in place in one form or another since the 1890s. Governments and Canadians since that time have recognized that because of our geography and the distance which we must move our commodities to reach export positions, as well as the activities of our competitors, that grain producers should not be called upon to pay the entire cost of transporting grain to export positions. As a nation we agreed to share the cost of moving that grain because its export benefits the country to the tune of some $4 billion or $5 billion a year in foreign exchange.
The activities of our competitors placed our grain producers in an awkward situation on a number of occasions. Furthermore, Argentina, one of our competitors, produces most of its grain within 200 miles of salt water-certainly not more than 500 miles. As well, the Government of Argentina has been moving that grain to export positions at no cost to the grain producers. Australia produces most of its grain within 200
miles of salt water. However, our average haul of grain to export positions is approximately 1,000 miles.
The United States has access to a massive inland water system, which is the cheapest way to move heavy bulk commodities like grain, and it was heavily subsidized and built at the taxpayers' expense because the U.S. corps of army engineers built it. Moreover, the United States subsidizes its grain producers by an amount of $8 to $12 a tonne. The European Economic Community has subsidies between $20 and $24 a tonne. We cannot expect our grain producers of western Canada to compete against the treasuries of those competing nations and organizations.
Those of us who live in the West want to ensure that the rest of Canada understands that situation as well as the fact that public funds being invested for capital improvements in the railway system not only helps to move grain but all commodities. Presently, grain only represents approximately 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the track capacity through British Columbia, while the remainder is taken up with other commodities. Therefore, this is not only a benefit to grain producers.
When the previous Government set out to destroy the Crow rate, it was our position that the railroad claims for losses were excessive, and that the Government should receive an equivalent value of equity ownership for any money given by the Government of Canada to the railroads for capital improvements. In other words, if $300 million goes to CN, the Government's equity ownership in shares in CN is automatically increased by that amount. On any funds going to Canadian Pacific, the Government of Canada should get common voting stock of an equivalent value. It seems to us that public investment, investment by taxpayers, is just as much entitled to a return on the investment as any private investor.
Why do we as a nation continue to hand the railroads money and get no return on it? That is a good sound private enterprise principle to which I am trying to educate my colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative Parties. If you are going to give Canadian Pacific money, take common equity voting shares in return and when a dividend is paid, the taxpayers will get something back on their investment. Taxpayers are just as much entitled as a private investor to an opportunity for a return on an investment. We will keep trying to persuade the Minister and the Government to act in that manner, which is an even more responsible use of public funds.
The Minister spoke about the rate freeze. I urge him to correct his Bill to state that the rate established for the 1985-86 crop year shall be the maximum rate for the ensuing two crop years. He himself was talking about freezing the rates at the 1984-85 level of $7.70 a tonne, yet in the next breath the Minister said that was something like a 53 per cent, 55 per cent or whatever figure increase in costs for western grain producers. He sounded to me that he thought that was too high an increase. I certainly agree with that. Why not have the Bill say that the rate that comes into effect for the coming 1985-86 crop year shall be the maximum rate for the ensuing
June 20, 1985

two crop years? Then you would have a genuine three year rate freeze.
I want to say to the Minister that we have had discussions, but I want to remind him about the situation in Prince Rupert. First, he mentions that there is no demurrage being charged on railway cars for specialty crops. When the committee was in Prince Rupert a while back, we were informed by employees who work around those terminals that some of the shippers and receivers are using those railway cars as storage. They let them pile up, back up. There are loaded cars sitting for weeks and months at a time waiting for a ship to come in. That is a very bad misuse of our railway cars. I would urge the Minister to take a second look at that matter. Perhaps he could check into whether there is an abuse. He has the power to make the shippers and receivers pay demurrage on those excessive delays to those kinds of shipments.
Second, when the committee held hearings in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, we were urged to make use of the old grain terminal at Prince Rupert. We were told that it should not be closed down but used for specialty crops and for surge capacity and cleaning and drying facilities. That terminal is still a good terminal. The federal Government a number of years ago put quite a few million dollars into upgrading it. It needs to be kept in place. If the consortium, the Prince Rupert Grain Company, does not want to operate it, then the Minister should.
I have come to the point about the argument concerning moneys provided under the Western Grain Transportation Act being paid to the railroad or whether that should be paid directly to the producers. We oppose the payments directly to producers for a number of reasons. We are not alone in our opposition. The three Prairie pools oppose it. The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities opposes it, the Saskatchewan Cow-Calf Operators opposes it and the National Farmers Union opposes it.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and myself had an opportunity to meet with officers of UPA in Quebec last week. I suppose that is probably the largest farm organization in the country. The UPA adamantly opposes any direct payments to producers. I hope that is sufficient to persuade the Minister that he will not mess around with those payments, that he will continue to pay the railways and that he will finally agree to take equity ownership for any money given the railroads for capital investment.
The Minister in the Bill is increasing the number of representatives on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee by adding a representative from the Peace River district. We agree with that. We feel that if the Government is going to be expanding the membership of the committee, and here I am making a pitch for my own province, that that committee should adequately represent the Province of Saskatchewan. Why should the producers of 50 per cent or more of all the grain in western Canada not be represented 50 per cent? We would like to see the Minister increase the number in the Bill from eight to 10, so the Bill would read one representative from the Peace River country, two representatives each from
Western Grain Transportation Act Manitoba and Alberta and five from Saskatchewan. That would be a fair producer representation based to some degree on numbers, certainly based on Saskatchewan production, which is more than both Alberta and Manitoba put together.
The Minister is expanding the membership and moving the representatives for the non-permit bookholders, that will be the producers of specialty crops and so forth, to actual voting membership status rather than observer status. We agree with that. Again, the Minister will recall that when we were debating the original Bill, he and I succeeded in getting that observer status. We also succeeded in getting a representative on the committee from the trade union movement involved in the grain transportation business and grain handling.
I am asking the Minister if he would be willing to do it himself or accept an amendment that moves labour representative from observer status to full status. We think it would be proper to have two representatives from the labour movement, one from part of the labour movement involved in the transportation of grain, namely the railroad workers, and one representative from those who handle the grain, the grain handlers, longshoremen and so forth. We should have a representative from each of those categories. I would like the Minister to consider that, but we can talk about it some more in the committee. We think the committee could have representatives from other fields.
We have representatives from the producers, the elevators, the shippers, the haulers, the bureaucrats, the shipping companies and the truckers. Why can we not have representatives from the labour movement, as well as representatives from the port and harbour commissions involved in grain movement? I think they should also be on that committee. Should there not be a representative from Prince Rupert, one from Vancouver and one from Thunder Bay on the committee? There is also the St. Lawrence Seaway to consider. At least its representatives should be there as observers.
Grain producers have been waiting two years since the Bill became law. Farmers and all other people involved in the industry are waiting to get on with shaping the future of grain transportation. While we want the Peace River district and non-permit book holders to be voting representatives and to give advice to the Minister and the administrators, we also want to get on with the business of the committee. The Minister could put the committee to work and put these amendments entrain at the same time.
Section 62 of the Act provides for a full-scale review of all effects of the original Bill brought in by the Liberals to kill the Crow so that, as Hall said, the review could be done two years later. This would be after the committee had been fully constituted, had completed its collection of data, and had made small technical and regulatory changes which may or may not make the provisions of the Bill more or less useful.
I am sure the Minister will take this under advisement. In any event, I am sure he has taken the advice of his own administrators and advisory committee which recommended a

June 20, 1985
Western Grain Transportation Act
delay in the completion of the review period for at least two years. They recommended this delay because the changes and effects appeared to be greater and different from those contemplated by the former regime. I suspect the Conservatives plan even more changes, although the Minister has not dared to bring them in because they would open up other parts of the Act with which perhaps he does not want us to deal at this time. He does not want us to talk about Section 45, which brings me to the whole issue of variable rates. I presume the Minister received, yesterday or this morning, the written submission of the three prairie wheat pools. I do not know why he is reluctant to have us deal with Section 45. The former Minister, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), built in enough protection against variable rates to last him until after the election. That time has run out, as has the protection.
Last year CN applied under the minimal protection of Section 45(2) to offer lower rates. When CTC demanded proof that it would benefit farmers, the railway withdrew its application. However, starting this December there will no burden of proof and the variable rates nightmare will be upon us again.
It is our position that if railroads want to set a lower rate to move grain under certain circumstances, for example on weekends or in slack time periods during the shipping season, that if they lower the rate for one grain producer, they must lower it for all grain producers. There should be no discrimination. The wheeling and dealing between CN and Northern Transportation Limited in an attempt to obtain a variable rate on a certain part of trackage in central Saskatchewan might be nice and might reduce the costs of grain producers along that line. However, what about grain producers along other lines? It is discriminatory and unfair. Railroads should not be allowed to do it. Certainly, they should not be allowed to apply for variable rates until the grain transportation committee is in place and has had time to do a lot of work, and until the review period has been completed.
The three pools made a recommendation in their submission indicating that Section 45(2) be amended as it did not apply prior to the completion of the comprehensive review in Part V, Section 62 of the Act, particularly Section 62(b).


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired, unless the House chooses to let him continue by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has given the Hon. Member unanimous consent.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their consideration. I just want to complete my remarks on the variable rates and on one other small matter before I resume my seat.
The three wheat pools went on to indicate that that Section did not apply prior to the 1986-87 crop year, except in respect
of a lower rate which would, in the opinion of the commission, encourage and reflect efficiencies gained from the loading or unloading of railway cars on weekend. Given that the legislation also calls for a comprehensive review in 1985-86, which included the entire Section relating to the rate scale, it is their belief that Section 45(2) was included with the understanding that Section 45(1) would not apply until the general review had been undertaken and completed. We cannot have a ridiculous situation where there is an ongoing review and the railroads open up the nightmare again with applications for variable rates.
I hope the Minister will consider bringing in the amendment at committee which the three prairie wheat pools requested. Perhaps he does not want us to deal with Section 62 relating to a full-scale review next year. That is much too soon to be of any real value in determining the effects of the legislation. We think that it should go back an additional crop year or two, so that the vagaries of prairie weather and the differences in productions and export sales over the previous two or three years could be taken into account and that there will be no adverse effect upon the review period itself.
Before the election the Minister, when he was trying to convince western farmers that they would be protected by the Conservatives, said that he wanted a three-year moratorium on rate increases. That was better than nothing, but where is it today? It is a freeze at the higher level of the 1984-85 crop year. In order to keep his commitment to western grain producers, I think he will accept our suggestion that the maximum rate should be that of 1985-86 and should apply for the two subsequent crop years.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that we will have three or four amendments. I will endeavour to get copies of them to him today or tomorrow, as we have not quite finished preparing them. This will provide him with an opportunity to look at them before discussing them with us when the committee meets to consider this bill next Tuesday, I presume it is. I assure him that we think the improvements in the Bill outweigh its deficiencies. We are hoping that he will agree to some changes and additions to the legislation which we believe would make it even better in correcting some of the things that are wrong in the original Western Grain Transportation Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Mazankowski, seconded by Mr. Hnaty-shyn, moves that Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I called the question. I asked whether the House was ready for the question and nobody objected. I am therefore in some difficulty.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
June 20, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Let me indicate to Hon. Members that I have had the opportunity to examine Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 2 on the Notice Paper in amendment at the report stage of Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I have found them both procedurally in order and therefore intend to group them for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 2.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-26, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 10 to 14 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"lived with that person for at least one year,"
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-26, be amended
(a)	by renumbering Clause 11 as subclause I 1(1)
(b)	by adding immediately after line 2 at page 9 the following:
"(2) For the period commencing on the day this Act is assented to and ending on August 31, 1985, the definition "spouse" in section 2 of the Old Age Security Act shall be deemed to read as follows:
" "spouse", in relation to a pensioner, includes a person of the opposite sex who has lived with the pensioner for at least one year and the pensioner and that person have publicly represented themselves as man and wife;"."


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this very important debate on Bill C-26. We all know the admirable objective of this legislation which is to enable the elderly, that is, widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65, to receive the Old Age Security pension or the supplement, and we in the Liberal
Old Age Security Act
Party are very pleased with the Bill, but we do have a problem with certain discriminatory provisions.
Mr. Speaker, a Government that discriminates on the basis of marital status is not acting according to the spririt and the letter of the Canadian Constitution. Mr. Speaker, this very Parliament made a commitment not to indulge in any discrimination on the basis of language, sex, and so forth, and now one of the Government's first pieces of legislation is in fact telling single people who are members of a religious order, for instance, that they will not be eligible for pension benefits when they turn 60. Just because they decided to dedicate their lives to the education of our young people, and to the community, they will have to wait until they are 65. We are telling divorced individuals who have had problems during their working lives, problems in their marriages-Mr. Speaker, this is fairly common-that they are being penalized for not sticking with their husband or wife. That is what we are telling them. We are saying: no, no, no!
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, around the card table at the senior citizens' club, a women who is 61, whose husband died during World War II and her partner who got a divorce because while her husband was away from home, he found himself a young chick-


Mrs. Champagne:: Such language!


Jean-C. Lapierre: The first woman is getting a pension and the second is not. That is the kind of situation you will hear about at the senior citizens' club in Saint-Hyacinthe. That is the kind of situation the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) will have to explain to senior citizens in her riding. Why penalize people who were divorced or separated on perfectly legitimate grounds? Mr. Speaker, you will agree that this is intolerable. We cannot afford to discriminate in this way. I know, and I am very pleased to see the Minister of State (Youth), because although she is very busy with youth, she is also concerned about senior citizens because she has their respect. I know she cannot go along with these provisions, that she will go to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and tell him: You do not realize what you are doing. Do you realize you are going to cause quarrels among old friends? They are going to be watching you. Mr. Speaker, these women unfortunately do not always have the resources to defend themselves. They are not always in a position to come and demonstrate or let the Government know the error of its ways.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that old age means a lot of loneliness. There are elderly women sitting in their living rooms right now who are wondering why they are being penalized because they were separated from their husbands and why they are being penalized because they got a divorce, for all kind of reasons. Is it up to the Government to make that kind of moral judgment? That is what I cannot tolerate in this Government. I cannot tolerate that people make judgments on

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act
the marital status of individuals. And that is what we are doing. If we did not intend to do this, why not say: We have the resources to do so much. That is, reduce the eligible age across the board to 64, 63 or 62. Do it in stages, but be fair. Be fair, because you will soon realize that people in our communities and in senior citizens' clubs across the country are going to be upset when they realize they are getting a raw deal because of their marital status. How dare you brand these people who have had problems in their lives? This is something I cannot tolerate. I think life has been hard enough on them already without the Government adding to their burden.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) engaged in a heroic struggle to try and make Government Members understand this. He circulated petitions across the country, and not even the thousands of signatures on these petitions were able to make this Government budge one bit, a Government that is obviously too insensitive to budge. Ever since they came to power, Mr. Speaker, they have been attacking the elderly in our society. We are not going to stand for that. We cannot tolerate a Government that has no respect for the people who built this country. We cannot tolerate that people who made sacrifices for years and years so they could give us the Canada we know today should be penalized either by de-indexation or because of their marital status.
Unfortunately, we are faced with a dilemma: we want to help widows and widowers, and we are sorry for those who are single, separated or divorced. Imagine the case of a single person who has helped his parents and his brothers and sisters all his life, and in fact given up his personal life to help them, and who today is being penalized for having made that sacrifice. Imagine the case of a person who got a divorce for whatever reason and who today wonders: What did I do wrong? Why will the Government not give me my pension and why is someone else who is widowed entitled to one? Imagine the problems in implementing Bill C26! Departmental officials are already telling us it is impossible to implement. Imagine the case of a person who was widowed recently or someone who has not heard from her husband for years. Is she separated? Is she widowed? Mr. Speaker, a distinguished lawyer like yourself will know that the application of a discriminatory piece of legislation creates all sorts of legal problems and I do not understand why the Government did not extend the application of this Bill to everyone.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, to whom I want to pay homage because if there is one Member in this House who is concerned for senior citizens, he is the one, has organized a major operation called "Justice pour person-nes agees". I am convinced that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) will agree that his Bill is discriminatory. He even raised the issue himself by wondering what the courts could do if its application were to be questioned.
Mr. Speaker, we have had many opportunities to debate this matter in the House and I do not understand why not one single Member on the other side seems to share our concerns. I cannot believe that it is only in Liberal constituencies that there are single, separated or divorced people! For my part, I know that in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, there are many single, separated and divorced people, and I do not understand why their Member of Parliament, who has a lot of influence with the Minister of National Health and Welfare because of her duties, did not come to their defence. I am still waiting for her speech in this House to defend people living alone, just as I am still waiting for her speech on the indexation of old age security pensions. I have read her statements with great disappointment, but this Bill was introduced to correct an unfair situation as we all know that people living alone face more hardship and are in a more difficult financial situation. However, in trying to correct one injustice, this Bill has created another one which is even more serious. Mr. Speaker, this is what we find difficult to accept, and I hope that, after having had the opportunity to listen to our many representations, our colleagues will reconsider and admit that you cannot discriminate against older people on the basis of their marital status.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to the amendment to the Old Age Security Act which I put forward for consideration today at report stage of Bill C-26. The amendment concerns the definition of common-law spouse in Bill C-26.
As the Bill is currently drafted, the definition of common-law spouse requires that there be a public representation as husband and wife with a cohabitation period of at least three years where there is a bar to marriage and if there is no bar to marriage, this period is reduced to one year. With this amendment to Bill C-26, the Old Age Security Act, the definition of common-law spouse will simply state that the minimum cohabitation period required is one year.
When I spoke on Bill C-26 at second reading stage, I raised this matter as I could not see any reason that a distinction between common-law spouses who had a bar to marriage and those who did not might be of significance. In fact, it merely serves to discriminate against a small portion of potential beneficiaries. I am sure this discrimination was completely inadvertent, but I am pleased to have this opportunity to correct it.
As well, this amendment brings the Old Age Security Act in line with another piece of legislation which is currently at committee stage, Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief. I would like to mention a couple of points that have come up. It should be clearly understood that this allowance is subject to an incomes test. The other thing I would like to point out is that it will go a long way toward assisting spouses who are between the ages of 60 and 64 inclusive who have lost their partners and have been dis-
June 20, 1985

criminated against in the past. This amendment will ensure fairness in the application of the Act.
Because of the words of the previous speaker, I would like to mention one other thing. It is the intention that when this series of Acts is completed, it will be possible for two women to be drawing an allowance, one the legal wife and the other the common-law wife. After all, the reason they are drawing allowances is because they are both between the ages of 60 and 64. Although they are products of the shattered marriage, there is no difference in their need. Consequently, it would be possible for both of them to draw the allowance.
I would like to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for allowing me to speak to this amendment. I would suggest that it would be appropriate to hear from the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) who will present Motion No. 2 standing in her name.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am both pleased and sad to rise to speak to Bill C-26. I am pleased, for we will speak before the present "minister of social injustice" and the former Minister of National Health and Welfare-


An Hon. Member:: They are not listening!


Jean-Claude Malépart: -in the Conservative Government of Mr. Clark who is now the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). I wish he were still Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Claude Malépart: -because he was much more open. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the "minister of social injustice" would rather not listen to my remarks, for he knows I am right.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment under consideration. But with respect to the principle of the Bill-


An Hon. Member:: He is talking about you guys!


Jean-Claude Malépart: -it still is a measure which discriminates against people living alone and others who are single, separated or divorced. As a token of appreciation on the part of this Conservative Government, 80,000 people in Canada will soon find out that they are being penalized and ineligible for the spouse's allowance-and 80 per cent of them are women- simply because they are single, separated or divorced.
As we have seen in the current debate concerning the elderly and the deindexation of old age security pensions, it is more of the same from a Government which operates on the strength of opinion polls, makes hackneyed pronouncements, a faithful image of their leader the Prime Minister. When those people promised to make widows and widowers eligible for the
Old Age Security Act
spouse's allowance, it was simply because they had to say something during the election campaign to attract the elderly.
Since the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) is in the House, I recall that she intervened during the election campaign after an article was published in the newspaper La Presse. She called a press conference right then and there to claim that the bad Liberals in her riding and the surrounding regions were saying that the Progressive Conservative Party would reduce old age security pensions. And I recall she had boasted that her Party would help widows and widowers as well as needy people living alone. I reacted immediately, called the journalist in question and explained to him that the Conservatives wanted to discriminate against people who are single, separated or divorced. The Minister of State then responded by saying: We will index pensions every three months. I said to the journalist: That is the way it is now. To that she replied: It is the Canada Pension Plan we will index every three months. I am not blaming her today, she did not know what this Government would do-deindex old age security pensions.


Michel Champagne: Do not put words in my mouth.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of State (Youth) wants it that way, I will get the newspaper articles, it is all there in black and white. If you want a debate on that issue, I would be pleased to argue with you.


Marcel Prud'homme: On channel 10!


Jean-Claude Malépart: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to get back to the Bill before the "minister of social injustice"-


An Hon. Member:: He is not listening!


Jean-Claude Malépart: -and next to him his colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I like to give credit where credit is due, and if the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who, in 1979, had agreed that the spouse's allowance should continue to be paid to the beneficiary when he or she became-


Mr. Gormley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It may be due to the English translation, but I am wondering if it is appropriate for the Minister to be referred to continually as less than the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if that is appropriate conduct on behalf of the Hon. Member, as he is twisting the usage of a ministerial title.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think it is unparliamentary. [Translation]
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act


Mr, Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how people translate, but I translate the feeling of the people, what they think of the current performance of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). They call him the Minister of Social Injustice-


Mr. Ferland:: This is not what he said!


Jean-Claude Malépart: All people in Canada.
[ Translation]
I will not repeat Mrs. Denis' comments, in which she voiced what she thought of the Prime Minister. You have read it in the papers.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give credit to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) a Progressive Conservative Member who, when he was Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1979, decided and rightly so, with the support of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party at the time, to maintain the spouse's allowance after one of the spouses had deceased. At that time we, Liberals, said in committee: We are in agreement with that, Mr. Minister, but will your measure be retroactive because those who were not eligible before will be penalized? The Minister had given an open, gentlemanly answer: "Yes, that is reasonable. If you will allow me, I will go back to the Cabinet, because this involves extra expenditures, and I will return to you with an answer". The then Minister-he was not a Liberal but a Progressive Conservative Minister-was discharging his responsibility as a Minister of National Health and Welfare should, as the defender of senior citizens, of poor families-


An Hon. Member:: Charlie Brown.


Jean-Claude Malépart: -of persons in need as Mrs. Begin did so well, my colleague is saying. It must be added to the credit of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who was then Minister of National Health and Welfare, a determined man who won his point in Cabinet and everybody celebrated, not because it was a Liberal or a Progressive Conservative or a New Democratic victory, but because it was obtaining social justice for our seniors. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, I gave courteous notice to the current Minister of social injustice. Before the Christmas holidays, I started with that. Honestly, I believed it was a technical oversight, everybody being subject to human error. The Minister of National Health and Welfare was forewarned. I made representations. Some groups appeared before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and they all expressed the same views. It was at the time when the Prime Minister, this government and even the Minister of social injustice were bragging that unlike the former government they were going to consult. All the groups came here, but the Minister did not budge. Not only was the minister unable to win his case in Cabinet to help women of 60 and 62 years of age, single, separated or divorced
persons, maybe he did not have the guts to attend the meetings, but he only tried to sell the stories of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and act as spokesman for high finance in Ontario. He did not fulfil his role which was to act fairly towards our senior citizens in need. Never mind the rich people. One of my constituents, a battered woman, now abandoned by her husband, made sacrifices to rear her children alone and pay for their education. She is living on welfare alone, which does not mean below the poverty line but rather below the extreme poverty line. The present Minister of National Health and Welfare answered that woman as follows: My dear lady, I understand your concern, but the government will continue to help you through social welfare. In other words, what it means is: "My dear lady, you are poor and you find it difficult to make ends meet, but you should find solace in the thought that you are always on our mind". The government absolutely refuses to act to remedy the situation.
There is a 63 year old lady, a Mrs. Denis who lives in the vicinity and who does not belong to any senior citizens group who came yesterday on Parliament Hill to give the Prime Minister a piece of her mind, just like that, simply because she was outraged. When she spoke, she expressed what each and every senior citizen in this country feels about the Prime Minister and his government. This is not something we should be proud about, for the Parliamentary system and people involved in politics really suffer when a Prime Minister is taken to task like that. And if we suffer, it is because of the actions of a number of individuals. We have now reached the report stage. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) again will have the opportunity to correct me if I am wrong when I say that his responsibility is not to stand up for big business, but that he is here to do what Mrs. Begin, his predecessor and former Minister of Social Affairs, used to do and what a Conservative colleague of his did more recently, namely, to stand up in Cabinet and ask for additionsl funds to help these people. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is well aware that when he grants the spouse's allowance, which is similar to the Old Age Security pension for those on Social Welfare, the government gives with one hand and saves 50 per cent with the other. The Minister is indeed well aware of that. It has nothing to do with party politics; it is simply a matter of social justice for all the people concerned.
I remember, on Remembrance Day, the three party leaders and their supporters in the House rising to pay tribute to those who had lost their lives on the battlefield. I wondered at the time who was going to take care of all these women who had to live away from their husbands who had gone to war and who had suffered because of the war, and whom the government rewards today with a firm "No". In each and every riding of this country, there is at least one person between 60 and 62 years of age who is single. She is generally the eldest in a family of some 10 children who has spent her live in a rural
June 20, 1985

community and quit school very early to help her parents raise her brothers and sisters. And now, having paid her dues to society, she has to try and find a job on the labour market, because she is told that she should have married and become a widow.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is about to expire, but you can rest assured that I will continue to press my point when we deal with the next amendment.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a second amendment to propose to Clause 11. This amendment would result in a change to the Old Age Security Act to reduce the period of cohabitation to one year in the case of common law unions, which change would come into effect immediately after Royal Assent. Without this amendment, the present definition requiring a minimum of three years of cohabitation where there is an obstacle to remarriage would remain in effect until September and deprive a number of people who have been living in such a situation for over a year and less than three from being eligible to make use of this provision.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-26 this afternoon as well. First, let me say that I am pleased that under the provisions of Bill C-26, approximately 85,000 widows and widowers in this country will now receive the spouse's allowance. Those 85,000 people, of course, are primarily women. I come from a riding in Saskatchewan which is very much a rural riding. It has a lot of small towns and villages and there are a lot of retired farmers. As I travel through those small towns in rural Saskatchewan I find that in home after home there is a woman living by herself. For some reason, women tend to outlive men, perhaps particularly in Saskatchewan. I find there is a tremendous amount of poverty among those women in my riding. They are living in dire straits with very little to live on. Life is very difficult for them. There have been many sad cases in my riding year after year where a spouse has passed away-almost certainly the man-and the wife is left with no money whatsoever. She has had to turn to social services to get some money in order to buy her daily food, to pay her heating bills or to buy clothing. So, Mr. Speaker, I welcome, indeed, the Bill which is before the House today in terms of the fact that it will provide a spouse's allowance for some 85,000 people.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate the argument our Party has made many times before in this House with respect to pensions. I think primarily, of course, of the person who sat near me for many years in the House of Commons, Mr. Stanley Knowles, the former Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. He made many, many speeches in this House with respect to pensions. He was the champion sans exception of the cause of pensioners in Canada. Before him, of
Old Age Security Act
course, there was J. S. Woodsworth, the former national Leader of the CCF who also made the cause of pensions a very important issue. If we go back to the beginning, we find that it was Mr. Woodsworth and a few Hon. Members of this House, along with the Liberal Government of Mackenzie King, who decided to bring in the first pension plan in Canada. It happened at that time to be a minority Parliament and Mr. Woodsworth and his colleagues in those days said, "We'll keep this Government in power for a little while in return for some good progressive legislation for Canadians", and the primary result of that legislation was the first old age pension plan in this country. The pension was very small. It did not take effect until, I believe, age 70, and there was a means test attached to it. But because of J. S. Woodsworth and a small group of Hon. Members of Parliament many years ago using their power in a minority Parliament as leverage, we received in this country our first old age pension plan.
The legacy was passed on when Mr. Woodsworth passed away and, in a by-election in 1942, Stanley Knowles was elected to this House. He took up the cause of championing the needs of senior citizens and pensioners in this country. He made speech after speech in this House over the years about the problems senior citizens face. He tried to get the pensions improved so that the people who built this country, who laid its foundation, could live in dignity. He made many speeches about the problems of widows and widowers and the fact that many of these people do not have money to live in dignity in these small towns and cities of our land. So it is his legacy, I suppose, that we bring into this debate today.
One thing I am sure he would have pointed out is that, in a way, this legislation is really discriminatory because it applies only to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 years and 65 years. If a person is between the ages of 60 and 65 and is divorced, he or she does not qualify for the spouse's allowance. If a person is between the ages of 60 and 65, is single, has never been married, even though he or she is poor and would qualify on the basis of the means test, he or she would not qualify because of not being a widow or widower.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in this 20th century, having proclaimed a few months ago Section 15 the equality section of the Charter of Rights, are we doing the right thing? We are discriminating on the basis of marital status, on the basis of whether it is a marriage in the traditional sense or a common law marriage. The amendments moved in the House today will, I guess, bring this legislation in line with the Divorce Act, which will become law in this country in a few months time. I just wonder whether it is right and proper that we should have that kind of discrimination built into the Bill which is before us today, although, as I said before, I support extending the spouse's allowance to those 85,000 Canadians who need it, many in my own riding and most of them women, I would assume. It relieves these women who have no other source of income of having to make that trip downtown to ask for social aid.
I think as far as it goes, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a very good move. This legislation will cost, I believe, $190

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act
million in the next year, and in the first year it comes fully into effect it will cost $300 million. I think that is a very good thing in terms of those 85,000 people. But when it comes to the single people of this country-and according to statistics there are a lot of single poor, both men and women, living in big cities in small one-room apartments, living in small towns in little tiny houses-between the ages of 60 years and 65 years and unable to work,-those people will not qualify. Why is it that a married person should qualify over someone who is not? That really makes me hesitate. Why is it that someone divorced because of incompatibility or whatever, would not qualify while her next door neighbour, whose husband has passed away, would qualify even though she has exactly the same kind of background and economic ability to pay her own way? I think we should look at those very important questions.
What I would like to argue for, Mr. Speaker, is bringing down the pension age year by year to the age of 60 for everyone, and it should be universal just as medical care in this country is universal. The basic old age pension is now universal for people at the age of 65 years or over. I think we should bring down, one year at a time, as their country can afford it, the pension age to age 60 years for each and every citizen and not just for widows and widowers who happen to live in poverty.
This benefit also, of course, has attached to it a means test. One receives the spouse's benefit if one needs it because one has very little or no other source of income. Of course, we all want to help people in our society who are in need. We hear Hon. Members of the House and members of the media sometimes saying, "Why does Pierre Trudeau need a pension? Why does someone that wealthy need a pension?" Why does the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) need a pension? He is probably a pretty good farmer and will be a fairly wealthy guy when he becomes 60 years of age.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Why does Ed need a limousine?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I did not hear the interjection but I believe it was confirmation of the Minister of Transport's wealth. The arguments are made that we should take all this money and spend it on the poor in this country. But the problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that we then have to establish a means test. We would have a ruthless division of classes in our country- one that has and one that has not-and that creates a lot of turmoil.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are you arguing for or against a pension for me?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am arguing for a pension for him regardless of his wealth, regardless of how much money he may or may not have, because they should be universal. That is my whole point. I support this Bill because it helps 85,000 widows and widowers, but I do so with a certain amount of hesitation. It discriminates against single and divorced people. The concept of universality is once again going out of the window. Regardless of one's background, we should all qualify for the pension. If you have children, you should qualify for the family allowance. If you are an older and poorer person, whether you are married or single, you should still qualify for the spouse's allowance. That is what I hesitate about regarding this Bill. So I urge the Minister to bring in legislation as soon as possible which does not discriminate against single or divorced people.
I want to conclude by quoting the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) when she spoke to the House on May 10, 1984, when she was in the Official Opposition. 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 supposedly as compassionate and humane as ours, is a national disgrace.
We have a lot of senior citizens living in poverty. She said it was over 600,000. A recent Ontario report said that 42 per cent of pensioners in Ontario live in poverty.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There will be more with the new Government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I conclude by asking the Government, why is it partially deindexing pensions for these people when it has those facts, when it knows about the suffering and misery? Why is it doing this when this will put more people into poverty, with those who are poor already becoming even poorer? I think the Government should listen to the sentiments of the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands and apply them while in government. If not, this will be a one-term Government, and that might indeed be the best thing for the people of Canada.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, while listening to the Hon. Member it came to my mind that the government Department which deals with social housing, the CMHC, just announced the closure of about 17 offices across the country and the downgrading of another 17. One of those was in the Minister's riding in Kingston.
I think most of the important points have been made by previous speakers and perhaps I could just add a couple of things which have not been mentioned. Whenever I hear someone talking about extending or increasing pensions to people over the age of 60,1 always think about those people in institutions subsidized by the federal and provincial Governments. Regardless of what pension increases the House of Commons votes quarterly, or of what extension is granted to new groups of people, it should be kept in mind that people in institutions such as senior citizens' homes or nursing homes in Newfoundland or anywhere else, see no increases. If you say that you are extending or increasing the pension as of January 1, they do not see an increase. They listen to the news and hear that they are going to qualify now for an additional pension or that their pension is being increased, but they do not see the increase. The point is that the money these people receive is determined by the provinces and is called a comfort allowance.
It is a strange system we have which makes how much money you receive from the federal Government depend on the
June 20, 1985

province you are in. It depends upon the decision of the provincial administration. I suppose you could go right through our social security system and you would see the same principle in effect.
I have listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and other speakers talk about this measure being income tested. As one speaker outlined, possibly two people could qualify, one being the legal or common-law spouse of the other. In that situation I can see disputes arising and appeals being made to the Department of National Health and Welfare. Well, there is a principle that the Department has been following which is very confusing. I suppose, for the sake of federal-provincial relations, since the new Government took over, it is a good thing. I am referring specifically to pensions from that particular Department which are in dispute or under appeal. Regardless of whether it is the OAS, the GIS, or the allowance under this Bill, a disability pension or whatever, if the appeal, say, takes a year and the persons concerned received social assistance in the meantime, that is, welfare, they are not told that what they are to receive will have first gone to the provincial Department of Social Services concerned.
Since the new Government took over this is done in two days. Either the provincial Department hears about the person applying and goes directly to the Department of National Health and Welfare and tells them they owe us x number of dollars from that person's cheque retroactive to such and such a date, or else the social assistance officer goes to the individual who qualifies for the federal payment and says, "We want you to sign on the dotted line that you received x number of dollars from us and we are going to recover that from the Department of National Health and Welfare". As I say, it is good for federal-provincial relations but is not very good for the person who qualifies for the pension. You could have someone who is owed $8,000 in disability payments by the federal Government because his claim goes back four years, but he is then sent a message that his cheque has been sent to the provincial Government so that they can claim all the money he received from the Department of Social Assistance.
The Government has done something else with which I vehemently disagree. Since the Government came into power it has centralized in Ottawa the sending of cheques to people from this federal government Department. Since March 31, people in the Province of Newfoundland have not received their cheques on time. They have been a week or nine days late because of that change in administration. I suppose the post office is at fault, but certainly the Minister of National Health and Welfare can go to the Minister responsible for the post office to ensure that those cheques arrive on time.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare should realize, as should every Cabinet Minister, that everyone receiving a pension from this government Department is expecting it on a specified date. I have received letters from people saying that for the first time they had to go to the local merchant to
Old Age Security Act
borrow food while waiting for a cheque for which they never had to wait before. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should look into that matter. The shortcomings of this legislation have been pointed out and perhaps the Government will open its eyes and extend this benefit to everyone between the ages of 60 and 65.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the debate on Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. It is a very important piece of legislation which goes some way toward correcting an imbalance in society but, in our view, it does not go far enough. The Government indicated that it was going to make this change on November 5, 1984, but it will not be implemented until September. It will take the Conservative Government almost 11 months to implement a measure which could have been implemented last fall.


Mr. Malone:: We can't implement when you are
filibustering.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it was not we who scheduled six, seven, eight, or nine opposition days in a row. We had a great time telling the Government all the things it was doing wrong, but the Government was not bringing forth legislation. We would have been quite happy then, as we would have been last November, to have had this legislation implemented. However, the Government, in its collective Conservative wisdom, decided that it had to move slowly.
The Act which extends the spouse's allowance to all low-income widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65 excludes a large section of the population in that age group. I speak of those individuals who never married or became divorced or separated from their spouses. We are putting them into a separate category. Even though their income may be the same as that of a widow or widower, under this Bill they are not entitled to support from the people of Canada.
The real issue is whether we should be treating all people who are over 60 equally regardless of their marital status. I think we should. I would encourage the Government to ensure that this Act is changed to give all Canadians who are 60 years of age and over and need additional income the support that they deserve. I do not think it is fair to tell single, divorced, and separated Canadians who do not have enough money that they must go on welfare. These people have worked for years and years in the service of the country by keeping the economy moving. We have a responsibility to treat them in an equitable manner.
This issue was raised in a discussion paper entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law under the auspices of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Crosbie). I will quote one section which deals deals with the spouse's allowance program. It says:
The spouse's allowance program raises another issue. Currently the allowance is paid to the spouse of a pensioner between the ages of 60 and 64 and to the surviving spouse if the spouse in receipt of Old Age Security dies before the survivor reaches the age of 65. There is currently a proposal to extend this benefit to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. However, if

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act
an individual is single, separated or divorced and aged 60-64, no allowance is paid, even if the individual's needs meet the test for benefit to spouses. A decision has been made to allocate funds to married couples as opposed to single individuals in the age bracket 60-64. One of the rationales for this is that unmarried persons can get assistance from provincial welfare programs, although they receive smaller benefits. Given that there are only limited resources to provide for needy people, this group was selected. 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 can be no difference, Mr. Speaker, need is need is need. If you need money to survive, it does not matter whether you have never been married or are now a widow or widower. Justice suggests that we should treat them equally.
In the last Parliament, a committee of the House examined pensions. There was a minority report filed by the former Member for Nanaimo-Alberni, Mr. Ted Miller. In it is a section entitled "People Under 65". It reads:
During the course of its hearings, the Task Force received submissions discussing the plight of people, largely between the ages of 55 and 64, who are ineligible for benefits under any public pension program. Though we had neither the mandate nor the time to examine the particular needs of this group, there was concern among witnesses and Task Force members that many people under 65 face severe hardships with little support from public sources.
These problems frequently include ineligibility for any sort of public pension benefits and long or frequent periods of unemployment. The community from where the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) comes and the community of Atikokan in my riding have endured the shut-down of basic industries. There are people who worked in those industries for 30 or 40 years who are still in their mid-fifties or early sixties and cannot get jobs. Even if the jobs were available, due to the severe conditions under which they worked in the mines, their bodies are not as willing or able as they used to be. If we were to provide some support for those who are 60 years of age and over, we would at least raise their standard of living.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Government to accept our proposal and provide full justice for all who are 60 years of age and over in order that they too can get the income support which they need to survive in our society today.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I am also very happy to take part in this debate on Bill C-26, which is in itself an excellent initiative for the people who will benefit from its provisions, namely the widows.
Nevertheless, I find this Bill clearly discriminatory and odious in the way it treats certain people.
During the last few weeks, many of my colleagues had the honour and the privilege of tabling a number of petitions which in their preamble deplored the discrimination and the class distinction the Government was making with respect to people who were separated, divorced or single. I think this aptly describes a situation that I find totally unacceptable and highly reprehensible.
Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, go back briefly in time, and recall that Canada's divorce legislation was originated by an Act of Parliament passed in 1968. At the time, and this is, after all, not so long ago, couples who had experienced a certain number of problems were being given a chance to legalize their situation. We must not forget that if a person who had the misfortune to have made an unhappy marriage for which there was absolutely no remedy, then decided to take advantage of this legislation, that person was almost automatically singled out and ostracized by the community. These are the people who will be hurt by Bill C-26. Because of the law and the attitudes of our society at the time, in 1968 and 1970, divorced persons were seen as people who were different, and families felt a sense of shame when a member of the family got a divorce. These are the people who today, in many cases, are over 60 years old. These are the very people who are being told today that because of the Budget, they are going to be deprived of what their friends will be entitled to because they are widows or widowers. So I think it is despicable to deprive these people of what in the circumstances would seem to be essential and fundamental.
We must also recall that in the late 60s and early 70s, in almost every divorce where there were children, custody was usually given to the mother. At the time, our social legislation was not as advanced as it is today, and here again, these women have been victimized, in addition to being branded as second-class citizens and having to suffer the ostracism of their neighbours and the effects this had on their relations in their community. They were responsible for the education of their children, they had very limited financial resources. These are the people who in many cases went through absolute hell, and today, now they are 60, they are being told that the provisions of Bill C-26 do not apply to them but if the economy improves, we might review the situation and consider the problem.
The fact that they are being excluded on such ridiculous grounds is, I think, an incredible insult to all these people who are divorced, separated or single. It is an unconscionable affront to these people who have the same rights and privileges as anyone else. It has often been said in this House, and rightly so, that the Canadian Constitution was so good for Canada because it prevented class distinction and put all Canadians on an equal footing.
In my opinion, in view of the way this Bill is designed, it is an extremely regressive measure. We are regressing 15 or 20 years in the past because of a measure which creates a social class of needy victims who have already been victimized in the past and on whom has now been placed an intolerable burden.
Everyone recognizes that 80,000 people will be penalized by the Bill and will be deprived of this assistance which, in many cases, their spouse will be able to obtain. Everyone also recognizes that the very great majority of these 85,000 people are women, women who have been fighting and organizing for
June 20, 1985

years to gain an equality, a justice and an equity which are still not apparent in this Bill.
I therefore believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to ask this Government to put this whole issue back on the table and to consider granting these 80,000 people the most basic justice if we do not want them to become innocent victims.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we shall witness a reversal on this issue within the next few days and that this will be followed by amendments which will ensure that these people will be treated more fairly.
This afternoon, an amendment was introduced to make common law spouses eligible for these benefits. If I may, I would like to enumerate all the problems which could be the result of trying to identify these people through such a mechanism.
Will the Government be able to intrude in the private life of people to determine whether they are entitled to the benefits or not?
My colleague is telling me with good reason that 80,000 people are being branded in Canada at a time where we are trying to see justice done and to make sure that all Canadians will be treated fairly according to the principles of social justice, and in closing I would like to ask all my colleagues to reconsider this issue and to try to understand what will be the life of these men and women who will be deprived of the benefits of Bill C-26 if it is not amended.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier during the debate, I referred to the war and everyone understood that I meant the 1939-45 war. Unfortunately, 1 said 1914-18, but everyone understood that I was obviously referring to a widow of the 1939-45 war.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was not even born in either war!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Not even the Korean war!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words about this Bill which we support and, as you know, we do not intend to delay the proceedings at the report stage. I would simply remind the House that we are considering Motion No. 1 in the name of the Government to amend:
Old Age Security Act
Clause 1 by striking out lines 10 to 14 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor: "lived with that person for at least one year."
The effect of this amendment or this motion is of course to implement a recommendation of the committee and the Minister to reduce from three years-the previous requirement-to one year the time for becoming eligible under this measure. That is how it is going to be once the Bill is passed, it is defined as living together for one year.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-26 as well as on the significance of this amendment. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to extend the spouse's allowance program to needy people living alone and aged 60 to 64. Most people affected by this measure are women. It is therefore an important Bill which responds to a social and economic need in our society. However, Mr. Speaker, only widows and widowers are eligible under this Bill, so it excludes people who are single, separated or divorced. Again I say that 80,000 people between the ages of 60 and 64 would be eligible if the Government had been more generous towards them and had seen fit to establish a more extensive and comprehensive program. This measure therefore discriminates against certain people, most of them, I repeat, Canadian women aged 60 to 64 who fail to meet the spouse's allowance eligibility requirements.
Mr. Speaker, in my riding, and I find this example particularly striking because it was part of my life, there are many female members of religious orders who have taken a vow of chastity and live in a state of celibacy. These women are not eligible for the benefits provided under this Bill, because they do not meet the requirements: they are neither widows nor widowers-there are also male members of religious orders- and I think this discriminates against these people, should they, for whatever reason, wish to leave their religious order and live a secular life.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government, which is so proud of its consultation policy, did not bother to consult people between the ages of 60 and 64 before tabling this measure, that I am sure of, because if they had, in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier at least they would have met a lot of women, single women who have worked hard in an environment that is not always easy, in a city like Ottawa that is largely dependent on Parliament,on the Government, a public service city. We all know that until recently, the majority of public servants-and it may still be the case today-have been women, many of of whom are between the ages of 60 and 64, and were left with an income or pension that puts them on the poverty line. If we had only bothered to think about these people, if we had considered all these women who in many cases have worked hard for very low salaries, and who are now retired and have no security, Mr. Speaker, and who today, we might as well admit it, are in many cases forced to depend on provincial or federal grants for housing, for medical drugs, for

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act
transportation, and for a host of other services which they would much rather pay for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to set the record straight on this piece of Government legislation which we are endorsing because it does extend an existing program to a substantial number of Canadians. However, once again, we earnestly request this Government to expand this measure to another
80,000	men and women who should be eligible but are not covered by this measure.

Unfortunately, while supporting the Bill-we will not delay it and I think I am the last one to speak on this side, although perhaps there is some other Member who might want to speak-I want to repeat the point again that I am disappointed and so are my colleagues in the Liberal Party that the measure is not extended to deserving Canadians, those who chose not to marry and those who are separated and divorced. They are the ones being excluded from this extended coverage. I regret that.
In my day-to-day meetings with constituents, men and women have said to me, "We feel disenfranchised". I say this with a lot of heart because they feel they are being left out of a very important program. We have tabled petitions. I have personally tabled several petitions asking the Government to reconsider this measure and to modify it so that these people who have chosen not to marry, who are divorced or separated can be included.
The Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker, has missed a golden opportunity for meaningful reform. It has wallowed in indecision. God knows that the Conservatives are undecided even on Old Age Security. Nobody knows where the Conservatives stand. One day you hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) say something and the next day you hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) say something else. Canadians, especially seniors, would like to have the assurance that this Government thinks about them, cares for them and will give them the security they deserve without adding anxiety, which is such a difficult and common feeling among our elderly. Anxiety is something seniors do not need. Anxiety has been created by the Conservative Government over these pensions. Anxiety has been created by indecision on the part of the Government as to where the Government is going and what it is going to do for the senior citizens.
If the Hon. Member on the other side has something to say, he should stand up and make a speech for 10 minutes. I will sit down and invite him to do so right now.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure again to participate in this debate. I think there are certain close parallels that reflect and mirror this piece of legislation and the pension issue in the recent Budget. It seems that to this Government numbers mean nothing. It seems that to this Government individuals mean nothing. We talk about thousands upon thousands of individuals who are between the ages of 60 and 64 some perhaps are not married, and some perhaps are separated or divorced. Do they mean less to the Government than those who have a different type of marital
status? We as a society cannot afford to discriminate among individuals on that sort of basis.
If we are prepared to move and move in a progressive direction as the Bill has done, we should be prepared to move progressively all the way for all individuals, recognizing that the problem facing a 64-year old married person is the same as the problem faced by the 64-year old woman in Sault Ste. Marie who may not be married or who is divorced. We must begin to realize that if we are prepared to recognize those problems and if we are prepared to say we have to help those between the ages of 60 and 64 because they cannot help themselves, then we cannot allow or afford to discriminate. We cannot allow marital status to dictate whether or not they receive something. The only basis for the decision should be need. If a divorced or separated person has that need, that financial compensation should be there as it is for married people.
We are losing sight of the lot of the individual. We are looking at it in terms of thousands. Perhaps when we look at it in that light, it simply becomes a statistic, and we throw statistics around loosely and easily. We should narrow it down to the lot of the individual, to the specific needs of individuals who feel and know that they are being discriminated against.
We have received letters from such individuals suggesting that they need the money as much as other people do. They ask why they are being kept out of it when other people are not. They are the same types of letters as the ones we are receiving on the pension issue, saying that we have to get our financial house in order, that Canada is a great country, that it is full of opportunity, but asking why the decision was made to bring down the deficit on their backs. Pensioners were told that their pensions were a sacred trust. A commitment was given that their pensions would not be touched or altered. We are involved in the same debate at this point, because we are talking about a commitment to people which should be honoured.
When we talk about commitment, we should also talk about consistency, honesty and integrity. If the Government is prepared to make that social contract with the elderly, if it is prepared to say to these people that it will not touch their pensions, then it ought to follow through on those commitments. Anything short of that is simply not good enough. That debate is very much relevant to and alive in Bill C-26. If we are prepared to tell Canadian society that we, as a Government and as a Parliament, are prepared to step in and offer assistance, we ought to cover the entire clientele. If we are not prepared to do that, perhaps I would rather not do what we are doing. I would rather not do it in a piecemeal fashion and at the same time boast and say how great we are because we are moving in such a direction. It ought to be done with some sense of compassion for all individuals who feel the need for that financial assistance.
Indeed, the Bill points in the right direction. I do not think anyone in the House of Commons would rise and suggest that
June 20, 1985

this is somehow completely unwarranted. It is moving in the right direction, but why not enlarge it and encompass the entire Canadian community? Why not enlarge it to make it more progressive? Why can the Government not admit that while it is moving in the right direction, that direction is not wide enough? Why can it not admit that while it is trying to satisfy the needs and aspirations of that community, it is not fulfilling all that is desired? Why can the Government not rise in its place and say that it will be extended to those individuals against whom the Bill discriminates? That is leadership, that is conviction. It would mean rising and admitting some shortcomings. It is the same argument that we have debated for the last two and a half weeks on the whole question of pension deindexation.
It is leadership to admit to the country that a mistake was made in the budget paper, that it was a regressive mistake and that the Government reneged on a promise. That is leadership. Leadership is not showing Canadians that it is prepared to be tough, not to back down, or that it is prepared to be arrogant, despite the pleas, calls, letters, protests and questions which have been asked during Question Period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please speak to the motions before the House?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was. I was trying to indicate that on this particular motion the Government has an opportunity, which it could take, to make the Bill more compassionate and fair. That was the message I was trying to bring to the attention of the House, in an attempt to bridge the current debate which is gaining in public momentum on Bill C-26.
The Government should say that it is moving in the right direction but that that direction should be expanded to include individuals such as the ones who have written to us and perhaps to Hon. Members opposite. These individuals are asking the Government not to discriminate on the basis of whether they are divorced, separated or married. They say that the decision should be based upon need, fairness and age. If it is good for one 62-year old person of a certain marital status, it should be good for others.
I believe those are the issues on which Hon. Members in my Party and in the NDP have been rising. We are speaking to the fairness and legitimacy of this particular proposal. We cannot afford to allow a Bill to pass which discriminates against certain individuals. It is our task and responsibility to rise in our places, not merely to give the Bill our blessing, but to play the role for which we were elected. We do not mean to be obstructionist, but it is our role in the House to improve upon and comment upon legislation, and to point out a certain direction which we think the Government should take. Indeed, it would be leadership if the Government were prepared to expand the Bill to make it more progressive. If the Government did so, I am sure there would be no opposition; Hon. Members would not rise to talk on another subject related to the Bill. Reciprocal leadership would be displayed on the part of this Party. We would say that the Government did the
Old Age Security Act
correct thing and, therefore, we would give it speedy passage. That is leadership, not only on the government side but also on the opposition side.
I believe that the role of the Opposition is not to obstruct. It is to ensure that the legislation is what Canadians want, not what the Government wants, not what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or his Government may think Canadians want. When we talk about this particular issue, Canadian want fairness for all people who are 60 to 64 years of age, regardless of their marital status. When we talk about fairness, we are talking about pensioners who say; "Leave our pensions intact and give us full indexation".
The message for the Government on this Bill and on the pensions issue is: Let us provide some leadership and give Canadians the legislation they demand and rightfully deserve.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In that there is one minute remaining, could I ask a question of the Hon. Member who just sat down?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was about to ask for unanimous consent of the House, but I do not think the Hon. Member would get it.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this Bill, particularly as it relates to the riding of Spadina. It extends, for low-income widows and widowers, the spousal allowance to about 85,000 people in Canada. Of course we support that. One has to; I am sure it will be unanimously supported.
This leads me to asking the following question: Why take a course which benefits a very limited number of needy people? There are many equally needy single and divorced people. In fact, for whatever reasons, there are a great many divorced people in Canada, many of whom are or will soon be of pensionable age. There is also a growing number of single people in the country. This benefit is being extended to a relatively small group and, in a sense, to a shrinking group, according to present population trends. This is very evident in the riding of Spadina. As between the 1971 census and the 1981 census in Spadina, there was a sharp increase in the number of single people. Most of these people will not ever be in line for the benefit of this legislation. Many of those have low incomes; many of those are going to be hurt by the Government's deindexation of the Old Age Security pensions next year and in the years ahead. Why does the Government try to kid the public by taking away with a shovel and putting back with a teaspoon? It takes away from all the pensioners in Canada, starting next January and increasing cumulatively every year, $100 a year, then $200 a year, then $300 a year and so on. It takes that away from them and then it undertakes to give back to a few.
If the country were as poor as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tells us it is, perhaps it would be justified to say

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act
that it can only give to a few, although it is not clear why it should be given to a widower and not to a divorced person. Why is a widower or a widow more needy than a divorced person, or a single person? That is not clear. Of course, in fact the country is not anywhere nearly as poor as the Prime Minister has said. This country makes huge tax gifts to people who need such gifts very little or not at all. It makes them on the worn out, discredited claim that those people will use the money to create jobs. That is a theory that the former Liberal Government worked to death during the last dozen years, and this present Tory Government is doing the same thing, to take from the senior citizens in order to give to the friends of the Government and to try to cover what it is doing by giving back a little bit to a tiny number of senior citizens.
The people in Spadina are not fooled. They are not amused. They have been out petitioning with a petition that states the facts clearly as to what will happen in 1986 and 1987. Generally-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could I please ask the Hon. Member to be very, very specific at the report stage of the Bill at which we are and speak precisely on either Motion No. 1 or Motion No. 2?


John Kenneth Gormley: What is the motion, Dan?


Some Hon. Members:: What is the motion?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: These people want to know what the motion is. If they don't know-he is asking what the motion is, Mr. Speaker. He clearly does not know.


John Kenneth Gormley: We know.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the clear intent of both these motions is to cover up with a few dollars what has been taken in many dollars. The people in Spadina will not be fooled. I thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Question, question.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I am taking part in this debate is quite simple: it is somewhat the continuation of the debate held the other evening, and I am under the impression that the government still does not understand what it means to look after our less fortunate citizens.
You referred a while ago to relevancy and I will readily stick as much as possible to the proposal so that my colleagues will not have to call me to order.
I still have actual cases in mind. I have always thought that in politics one has to state one's case clearly, because people will only grasp the issues if one understands perfectly the purposes we are trying to achieve. Therefore, I will refer to some examples I gave the other evening about the homes located in my constituency, which you know quite well, Mr. Speaker, as I know yours also. There are homes for senior citizens in both our ridings.
The bill now under consideration is exclusively meant for people who have a status in the community, either widows or widowers, and my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), my NDP colleague as well as my colleague from York have explained the matter very clearly. People of the same age are excluded because they have a different status, and now we are told that if they have been living together for one year, they may qualify. But I know of specific cases involving people that I met, and I know that this is also a problem for my colleagues in this House.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Bertrand) knows of many such cases in her constituency. My friend and colleague from Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin)-I could name them all-we have the same kind of people and the same kind of problems. The actual problem in a home that I will call, for example, Berri-Lajeunesse, in Montreal, is that people there have little money and managed, as I said recently, to find a place to live, let us say apartment 404, and because they have a different status, they get a pension, unlike their neighbour who is divorced or separated or still, which is most unfair, who is single. I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues especially to the case of the single woman. We all know, we especially from Quebec, and I would like to draw the attention of my English-speaking colleagues-

-especially from Quebec, who have known in the past, not at this time and not in the future unfortunately, but in the past. There was always one person in these families who sacrified most of the time for all kinds of reasons but whom happened to be the one who did not get married, because Therese, Pauline, Celine and Marc looked after papa and mama, after grandpapa and grandmama. There was always one in our families. The example could be multiplied; in every district you will find that. These people have consecrated-

-devoted their lives taking care of their old parents while others have married and those who have married, who have raised children, who have even become widows or widowers, will qualify. But their sisters or brothers who remained single cannot qualify. I hope I have very well understood the thrust of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, at first glance, we find this shocking, deplorable. I want to warn my friends opposite: We will support the legislation... Why? Because we want to give more money to people who have long been ignored, but still we cannot refuse to consider a group which will benefit immediately. This is why I assure you ... I did not consult anyone but I think the agreement is... we will vote for this legislation as soon as possible, probably today or tomorrow or within the next few
June 20, 1985

days. But still I would like this House to consider the situation of those who have been ignored, and as I said, the ones that are ignored so very often as we all know, and it has been said time and again, are mainly women, because they live longer-the average life expectancy being there to prove it-and most of all the lonely, single women. They are again being ignored in this legislation.
1 am aware that we are going to support this legislation. However, I would appreciate it so much if the Government, my colleagues, the most distinguished Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) when I say these things, I believe in them, and I know she can exercise her charming, composed and benevolent influence because this often is more productive with the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-could be convinced that something will have to be done in the future for those who have been ignored by this legislation on which we are getting ready to vote today or tomorrow or in the days ahead as I said.
In my view, in the name of fairness, we must make good, I would not say that injustice but to say the least, that oversight.
There are so many things that could be said on that, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am somewhat amazed that there has been no reference to past experience.
When I first came here, several years ago, I remember very well, at that time, the universal pensionable age was 70 and all the political parties said ... and certainly, my honourable friend, the ever-charming and distinguished Member for Brome-Missisquoi and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister will remember as well as I do that in our election platforms, we wanted to promise old age security pension at age 65. What did we do then? Under the leadership of an extraordinary Prime Minister, because I served under that man, the Right Honourble Lester B. Pearson-I have always been known to be a "Pearsonian", since very often one identifies oneself with the name of the Prime Minister under whom one was first elected. Then your new Members could be called "Mulroneyans", including you, Mr. Speaker-


John Kenneth Gormley: Laurier!


Marcel Prud'homme: -the "Trudeauists" ... My colleague says that perhaps it was under Laurier. I must recognize that he was and will remain in Canadian history one of our great Prime Ministers.


John Kenneth Gormley: What about Laurier?


Marcel Prud'homme: He understood very well. Laurier understood very well what Canada was all about. He better than anyone in this country understood absolutely how this country
Old Age Security Act
came about. If my colleague would like me to speak about Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I will do so some other time.
I remember that Lester B. Pearson made a proposal that was accepted. At that time, we thought we did not have enough money to give pensions to people who were between the ages of 65 and 70. Some Hon. Members here will remember that, and if I am wrong about it, and I do not think I am known to be too arrogant, I will not mind being corrected. I remember that the new plan of Mr. Pearson was that since we could not provide the money for everyone at that time, we would provide pensions that first year for all those who were 69 years of age. The next year-


Gabrielle Bertrand: That's what we are doing now.


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, but to everyone. I want my hon. friend to understand that we provided pensions for everyone, not just the bachelors. The following year, we provided pensions for those who were 68, then 67, and then 66, and then we achieved the provision of pensions for everyone between the ages of 65 and 70. There was no discrimination. Now we are being asked to forget 80,000 people for the benefit of others who-

-are widows or widowers.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare realizes now that there is something unfair about this legislation for our brothers and sisters who, althougth 60 to 65 years of age, are not eligible.
I am glad to repeat in front of my whip-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Your favorite whip!


Marcel Prud'homme: -of my favorite whip that I hope the House will vote on this bill as expeditiously as possible. However, we can imagine the discrimination against some older people living in homes for the aged because it is even worse for senior citizens who live together than for those who live alone by themselves. In the same building, on the same floor, there are some senior citizens who get the pension and others who do not, simply because they are divorced or separated from a spouse who did not deserve them, or simply because they are single. These are the people who will be discriminated against as of September 1. Therefore, I ask, urge and beg the government to think these things over and to arrive at a solution with a view to avoiding a repetition of this unfortunate situation.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the amendment to Bill C-26. Our Party fully supports Bill C-26, but what we want as Liberal Members of the House is to make sure that the Bill does not leave any stone unturned and that as many Canadians as possible are protected under the provisions of this measure. I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Pru-

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act
d'homme) on the excellent speech he made in the House of Commons earlier today, and to commend the Hon. Member for Monteal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for his work in this case. Mr. Speaker, objective and impartial as you are, you have certainly appreciated, and rightly so, the outstanding work done in this case by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and of course the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. [English]
What we are talking about here today is something that will ensure that more people are protected by Bill C-26. In its present form, Bill C-26 will enhance the standard of living for certain Canadians, but it will create an injustice whereby some
80,000	Canadians will be discriminated against. There is no doubt that the Hon. Member for Longueuil (Mr. Leblanc) would agree with me that this is unfair. He would no doubt want to speak on behalf of his constituents, if he were permitted to do so, to state in the House that Bill C-26 would be much better if it applied to every Canadian in need between the ages of 60 and 64.
If a person between the ages of 60 and 64 is divorced or separated and has the same financial need as a person who is widowed, why should we want to discriminate against that person? I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you, just like I, would not want to discriminate against single, divorced or separated Canadians. We would want all Canadians with little or no means to be provided with the financial assistance that they so richly deserve at an age when they have contributed so much to our society.
I have discussed the following issue in this House in the past, but I would like to repeat myself just in case some Hon. Members were not giving their undivided attention to me at that time. I know that I cannot say that I am doing this in case some Hon. Members were not present because all Members are always present in the House, as you have decreed in the past, Mr. Speaker. Just in case some Hon. Members were not paying attention when I raised this issue before, let me raise again the following proposition: it is a fact that single and divorced Canadians will be discriminated against because this Bill will not assist them.
Let me describe certain instances in which single Canadians will be discriminated against. If a Canadian citizen is divorced and is no longer receiving alimony or other benefits from a former spouse, potentially that person is in the same financial difficulty as a person who is widowed. Both of them have lost the person who assisted them financially.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to consider the Liberal amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since gray power has come to the fore in Canada, elderly Canadians have been actively protesting the Tory Budget's intention to cut indexation next January and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has been looking to find a way to sneak out of that ill-founded policy. There are ways to do it. He can simply announce today, as he should, that the policy of deindexing has been dropped. He won't though, since such directness is not part of his style.
Already there are predictions that somehow, in the next few weeks or months, the Canadian economy will undergo some magical rejuvenation which will make deindexing unnecessary. Then the Tories will try to paint themselves as true-blue heroes. Nobody will be fooled, because Canadians will not allow themselves to be fooled again by the Tory gang.
Canadians are recalling the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". No, Canadians will not allow themselves to be fooled again by the Tory gang and by the Prime Minister's lack of credibility.
When the announcement comes changing the deindexing provisions of the Budget, and it will, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will announce the change sitting down.
Now is the time for them to announce that deindexation will be discontinued.



INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM FESTIVAL


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a significant event which will occur in Windsor, beginning tomorrow. The most significant national holidays in Canada and the United States are July 1 and July 4 respectively. It was to commemorate these nearly coincident national days that the Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival was inaugurated by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip in 1959. Since then it has grown to become the largest international festival in the world and is attended by millions from both sides of an undefended border which was once the destination of both my slave and abolitionist forefathers.
Occasionally there are fireworks in this House over relations between Canada and the United States because we, just as much as the Americans, take pride in our independence and freedom. In Windsor and Detroit next week we will have the largest annual display of fireworks in either country, when we, as two equal peoples, celebrate our friendship, freedom, and'
June 20, 1985

honour-heroes in the cause of human rights. We hope you all will come on down to the Banana Belt and have a good time.



SPACE WEAPONRY


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of weeks now, I, and I am sure all Members of Parliament, have been receiving letters and other communications from constituents in connection with the invitation to Canada from the United States to participate in the Strategic Defence Initiative research program.
While the letters started some time ago, the volume has increased dramatically since the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) indicated the Government's desire to consult with the Canadian people on the subject of SDI research.
Many Canadians are happy to write to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), or their Member of Parliament, but many more, including the East York Peace Committee, with which I recently met, are anxious for an opportunity to express their views before an all-party committee of Parliament. Party task forces have their place, but they are no real substitute for a parliamentary committee.
1 was delighted last week when all Parties set aside their differences and agreed to establish a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to investigate the subject of Canada's participation in SDI research, and to report by August 23. That will provide a vehicle which will enable all Canadians to have an input into a decision which will be of enormous significance to us all.



THE MEDIA


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, is the Parliamentary Press Gallery exercising responsible journalism? The very worthy Report on House of Commons Reform which was tabled this week is typified by The Globe and Mail as "a challenge to the Prime Minister". Columnist Don McGillvary says it won't work because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would have to "surrender power". These writers are either overly cynical, dim-witted, or perhaps both.
As a journalist who entered politics, I well remember the tendency of some journalists to become a self-ordained political opposition. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Parliamentary Press Gallery has not distinguished itself, both in quality and in intellect. Most Ottawa Press Gallery members pale in comparison with legislative and parliamentary reporters in other world capitals.
Our Press Gallery is preoccupied with controversy, division, and sensationalism. Because of this, the Press Gallery discourages the very kind of debate that it desires. Objectionable behaviour, unparliamentary language, rat packs, and disorder are the stuff of headlines in the national news.
Sensible, thoughtful, and intelligent debate in the House of Commons and in committee is seldom, if ever, reported. Most of this reasoned debate takes place before or after Question Period, when the media benches are entirely empty and the reporters have gone home.
Fairness, accurate portrayal, and balance are what jounal-ism is all about. It is time our Press Gallery woke up.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and disappointed that the federal Conservatives have broken yet another election promise regarding affirmative action to hire the handicapped. Groups representing hundreds of thousands of women, minorities, and handicapped, are profooundly upset and say that the Mulroney Government's proposed equity scheme has fundamental flaws and will fail.
The federal legislation should have responded to the Abella Royal Commission Report: Equality in Employment, but instead it will not contain any mandatory program for affirmative action, any mechanism for enforcing companies' compliance with the legislation, or even any mechanism to monitor the so-called law.
In this lip service approach, all a company will have to do is declare that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer, even though the Government knows that such voluntary action is branded as useless by all who are experienced in the field. Without proper monitoring, groups will have no basis for complaints.
To add insult to injury, only companies dealing in contracts of more than $200,000 will be eligible, instead of the $20,000 limit which was proposed in the Obstacles Report that was commissioned by the Liberal Government. An enormous number of companies which do business with the Government will be left out completely from complying. The new law will be absolutely toothless.
Kathleen Ruff, of the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, stated on June 12, 1985:
-this is not employment equity, this is misleading advertising, this is a dishonest statement on the part of the Government. It is a broken promise.
Jim Derksen, National Chairman of the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, said June 19-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his 90 seconds have expired.

June 20, 1985



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, Herman "Jackrabbit" Johanssen has reached the venerable age of 110 years and is celebrating that fact at a large party which will be held this afternoon.
He is convinced that his long life is the result of the skiing and canoeing he enjoyed after he came to Canada in 1902.
"Jackrabbit" Johanssen certainly provides splendid evidence of the beneficial effects of such athletic activity.
Although canoeing was developed by the native peoples during their long centuries on this continent, Canadians should be grateful to Mr. Johanssen and other Scandinavian immigrants for their introduction of skiing to our country.
Cross-country skiing has become a vital part of winter life in many Canadian communities. Mr. Johanssen's contributions to that have been recognized at the Canadian Ski Museum in Ottawa.
Entire families enjoy cross-country skiing in my city of Thunder Bay, and sport organizers there have been working hard to bring the World Nordic Games to our community. Participation in these amateur sports does much to improve the fitness of Canadians and to extend the vital life of senior citizens.
The desire of seniors to lead a full life depends on the incomes which are provided by adequate pensions. Mr. Johanssen joins with other seniors, and most Canadians, in demanding full indexing, on a quarterly basis, of the Old Age Security pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed during Question Period yesterday when some Members opposite hurled abuse at the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people must wonder about the operation of this House. What they saw was an attention-seeking device designed to draw the attention of the medias to an individual.
Now, how much did this little game cost the taxpayers? The proceedings of the House were halted for over an hour, and yet Members opposite know that unparliamentary terms are out of order in this House. Who are the victims of such manipulation, Mr. Speaker? Our senior citizens, those people to whom we
owe so much respect and who are disappointed and disillusioned when they witness such goings-on.
The Members opposite keep on spreading uncertainty after bringing the country on the verge of bankruptcy. They allowed the country to live beyond its means and if we do not act now to cut the deficit, in a few years we will no longer be able to afford our social programs since the cheques will be returned by the bank marked "no sufficient funds".
On the subject of pensions, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said over and over again that no change will be made to the old age security pension before 1986. The GIS is fully indexed and the OAS is also indexed, but only when inflation exceeds 3 per cent.
Our Prime Minister has also undertaken to monitor the situation closely and even to make some changes before 1986, circumstances permitting. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, what is happening to agriculture in western Canada? The European Common Market is dumping its highly subsidized beef into Canada, and if New Zealand and Australia fill the quota allowed, plus that from the United States and Nicaragua, Canada will have even more imported beef this year than last year. Who loses? The beef producers of Canada do.
The United States Government is imposing a levy on Canadian pork entering its country, claiming that government subsidies in most provinces in Canada make it impossible for its hog producers to compete. Who loses? The hog producers of Canada do, including those in Alberta who suffer a double whammy. Albertans receive no government subsidy, and must also pay this levy, making it virtually impossible for hog producers in Alberta to compete or survive.
Grain producers are suffering from depressed prices, millions of grasshoppers, accumulated interest, and customs duties on farm equipment. Who loses? Our grain farmers do.
When our livestock producers and grain farmers go bankrupt, who loses? The consumer, who will then pay right through the nose for his food will lose.
A voluntary tripartite stabilization act, with no subsidization, and the payment of the Crow shortfall to producers in Canada, will help. Let us give our western Canadian farmers an opportunity to survive.
June 20, 1985



THE MEDIA


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to take part in the question period today, but the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gorm-ley)-

-has just made what I consider to be a very inconsiderate attack on the press.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: Is it the fault of the press-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: Don't hold my time up.


An Hon. Member:: You can't take it, can you?


Marcel Prud'homme: Is it the fault of the press, Mr. Speaker, if promise after promise is broken? Is it the fault of the press if billions and billions of dollars have been given to the oil industry? Is it the fault of the press if the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), a very distinguished Hon. Member of this House, and the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maison-neuve (Mr. Desrosier), signed a petition, joining with the millions of the people who disagree on the question of deindexing of the pensions?


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Marcel Prud'homme: Is it the fault of the press, Mr. Speaker, if new and hidden taxes will be announced? You are going to celebrate July 1 when hidden taxes will be thrown at the people of Canada. Is it the fault of the press-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INDUSTRY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the recently published report of the Commission of Inquiry on the pharmaceutical industry, headed by Commissioner Harry Eastman, made some valuable recommendations. Three important areas of investigation were as follows: first, the speeding up of the authorization processes for new drugs while ensuring their safety and efficacy; second, providing that compulsory licences ensure that licencees pay their fair share of research and development costs and that royalties are distributed in a way designed to encourage research in Canada; and, third,
Oral Questions
providing more information to consumers on substitutability and prices.
All in all, Sir, the report gives authoritative directions for our pharmaceutical industry, and it is to be hoped that the recommendations will be implemented in a timely manner so as to ensure the availability of safe, effective, and reasonably priced drugs, to encourage research and development in Canada, and to increase the proportion of Canadian manufactured pharmaceuticals sold in our domestic market.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Question Period. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: We
will try to keep it a little quieter today, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Everyone in Canada, except maybe the Prime Minister, knows perfectly well that in Sherbrooke last year, in July, he promised to maintain full indexation of Old Age Security benefits.
Has the Prime Minister forgotten his promise? Is he going to keep it?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that we are fully aware of our responsibility towards the neediest in our society, and that is why we have been taking major steps to provide assistance for this particular group in our society.
I have also mentioned that the Budget provides that we will monitor the situation and that we will make a statement on this question as soon as possible.


STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker yesterday the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance accused some of us on this side of the House of scare tactics. But the Prime Minister told this House yesterday that if he did not deindex old age pensions and withdraw partially the protection against inflation, the Government's cheques to our elderly citizens would bounce. If that is not scare tactics, I wonder what is. Frankly, that has dropped the Prime Minister's own credibility to NSF.

June 20, 1985
Oral Questions
For the benefit of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, that means "non-sufficient funds".


Some Hon, Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I ask the Prime Minister: how is he going to restore that credibility?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 was merely referring to what I think is an historical fact, that the deficits which began during the time my right hon. friend was Minister of Finance have led to a crushing burden-and I say this with no unfairness; I think it is a fact- which places in peril the capacity of the country to do that which we must do, namely, supply services to our elderly citizens. There were no scare tactics involved at all of any kind.
My right hon. friend indicated when he was seeking the leadership of the Liberal Party that he planned to cut the deficit by 50 per cent in seven years. He has yet to indicate how he proposed to do it, but he has certainly recognized by that statement the debilitating nature of the public debt which is indeed jeopardizing programs. So we have to try to reignite the economy, with new jobs and new wealth, so we can do more for our senior citizens.


REQUEST THAT COMMITMENT BE KEPT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried that charge in answer to my second supplementary yesterday when I could not reply. I want to recall to him and the Minister of Finance that when I had custody of the country's finances we brought in the last two surpluses in Canadian history-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: And they were your first two Budgets.


John Napier Turner: These figures are borne out by the national accounts. In the four-year period over which I had custody of the country's finances the average deficit was $711 million, compared to the $34 billion of the current Minister of Finance.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Then what happened?


John Napier Turner: My question really relates to trust in government. The Prime Minister has broken a promise. At the same time that he broke his promise to our senior citizens his Minister of Finance was giving a $125,000 cash bonanza to everyone wealthy enough to have a capital gain. Will the Prime Minister keep his word, given in Sherbrooke last July? Will he restore his credibility and restore trust in government by restoring full indexation of senior citizens' pensions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My right hon. friend refers to the two surpluses. His last two surpluses were in his first two Budgets, and the next two Budgets began the process of this country going belly-up.


Mr. Nielsen:: The father of the deficit.


John Napier Turner: Some $711 million against $34 billion.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is blaming people here for the $34 billion. Don't look over here; it was your predecessor who did that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We gave you $32 billion, you blew it up to $38 billion, and now you are back down to $34 billion. You did a great job.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My right hon. friend is trying to run from responsibility for the $34 billion deficit. I never tried to hang that one on him. It was his Party that did it, but his trying to run away from that responsibility indicates the extent to which he is fearful of the implications, and quite properly so. It is that kind of economic mismanagement which gravely imperilled the capacity of the country to sustain the programs we must provide for our elderly. My right hon. friend knows that better than most people in this Flouse, and certainly better than any other Member of his own Party.


REQUEST FOR REASSURANCE OF ELDERLY ON PENSIONS ISSUE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, who, considering the kind of answers he has just been giving, should not be surprised to hear the kind of comments Mrs. Solange Denis made to him yesterday on Parliament Hill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister the following: In Sherbrooke, he said that he expected the deficit would be $40 billion. When he made his promise, he knew what he was doing. In January, when he promised Canadian men and women that he would protect Old Age Security pensions, he knew what the situation was at the time. Could the Prime Minister stop playing games and reassure the elderly, who are waiting for a forthright and honest decision from the Prime Minister?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can tell, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 20, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it would be better if we took the advice we got in the beginning, and try to be a little quieter today.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I was going to say was that I can tell Hon. Members opposite do not want to listen to the truth, because they are going to get some of it now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have had in this country a situation where there is going to be-


Mr. Nunziata:: Name that Member for you know what.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Doesn't Brian tell the truth, Mike?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are going to have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Normally one assumes that, when someone asks a question, he at least wants to hear the answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, those Hon. Members do not like to hear that the debt of this country has been growing at 25 per cent per annum. That is three times faster than the country has been growing. You cannot go on like that forever. In 1979 interest on that debt was $8 billion; it is now $25 billion. That is now greater than what the federal Government is spending on medicare, Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. If changes in the finances of the country are not made soon, that 25 per cent per annum growth will double the debt every three years and the country will not be able to afford any programs. That is the reason we have to make the changes.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will recall that the Minister of Finance admitted right after the election that he did not tell the truth during the election campaign, so I do not know when he will do so.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER HONOUR PROMISES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Mrs. Denis explained to him yesterday that she could not make ends meet with the kind of income she had. Starting July 1, his Government has decided to put a 10 per cent tax on soap, toothpaste and all other basics. Her purchasing power is diminished as it is-


Mr. Speaker:: Is there a supplementary, please?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Since the Prime Minister is aware that these elderly Canadians do not have adequate incomes, will he, starting January 1986, keep his word and provide full indexation of Old Age Security pensions for all elderly Canadians?
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member speaks about poverty-


John Napier Turner: Are you third in the batting order, Jake?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -he puts his finger on an issue which I think all Members of the House who take these issues seriously are aware of, and the concern it raises. I would also point out to him that poverty did not come into existence only after the last election. If he looks at the statistics he will know that poverty is an issue which has to be addressed not only by the federal Government but by all levels of government, and society generally. The point I make is this. No matter the political philosophy he or I may have, surely the best manner-


Ms. Copps:: Capital gains is politics.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Sheila is back.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -of approaching the question of poverty is to increase our ability to create a better economy. The federal and provincial Governments would then get more revenue, and non-governmental organizations such as volunteer agencies will get more money. We can then help those who need the help. That is the way to address poverty. One cannot simply throw statistics around and say that poverty happened after a certain date. Poverty existed when he was a member of the Liberal Government.


FULL INDEXATION REQUESTED
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who has left the impression in recent days that the Government is going to do something about restoring benefits to Canada's pensioners. We would all like that decision to be announced soon, but I would like him to clarify another matter concerning who will get the benefit of this restored justice, if I may put it that way.
Considering that double indexing the GIS in the way the Liberal Government did it in 1982 would leave about 1.3 million Canadian pensioners out in the cold entirely, will the Government assure the House that, when it takes corrective action, that action will be full reindexation of all Canada's pensioners?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if there is a statement in that regard it will be made at the earliest possible moment, and my friend will be among the first informed.


John Edward Broadbent: We are just hoping that that will be made before the end of this month so we will be around to listen to what the Government has to say.

June 20, 1985
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's former friend from Quebec, if I may put it that way, who had a chat with him outside the House yesterday, indicated very clearly that pensioners and other Canadians want a full restoration of indexation for all of Canada's pensioners. Why will the Prime Minister not make a commitment that that is the kind of action the Government plans to take?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I readily accept, as I know my right hon. friend opposite did in other circumstances, the fact that the Prime Minister of the country will, from time to time, get remarks that are not always the most pleasant to hear. I understand the sense of frustration which comes about in difficult economic circumstances. That is why I went out to see the pensioners yesterday. That is why I spent the time to speak with them and to hear the case which they wanted to make again yesterday. I feel that it is a responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada to listen to people, not to give them the finger, and to take his medicine when he has to.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had listened to pensioners before his Government brought in the Budget, he would not be hearing "No way, Charlie Brown", from pensioners after the Budget.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, whether we are going to maintain a consistent and adequate universal pension for all Canadians or are about to turn our pension system into a system of welfare is a very important matter of principle. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House that when the Government announces its decision it is not going to distinguish between recipients of the GIS and other pensioners but will restore justice to all, that is to say, bring in full indexation for all of Canada's pensioners?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I heard an opinion from another pensioner in Sept-Iles the other day-and the press were there to hear it-who said that they knew that the Government had inherited a bad fiscal situation and is trying to work its way out of it.


John Edward Broadbent: That was George Hees.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the statement was reported as saying that they feel that Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Desmarais, and Mr. Bronfman do not need it, and it should be given to the elderly poor in our society who need it most of all. That, too, is an opinion.


John Edward Broadbent: What's your opinion?


Martin Brian Mulroney: All I can tell my hon. friend is that if and when we have a statement to make, my hon. friend will be the first to know.


CONCEPT OF UNIVERSALITY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Hearing the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister answering in the way in which they have been reminds me of the saying that it is better to hang together than to hang separately, as they surely will if this matter is not cleared up soon.
The Prime Minister's answers to the Leader of the NDP indicate that he wants to walk away from the concept of universality to which he committed himself as recently as last December. Will he assure the House today that any solution he is contemplating to get himself out of this deindexing fiasco will respect the concept of universality and that all of Canada's senior citizens, not only those receiving GIS, will receive the benefits of full indexation of OAS as promised in Sherbrooke last July?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for almost every Member of this House but I do not have for that Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The reason I do not is because he knows the rules of this place and thinks he can abuse them. He thinks he can abuse Members and that they will still respond to him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Go get your Bible for God's sake.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Answer the question, Jake.


John Napier Turner: He has to listen to every Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all Hon. Members know that comments about other Hon. Members should be kept to an absolute minimum.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, let it be noted that when I choose people to abuse they are big strong parliamentarians who can stand on their own two feet, not 2.5 million old men and women in this country who cannot defend themselves in this place. Let that be noted.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to please ask his question.
June 20, 1985


EFFECT OF BUDGET
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, do the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare realize that if they do not restore full indexation of the OAS now, every person who is presently 55 years of age will lose 48 per cent of their OAS purchasing power by the time they collect their first cheque when they are 65 years of age? Do the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister believe it appropriate that people who are currently 55 and will collect their first cheque when they are 65 years of age will get only half of the Old Age Security that is currently being received by senior citizens?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I did not say I was not going to listen to him. I said that I could choose whom I would respect.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Member knows that the figure of 48 per cent which he used is wrong. The Liberal critic for health and welfare used the figure of 20 per cent yesterday.


Mr. Frith:: And 1 stand by that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That was wrong, and he knows it is wrong, and he is doubly wrong today. Let us get back to the exact issues and numbers, rather than the projections which the Member and others in his Party have made.


FULL INDEXATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has avoided saying whether he will honour the promise he made during the election campaign and when he will make an announcement concerning a policy change aimed at restoring indexation. Can the Prime Minister at least assure us that, when the decision is announced, it will be full indexation of old age security pensions and not simply a measure which would benefit only the guaranteed income supplement recipients?


Martin Brian Mulroney: If any
change is to be announced, Mr. Speaker, a statement will be made in the House of Commons at the appropriate time.


REQUEST FOR FULL INDEXATION OF PENSIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister give us the assurance that those comments concerning supposedly wealthy retired people do not mean that the commitment made by the Prime Minister with respect to universality being a sacred trust will be abandoned? Will the Government keep its word and maintain universal pensions,
Oral Questions
and therefore restore full indexation of all and not only of some of the old age security pensions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party was referring to comments on this issue made by somebody outside the House yesterday. I took it upon myself to mention another statement reported in the press and made by an elderly resident of Sept-Iles who is also entitled to voice an opinion, and it was in that sense that 1 mentioned it.


REQUEST THAT BUDGET PROPOSAL BE WITHDRAWN
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I have just returned from three weeks of travel from Vancouver to Halifax with the Committee on Equality Rights. The budget proposals are a travesty of this principle, for we are participating in unequal justice.
Does the Minister agree that justice unequally applied is justice denied? The anger and views which were expressed on the Hill yesterday are exactly the anger and views that I heard across the country. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, your crocodile tears for seniors and your capital gains for your buddies on Bay Street are not appreciated. Will the Minister end the sense of insecurity, and insensitivity of his proposals for the seniors, and discontinue the deindexing for seniors?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me comment on some of the elements of that question. I want to remind the Hon. Member that the Budget has included a wide range of measures that demonstrate the desire of the Government to introduce a degree of fairness into the approach we are taking to deal with the deficit problem.
We have said that there will be a minimum tax in 1986. There will be a surtax on upper income Canadians. There will be a surtax on large corporations. There will be a tax on the chartered banks. There will be other measures taken to introduce a degree of efficiency, and remove a lot of waste that is in the operations of the Government as they were carried out by the previous Government.
These steps are demonstrating that we mean business about coming to grips with this problem, but in a way that demonstrates that it is a national effort and everyone will be participating in the most appropriate way.


REQUEST FOR FULL INDEXATION
Sheila Finestone: The Minister's stockbroker mentality does not seem to understand the impact of his inhumane proposals. You have just added a whole bunch of proposals for your Bay Street friends but none of them are as concrete as what you have now proposed for seniors.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 20, 1985
Oral Questions


Sheila Finestone: You know, there are financial and human
costs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I just remind Members that questions and answers should be put through the Chair.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the tea and toast are getting a little colder.
Will the Government restore full indexing now so that poor elderly women will maintain their purchasing power and have peace of mind to enjoy this summer, or will they have to live with your stockbroker mentality?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! Now, now!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Members for their round of applause.
Let me ask the Hon. Member whether she advised those senior citizens whom she met in the last couple of weeks that their cheques will not be cut on July 1, but increased? What about August 1 and September 1? Did she say they would be increased again on October 1, or did she leave the impressions that have been left by her colleagues, that the amounts will be cut? I do not believe she did.
I also do not believe that she spent any time stressing-


Sheila Finestone: I listened to them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If she is not going to let me finish my answer, obviously she does not have any interest.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has finally told us where he will be making the announcement with regard to his backtracking on the deindexing of pensions. We want to know when he will tell us? Will it be by the end of next week?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all that I indicated was that, if and when we have a statement to make on this, I think that we quite naturally would want to make it in the House of Commons.


REQUEST FOR JUNE STATEMENT
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has clearly said that he would make a statement in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Cyril Keeper: What we want to know is whether he will make that statement by the end of next week because, if he does not do it then, pensioners will have to wait until next September, and that is too long.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, no pensioner has received any cuts at all of any kind, nor
will they. As I have indicated, there are measures in the Budget which will allow us to monitor this very carefully. That is why it was placed there in the first place.
I did indicate to one of his colleagues earlier that, if and when a statement were to be made, I believe it ought to be made in the House of Commons.


Cyril Keeper: When?



REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Government House Leader. This week the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons tabled an excellent report concerning revised rules and decision-making in the House of Commons. Considering the growing sense of cynicism and frustration across the country on the part of the electorate-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: That man speaks the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Paul Ravis: Considering the sense of frustration and cynicism across the country on the part of the electorate at the way that all parliamentarians behave themselves in the House of Commons while conducting the nation's business, how serious is the Government with regard to parliamentary reform and the timetable for implementing the recommendations?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you for the question.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Thank him for the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 
NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Canadians have been informed that next summer the Americans intend to send an icebreaker from the U.S. Coastguard into the North. When a similar incident occurred ten years ago, the Government of the day insisted that the sovereignty of Canada be respected. Is it the intention of the Right Hon. Minister to ensure that no ice breaker, even from one of the countries friendlist to Canada, will come into our territory to try to take our sovereignty away from us?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I regret questions that are deliberately anti-American at any time. I think Members of the House would agree that this is a particularly inappropriate time for the official spokesman on external affairs for the Liberal Party in Official Opposition to be attacking the United States of America. Most Members on this side of the House extend our sympathy and encouragement to the people of that country at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: With regard to the specific question that has been raised, as he would know, the action that is being taken by the Government of the United States does not compromise in any way the sovereignty of Canada over our northern waters, or affect the quite legitimate differences of views that exist between Canada and the United States on that question.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Hon. Minister knows that we have the obligation in Parliament to defend the interests of Canada against anybody, especially when the Government of Canada pretends that it is very close to the Americans. After the great summit in Quebec we have seen our farmers and fishermen taxed by import quotas in the United States, against the best interests of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Will the Minister tell the American Government that when they come to the Northwest Passage this summer they are in Canadian waters and must ask permission from the Canadian Government to be there?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we will do better than that. We will have Canadians on board to guide them through waters which we consider to be ours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions SHIPBUILDING


HALIFAX INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister is aware of the financial difficulties of Halifax Industries Limited which has been working on three government icebreakers. Mr. Dick Martin, Executive VicePresident of the Canadian Labour Congress, is sending a telex to the Minister's office this afternoon to underscore the seriousness of the situation.
The Nova Scotia Government would like to help. Will the Minister take the steps required at the federal level to ensure that new owners are found for Halifax Industries Limited, and that employment is maintained for up to 700 workers?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will be pleased to know that we have had ongoing discussions with Premier Buchanan and Development Minister Thornhill on the subject. There is now a matter before us which we hope to be able to deal with very, very promptly, touching on the situation to which the Hon. Member has referred.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister suggests early action. If needs to be very early. I would suggest, if necessary, even an emergency Cabinet meeting to ensure that this is acted upon this week.
The difficulties HIL is experiencing are symptomatic of the difficulties facing the shipbuilding industry generally. Does the Minister have any plans to save the entire shipbuilding industry from the bankruptcy that so many fear these days?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will be pleased to know that the Government is always alert and is always ready to take action. In fact the Halifax shipyard question is on the agenda before the CCERD Committee tomorrow morning.


FISHERIES
Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. However, in his absence perhaps the Acting Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary night wish to answer.
The spring lobster season ends on Sunday, June 30, and since most fishermen do not fish on Sunday they would have to haul their lobster traps on Saturday, June 29. Will the Minister extend the season to Monday, July 1, so that our lobster

June 20, 1985
Oral Questions
fishermen will not lose a day's fishing which collectively would amount to over $3 million in landed value?


Mr. Mel Gass (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cardigan, who has raised a question that is on the mind of every fisherman in Atlantic Canada. It is not only on the minds of fishermen from P.E.I. but also on the minds of fishermen from St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia, who have also made the same request. I can inform the Hon. Member that we are considering the matter and we will have an answer for him, probably next week.

[ Translation]


OLD AGE SECURITY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He made new overtures today during the Question Period in replying to one of my colleagues when he said that he was ready to make the announcement in the House.
We all know that the House will be sitting until June 28. Will the Prime Minister stop fooling around with the anxiety and uncertainty of senior citizens and make his announcement immediately to stop this charade?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all I did was to say in reply to a question from my hon. friend that, if we had such a statement to make, and I have already shown my genuine concern for the situation of senior citizens, it would be made in this House, as this would seem normal and desirable.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER GRANT WISH OF ELDERLY
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
All these ifs and maybes will not help senior citizens pay their rent at the end of the month. The Prime Minister is aware that we are very close to July 1, when senior citizens will have to renew their lease for a full year, including part of 1986, which will be affected by his decision. Will the Prime Minister finally make up his mind and tell senior citizens that he was wrong, that he will reverse his stand and that he will respect the wishes of his own Aunt Jeanne in Baie-Comeau, who signed the petition and told the Prime Minister: Brian, we have done our share in life, you have no right to touch the pensions of senior citizens and you promised you would do no such thing. Will the Prime Minister at least listen to his Aunt Jeanne and grant the wishes of the elderly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My Aunt Jeanne, whom I loved very much, died 11 years ago. The Hon. Member has given me some good news. In fact, this an extraordinary piece of news. If I may, Mr. Speaker, 1 shall leave the House immediately to make a phone call.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS EXPORT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO CHILE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. Is the House ready for another question? The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that on Tuesday of this week his Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House that the Government had made known to the authorities in Chile its revulsion at the practices of that regime, practices of torture, brutality, and indiscriminate killing of innocent people.
Since the Prime Minister's Government has been in power, he has authorized, through his Secretary of State for External Affairs, the export of over $11 million worth of military equipment to the Chilean army and the Chilean national police force. Why has the Government permitted these exports when it expresses its revulsion at the brutality of the Government of Chile?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised this question the other day in the House of Commons with regard to an export by a small Canadian company, the purpose of which was to protect people from being blown up by bombs. I think those facts are now known to the House. It is also known that because I was concerned about the application of Canadian export policy, some months ago, before the Hon Member raised this question, I ordered a review in dept of the practices of the Government with regard to the standards we apply to exports.
It is a very difficult and complex question. It is easy to state the principle. It is much more difficult to apply it in practice. 1 say in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that I would welcome suggestions by the Hon. Member of ways in which we could apply that important principle in practice that will not, for example, contribute to the blowing up of people whose work it is to protect against bombs and other explosions.


GRANTING OF EXPORT PERMITS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps any support of the national police force of Chile or of
June 20, 1985

the Chilean Armed Forces could be considered inappropriate by the Government, considering the behaviour of the Chilean police force and Armed Forces, in terms of their abuse of human rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Specifically, why did the Minister approve $11 million in exports of military equipment to Chile, including parts for tanks, and from Standard Aero of Winnipeg the overhaul of engines for the Chilean Air Force? Why did he allow de Havilland, a Crown corporation, to export spare parts for the Chilean Armed Forces aircraft?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is a repetition of the earlier question. 1 noted with some interest that the Hon. Member said perhaps the way to deal with these questions is simply to state a principle and cut off all exports. He knows better than that, Mr. Speaker. I would seriously ask him to address a very difficult question, a question as to how we apply in practice a principle which would be applauded by all Members of this House-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Spare parts for tanks?


Charles Joseph Clark: -that we should not be contributing to the ability of oppressive regimes to oppress their people.
1 have started a review in the Department of External Affairs.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: What about those peaceful tanks?


Charles Joseph Clark: I would welcome, and I sincerely invite, specific suggestions by the Hon. Member if he is indeed serious about this question as to ways in which we could define the practices.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Transport) who, 1 think, is responsible for the transportation of handicapped persons in this country. I have also been informed that the committee set up five years ago to study policies for improving handicapped persons' access to transportation has been disbanded. I would like to hear from the Minister whether this is true and, if so, what kind of impact that action will have.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member for Bourassa will listen to what we have to say concerning handicapped persons. Indeed,
Petitions
we have decided to disband the committee which used to advise the Minister on matters relating to the transportation of handicapped persons, but we are happy indeed to announce in this House the establishment of an action committee on the transportation of handicapped persons in Canada, with much more specific terms of reference, which will directly advise the Minister on all means of transportation in order to enable us to adapt those means of transportation to the needs of the handicapped.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of nine, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, June 19, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.



POINT OF ORDER


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, at 2.05 p.m. today, 1 absolutely unwittingly, and inadvertently, misled the House when 1 said that the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) signed a petition concerning the deindexation of old age pensions. That is not the case. Therefore 1 withdraw, absolutely and completely, my remarks concerning the very hon. gentleman from Victoria, and I thank him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a group of petitions from various ridings.

June 20, 1985
Petitions
They come from the City of Yellowknife, NWT, as well as from the ridings of Montreal-Mercier, P.Q., Capilano, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver East, Vancouver-Kingsway, Vancouver South, Vancouver Quadra and Vancouver Burnaby, BC.
Also from the ridings of Trois-Rivieres, and Gamelin, PQ, Red Deer, Alberta, Restigouche and York-Sunbury, NB, as well as from the City of Winnipeg, Man.
The undersigned ask the government to consider needy single, separated and divorced people between 60 and 64 years of age as mostly dependent on federal assistance, arguing that its decision to grant spouse's allowances only to needy widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age is outright discriminatory.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present, containing almost 600 names of people from Saskatchewan, mainly from the Prince Albert area. In the majority, these petitioners are pensioners. They say that the May 23 Budget imposes undue and unfair hardship on them by the deindexation of their Old Age Security program. They ask the Government to reconsider and to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 500 constituents of the riding of Trinity, mostly old age pensioners. They ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to respect his commitment in the 1984 election campaign to maintain full indexation of old age pensions.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by 1,500 residents of Manitoba, most of whom are from my constituency, but some of whom are from Winnipeg-St. James, Winnipeg-Assiniboine, Provencher, Selkirk-Interlake and Portage-Neepawa. These petitioners call upon the Government to stop the proposed deindexation of pensions and say that the losers will be the poor, the unemployed and women, and that the wealthy will be the winners.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present several petitions from constituents of Gloucester, New Brunswick-

-asking the government to reconsider its position on Bill C-26 and to expand the fiscal measures promised in Bill C-26 in order to include the individuals who are single, separated or divorced.
I also have another petition, Mr. Speaker, this one from the federal constituency of Verdun-Saint-Paul, in Quebec, asking this government to grant the spousal allowance to citizens between the age of 60 and 64 who are single, separated or divorced, who are in need and who are among a category of our population most dependent on government assistance.
I also have a petition, Mr. Speaker, from the federal constituency of Skeena, in British-Columbia, which was signed by many residents of that riding asking this House to humbly acknowledge that single, separated and divorced persons aged between 60 and 64, are in need and are part of the category of population most dependent on government assistance and that the government has a duty to expand its assistance to include those persons in need who are either single, separated or divorced.
I also have, Mr. Speaker, a petition from the riding of Ottawa-Vanier, my own riding, and the petitioners are asking the government to reconsider its position on Old Age Security pensions, to be true to its word and to reinstate full indexation for our senior citizens who are entitled to their old age pension.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have another petition from my riding of Ottawa-Vanier, humbly asking the House to accept a petition which, in their own words, views the Budget of the Conservative Government as harsh and merciless toward senior citizens because it eliminates full indexing of old age pensions. They ask the Government to reconsider this measure and to hold to its promise made during the last election campaign.

I also have another petition, this one from residents of a senior citizens' home, Fatima, in the constituency of Ottawa-Vanier, who are asking the government to change its position concerning desindexation of Old Age Security Pensions, to be true to its word, to revert to a better attitude and to fully index the old age pension for those who need it.
Mr. Speaker, I have yet another petition, this one signed by residents of Charlotte Street, in my riding, people who live in a senior citizens' home and who are asking the government to reconsider its position, to be true to its word and to stop thinking that savings can be made on the backs of older people and to give our elderly fully indexed pensions for all Canadians.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, this one from constituents of the Ottawa-Centre riding. It is signed by several residents of this great constituency of Ottawa-Centre who are asking the government... It reads as follows: In the opinion of your petitioners, the Conservative government's budget is harsh and merciless for senior citizens since it removes full indexation of Old Age Security pensions. They ask the govern-
June 20, 1985

ment to reconsider its position and to give older people who are eligible fully indexed pensions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have petitions on other subjects? He knows that he can simply indicate to the House that he has other petitions on those subjects and present them now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have, if you have noticed, talked about several petitions. Two petitions, in my view, are interspersed here. I do not have them in order, I regret, but 1 would like to-


Mr. Speaker:: That is the practice. Does the Hon. Member have any new subjects to introduce? Otherwise he can simply indicate to the House that he has more petitions on the same matters, and those petitions will be treated with exactly the same respect as the ones he has already presented. He knows that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, if you insist that you should decide how I present my petitions, then I will present them again tomorrow. I thought it was the Member's prerogative and choice as to whether he files them or reads them. I really do not understand, but I will wait until tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, if that is your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member does understand totally.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I too have a couple of petitions to present which I am duty-bound to do. One is from the people in Pioneer Village in Regina, Saskatchewan, Regina West constituency, calling for the House of Commons in the current budget debate to restore full indexation for Old Age Security programs in Canada commencing January 1, 1986.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, which I know will be of particular interest to my good friend from Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). This petition calls upon the Government of Canada to ensure adequate and fair provision of airline services to all Canadians, and states that the recent action by Air Canada to close its entire Saskatchewan ticket reservation service would detract from the fair and equitable provision of service. I have the honour and the duty to present a petition with some 2,200 names on it, just from the City of Regina.
[Translation\


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by 258 residents of the
Petitions
Province of Quebec, mostly pensioners, who say that, in their opinion, the Budget places an unfair burden on pensioners because of the deindexation of the Old Age Security Pension Plan and who ask the Government of Canada and Parliament to re-establish full indexation of old age security pensions in Canada.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions, one from a group of Canadians who call on the Government of Canada to enter a transfer of offenders' agreement with the State of New Jersey so that Bruce Curtis can be discussed as a possible candidate to come back to serve his sentence in Canada, where he will be close to his family and to those who offer him comfort and support.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition from a group of Canadians who protest the discriminatory legislation introduced by the Government which benefits widows and widowers between the ages of 60 to 64, but ignores others in poverty in that age category.
And finally a petition by another group of Canadians dealing with the partial deindexation of the pensions of senior citizens and calling upon the Parliament of Canada to reject the Budget and, in particular, that provision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Wyn-yard, Saskatchewan, in my riding, who wish it to be known that they are opposed to the partial deindexing of pensions which will mean a reduction in their real spending power in 1986 of $100, escalating up to 1991 when that reduction in spending power will be as high as $680 for the year. They urge the Government to reindex pensions as was promised during the election campaign.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from the ridings of Dartmouth, Halifax East, from the riding of Laval-des-Rapides, from the riding of Victoria, from the ridings of Edmonton South, Edmonton West and Edmonton East, from the ridings in Montreal as well as the riding of Restigouche, New Brunswick, from the riding of Winnipeg-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Which one?


Sergio Marchi: All of them there are so many of them-again from the riding of Restigouche, as well as from the riding of

June 20, 1985
Petitions
Edmonton South. I am doing the House a favour because I am not reading them all out. There is another petition from a riding in Montreal, another from the riding of Victoria and the last one is from the riding of North Vancouver, Burnaby.
All of these petitions call upon the Government to expand Bill C-26 to include those individuals between the ages of 60 and 64 who may be single, divorced or separated, to qualify for the spousal allowance and make it fairer and more equitable for all those Canadians in those age groups to take part in and take advantage of the financial assistance that would be provided under Bill C-26.


Sergio Marchi: 1 have another two petitions from my own riding of York West. The first one comes from hundreds of senior citizens from the Eagle Manor Apartments which is a senior citizens home in York West. They are advocating and asking this Government to maintain and enhance the full indexation of their Old Age Security pensions and not to proceed according to the budget measure announced on May 23.
The second petition from the riding of York West is from individuals, from seniors and non-seniors alike, who are also asking that this Government maintain the full indexation on their Old Age Security cheques. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition signed by some 260 Canadians who are calling upon the Government to restore full indexation of Old Age Security pensions. These Canadians reside in the federal riding of Nepean-Carleton which until now has been represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not for long.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker,
Nepean-Carleton is still well represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament.
I would like to present a petition from 565 residents in 424 homes in my riding from the Chapel Hill area of the City of Gloucester requesting the Canada Post Corporation to effect whatever measures are necessary to provide them with door-to-door mail delivery, including the consideration of alternate day delivery, as soon as possible.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present on behalf of a number of citizens of the wonderful and beautiful City of Yorkton, Saskatchewan, which is the most beautiful city, of course, in the Province of Saskatchewan.


John V. Nunziata: How beautiful is it?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Much more beautiful than your City of Toronto, by the way.
[ Translation]
Please forgive me for wandering from the point, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present on behalf of these good citizens of the City of Yorkton and their petition, too, complains about the Government taking away in part their indexed pensions which will leave a lot of them living in poverty. They say that the big losers in particular will be the poor, the unemployed and the women. Thank you.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by hundreds of residents, mainly senior citizens, from the City of Regina who join with hundreds and thousands of other Canadians across this land in urging the Government not to deindex the pensions partially but to maintain the full indexing of the pensions so that our senior citizens can retire with some sense of dignity.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 have here a petition from residents of the City of Toronto who point out that the Government plans to cut the old age pension by $100 in 1986, $207 in 1987 and so on and so on. They remind the Government of the Progressive Conservative promise that a PC Government would once more index the old age pension to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis, and request Parliament to ensure that the Government will reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program and guarantee this to the citizens of Canada next year.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions here from seniors in Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands protesting the Government's action in the May 23 Budget in cutting the indexing of their Old Age Security pension, which will result in the loss of $100 in 1986 and cumulatively adding to that until it will be a $680 loss in 1991. They say that this flies in the face of the promises that were made very solemnly by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during last summer's election campaign and they call upon the Government to index fully Old Age Security for all seniors.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition from the normally warm hearted citizens of the banana belt who are now showing considerable heat about the actions of the Government with respect to the deindexation of pensions and petition the Government to revoke its proposal to deindex Old Age Security. This is in addition to the thousands already submitted from Windsor on this subject.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a total of 786 further names to add to those petitioners. The first set of petitions is from the constituency of Essex-Kent and in particular such towns as Wheatley, Leamington,
June 20, 1985

Cottam and Harrow, and I am pleased that I am able to present these petitions on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell), indicating the opposition of the various people who live in that Conservative constituency to the Budget that the Government has brought down with its broken promises and its damage to senior citizens.
1 have a second petition from Windsor West and I am pleased to be able to present this petition indicating the petitioners' unhappiness and sense of betrayal with respect to this Budget.
Finally, I have two sets of petitions from the grand constituency of Essex-Windsor. Many of the petitioners are from Belle River and they express their deep, deep sense of frustration that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is not prepared to follow through with his recent statements that he intends to make changes and will not announce when he will do so.
The final bundle of these signatures from all parts of Essex-Windsor demonstrate to me as I hope they will demonstrate to the House the tremendous base of popular opposition that exists to this Budget and the widespread hopes across this country that the Government will quickly change its policies.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise before you somewhat saddened but nonetheless with the obligation to bring to your attention many, many signatures on a number of petitions from the constituents of Mount Royal riding and particularly from the Town of Cote St. Luc. 1 think these people are wonderful because they are responding to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who said that he felt that he had heard from the people with regard to the Government's current Budget and that they were in favour of it. These wonderful citizens from-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member to summarize the petition, please?


Sheila Finestone: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 would be happy to but I wanted to mention where these people live. They come from MacMurray, Caldwell, Cavendish and Emerald Streets and they are petitioning to tell the Minister of Finance that they do not agree with his new proposals, and that on the grounds that the provisions will severely limit the purchasing power of the elderly and will therefore cause a great hardship to them, they have affixed their signatures and wish to deposit in their names through me this petition, which describes their great disappointment with the Budget presentation and the deindexation which was included in the last Budget. This petition is signed by 100 people from the streets of Trent, Wolseley, Rand, Cavendish and Earnscliffe.
1 have another petition which has been signed by the women of my riding and of Cote St. Luc who bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance that 58 per cent of the recipients of Old Age Security are women, two out of three of those who receive Guaranteed Income Supplements are women, they are all living in poverty already and any deindexing is a form of a cut-back on the principle of universality. They have deposited
Petitions
their complaint in that regard and they come from Mackie, Decarie, Van Horne, MacDonald and Chester Streets.
Last, I have an additional submission, which is again in the interests of removing the restrictive clauses and reinstating full indexation to our pensioners. It is signed by people from the Streets of Dufferin, Monpetit and Cote St. Luc.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Lang-don), and I are pleased to see that the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) has been making his case on this matter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in person.
I have the honour to present petitions from constituents primarily in the riding of Thunday Bay-Nipigon who protest that the May 23 Budget imposes undue and unfair hardship on pensioners by deindexing the Old Age Security Program and that this deindexation represents a massive withdrawal from our collective commitment to public pensions. The losers will be the poor, the unemployed and women. These constituents humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program in Canada forthwith.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present petitions on behalf of my constituents who are concerned about the Government's action with regard to the deindexation of Old Age Security. I have a petition that is signed by leaders of the unions at Great Lakes Forest Products Limited in Thunder Bay who say that deindexing represents a massive withdrawal from our collective commitment to public pensions, indicating that the Government favours shifting to a system of tax subsidies and private savings for retirement.
I also have a petition from the residents of the Niagara of the North, Kakabeka Falls, and surrounding area, part of which I share with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), and the petitioners say that the cuts in the OAS fly in the face of a Progressive Conservative campaign promise that a PC Government would once more index the old age pension to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis.
Finally, I would like to table petitions bearing the signatures of 359 residents of the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan who say that, in the opinion of the petitioners, the May 23 Budget imposes undue and unfair hardship on pensioners by deindexing the Old Age Security Program. That brings my total to date over five days of presenting petitions to well over 1,200 signatures.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, 1 also wish to table, first of all, a block of five petitions from the Nicolet-Yamaska riding, where a few hundred people are
6050

June 20, 1985
Petitions
protesting vehemently against the obviously discriminatory provisions-


Don Boudria: With good reason!


Alain Tardif: -contained in Bill C-26 as concerns divorced, separated and single people.
I also have a bundle of 10 petitions from the same Nicolet-Yamaska riding, where people are revolted to see that the provisions of C-26 do absolutely nothing for people over 60 who are separated, divorced or single.
I also have a petition from the federal constituency of St. John's East, in which region of our beautiful country people are also protesting against an unprecedented social injustice and are respectfully asking this Government to reconsider its position.
I also have another petition, Mr. Speaker, from the constituency of Dauphin-Swan River in Manitoba from people who wish to present the same grievance to this House.
I also have a petition, Mr. Speaker, from Saint John, New Brunswick, where people also deplore the injustice and discrimination resulting from Bill C-26.
I have another petition from the same constituency from people who find the provisions of Bill C-26 completely unfair and discriminatory.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a last petition from the constituency of Charlesbourg, in Quebec City, where people also deplore the unfortunate provisions of Bill C-26 which are very unfair for divorced, separated and single people.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I wish to present to the House today.
First of all, I have here a petition signed by 34 Golden Age Club members from Limoges, Ontario, in the Glengarry-Prescott-Russell riding, who ask the House to blame the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for bringing out a budget which adversely impact upon senior citizens by desindexing their Old Age Security pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I have also a petition signed by 67 Golden Age Club members from Fournier, in the Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell riding, who are protesting the government decision to deindex Old Age Security pensions.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which is signed by 70 residents of Vankleek Hill, Ontario. Vankleek Hill is a very beautiful town in my riding. Those people are protesting the provisions of the
Budget which will impact adversely upon 200,000 senior citizens of the country by deindexing their pension.
Finally, I have a petition which is signed by the residents of Hawkesbury in the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. They also state that the Budget will be unfair to senior citizens in deindexing their pensions.
I have further petitions.

Mr. Speaker, 1 have here a petition which deals with a different but equally important issue. The petitioners, all residing in the Restigouche riding, ask the House to oppose the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26 which will exclude some senior citizens between 60 and 64 years of age from the benefits of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition signed by a number of Montreal residents, and another one signed by a number of Laval-des-Rapides residents, who are so well represented in the House by my colleague and friend.
1 have also a petition signed by some residents of the Vancouver South and Vancouver Quadra ridings in British Columbia. They want the House to know that they are against Bill C-26 because it discriminates against people 60 to 64 years of age who are single, divorced or separated.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I will have more of the same type of petitions to present tomorrow.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a few petitions signed by residents of my constituency, that is from the villages of Cap-Pele, Robichaud, Haute-Aboujagane, Saint-Joseph, She-diac, as well as by people from Moncton, Fredericton and Barker's Point.
Also some people from Cap-Pele, Shediac, Scoudouc and Memramcook.
Those people demand, Mr. Speaker, through this House, that Parliament take into account the fact that 80,000 persons could suffer from social injustice and discrimination, if the Prime Minister does not make the suggested alterations to Bill C-26.
I also have on the same subject, Mr. Speaker, several petitions, among others, one signed by residents of Darmouth and Halifax. Another petition comes from Brampton-West.
Mr. Speaker, I have another one from Ottawa West and one from Nepean-Carleton.
I have another petition signed by residents of the Northwest Territories.
June 20, 1985

I have another petition from Surrey-White Rock, in British Columbia, another from Capilano and a last one from Nanaimo, in British Columbia. All those people, of course, are asking that the spouse's allowance be extended to every needy single person aged 60 to 64.
Mr. Speaker, on another matter, I have a petition from my constituents who deplore the measures announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his last Budget about the partial deindexation of old age pensions. They demand that the government reconsider its decision about that bill.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of 1,700 residents of Ontario and Quebec, mostly from the National Capital Region, who are calling on the House of Commons to ensure that the one dollar banknote remains in circulation in Canada and that it not be replaced in its entirety by the one dollar coin.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a few petitions from constituents, citizens from various constituencies.
First of all, I have a petition signed by more than 5,000 persons from, I should say, the beautiful constituency of Montreal-Sainte-Marie, who are asking the Right Hon. Prime Minister to amend Bill C-26 to provide help for people aged 60 to 64 living alone, whether single, separated or divorced.
1 would also have another petition from people residing in the federal constituency on Elgin, or Prince Edward Island. Some 40 people are asking the Right Hon. Prime Minister to amend Bill C-26 to stop discriminating against 80,000 persons in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, a petition signed by proud citizens of Edmonton, Alberta. They asked me to table on their behalf a petition asking that the Minister of Social Injustice in Canada amend his ways and introduce amendments to Bill C-26 now before us.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, signed by a group of citizens from the constituency of Gloucester, New Brunswick. They ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to recognize a degree of social justice for 80,000 persons victimized by Bill C-26 which, if not amended, will discriminate against persons who are single, separated or divorced, 80 to 85 per cent of whom are women, as we know.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by citizens from a very particular group, being from the city-


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Petitions


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


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago, we had agreed ... the Chair had agreed that petitions to be presented and all dealing with the same subject should be grouped rather than introduced separately. Mr. Speaker, under the rulings made earlier, it was agreed that Hon. Members should not use the Standing Order on petitions to extend the time of the House by introducing petitions on one subject successively rather than in one group. For instance, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) should-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. I appreciate the point of order, but the Chair does not feel that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie {Mr. Malepart) has to this day abused the rules in the way he presented his petitions. It is my view that some of them deal with Bill C-26 while others deal with another subject. There it is! For the time being, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie may go on presenting his petitions.


Marcel Prud'homme: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on the same point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, before you, your successors or anyone else in the Chair make a ruling that could prove unfortunate ... It reads very well, and if there is something sacred in our British parliamentary system, it is the right to present a petition. What do you expect, if you are dealing with an issue, if a group of persons or an individual presents a petition it is quite proper that the names and object of the petition be made public, this is not a case where one simply says: I have a pile of petitions, here they are, thank you.
That is contrary to British parliamentary procedure, because the right to present a petition is a sacred right. Indeed it is quite clearly expressed: . . . who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged rights.
I rather doubt that anyone can give that right a definition which differs from what was intended, the right of the people to have their day in court. I would suggest that it cannot be done in a disorderly manner by saying: Here, Mr. Speaker, I have received a pile of petitions, I present them, thank you. I think people have that right, and since a basic principle might be established today I want us to reserve judgment on that.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier on the same point of order.

June 20, 1985
Petitions


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Since the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) raised the point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the House to Beauchesne's-

-Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 692 reads:
While a Member may, if he desires, present a petition from his place in the House during Routine Proceedings and before the Introduction of Bills, he may also present his petition by filing it with the Clerk of the House.
So the "may", Mr. Speaker, means that an Hon. Member while in his place may choose the option of reading his petitions from his place or filing them in groups with the Table. Therefore, I submit that the Hon. Member has not abused the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all respect, that was a decision given by the Chair. I would like to point out-
[ Translation]
Order, please. I think that the procedure to present a great number of petitions without taking too much of the time of the House was followed a few moments ago by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) who, I think, presented about twenty petitions in a very short time. So far I do not think at all that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has abused the time of the House. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie to continue to present his petitions.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my opinion on the same point of order. This is the second or third time that we have experienced certain difficulties about this and I think the procedure should be explained to the Hon. Member. The petitions may indeed deal with the same issue, put the people from the various ridings want to be clearly identified, they do not want to be lost in a melting pot. I am finished, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that the Chair does not object to the fact that the Hon. Member might mention the name of each riding from which the petitions originate. The problem comes up when a Member makes lengthy comments after mentioning the name of the riding from which the petition comes. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, to get back to the petition I was presenting to the House, I was saying that the petition was on behalf of people from Toronto and Sudbury, but they also include members of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and they are asking the Right Hon. Prime Minister to amend Bill C-26 to eliminate any discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, my last petition is from the riding of Victoria in New Brunswick. One hundred residents in this riding asked me to present a petition, and they want the Minister of Social
Injustice Canada to amend Bill C-26 so that everyone, whether single, separated or divorced, can benefit under this legislation.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the petitions took so long that the Parliamentary Secretary, who was to present the questions to be answered, is not here.
This is a great honour for me to be able to respond. Mr. Speaker, Question No. 341 will be answered today.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Did the Minister of Employment and Immigration give administrative power over the MILAP grant to Mr. Thor Peterson of Campbell River on the advice of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is Mr. Thor Peterson using any of the grant to provide (a) wages to (b) expenses to (i) himself (ii) his wife (iii) his brother and, if so, in each case, how much?
3.	Is the Minister of Employment and immigration aware of any member of Mr. Thor Peterson's immediate family working as a confidential employee of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and, if so, who?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. Mr. Thor Peterson of Campbell River, B.C. was asked by the Minister of Employment and Immigration to act in the position of chairperson for the West Coast Fishery Central Community Adjustment Committee (CAC) organized under the Modified Industry and Labour Adjustment Program (MILAP). The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was consulted as the MILAP policy framework calls for the appointment of CAC chairpersons by the Minister of Employment and Immigration following consultations with the regional ministers concerned.
2.	The committee may claim eligible costs paid by the committee for reimbursement of: chairperson and subcommittee chairperson fees and travel and other expenses incurred while performing authorized services for or on behalf of the committee; travel and other expenses of committee members while performing authorized services for or on behalf of the committee; consulting fees for research and studies; and actual costs for necessary stenographic and clerical services, rental of premises, office supplies and services, printing and photocopying, and such other expenses as may be approved. West Coast Fishery Committee claims approved as at May 1, 1985 for:
(a)	Wages-(i) $5,500 to Mr. Thor Peterson for Chairperson fees; (ii) nil; (iii) nil.
(b)	Expenses-(i) $1,649 to Mr. Thor Peterson for travel and other expenses; (ii) nil; (iii) nil.
3.	At the time this question was placed on the Order Paper, the Minister of Employment and Immigration was not aware
June 20, 1985

of any member of Mr. Thor Peterson's immediate family working as a confidential employee of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister has since been advised, by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that Thor Peterson's daughter Anne works as a special assistant (constituency) in the Office of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the President of the Privy Council has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of report stage of Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and on Motions Nos. 1 and 2 (Mr. Epp (Provencher)) (p. 6021).
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment of the debate for Question Period at two o'clock, we were discussing Bill C-26. Our Party, of course, although we are in favour of the principles of the Bill-we are obviously in favour of anything which will increase benefits to people between the ages of 60 and 64-is of the view that the Bill could be much further enhanced if we were to remove the discriminatory clauses which make life so difficult for the 80,000 Canadians who will be discriminated against. I was about to describe to you at that time, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you will recall it vividly, that single, separated and divorced people would be discriminated against.
Let me describe to you, Mr. Speaker, some of the difficulties we see. I was describing to the Chair before the adjournment that, for instance, in the case of a divorced person whose former spouse was perhaps contributing toward support and who subsequently died, that person would find herself in a similar condition to being a widow, because essentially she would be living alone with no other means of support than her own.
There is a further complication, Mr. Speaker. In some debates in the past I challenged this Government to arrive at a proper and equitable definition of a widow in terms of this Bill. Perhaps some Hon. Members of this House would say that "widow" or "widower" are both fairly easy to define because it means "one whose spouse has passed away". That is perhaps so, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to give you some instances where the Government could really get itself into a situation
Old Age Security Act
which would make it impossible to define who would be eligible for benefits and who would not. There is the case of a person who is widowed and will be receiving benefits. What about the case of a person who is widowed and then remarries? Of course, everyone will agree that that person is no longer a widow. But what happens to a person who is widowed, remarries and then divorces? Does that person go back to the original status of widow or widower? Will that person then be eligible for benefits?
There are numerous examples I could give to you, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I will because I see you are insisting that I explain it further. I can describe to you just how these provisions are discriminatory and how the Government has got itself into a kind of situation, Mr. Speaker, which is totally unacceptable. The only legitimate thing to do is to expand those benefits, at least the one-year provision we described in the amendment. What we really want, and what we have been trying to convince the Government of for a long time through the presentation of petitions here today and on many other days, is that it should make benefits available to all needy people between the ages of 60 and 64. The "minister of social injustice", otherwise known as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), would surely understand that. In order to restore his proper title I am sure he will want to correct the provisions of this Bill which make the present legislation so discriminatory.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), on a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He has already spoken.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You already spoke, didn't you? [Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, could you ask the Government House Leader to put on his earphone so he can follow the translation, and then he can ask his questions.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I can inform the Government House Leader that we are ready to proceed with third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Epp (Provencher)) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 2 also standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Epp (Provencher)) agreed to.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26, which has been in the House of Commons for some period of time, is a further effort by the Parliament of Canada to improve the benefits for Canadians in need of Old Age Security, specifically the spouses allowance. At the time this Bill was introduced I said I believed it would have the support of every Member of the House. During the discussion on the Bill there have been proposals, as recently as a few minutes ago, that it be extended to Canadians who are single, separated or divorced. We have looked at that very seriously and I guess there are two points which have to be made. The first is that those who say the legislation is discriminatory should be careful because, if that is the case, then one could make that charge against the spouse's allowance as well. If you discriminate against single people on the one hand, you could then discriminate against married people on the other, and I do not think we want to discriminate against either. It is my hope as the Minister of National Health and Welfare that over the life of this Parliament, as the economy improves, we can examine some of the proposals made by Members on both sides as well as those people who approached the committee regarding Bill C-26.
I think Members on all sides have had the experience of people coming into their office and explaining that they are unable to receive a pension by virtue of their marital status, that is, as widows they were not eligible for the pension their spouse would have received had he or she lived. What this Bill does is to extend to a group of needy Canadians a benefit for which they become eligible by reason of age and marital status. Therefore, Members of this House, and others who follow them, will no longer have to say to these people that they are not eligible for any benefit other than social assistance.
This legislation will affect approximately 85,000 Canadians, of whom it is estimated 72,000 are women. The legislation is targeted very specifically, not only to the most needy of that age group, but to women who are in greatest need. They have this need, frankly, because they have been homemakers and mothers for most of their lives. They have not been in the so-called workforce and have not contributed to society in a specific financial way. They are, after the death of a spouse, then faced with the prospect of having to go into the workforce, something which they have not done for many, many
years. As well, the work that is available to them, if it is available at all, is generally low-paid physical work which, by reason of age or health or both, they are incapable of performing. It is for those compelling reasons that the Bill was brought forward.
There is no question that we in government examined whether we could have gone further. I have said both here and in committee that the Government would like to move as far as it can on this pension issue, but we had to examine very carefully the financial realities. But despite restraint, despite the deficit and the costs it imposes on all Canadians, I believe the country is willing to move forward on this proposal on its merits.
We in this House hear a lot about pension reform. I am in favour of a very strong approach to pension reform. Those Canadians who are retired or close to retirement have limited flexibility in retirement planning, obviously. But those Canadians who are in the workforce or coming into the workforce have to recognize that planning for retirement is something that should be looked at much sooner than statistics indicate most Canadians do, that is in the last 10 years of their working life. If one starts thinking of it at the end, so to speak, and then starts to make plans, much of one's flexibility is lost. The House has a responsibility, and I have the mandate, for pension reform, not only incrementally as is being done through Bill C-26. I am not here to discuss the Budget right now. That is for another time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You wouldn't dare.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh, no I would dare. The provisions in the Budget for the Pension Benefits Standards Act have been lauded by everyone. They provide the flexibility to enable people to plan for and develop a pension plan. The House must move further in that direction. The matter of a homemaker's pension and extended benefits under the Canada Pension Plan along the lines followed by the Quebec Pension Plan commend themselves to most Members of the House.
I do not look at pensions only in the narrow confines of the budget debate or the confines of Bill C-26, but rather realize that pension planning takes an entire lifetime. Our society must realize that it is necessary for Canadians to plan for retirement. I know that many people have had a limited amount of income which makes that very difficult to do, but we must educate young people just entering the workforce about retirement planning. I know that people do not like to think of that time in their life because they have other priorities, but they should not ignore the necessity of pension planning.
Our demography in Canada is changing. It is of very little value to argue the narrow issues of whether pensions are at the proper level or how many people are living in poverty. We must address the causes of poverty and what changes can be made by society in order to alleviate or reduce that problem. I am well aware of the number of elderly people living below the
June 20, 1985

poverty line. 1 do not think there is one Member of this House who would not wish to allocate more money to that segment of the population if it were possible. However, we must bear in mind the financial situation of the country. Government and society must address the issue of a population study.
The Green Paper on the Immigration Act dealt in part with the population future of Canada. At the present time, approximately 12 per cent of Canada's population is over the age of 65. It is projected that in 12 to 15 years that age group will make up between 18 and 20 per cent of our population. Therefore, we must become much more aggressive and cooperative in studying our health care system in order to provide proper health care. We must put a much greater emphasis on preventive health care and health promotion, because Canadians over the age of 65 access the health care system substantially more than the rest of society. It is necessary to realize that from the point of view of future planning.
We are in our first generation of health care. Public health care in Canada began in the Province of Saskatchewan and has evolved and developed for 25 years. That system is good as is their pension system. We must all realize that while the system is good, it must be adjusted to meet present realities. The House has the very distinct opportunity and responsibility to plan together for retirement income and the health care system. Other aspects obviously must be added. The Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) who is also the Minister responsible for CMHC, realizes that from the point of view of housing. There are various components which must be given much more emphasis, and that is what the Government and I intend to do.
In conclusion, I appreciate the support of Members of the House for Bill C-26. I believe it is a progressive and good step. Eighty-five thousand Canadians will receive approximately $600 a month for which they are not presently eligible. Of those, 85,000, 72,000 are women living in the most difficult circumstances. Those are the strong points which commend this Bill to the House. I appreciate the views put forward by Members in committee, which views have been noted by the Government. I appreciate the fact that all Members want to have this Bill passed. The passage of this Bill will enable us to put this program in place for September 1, 1985. I thank the House for supporting this Bill.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-26, and I can give the Minister the assurance that the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition, intends to support this Bill. However I believe that the point the Official Opposition has been trying to make is, that all the arguments mentioned by the Minister to justify granting the spouse's allowance to widows and widowers, and all the examples he gave his constituency office, apply equally to individuals who are single, separated or divorced.
Old Age Security Act
Mr. Speaker, it is true that this is just one step, but Bill C-26 must be followed as soon as possible by the next step.
Mr. Speaker, when this Bill is implemented, and when, starting September 1, and in the months thereafter, people come with their problems to our constituency offices, I hope the Minister and his Conservative colleagues will remember they were forewarned by the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the more general subject of pension reform the Minister referred to earlier. I think that if we really want to make any progress in this area and ensure that the next generation will have an adequate retirement income, we cannot afford to study the issue piecemeal, as was proposed in the Budget. We cannot afford the so-called bandaid approach.
I agree with the Minister of National Health and Welfare that young people must be persuaded to save money for a decent retirement, but how can we urge 1.5 million unemployed, how can we ask them to save money for their retirement when they do not have enough money to keep body and soul together?
I think that what the Minister said earlier about pension reform in connection with employment and housing is quite true. Unfortunately, the Government is doing the exact opposite. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has made his own review of the situation. The Minister responsible for Housing makes his own decisions, and tomorrow he is going to announce closings and changes everywhere, without consulting a soul, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) makes his own decisions again.
Mr. Speaker, the very important question arises: Can the private and public sectors absorb 1,400,000 unemployed? Can the private and public sectors respond to the Government's request to eliminate full unemployment? My answer is: no. What other means do we have to solve the unemployment problem and help solve problems for people who want to be able to retire?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the parties and all intervenors, from all parts of the socio-economic sphere, should look at the broader rather than the sectorial aspects of the question. There are quite a few men and women who are now 59 or 60 years old and who are employed in the textile or footwear industry for instance, who work even if they are ill, and who are obliged to remain on the labour market for financial reasons. A large percentage of these people are not interested in going back to school to learn new technologies, and at the same time, we are telling young people who are trained: Stay home and collect unemployment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I have an example of this in my riding, in the tobacco industry. This particular business had a surplus of 60 employees that it would have to lay off. Normally, according to the collective bargaining agreement, the last 60 hired would

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act
be laid off. The union and management agreed to offer early retirement to whoever was interested. The company did not rely on the Government alone, but offered all employees who were 55 and over and had a fair number of years of seniority, $30,000 in cash, in fact what the company calls its private pension. Mr. Speaker, to my astonishment, not 60 but 120 employees accepted the offer and applied for early retirement.
Because of this, not only was part of the productivity problem of this company resolved, but jobs were also created for younger workers because 120 people were offered the choise of retiring at 60 with a decent income.
For my part, I am convinced that if business, labour, the consumer groups and the Governments really got together, we could not only reduce unemployment, but also improve the income and the quality of life of people who wish to take early retirement. We had an example of early retirement programs in the shoe and textile industry because of plant shut-downs and designated zones. I am personally convinced that, as far as the unemployment insurance fund is concerned, if the Governments really wanted to do it, if we were to add all the money allocated to social programs, whether we are speaking about unemployment insurance, old age security or social welfare, all programs which obviously represent enormous amounts of money, which admittedly comes from the taxpayers and do not belong in the pockets of Members of Parliament, and including the social housing programs which are important to provide assisance to the needy because it is a fact that in certain places, there are two classes of poor people, namely the lucky ones who have the same old age security pension or welfare cheques as others, but who live in low rental housing, and the others who are not so lucky because, in Montreal, there is a waiting list of 1,500 people for this type of housing, and who, with the same income, namely the old age security pension or welfare cheques, have higher expenses because they did not have the good luck to find a low rental appartment

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must act urgently to allow people to take an earlier retirement, and I honestly believed that a new Government with 211 Members in Parliament had a marvelous chance to do something else than apply band-aid measures and that it would develop some real policies in this regard. In European countries where such things have existed for hundreds of years, retirement plans were not invented by Governments, but rather by unions and workers. The workers themselves manage the pension funds. Whether in France, Germany or somewhere else, pension plans were not invented by the Governments, but by the workers. The business managers who administer their own pension funds are the ones to decide how the money will be invested and they are the ones who tell the Government what should be the amount of the contributions and benefits. However, in Canada, while the Quebec Pension Plan works well in my opinion, we must be honest as far as the Canada Pension Plan, which applies to all the other provinces, is concerned. Everyone knows that any
surpluses in the fund are lent at preferential rates to the provinces. Politicians of all parties will have to stop putting their heads in the sand. The money contributed by all taxpayers to pay for a retirement fund will have to be invested to provide better returns than at the present time. It is no secret that the provincial Governments, except in Quebec, want an increase in contributions, but not in benefits. Why is it? Because they want a surplus in the fund which they will be able to borrow to build and pave roads. However, 1 think that we must have the political will to stop the Canada Pension Plan from being a means to finance or to assist the provinces, and this is one of the basic reasons for creating a real program for retired citizens.
Looking at the recommendations contained in the Budget, and even at those submitted by the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs under the Liberal Government, some improvements are being made but still a large group of citizens in need are completely ignored. When one wishes to open the door to the private sector, which for years has had a chance to get into private sector retirement plans, there are thousands and thousands of employees in small businesses who for various reasons do not have private plans. And as long as we do not make sure that the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan will provide a reasonable amount to allow for a budget with the basic Old Age Security pension, 1 do not think we will have solved the problem. People who will come here after us in 20, 30 years from now will be making the same speeches we are now making, and will still be doing patchwork.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on this. There is still reason to rejoice in the fact that, as of September 1st, 85,000 people will benefit from the spouse's allowance, but 1 will tell the Government it could have chosen to give something else to those people, instead of the spouse's allowance. Because it is indeed rather strange that one should get the spouse's allowance after having had no spouse for 20 years. This could have been the basic Old Age Security Pension that could have been made accessible, and as we know there is a difference dollarwise between the spouse's allowance and the basic pension. But even though I have been quite critical of the Minister, 1 must recognize that some commendation is deserved for helping 85,000 people. It is my hope that next year we will discuss helping 80,000 other persons, and the year after we will be doing the same for couples.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say a few words on third reading. Let me start off by picking up on what the Minister said about our pension and medicare system. He made reference to the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), myself, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley), and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Hnatyshyn)
June 20, 1985

come from the Province of Saskatchewan where medicare first got its beginning. It actually started with hospitalization around 1946-47 around the time I was born. We had medicare in 1961 under Premiers Douglas and Lloyd. I think Saskatchewan led the way in social legislation and the kind of legislation we have before the House today. This kind of legislation is a positive step forward.
As we said before, there are a number of people who are discriminated against through no fault of their own who find themselves in poverty. I am referring to widows and widowers who are the ones, along with other pioneers who built this country, laid the foundation and made Canada what it is today. We as a younger generation ought to make sure that these people can live in dignity and have enough income in order to purchase the necessities in life. I support the measure before the House today.
We should keep in mind that about 42 per cent of the pensioners in Ontario, according to a recent study made public a few days ago, live in poverty. If 42 per cent in Ontario live in poverty, that percentage is surely a lot higher in Newfoundland, Manitoba and other provinces that are the so-called have-not provinces. We should be doing as much as possible to make sure that we extend to the seniors as many benefits as possible.
[ Translation]
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are all in agreement on Bill C-26 now before us. I would like to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for this measure. It will extend the spouse's allowance program to Canadian widows and widowers who are now in need, people between the ages of 60 and 64 who are now facing great difficulties in our society. As the Minister mentioned, there will be 85,000 people who will be helped by this measure, and they are mostly women.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I must say before this debate is concluded, and it is this: I support the legislation, as I said, but the Bill still is discriminatory. It discriminates against people who are single, people who are divorced, because under the Bill the spouse's allowance will be allowed to persons who are widows or widowers, but there will be nothing at all for those who did not marry or were divorced. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why such a discrimination? This is discrimination in our country and it is totally unfair, because we can find many examples of women or men who never married or who were divorced and now find themselves in the same economic and social situation as a neighbour who was married or whose spouse is now deceased, and then one neighbour will get the allowance while the other will not. In our society this is totally unfair.
As I said before dinner, we proclaimed the Charter in this country a few weeks ago-

We have the equality clause in the Charter of Rights. Here we are talking about equality on the basis of sex and every-
Old Age Security Act
thing else. Even though it is not in the Charter of Rights, this is an act of discrimination against single and divorced people.
In any case-

-I agree, we all agree on that, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we can all vote together for this legislation, and again 1 applaud the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, there are just a couple of words that I want to say. I will not hold up the debate for very long. I think it is important to keep in mind that the measure before us today with its deficiencies cannot be held in isolation as far as assisting the needy is concerned. I wish the Government of Canada had a united front as far as assisting the poor and the needy is concerned. It is all well and good to say, "We are doing this as a positive measure to assist people with income", while at the same time you do not assist them very much when you increase fuel taxes. You do not assist them when you increase the sales tax and extend it. Those things affect the very people you are trying to assist in the legislation before us today.
All this has to be taken into account when one talks about a Government that is sensitive to poor people and people who need assistance. It does not help either, Mr. Speaker, to pretend sometimes that you are considering such and such a measure that will affect people adversely. Take, for example, the postal rate increase. That increase was approved ages ago by Cabinet. It is in effect now. Not very many Members know that. I have had that verified. Many things have to be kept in mind and you take them as a whole. Is the Government of Canada being fair and honest when it says it is being sensitive to the poor people, to the people who are affected by this legislation in the rural areas? They are the same people who were affected when the Minister in charge of housing, who was in the Chamber a moment ago, cut back on the home repair program. I say that because the new criteria for getting money for home repair mean, with the present cuts, that only people in certain economic circumstances who would benefit from this legislation can now take advantage of that program. To cut back on that program is not assisting those people at all.
We considered recently the end of the oil substitution program. The criteria for that affected the very people we are talking about today, the poor people. When you look at it all, it is done on the basis of a means test. A lot of the programs in CMHC under the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) are so directed. When Cabinet Ministers consider legislation such as this, they should think about their own Departments and how they can assist poor people. This is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare is attempting to do under this piece of legislation, although not completely. It is not good enough for poor people who are recipients of various government programs to have one Department that is trying to help and another Department, bringing in new regulations because of the Budget or the financial statement which dis-

June 20, 1985
Old Age Security Act
criminate against the same people, especially if the new regulations involve additional fees or charges.
I have another suggestion for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A few moments ago he said that he was listening carefully to this debate and that he would see what he could do about some of the suggestions that had been made. In a previous debate I made a point about the fact that in the event of borderline cases, cases which have to be appealed or have to be decided upon by an independent board, all cheques emanating from the Department of National Health and Welfare or portions thereof are seized by provincial administrations because the individuals are on social assistance. If a person is really poor and is receiving social assistance, as is the case for many people affected by this legislation, the people about whom we are talking, this situation is not good enough. I could never understand how we got into that bind in the past. In fact, I cannot understand it today. I suppose it is because of good federal-provincial relations that when someone receiving social assistance suddenly becomes eligible for a federal pension or a payment from the Department of National Health and Welfare, the amount of money paid out by the provincial administration is taken 100 per cent from the federal payment, that is, the moment the person became eligible and throughout the appeal period. On the basis of the financial return to the federal Treasury, I hope the Minister agrees with me on the needs of the persons applying and qualifying for pensions but not receiving them because they are seized by provincial authorities with the agreement of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare.
I should like to put the example of a person receiving $8,000 before the Minister. That is a good figure to use because many of the appeals which go to the Minister's Department under its payment structure are around that figure. If that person has received $8,000 from the provincial Department of Social Services from the time he or she became eligible, and if he appeals through the Minister's Department, half of the $8,000 is paid from the federal Treasury in transfer payments under the Canada Assistance Plan. These payments are made at the end of every month. In effect, if $8,000 is paid out by a provincial Department of Social Services or Department of Welfare, $4,000 of it comes from the federal Government.
What happens after a person becomes qualified to receive cheques in the amount of $8,000 from the Department of National Health and Welfare? We must remember that a judgment had been reached prior to this point. Whether it is the Canada Pension Plan, a disability pension, an old age pension or a payment under the particular legislation before us today, a decision has been reached, the person qualifies, and what does the Government of Canada do? It passes $8,000 along to the provincial Government. How does it work? The provincial authority pays out $8,000, half of which is retrieved under the Canada Assistance Plan, so it actually paid out $4,000. Along comes the payment from the Department of National Health and Welfare which goes to the provincial
administration, and it ends up with $8,000 plus $4,000, for a total of $12,000 for paying out only $8,000.
I have tried to figure out how that is rationalized on the accounts at the end of the year. I still have not been able to do so. I cannot find anyone to tell me exactly how that amount is recovered. We are not talking about a large figure or about a great number of people, but we are talking about people in great need. According to my calculations, the provincial administration would stand to benefit $4,000 from that $8,000 pay-out.
I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare will check into the logic of what I have just said. He will find out that what I have said is correct. It has been going on for years. I am not accusing the Minister of implementing this when he took office. However, because of his good relations with provincial Tory Governments, the system of transferring money has become much easier since last September 4. In any event, he should check it out.
I would suggest that when someone is owed money by his Department, the Minister should pay 50 per cent of it to the provincial administration and the other 50 per cent to the recipient. Recipients believe that they are appealing pensions to which they are entitled. Therein the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be doing a great service for not all that many people, but for people who have been completely misled by the information which they received vis-a-vis their pension payments.
In conclusion, as I mentioned on another occasion, let us not forget that there are many people in the country who believe that when their pensions are increased or they suddenly become eligible for pensions, they will benefit in real terms. However, what about people on fixed incomes? We must remember that the amount of money a person receives depends upon the province in which he or she resides. I have never understood why provinces with some of the highest costs of living have the lowest payments. There are people between the ages of 60 and 65 today, with their children or grandchildren at home, who are receiving only the widow's allowance from the provincial Department of Social Services. Some provinces say that people 18 years of age and over who are able-bodied cannot receive any money under their social assistance schemes or do not qualify for family allowance payments. There are people operating under very tight budgets. We must keep in mind that many of them will not see any benefit at all because their social assistance payments will be removed. As well, people who are institutionalized and subsidized by this Government, directly or indirectly, only receive what is called the comforts allowance, whether it comes from social assistance, the federal cheque or wherever. As I said before, I have never been able to figure out why the comforts allowance in one province is higher than the comforts allowance in another province or why some of the richest provincial Governments- and Mr. Speaker knows the ones about which I am talking- have the lowest comforts allowance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
June 20, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, without amendment: Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada; Bill C-41, an Act to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and to amend the Crop Insurance Act in consequence thereof.
I also have a message informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-54, an Act granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1986.
Bill C-2, An Act respecting the winding-up of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation and Loto Canada Inc.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['My hon. friend, the government House Leader, observes that they just picked up the work that we were doing.\nI do not think that that is an accurate statement. My clear recollection of the approach of the former Liberal Government was to ask lawyers to go over all the legislation to find what needed to be changed to comply with the Charter and to prepare amendments to do that. They were not asked to prepare discussion papers and to call these issues grey areas, but were asked to propose the amendments that ought to be made to bring the Charter into full effect in this country.\nThe time that I have spent with the subcommittee has given me some great insights into the real shortcomings of this piece of legislation. For example, I asked a lawyer who appeared before the committee what advice she thought the law officers of the Crown must have given the Government about changes that were needed. She said that she felt that the Government was in a sense hiding behind its grey area theory and was saying that more discussion was needed. 1 asked her for a concrete example of the sort of thing that the Government was calling a grey area but that would be patently obvious to any lawyer and indeed to any Canadian who would think about it that an amendment to a law of Canada would be required by the Charter. The example to which she referred was the rights of handicapped people to exercise their franchise.\nNow, of course there is nothing in the law that prohibits the handicapped from voting, but what the Government knows very well is that the way polling booths are established on\nJune 20, 1985', 'voting day, absolutely no consideration is given to whether the handicapped can get into the polling station or not. Every Member of this House knows from his or her own experience that there are a great many polling stations into which handicapped people cannot enter. The lawyer to whom 1 spoke was confident, as I am, that this issue must have been brought to the attention of the Government and that some provision could have been brought forward to give the handicapped an option to vote in federal elections through mail-in ballots, as is done in a number of other countries, or perhaps at a polling station to which access is physically available. However, that does not appear in this legislation. I regret very much the fact that this is a technical Bill. I regret very much that the Government has taken that attitude toward the implementation of the provisions of the Charter.\n1 would like to tell Hon. Members about something else I experienced while participating on the subcommittee that is looking into these so-called grey areas. Last night, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) attended our meeting to explain to the subcommittee what he called the enthusiasm of the Department of National Defence for making equality a reality for women and others who have been closed out of full participation in the important work done by the Armed Forces.\nThe Minister showed mean-mindedness toward change. He told the committee that the Department was prepared to obey the law and to implement the provisions of the Charter. What he meant by that was that if, for example, the 10-year old girl who appeared before the subcommittee in Toronto the day before asking for the right which is now denied women to be a pilot could raise the support, could go to court, could win her case, could finance and appeal which would surely be forthcoming against a verdict that would be supportive of her, if the Department could examine the clause which gives it the right to override the Charter in certain limited circumstances, and if the Parliamentary Committee could not be persuaded to rubber-stamp the present arrangements of the Department of National Defence, then the regulations would be changed.\nThe Minister told us that there was a group examining various alternatives for increasing the participation of women in National Defence. He said that inquiries were being made of our NATO partners in order to find out what they were doing because God forbid that Canada should show a role of leadership in giving women equal rights in National Defence.\nWhat the meeting last night boiled down to was that the Charter was not the impetus for the Minister of National Defence to put anything new on the table as far as women are concerned. He was telling us about recommendations that were made in 1971 by a Royal Commission which examined management practices within the Government. He showed us how much progress had been made in his Department since 1971, and I suppose that progress was made by the former Liberal Government, in implementing recommendations now 13 years old. However, would the Charter lead this Minister to do anything new? Absolutely not, and that is very regrettable.\nAdjournment Motion\n1 mentioned the Minister of National Defence specifically because he appeared before us last night. I think that any Canadian can see from this Bill that every Department of Government has acted in virtually the same manner. They have proposed technical amendments, bankruptcy law amendments and changes in language to conform to sexual equality, but regrettably progress in creating greater equality will not come from the Government. It will come from private citizens who will insist on their rights and will take the trouble to go to court and from those who, if defeated, can afford to appeal.\nOn the subject of appeal, the Governement has taken a pretty clear position, although there was some difference between the positions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), on whether or not Canada would be prepared on any basis whatsoever to assist Canadians in bringing cases to court to establish the meaning of the Charter. So far, the word on that is that no financial assistance will be given by the Government for the bringing of lawsuits to establish this type of right.\nI conclude by indicating that Liberal Members will not obstruct this Bill. However, all of us regard it as a very great tragedy that an occasion that was looked forward to so much as being the moment when underprivileged groups would have their rights recognized is being deferred to the committee that is reviewing the document about grey areas and deferred to individuals who are determined and supportive enough to take their cases to court.\nI want to close by expressing the optimism which 1 feel for the spirit which I detected in the Justice subcommittee. It is working with very great vigour and it is working extremely long hours. It is determined to travel to all parts of the country. However, the subcommittee cannot hear everyone who wants to be heard. Over 800 groups and individuals want to be heard. Obviously, the subcommittee would never be able to conclude its work and submit a report if it heard all of them. However, I think there is some basis for optimism that the subcommittee, even though it is dominated by government Members, may well make recommendations which will take us beyond the very limited and technical advances which have been made in Bill C-27.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa,
June 20, 1985 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that Hon. Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 20th day of June, 1985, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler,
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms



Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity both at second reading and in committee to make my representations with respect to this Bill. I believe that this Bill has the unanimous support of the House in terms of its content. There is one amendment on which I will say a few words and repeat an undertaking that I believe the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) brought to the attention of the House, both at second reading and at committee, which resulted in a change to the Bill. I would like to also make one or two comments prior to doing that.
I think it is very important to understand that the purpose of this Bill is not to change policy. This Bill was brought in because lawyers in the Department of Justice thought that more than 55 Acts of Parliament as they stood would be viewed by courts as unconstitutional. As a result of that there were changes that were made, some of the changes being very significant.
In my view, and this is a personal impression, the powers with respect to search and seizure were long overdue, were absolutely necessary and as a result of a case that went to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Southam case, we found that dramatically changed the search and seizure provisions which I think inure to the protection of individual rights. I certainly applaud this change in so many statutes. We even see statutes now with respect to the Income Tax Act where the powers of search and seizure have been dramatically circumscribed.
With respect to the question of the Immigration Act, which was the subject matter of the only amendment in the immigration Act, the Act as it read previously, Section 29(2) and Section 29(3) said this:
(2)	At the request or with the permission of the person with respect to whom an inquiry is to be held, an adjudicator shall allow any person to attend an inquiry if such attendance is not likely to impede the inquiry.
(3)	Except as provided in subsection (2), an inquiry by an adjudicator shall be held in camera.
There was no practical criticism with respect to the handling of this particular procedure prior to this Bill. The Hon. Member for Spadina brought up the point that as a result of the prospective amendment, which was Section 112, of the new Bill that what might happen with respect to this matter is that there could be circumstances under which a refugee might not

June 20, 1985
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms want to disclose publicly to some people who might be in attendance or to some newspaper reporters who might be there the circumstances under which he was claiming the status of refugee for fear that certain consequences might ensue. This might very well be not only to him, but to members of his family. It might be people behind the Iron Curtain, it might be people in Chile, it might be people in many other countries where the public circumstances would be of such a nature that great harm could occur to the family.
This is something that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cros-bie), myself and all members of the Committee thought was a legitimate criticism and which prompted an amendment which I thought was satisfactory and which was agreed upon. That amendment is as follows: Section 112(3) now reads as a result of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, "except as provided in Subsection (2), an inquiry by an adjudicator shall be held in camera unless it is established to the satisfaction of the adjudicator on application by a member of the public that the conduct of the inquiry in public would not impede the inquiry and that the person with respect to whom the inquiry is to be held or any member of that person's family would not be adversely affected if the inquiry were to be held or conducted in public".
In addition to this particular amendment, there was an undertaking that representatives for the Department of Immigration and Employment and the Minister would closely monitor the actual workings of this amendment to ensure that no harm occurred in circumstances where potential refugees were making application for that status.
The Bill as a whole, and I have said this before, is a grat improvement because it puts in constitutional order many federal statutes that, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, might very well be held to be unconstitutional. It is no panacea. It is not the end of the process. Many Bills come before Parliament now that the Charter is here, where the Charter provisions have to be taken into consideration in terms of the due process. It is a start. It is a very, very substantial move forward. It is not the end of the line.
I hope that all Members of all Parties will believe that this is progress.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this is not a substantial step forward in this Bill, but speaking for Her Majesty's Official Opposition, we are certainly not going to delay the movement of this Bill forward. It will have our support. What a great opportunity has been lost to Canada in this Bill to see some real progress in implementing the equality provisions of the Charter. What the Government spokesman- and I note the absence of the Minister who has taken little personal interest in the Bill from what I can see-the Parliamentary Secretary, who has followed the Bill and who I congratulate for his own personal dedication to moving the Bill forward to this point, indicated in his remarks really tells the whole story.
The story is that the lawyers in the Department of Justice thought that there were certain technical changes that ought to be made to bring some of the statutes into compliance with the requirements of the Charter. What has been lost is an opportunity to move ahead by implementing some of the significant provisions in the Charter which also require that the laws of Canada be changed.
I had the opportunity to spend a few days on the subcommittee of the Parliamentary Justice Committee. That subcommittee heard witnesses who told it about all of the things that have been left out of this Bill. They have been left out of the Bill because the Government considers them to be grey areas, as it said in its document on equality.
What has been done is just the technical minimum. There has mostly been changes in language like trying to find ways of making words that are usually of a masculine connotation not connote one sex or the other. Although 1 approve of that process, it does very little to advance the rights of women and of others for whom the Charter was brought forward and for whom there was a three-year waiting period that led to that great day on April 17 when the full provisions of the Charter came into effect. These people have found that the Government's approach toward implementing the Charter equality provisions is to make technical changes that have been recommended by lawyers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We just picked up where you left off.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My hon. friend, the government House Leader, observes that they just picked up the work that we were doing.
I do not think that that is an accurate statement. My clear recollection of the approach of the former Liberal Government was to ask lawyers to go over all the legislation to find what needed to be changed to comply with the Charter and to prepare amendments to do that. They were not asked to prepare discussion papers and to call these issues grey areas, but were asked to propose the amendments that ought to be made to bring the Charter into full effect in this country.
The time that I have spent with the subcommittee has given me some great insights into the real shortcomings of this piece of legislation. For example, I asked a lawyer who appeared before the committee what advice she thought the law officers of the Crown must have given the Government about changes that were needed. She said that she felt that the Government was in a sense hiding behind its grey area theory and was saying that more discussion was needed. 1 asked her for a concrete example of the sort of thing that the Government was calling a grey area but that would be patently obvious to any lawyer and indeed to any Canadian who would think about it that an amendment to a law of Canada would be required by the Charter. The example to which she referred was the rights of handicapped people to exercise their franchise.
Now, of course there is nothing in the law that prohibits the handicapped from voting, but what the Government knows very well is that the way polling booths are established on
June 20, 1985

voting day, absolutely no consideration is given to whether the handicapped can get into the polling station or not. Every Member of this House knows from his or her own experience that there are a great many polling stations into which handicapped people cannot enter. The lawyer to whom 1 spoke was confident, as I am, that this issue must have been brought to the attention of the Government and that some provision could have been brought forward to give the handicapped an option to vote in federal elections through mail-in ballots, as is done in a number of other countries, or perhaps at a polling station to which access is physically available. However, that does not appear in this legislation. I regret very much the fact that this is a technical Bill. I regret very much that the Government has taken that attitude toward the implementation of the provisions of the Charter.
1 would like to tell Hon. Members about something else I experienced while participating on the subcommittee that is looking into these so-called grey areas. Last night, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) attended our meeting to explain to the subcommittee what he called the enthusiasm of the Department of National Defence for making equality a reality for women and others who have been closed out of full participation in the important work done by the Armed Forces.
The Minister showed mean-mindedness toward change. He told the committee that the Department was prepared to obey the law and to implement the provisions of the Charter. What he meant by that was that if, for example, the 10-year old girl who appeared before the subcommittee in Toronto the day before asking for the right which is now denied women to be a pilot could raise the support, could go to court, could win her case, could finance and appeal which would surely be forthcoming against a verdict that would be supportive of her, if the Department could examine the clause which gives it the right to override the Charter in certain limited circumstances, and if the Parliamentary Committee could not be persuaded to rubber-stamp the present arrangements of the Department of National Defence, then the regulations would be changed.
The Minister told us that there was a group examining various alternatives for increasing the participation of women in National Defence. He said that inquiries were being made of our NATO partners in order to find out what they were doing because God forbid that Canada should show a role of leadership in giving women equal rights in National Defence.
What the meeting last night boiled down to was that the Charter was not the impetus for the Minister of National Defence to put anything new on the table as far as women are concerned. He was telling us about recommendations that were made in 1971 by a Royal Commission which examined management practices within the Government. He showed us how much progress had been made in his Department since 1971, and I suppose that progress was made by the former Liberal Government, in implementing recommendations now 13 years old. However, would the Charter lead this Minister to do anything new? Absolutely not, and that is very regrettable.
Adjournment Motion
1 mentioned the Minister of National Defence specifically because he appeared before us last night. I think that any Canadian can see from this Bill that every Department of Government has acted in virtually the same manner. They have proposed technical amendments, bankruptcy law amendments and changes in language to conform to sexual equality, but regrettably progress in creating greater equality will not come from the Government. It will come from private citizens who will insist on their rights and will take the trouble to go to court and from those who, if defeated, can afford to appeal.
On the subject of appeal, the Governement has taken a pretty clear position, although there was some difference between the positions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), on whether or not Canada would be prepared on any basis whatsoever to assist Canadians in bringing cases to court to establish the meaning of the Charter. So far, the word on that is that no financial assistance will be given by the Government for the bringing of lawsuits to establish this type of right.
I conclude by indicating that Liberal Members will not obstruct this Bill. However, all of us regard it as a very great tragedy that an occasion that was looked forward to so much as being the moment when underprivileged groups would have their rights recognized is being deferred to the committee that is reviewing the document about grey areas and deferred to individuals who are determined and supportive enough to take their cases to court.
I want to close by expressing the optimism which 1 feel for the spirit which I detected in the Justice subcommittee. It is working with very great vigour and it is working extremely long hours. It is determined to travel to all parts of the country. However, the subcommittee cannot hear everyone who wants to be heard. Over 800 groups and individuals want to be heard. Obviously, the subcommittee would never be able to conclude its work and submit a report if it heard all of them. However, I think there is some basis for optimism that the subcommittee, even though it is dominated by government Members, may well make recommendations which will take us beyond the very limited and technical advances which have been made in Bill C-27.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questons to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus)-Health-National

June 20, 1985
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms epidemiological centre proposal, (b) Monitoring of birth defects; the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins)-Provincial affairs-Freedom of political association in Ontario, (b) Members' involvement in election; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)- Social Security-Full indexation of pensions-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Justice) that Bill C-27, An Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, be read the third time and passed.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-27.
It was required three years ago that the Bill be adopted this spring. The three years were required to review all federal legislation in order to bring that legislation into line with the equality rights section of the Charter. It was thought that three years was time enough to cover a good deal of the legislation.
Unlike the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), I am somewhat disappointed. In fact, my caucus colleagues, especially the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), are disappointed at the small amount which has been done and the very narrow interpretation of the mandate by the Minister in drafting the Bill. He has taken a very legalistic approach. He has changed several words, but he has often fallen short of the intent of the original mandate. However, the changes which have been made, with one exception, are changes which we would not wish to oppose. Therefore, we will support the Bill.
I would like to reinforce what the previous Member said about the rights of the handicapped. Very strong committee work has been done during the last several years on the rights of the handicapped. It is a pity that the work which was done by that parliamentary committee was not reflected in this Bill. In the same way, generally, the rights of women are ignored. For example, rights of pregnant women were unfortunately denied in a Supreme Court case. A woman was discriminated against because she was pregnant, but the court held that she was not discriminated against because she was a woman. Men can make jokes about how men might be pregnant. The Mayor of Montreal lost his bet on that point. The fact is that something should have been done to correct the situation once the Supreme Court had pointed out that inequality in the law.
More generally, I find that there is an unsatisfactory tendency, which is reflected in the legislation, to treat the principle of equality in the wrong way. It is similar to the equality of the elephant and the mouse. The elephant is free to step on the mouse, and the mouse is free to step on the elephant. As a French writer suggested, the law in its majesty forbids rich and poor alike to sleep on park benches or to steal bread. That is not the intent of the Charter and of the people who supported the Charter in the matter of equality.
Equality must be not equality of strength, it must be equality of personal dignity. In other words, a weak person has the same personal dignity as a strong person. To set the rules in such a way that the strong can take advantage of the weak, is a denial of equality, not an affirmation of it.
I wish to speak on the amendment to which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke. I am glad the amendment was made, even though the Hon. Member for Burnaby voted against it in its final form. I would have voted against it had I been in his place. Nevertheless, we support the legislation as a whole. 1 appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary outlined the amendment which was proposed originally, the objections which were made by myself and others, and the revised amendment as it appears before us. I also appreciate his reaffirmation of a commitment. As I understand it, it is a commitment to draw to the attention of immigration officials that it is our expectation that the rights of refugees will be sustained. A further commitment was made to monitor the operation of that clause to ensure that it does not fail, or, if it does fail, to ensure that action will be taken.
The amendment which was moved originally by the Hon. Member for Burnaby in committee, which, in its revised form, is now in the Bill, is something which we can live with on an experimental basis. It leaves the onus where it was in the original law, and where it should be. That is to say, a hearing at which a person makes his claim to refugee status will be held in camera unless some member of the public, journalist or other, can show that it would not hinder the progress of the hearing or endanger the claimant or his family to hold it in public. I regret that we have introduced that amount of uncertainty in a process in which a person's life or liberty, and the lives and liberties of other people, may be endangered in ways which neither a journalist nor other people concerned are likely to realize. I believe that the rights of the journalist should not take precedence over the rights of the refugee claimant. The penalty, if something went wrong for the refugee claimant, may be far greater than any possible penalty if something went wrong for the journalist. I regret that the Ontario Supreme Court decision was so quickly adopted by the Government and applied here. I am speaking, of course, of the Southam decision. However, the revision of the amendment in committee, and the assurances of the Parliamentary Secretary, help to reduce the risk and potential damage to refugees.
I wish to point out an anomaly. When the committee pulled Section 112 of the Immigration Act, it decided to make a move toward the application of the Charter. However, the committee did nothing else to remove certain kinds of inequal-
June 20, 1985

ity which exist in the Immigration Act. People who step off the plane at Pearson International Airport, Mirabel or anywhere else, who are regarded by the first officer whom they meet as possibly inadmissible are sent for examination by an immigration officer. He may send them to detention after which, when they go to an inquiry, they have the right of counsel.
At the point when they are sent for that first examination before an immigration officer, they are denied the right of counsel. Not the law, but the guidelines issued by the Executive Director of Immigration, forbids access to counsel, legal or otherwise. That refugee claimant, probably a stranger in the country, would hardly speak English-we don't get many refugees from English-speaking countries-although he or she might speak in a dialect which would be hard to understand. That person who does not know our laws is confronted with uniformed officers-perhaps he is on the run from uniformed officers in his own country-and he is denied the right of counsel at the point when he makes his first statement in front of an immigration officer.
That is unjust, Mr. Speaker. It is a denial of the right of counsel which our charter upholds for all people in Canada. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court to the extent that it has maintained that a refugee claimant within our borders has the right to a judicial hearing with all that goes with it.
There are other inequalities which the committee overlooked in examining the Immigration Act. For example, a Canadian citizen who applies to sponsor a relative to immigrate into Canada, and whose appeal is denied by officials, has the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board. However, a permanent Canadian resident, non-citizen, does not have that right. That is something which the Minister has addressed in legislation which she tabled yesterday. There are other problems with that legislation, but it is possible that if those problems are corrected it may be passed and adopted. Why is it not adopted in this Bill? Why is it not put forward when it is recognized that the courts will demand and require, if asked, that we give the same right to the permanent resident as is now enjoyed by a Canadian citizen?
With respect to the right of counsel, it is required in our Charter that everyone has the right to counsel when he is in danger of being deprived of life or liberty. Generally speaking, that means that if any of us are required to answer questions of any police force, we have the right to have counsel with us. People who are detained in an immigrant holding centre do not have that right.
Last fall, when the RCMP and CSIS separately interrogated people who were detained at the Avion Detention Centre near Pearson International Airport, these people were not given the right of counsel. We are told that the investigation by the RCMP and CSIS was necessary because they had to protect the Queen and the Pope from terrorists. Apparently no one told the RCMP or CSIS that the Queen and Pope had left the country several weeks before those interrogations took
Canadian Charier of Rights and Freedoms
place. Members of CSIS, by law, are allowed to read the newspapers, but apparently they do not, so these interrogations were held for reasons undisclosed and without the people being interrogated having the benefit of counsel.
Another point which concerns refugee claimants particularly is the right to work and to support themselves by their work. Some are given work permits, some are not. There are various circumstances and administrative decisions, but there is no law which supports their right to work. That is something which should have been considered in this Bill. The same applies to the right to schooling or medical care under our health insurance law. Our public schooling and public health services are not readily and certainly available to refugee claimants who have been admitted and who are awaiting determination of their status. That is a matter of equality, Mr. Speaker, which should have been addressed in this Bill and was not.
1 agree with those who say that the Bill is good as far as it goes. Except for a little uncertainty with respect to the treatment of in camera hearings for the refugee claimant, it is generally good, but it could and ought to have gone a good deal farther. When further consideration is given to this subject, as I hope it will be, it is quite important that people understand that "equality" means equality of human dignity and the protection of human dignity. That means the protection of the weak against the strong who can look out for themselves, rather than some mechanical and superficial bureaucratic approach which increases the power of the strong as against the weak. That principle has to be straightened out, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to make any serious progress in introducing equality into our statutes.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my desire to prolong the debate on C-27 at this stage of the proceedings. I know there is an agreement to pass it in short order. However, I want to point out to the House that Bill C-27 is really one step in a process which, in the view of many parliamentarians, ought to be an ongoing process; that is the comparison of all Bills and legislative provisions brought before the House of Commons and the Senate to the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When Parliament agreed to, and did pass, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it was clear that those provisions applied to all legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada. In order to pursue that legal position, there ought to be some ongoing method for examining legislative provisions to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, some steps have been taken to ensure that such a process is included in the procedures of Parliament, both in the House of Commons and in the other place, and that matter has been given consideration by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), as Chairman of that committee, and our other colleagues on the committee, have considered this matter and have recommended the passage of a resolution to the effect that all Bills be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments for examination

June 20, 1985
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to determine whether provisions of the Bill comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Such a resolution was passed by the other place on February 26, 1985, and I think it ought to be considered by the House of Commons.
We realize that the same matter is under consideration as a result of recommendations of other parliamentary committees, particularly the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, and all the recommendations might be brought together. We realize also that it would take time to review the situation to determine what exactly is the appropriate process to ensure that Bills and legislative provisions brought before the House of Commons are examined in this way to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1 merely want to take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to record this interest in the records of the House of Commons and to recognize that the process of examining statutory provisions in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an ongoing process and ought to be enshrined in our procedures.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to delay the study of this Bill, but I would like to make a few comments on Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, there are grey areas in the Charter of Rights, especially concerning Section 15, and, to use a controversial euphemism, the matter has obviously been put off indefinitely or again referred to a committee for further study. 1 would simply like to share with the House a few opinions or points of view on minority groups, be they official languages minority groups or ethnic or linguistic minority groups. In my opinion, the House should know-
-that Section 15 does not preclude affirmative action programs. Many of us remain in the dark on the Government's position. We all agree that Bill C-27 is not the be-all and end-all of justice and equity; it does not radically change any laws. I think on second reading of this Bill I made a comment that a lot of the changes proposed were indeed semantical changes, words that were used to replace some other words.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the question which is of some concern to us and which I would like to share with the House relates to minorities who feel that their rights are being breached and would like to launch court appeals against certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More particularly, I have in mind the Court Challenges Program which made it possible for certain minority groups-Anglophones in Quebec or Francophones outside Quebec-to obtain from the federal Government either financial or legal assistance to appeal against the implementation of a provision of the Charter.
Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that last April 30 marked the end of the Court Challenges Program administered by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean). The Government has not yet deemed it advisable to re-establish this program. I often rose in the House to ask questions to find out what would happen to the program and I must say that I have not yet received a direct or satisfactory answer from the Government. They seem to be dragging their feet on this issue. They told us: Yes, the matter is under review, we will have an announcement to make in the near future.
I want to emphasize to the House that a financial and legal assistance program is important to official languages minorities. I say so because I think most Members of the House share that opinion. We believe that minority groups should be helped and supported by the majority. And we also believe that the federal Government is the agency and, perhaps, the level of Government most capable and best equipped to help minority groups defend and uphold their rights before the courts.
When I mention linguistic rights, I think in particular of certain groups from Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta. I can say offhand that there are presently at least two cases in Alberta and one in Saskatchewan. We all know that the Government must or should take heed of the invitation from the Supreme Court regarding Manitoba.
Concerning this program of court challenges, in my view, the government has a duty to allocate funds and also human resources at the department concerned in order to help groups to have their rights recognized by the courts. If we have a Charter of Rights, Mr. Speaker, and if our minority groups, in order to assert, to clarify and to have their rights recognized, have to pay from their own pocket, then 1 believe a society such as ours, a society which views itself as open, generous and most of all understanding must put in place a program which is generous toward these groups who are eager to benefit from it, especially at the financial level. I know full well, for instance, having met recently with people from Alberta, that there is a case being heard in court about Section 23 of the Charter, concerning the schools. I also know of another case in the criminal courts, involving an individual wanting a trial in French.
It is essential, Mr. Speaker, that minority groups, and 1 refer to Manitoba, have the assurance within the next few days that such a program will be put in place, a program of financial assistance for court challenges, in order for these groups to get organized within the next weeks or months with a view to prepare their case to be submitted to the courts. They must have a well documented case so as to ensure good representation of the linguistic minority in Manitoba. I suggest that if the federal government and the Manitoba government accept the invitation made by the Supreme Court and

June 20, 1985
endeavour to present arguments concerning the delay for translation of the statutes of Manitoba which, as we know, have been declared invalid, yes, and ultra vires because of the fact they have been enacted in English only, then I believe that if we want to be fair toward the francophone minority in Manitoba, we must immediately assure them that a program will be available, providing money for court challenges. In this way, people will be able to claim from the federal government the assistance they need in order for them to have their rights recognized by the courts following this important decision by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the passage of the bill, but I would like the government to consider these problems that are viewed as important by all, that is human rights, the rights of Canadian citizens, and I would like the government to introduce within a few days in the Parliament of Canada this court challenges program. I know that all Hon. Members will recognize the importance of such a program which is valuable and indeed essential and which, I reiterate once again, Mr. Speaker, is urgent. It is absolutely essential that the government give us the assurance, thus eliminating any doubt, any concern we might have, that the federal government will step in to help minorities, be it in Manitoba, in Alberta, in Ontario or in Quebec or anywhere else in this country, in order for these minorities to have their rights recognized by the courts.
If I may hold the floor a few more moments, Mr. Speaker, I might add this: if the court challenges program is to be extended to include other provisions of the Charter, consideration might be given to including challenges to Section 15. I think that it would be a positive step that we on this side, would readily approve and heartily endorse. However, I repeat before concluding that it is extremely important to act without delay. The Government must assure us that it will act quickly on this matter, put forward a court challenges program and extend the former program if necessary. You can implement it as you like, but there has been enough talk about it already and it is greatly needed. I know that all Members agree with me. We are asking the Government to make haste in this matter.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the Bill read the third time and passed.
Aeronautics Act AERONAUTICS ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are seven report stage motions to Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, notice of which has been given pursuant to Standing Order 79(5).
Motion No. 1 is a straight deletion of certain lines and 1 find that this motion is procedurally in Order. It will be debated and voted on separately.
However, Motion No. 2 is of concern to the Chair. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forestall) is attempting to introduce an amendment of substance by way of an amendment to the interpretation clause of the Bill. This is contrary to the practice of the House and there have been many rulings from the Chair in this regard. I would also refer the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Beauchesne's 5th Edition, citation 773(10).
Motions Nos. 3 and 6, also standing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, seem to be somewhat linked t"* the proposal set out in Motion No. 2. However, it is the Chair's opinion that both of these motions can stand on their own merit and should be put to the House for debate. It would be my intention to group them for the purpose of debate, but, if necessary, they will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 4 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 5 and 7 will be combined for debate and voted on separately.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-36, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 1 to 8 at page 3.
He said: Mr. Speaker, without commenting unduly or unnecessarily on your interpretation of the other amendments, I would, with respect, suggest that they achieve exactly the same purpose. I can address all of them by addressing the first proposed amendment which Your Honour finds acceptable. The purpose of the amendment made in committee was to achieve a certain purpose. Those amendments were made to satisfy the demands of the industry and it was the intent of the committee to accept the interventions of the Air Transport Association of Canada in regard to this.
On reflection, it was found that it did not achieve the purpose of the committee, hence the amendments at report stage which are in front of you. They are there in part because officials of the department, members of the Air Transport Association of Canada, and members of the committee have become quite aware that the amendment moved in committee will not apply to all of the financing situations which could arise under this particular set of circumstances.
Consequently, with the same aim of first meeting the Air Transport Association's concerns with regard to the definition

June 20, 1985
Aeronautics Act
of "owner", and to meet the intent of the committee, we have put forward a basic amendment and amendments that give effect as in other parts of the Bill.
The use of the term "registered owner" would have the effect of limiting the provisions to those who actually have control of the aircraft. Prior to the amendment it might have extended to those who have a security or other financial interest. Since Your Honour finds that that is a substantive amendment, I can only repeat that it was an attempt to meet the intent of the committee and the intent of the Act itself. With respect, if Your Honour finds the first motion in order, perhaps we could deal with that and I may have a word to say about the other three. However, I suggest, with respect, that they do not substantially change the Bill.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the words of the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Forrestall). The committee heard very clearly that there were some problems with the definition as it was applied in the real world of aviation. A number of us recognized that in committee and encouraged officials from the Department, as well as members of the governing Party, to reconsider. I have some concern that your ruling, which I have respect for, means that unless Motion No. 2 is ruled in order and allowed to pass, all we will be doing is deleting one definition without replacing it with the other. I respectfully suggest that we consider that because there is a need for that definition to be in that Bill in order to ensure that this Bill can function in the way that it must. We will be supporting Motion No. 1.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. President of the Privy Council and Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on Motion No. 2.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address your concern with respect to this motion. I believe there is a disposition to allow this motion to go forward by unanimous consent of the House. If that is agreeable to Members present we could have this motion accepted on that basis.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has suggested is most reasonable. We will be happy to give unanimous consent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we also find that proposal
satisfactory.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow Motion No. 2 to go forward?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since unanimous consent has been given to allow Motion No. 2 to be put to the House, it is my intention to group Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 6 for debate.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 also applies to Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 6. However, a negative vote will necessitate a separate question having to be put on motions Nos. 3 and 6.


J. Michael Forrestall: 
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, in a few words I want to comment on the amendments which we will support. Very clearly these are as a result of representations made to us in committee by the industry, through COPA, and we believe it is an appropriate rephrasing of the wording and a way of ensuring that the intent of the Act is met.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to endorse the comments made by the previous speaker and confirm that we agree to the proposed amendment which is consistent with the representations already made by witnesses who appeared before the parliamentary committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
June 20, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 6 agreed to.


Iain Francis Angus: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-36, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 20 to 46 at page 25 and lines 1 to 16 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor.
"5.5 (1) All holders of Canadian aviation documents that impose a standard of medical fitness shall as a requirement of their licensure, report on a regular basis as directed by the Minister to a physician and an optometrist recognized by the Minister for the purpose of determining medical fitness under this Act.
(2)	All persons while receiving medical examinations under subsection 5.5
(1)	shall be required to disclose to the examiner, the details of any consultations they may have had with other medical practitioners regarding their health including any treatments or drug prescriptions they have received since their last examination under this Act.
(3)	All holders of a Canadian aviation document that imposes a standard of medical fitness who have reached the age of forty years, shall provide the Minister with a written disclosure of all prescribed medical treatments received on an annual basis for as long as they hold such a document.
(4)	The Minister or a medical adviser designated by the Minister, may require the holder of a Canadian aviation document, to undergo more frequent examinations to those mentioned in subsections 5.5 (1) and may prescribe any further tests that may be necessary to determine the medical or optometric fitness of the licence holder, in accordance with accepted medical practice.
(5)	The Minister may make such use of any information provided in section 5.5 as he considers necessary in the interests of aviation safety."
He said: Mr. Speaker, of all the aspects of this massive change to the Aeronautics Act, I suggest that this has probably been the most contentious. We have heard representations from a number of groups who were concerned first, with the initial wording in the Act, then concerned with the clause as amended.
It essentially involves a question of rights and obligations. It was my understanding that, according to the original clause, a private medical practitioner was required to have his patient, the holder of an aviation licence, to inform the Department of Transport of a medical condition within a specified period. Second, if this was not done, the medical practitioner would contact the Department of Transport.
As a result of discussions in the Transport Committee with a number of groups, and as a result of the circulation of draft wording by myself, with the assistance of the office of the Member for Regina East (Mr. Benjamin), the Government introduced an improved version of that clause. Quite frankly, when we sent to committee I was in agreement with the Government in its approach. However, as I listened to the witnesses and read material, I felt that we were making a fundamental error. We were removing the onus from the holder of that aviation licence to meet the requirements, particularly the medical requirements.
Therefore, we have before us an amendment which in effect amends my wording but changes the onus and puts it on the holder of the licence, whether it is a pilot or air traffic controller, where the onus belongs. The amendment states that the holder of an aviation licence must regularly report to a physician and an optometrist recognized by the Minister. Furthermore, that person must disclose to the medical examiner any medical consultations he has had in the past and
Aeronautics Act
indicate any medication he is taking. This will enable the Department of Transport physician to have all of the information he requires to make a technical evaluation of the capability of the individual to meet the requirements of the aviation licence.
Since the committee prepared its report we have heard representations again from the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association. Let me cite some of their comments with respect to Section 5.5:
We feel that we would be considered irresponsible and negligent if we failed to provide you, and the good members of your Committee, with the attached first-hand information as to how alarmed some knowledgeable and experienced physicians are over the subject matter. Dr. Bruce Lockhart, Dr. J. N. Armstrong, Dr. R. Webb and Dr. John Lockhart have all warned us that the present provisions of section 5.5 of Bill C-36 are contrary to the providing of a healthy atmosphere in which pilots may best perform their duties with utmost professionalism and care.
Furthermore, Dr. Webb wrote the following letter to COPA:
First, it has always been my understanding that every pilot is ultimately responsible for his aircraft and for his ability to fly it. This Act only serves to undermine this personal responsibility and place it in the hands of a Physician and of a Government bureaucracy.
A Physician already has too much paperwork initiated by third party requests which ask us to prove, in effect, that their client, our patient, is "not lying". We resent being placed in such a "big brother" position, which is what this legislation will do. If the medical problems being screened were of such significant frequency and importance, then * would not object, but where is the documentation to support such a Draconian measure? Although improvements can always be made, the current system already serves us well.
Second, and probably more important, this proposal will ultimately impede access to preventive health care for pilots. Pilots are only human and if their livelihood is threatened by reporting a health concern to their family physician, they are more likely to try and treat the problem themselves. For most medical complaints, this approach is not unreasonable, but for something more insidious and persistent, the results could be tragic.
For example, a recurring stomach pain/indigestion might imply a peptic ulcer to a pilot, who knows that he might be grounded if this was proven correct. However, left untreated, it might progress to a severe haemorrhage, with serious consequences for the patient, and increased costs for the taxpaper; or it could be even more sinister-a carcinoma!
1 would urge you to make every effort to have this portion of the Act altered. Pilots need encouragement to seek medical attention when necessary-not to be threatened by punitive legislation. Physicians do not want to be forced into a "spying" relationship with their pilot-patients.
Sincerely,
R. J. Webb, M.D.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we know the Government has good intentions in terms of how it has written this particular clause. The Government's intention must be to protect the travelling public as well as the crews, the pilots themselves, the air traffic controllers and also citizens at large who may be on flight paths. We heard of only one instance before the committee of a link between a medical problem and an accident. In that case, the Department of Transport know of the individual's medical condition and was unable to do anything about it. We cannot see on this side of the House how this forced reporting by the physician to the Department of Transport will change that. It certainly would not have changed it in the instance in Toronto.

June 20, 1985
The Royal Assent
In closing, I would encourage the Government to accept this modification to the Bill. I want to thank you for your ruling which finds that it is in order Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a few observations with respect to my distinguished colleague's amendment in this regard. This amendment, and the purport of it was moved while we were in committee. The Hon. Member is quite correct in bringing to the attention of the House the extent and the degree to which this particular section was debated with some liveliness and in some depth.
The effect of this amendment with respect to the medical reporting section of Bill C-36 would have the effect of deleting any reporting requirements on the part of doctors and optometrists and substituting an obligation on the part of a pilot to submit to regular examinations by these doctors and optometrists.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, to amend an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Parole Act and the Weights and Measures Act, to repeal certain other Acts and to make other consequential amendments-Chapter No. 19.
Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada-Chapter No. 20.
Bill C-41, an Act to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and to amend the Crop Insurance Act in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 21.
Bill C-2, an Act respecting the winding-up of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation and Loto Canada Inc.-Chapter No. 22.
Bill S-3, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Zambia, Canada and the Kingdom of Thailand, Canada and the Republic of Cyprus and Canada and the Federative Republic of Brazil for avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax-Chapter No. 23.
Bill C-54, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the Financial year ending the 31st March, 1986- Chapter No. 24.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 4 (Mr. Angus) (p. 6067).
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, when we were so graciously interrupted with respect to the due process of law enactment, I was replying to my colleague's comments and observations in support of his amendment.
As I was saying, the amendment presently before of us would have the effect of deleting any reporting requirement on the part of doctors and optometrists, which is proposed in the pertinent Section of the Act, Section 5.5, and substituting an obligation on pilots to submit to regular examinations by doctors and optometrists designated by the Minister and, during those examinations, to disclose details of all medical treatments or medications undergone since the last required or mandatory examination. The amendment also provides that the Minister may require pilots to undergo further medical tests or more frequent required examinations.
We suggest that this amendment would do very little to improve the existing situation, since the current legislation includes all the matters mentioned in the amendment by my hon. friend, except the compulsory optometric examinations and written reports to the Minister after age 40. Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not in fact address the issue that Section 5.5 was designed to answer, that is, how to make the Department aware of hazardous medical conditions. That principle lies at the root of this particular Section of the Act.
The Department, and I think all Canadians, are anxious that medical developments which occur between mandatory examinations in fact be reported. The small number of pilots who deliberately conceal dangerous medical conditions during required examinations is not so small as to make unimportant the provisions of the amendments before us to Bill C-36. As I said, only a small minority of pilots deliberately conceal medical conditions, but the effect of concealment on aviation safety can be tremendous. This problem has been recognized by the Department and by the medical profession itself.
In Ontario, coroners have found that undisclosed medical conditions were factors in at least four fatal accidents since 1978. In each case the coroner's jury recommended that there be some reporting mechanism available to all doctors who examine pilots and indeed holders of aviation documents.
In 1984 the Ontario Medical Association passed a resolution asking the federal Government to pass legislation authorizing doctors to report conditions on pilot patients that would make them unfit to fly and to protect doctors making such reports

June 20, 1985
from legal or disciplinary action. In fact, departmental doctors in every region of Canada receive calls each year from doctors inquiring wehther they will be protected from such action if they report a condition of a patient that makes his continuing to fly hazardous.
The provisions of Section 5(5) are similar to those found in the motor vehicle legislation of most provinces requiring doctors and optometrists to report conditions of patients that might affect their ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. In the case of motor vehicles, and even more so in the case of aircraft, the effects of an accident can be so serious to the public at large that the public interest requires that the usual principle of doctor/patient confidentiality be breached.
The section also makes it mandatory for a pilot to inform any doctor he consults that in fact he is a pilot. This is important because it may affect the choice of treatment prescribed by the doctor, since the chosen treatment may also have an effect on that same pilot's capacity and ability to safely fly an aircraft.
In short, I cannot accept the amendment as it fails to address the issues of providing a mechanism for doctors to make reports concerning conditions that may create safety hazards; protecting the reporting doctor from legal or disciplinary action and requiring the reporting of hazardous medical conditions that may arise between the required medical examinations.
Perhaps I should add, Mr. Speaker, that the report does not result in immediate licence withdrawal, or suspension. The only consequence will be that the pilot will be asked to undergo further medical examinations by departmental doctors. If the licence is withdrawn after these examinations the pilot will still have available to him the review procedures set out in the Bill itself. For those reasons we do not believe that we can accept the amendment.
However, I would like at this time, subject to your direction, to ask unanimous consent of the House for permission to introduce an amendment to the Bill. It addresses the concerns of the mover of the amendment in front of us, and goes some distance in dealing with part of the difficulties that we found with this.
The amendment I would introduce has to do with records, notices of decisions, application of certain provisions and a repeat of applications, limited by the fact that I would require unanimous consent to do that. I have had some consultations and I think the Chair would find an agreement to grant such unanimous consent.


Iain Francis Angus: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Hon. Member, but I am at a loss because, while he did share with me a potential amendment that may come up later, I have not seen the amendment he has referred to. Although I would be more than happy to give consent, I think in fairness I should have an opportunity to take a quick look at it before I do that; I may be hanging myself out to dry.
Aeronautics Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If I may just add, and maybe we can pursue the matter further, we should first of all dispose of the fourth amendment now before the House and then come to the amendment suggested by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


J. Michael Forrestall: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, my difficulty arises from my concern about the grouping by the Chair of Motion No. 5 and Motion No. 7. My difficulty is, without unanimous consent or served notice, and if we go past this particular part of the Bill you may not let me go back to that part where I might more properly deal with this. 1 am simply seeking unanimous consent to do that or giving notice, so that when we vote on this motion-and we lose both because a negative vote on this one will negative Motion No. 7-1 will not lose the proper place to inject this amendment.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps to assist the hon. gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary, are we given to understand that this is an amendment to an existing amendment that is being discussed in the House? It is a new amendment to a different section than we are presently dealing with. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain what he is trying to do and what he is talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) wishes to assist the Hon. Member, and also wishes to assist the Chair in this matter. If I understood the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary correctly, he seeks a reassurance as to his capability of presenting the amendment when we do reach Motions Nos, 5 and 7 which are grouped. If that is what he is seeking I can reassure the Hon. Member on that very specific issue.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with Motion No. 4 which was moved by our colleague and which has just been turned down by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall).
I regret the government's decision, because I feel this was a very good amendment. Members of the Official Opposition would certainly have supported this amendment which aimed at easing a difficult situation. Of all the provisions in this Act, this is probably the most controversial. This is the one about which we have received the greatest number of testimonies and objections. I had thought that, in a spririt of cooperation and understanding, the government would have accepted this amendment.
I am the son of a physician and so is my colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). We both know the important and confidential role physicians play in the lives of their patients. Well, Clause 5.5 of Bill C-36 would require physicians to behave like inquisitors and obtain from their patients informations about their professional and personnal lives which I feel are not absolutely necessary in the present circumstances.

June 20, 1985
Aeronautics Act
I think that the government's desire to protect the travelling public who uses airplanes is commendable. Its purpose is both important and acceptable.
I felt that Motion No. 4, moved by the hon. member, reflected a healthier physician-patient relationship. I suggest we should make pilots, air traffic controlers and other people involved in air transportation responsible for advising their physicians of their respective types of work and professional status. I do not think it is wise to require a physician to ask questions and obtain information about their professional lives.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, while dealing later with another clause, will try to make up for it by proposing a sort of compromise amendment. I feel it is a small step in the right direction. It is not the big step we wish the government had taken, but at least we will be prepared later or to accept the amendment the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to clear up something. I take it that the matter which the Parliamentary Secretary wants to present has nothing to do with Motion No. 4; that we are only dealing with Motion No. 4 and that the motion he wishes to present has to do with subsequent motions, is that correct?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Of course my proposed amendment does not deal directly with the amendment that is before us. I dealt with that in a few words before. I said that because of the grouping, as 1 understood it, I wanted to simply serve notice that at an appropriate time after my distinguished colleague moves the next amendment, I will want to address that amendment by indicating to the House that while we do not support the precise wording of that amendment-and perhaps I should not anticipate but I would like to explain my concern to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)-I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a somewhat comparable motion that would make the language of the next motion more compatible with the rest of the Act, and quite acceptable to us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Angus) negatived.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation with our colleague the Government House Leader, and I believe you will find that the House is ready to adopt a motion, provided that in the next few minutes we go through not only the report stage but also the third reading of Bill C-36.
I would like to know the House Leader's decision.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to be asked a question by that great reformer, the member of the task force on reform of the House of Commons. He has worked so hard on reform of the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member has raised the question of today's Business of the House. I was approached by the House Leader of the Official Opposition who requested that when we complete third reading of the legislation now before us, we might seek the unanimous consent that at that time, the motion that the House adjourn for the evening, as if it were nine o'clock be proceeded with. We would then be able to deal tomorrow with the two items to which I had referred earlier. On the basis of the request of the House Leader of the Official Opposition that we adjourn the House after conclusion of third reading of this Bill, and after seeking the advice of the New Democratic Party, notwithstanding the fact that I love dearly sitting here,
1 think you will find the unanimous consent to have the House adjourn for the evening, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur in that and tell the Government House Leader that we made some great progress today and, as usual, the Opposition has been very co-operative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Motions Nos. 5 and 7 will be combined for debate and voted on separately.


Iain Francis Angus: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-36, be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 44 the following:
"7.3 (1) An individual who has held a valid aviation document for a period of two years from the satisfaction of a suspension or other penalty imposed in relation to that document may apply to the Minister for removal of that
June 20, 1985

suspension or penalty from his record, provided that there have been no subsequent infractions on record in relation to that document.
(2)	The Minister may, upon application to him by an individual pursuant to subsection (1), delete from the record of that individual any reference to a suspension or other penalty imposed under this Act where, in the opinion of the Minister, aviation safety would not be compromised thereby.
(3)	Any decision of the Minister made pursuant to this section may be appealed to the Tribunal pursuant to subsection 6.1 (3).
(4)	Where the Minister refuses to delete a suspension or other penalty from the record under subsection (1) and the Tribunal has, if appealed to under subsection (3), upheld the decision of the Minister, the individual may, upon the expiry of a further two year period from the date of the Minister's decision under subsection (2), again apply to the Minister for removal of the record of that suspension or penalty pursuant to subsection (1)."
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-36, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 25 at page 53 and susbstituting the following therefor:
"first occurs, but any such suspension of revocation of licences or certificates made prior to the coming into effect of this section shall be subject to the review procedure referred to in section 6.1 (6)."
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) on a point of order.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would be willing, by unanimous consent, to agre to separate Motions Nos. 5 and 7 in order that we can deal with the matter which the Parliamentary Secretary will be putting forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan offering to withdraw his motion?


Iain Francis Angus: I do not believe I can withdraw the motion at this point. However, I am willing to do that once the two motions have been separated.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is in the combining of Motions Nos. 5 and 7. While we are prepared to seek unanimous consent of the House to move an amendment which is somewhat similar, because we are in agreement with the principle in Motion No. 5, we are not prepared to accept Motion No. 7. That is the dilemma which I leave with the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent to separate Motions Nos. 5 and 7?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan on a point of order.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, as a result of consultations with the Parliamentary Secretary, I would like to withdraw Motion No. 5.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to withdraw Motion No. 5?
Aeronautics Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the consultation process, I believe there would be an agreement of the House to grant unanimous consent to permit me to introduce an amendment to Bill C-36 at this time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: 
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues for accepting the principle that we put before them in committee, and in the notice which we tabled in the House quite some time ago. The amendment is to ensure that a lot of the so-called minor infractions that individuals may have on their records will be allowed to be removed, as long as they are not habitual in the sense that every six months or every year they are found to have not filed their papers on time, or other infractions.
I want to indicate briefly why we proposed the amendment. In doing that, I would like to give an example. We have had several representations from pilots, mechanics and engineers whose careers have been damaged because they did not cross a "t" or dot an "i".

June 20, 1985
Aeronautics Act
One example is that of the owner of a small engineering firm in northern Ontario. He has been a pilot for 15 years. In 1976 he was hired to ferry a small aircraft to another destination some 2.5 hours flight time away. He left with enough fuel for four hours, and was flying under normal conditions. However, two hours into the flight he had to make a forced landing because he was out of fuel. The landing was successful and there were no injuries. I would respectfully suggest that it was to his credit that he was able to do that.
He then received a letter from Ministry officials which alleged that he may have taken off without sufficient fuel for the trip. He advised them that the plane, which was owned by another individual, had a fuel pump problem and was pumping fuel overboard. No action was taken at that time. In 1981, he applied for his certificate of air worthiness for an aircraft which his company owned. The aircraft had not been in operation for some time. When he made his application, he forgot that that particular aircraft had a compulsory requirement to overhaul the propellers every five years. That period of time had elapsed a few days before he made his application to the CTA. His engineer's licence was suspended for 30 days for making an application for an aircraft which was not airworthy.
In the letter suspending him, he was told that the stiff penalty was necessary considering he may have taken off without enough fuel as a pilot almost five years earlier. This man's business came to a halt for 30 days. At that time his only recourse would be to the Federal Court of Canada. Through this amendment, at the very least, he will have an opportunity to have that record wiped clean. I say "opportunity" because clearly he will have to apply to the Minister and the Minister, according to this clause, has the right to say yes or no. If he says no, then the pilot will have an opportunity, as I understand, to take that to the appeal process.
I am pleased that we have once again been able to improve a very valuable Bill, to ensure that what passes this House is an effective instrument for doing what the Government, the Department and the industry wish it to do. I am pleased to have been a part of it and to have had this amendment accepted.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague has once again moved that document holders have access to the civil aviation tribunal which, in itself, is proposed in the Bill and which is one of the greater innovative aspects of this new measure. The amendment is unacceptable for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact the Department processes some 700 suspensions-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. With deep regret-and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of all Hon. Members of the House-but I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has already risen to address the motion and I cannot, therefore-


J. Michael Forrestall: Oh, I am sorry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I say that with deep regret on behalf of all Hon. Members of the House.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion is therefore carried.
Motion (Mr. Forrestall) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The House will now consider Motion No. 7 in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear at the outset that this amendment, combined with the amendment we just passed, in effect deals with the period between the day that this Act is proclaimed and a point two years prior to that. It is the only time when, realistically, it is to apply. The intention is to allow those individuals who have been found guilty and have had a sanction or punishment placed upon them in the last two years to have access to the very valuable appeal system which has been established under this Act.
Until this Act passes, their only recourse is in effect to the same people who investigated them, who analyzed the situation and who decided on the appropriate punishment. What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to give them an opportunity to have that reviewed. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that there are too many, that we will open the floodgates. While I recognize the number of infractions may be 700 or more over the last two-year period, clearly there are two groups.
There is the group which will feel that the infractions are of a minor nature and are not worth the time, effort and dollars to take the matter to the appeal process, things like failing to put in documentation on time-which was the case I read into the record earlier of missing the deadline for the propellor check. There is a second group however, which in that two-year period may feel they have been grievously wronged and we believe they should have the opportunity to present their case to the independent appeal tribunal. They should be given the opportunity to say they think a mistake was made, that justice has not been served either by their conviction or by the penalty in terms of their business, recreation, or whatever. 1 think very clearly we should give them that opportunity.
I understand there are regional variations in terms of the kinds of sanctions, depending on the investigating officers and the officials involved, so that one infraction in Atlantic Canada may be treated differently than the same infraction in western Canada. Because of that situation, as we perceive it, there needs to be that independent body to appeal to.
June 20, 1985

In the Enforcement Manual of the Department of Transport under the Table of Sanctions it states under Guidelines:
Although a purpose of the Table of Sanctions is to enhance consistency, the recommended sanctions are not hard and fast rules. Rather, they are suggested criteria from which deviations may be necessary according to the situation.
It is further stated, and I quote:
Mitigating circumstances are events that do not constitute a justification or excuse for the offence in question, but which in fairness, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability. Mitigation does not alter the fact of a violation nor does it provide a defence. It relates not to the offence but to the sanction. The sanction may be moderated in light of mitigation.
They list the mitigating circumstances as: lack of intent, misunderstanding or misconception and honest mistake. And under "aggravating circumstances" which is a severe category, it states:
Aggravating circumstances are events that show a significant degree of moral culpability in the violation. Examples are:
(i)	deliberate actions done with intent to commit a violation;
(ii)	negligence;
(iii)	Recklessness; or,
(iv)	habitual non-compliance shown by a series of recurrent violations.
When one compares the mitigating circumstances and the aggravating circumstances, one sees some similarities. A misunderstanding or a misconception could result in negligence. Which shall it be? An honest mistake may lead to recklessness. The point I am trying to make is that if we do not give those people who have been found guilty of an infraction over the past two years that option to go through an appeal, they are lost for at least two years. Clearly, they can wait for two years to decide to apply to have their record cleansed, but 1 do not think that we should set them aside as a separate category. I believe we should allow them access to justice. We should give them that opportunity, should they so desire, to appear before an appeal tribunal and state their case. The Ministry could then state its case and the tribunal could say yes, we agree, or no, we do not, or you are guilty but the treatment was too harsh.
In conclusion, I encourage the Parliamentary Secretary to throw away his notes and say yes, they will support this resolution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and his notes.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be inclined to throw away my notes but my answer would be no. It is not a question of 700 impositions of penalties over a two-year period. That is roughly the number on an annualized basis. To allow these to come before the tribunal for resolution would have the effect of backing up the very important other work the tribunal is charged with doing. These suspensions are imposed in accordance with the rules of natural justice and only after the document holder has been provided with full procedural safeguards. To allow recourse to the tribunal with respect to
Aeronautics Act
previous suspensions would effectively in my judgment, tie up the tribunal not only in its ongoing and very important work, but for years to come.
I might just make one other point. In light of the fact that the suspensions would have already been served, nothing would be gained other than having the document holders' record amended. I might just note in connection with that, with respect to the length of time which might have passed since the suspension was imposed, it might be very difficult if not impossible to have all the evidence available to enable the tribunal to make a fair and just decision. I would also point out that the amendment proposed earlier today, as has been acknowledged by my colleague, has the effect in part of removing notations of any infractions on an individual's licence. For those reasons I regret, because 1 know of the care, concern and sincerity with which the amendment was put forward, that we are uanble to accept it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I find the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments a little bit specious. Just remember that people who have these things on their record have been charged, tried, found guilty and penalized by the same outfit. I think that flies in the face of our democratic jurisprudence.


J. Michael Forrestall: They will be removed within two years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Take the case of, say, a mechanic working for an airline in northern Quebec who replaced a fuel pump on a Cessna 172. The fuel pump he used had more hours on it than allowed for the type of aircraft he was working on. However, it could have been used for another 400 hours in several other aircraft before it had to be replaced. He simply made an error in the type of aircraft he put it in. No failure occurred. Certainly there was no malice on his part. However, the Government suspended his licence for two weeks. Not only did he not have an income for that period of time, the fact he has a suspension on his record has caused problems in advancing his career and his present employers worry about having him as a mechanic in the future for fear there might be another mistake.
Surely that is the kind of situation where the person involved should not have to wait another two years. He should be able to go to a tribunal and present his case. In this particular case, it seems to me, he deserves the right to have his case reviewed without the expense of going to Federal Court, but without this amendment he cannot do that. He can only wait for another two years or go to the expense of applying to Federal Court.
Surely there must be dozens of instances like that. Under this new legislation, once it is proclaimed, the person concerned will be able to start with a clean slate. His record is clear. He has no further problems advancing his career. I do not understand why the Ministry is so worried about this section. I doubt very much that there will be hundreds and hundreds of appeals. Those who are guilty of serious infractions will know better than to apply. For those who have been

June 20, 1985
Aeronautics Act
penalized in a manner which coincides with the remarks made by my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), being the difference between the honest error and negligence, a substantial difference I submit, surely the holder of a licence under this legislation should at least have an opportunity to appear before the tribunal and ask for his record to be cleared. Waiting another two years is that much more difficult for them in that kind of case.
I doubt very much if a tribunal will be handing out in a wholesale manner all kinds of forgiveness and wiping clean of records. I also doubt very much if the Ministry was 100 per cent right in all cases. I have yet to find anyone anywhere in this mortal coil who is 100 per cent correct or 100 per cent wrong. I will admit that even my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, is not 100 per cent wrong, but there can be administrative errors. There can be extra zealous action taken in one instance but not in another. We all know that can happen. Therefore, there should be no reason why that ability to appeal to a tribunal immediately this act comes into force cannot be allowed to happen.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the officials in the Department are worrying too much and there is no reason why this amendment cannot be accepted. I hope he will have a change of heart in the next few seconds and say that they will allow this change because of the instances my colleague and I have presented where redress should at least be considered or a wiping clean of a slate over something that occurred some time ago. Having the opportunity to do that at least is the full extension of just treatment. I hope his officials will drop a note over the balcony to the Parliamentary Secretary saying "sure, we can buy that". Then the Parliamentary Secretary can get up at his leisure and say that the Government can accept this amendment. That will make everybody happy, including the Parliamentary Secretary and the officials from the Ministry. 1 hope the points which my colleague has made and what I have just said will have some impact and weight with the Government and that it will now decide to accept this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
J. Michael Forrestall: That last amendment did not carry.


André Ouellet: Yes it did. Nobody said no.


J. Michael Forrestall: I very clearly said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There were no nays brought to the attention of the Chair.


Mr.   La Salle@: Really, he said no.


J. Michael Forrestall: I clearly said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. There were no nays heard by the Chair. The question may be put to the House again if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent of the House to put the question again?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Come on, Les, for heaven's sake.


J. Michael Forrestall: There was a no.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to make a few closing remarks. This is my first experience in the House of taking legislation through most of the stages on behalf of my Party. 1 would like to thank all Members of the Transport Committee, and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Forrestall) for the level of debate. There was agreement to disagree on some items, but it was at all times in a manner which was extremely parliamentary.
It is particularly pleasing to me that 1, along with some help, was able to introduce some changes and have the majority of them, in one form or another, accepted by the Government and incorporated into this Act. In all, 1 think six specific changes were made, most in the section on the medical reporting provision, to improve the wording and the intent. Although I was not successful with a couple of amendments, I understand the rationale of the Government. Although I would have preferred it otherwise, I do appreciate that. We must now give approval to the Bill as amended and move on to other matters in the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that the Aeronautics Act has not been amended for 60 years, this is rather an auspicious occasion. I would like to recognize the work done by the departmental people in bringing this Act together, consolidating the regulations, and consulting from one end of the country to another. They prepared some of the finest briefing notes that I have ever had the privilege of dealing with with respect to legislation. Out of respect for this and a number of other things, I will not express my great disappointment. On at least five occasions in the last 45 minutes I indicated, through great difficulty in a procedural sense, our objection to the clause which you said was carried and which I negated, both by voice and shaking of the head.
June 20, 1985

Six associations submitted briefs and appeared before the committees and we should pay some attention to the work that they did. They were the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, the Canadian Association of Optometrists, and the Canadian Business Aircraft Association. All of these associations expressed their general support for the Bill and its thrust and indeed welcomed it. Submissions by the associations were limited to a relatively small number of issues, essentially of a housekeeping or clarification nature, except for Section 5.5, the medical reporting provision, which was the subject of much more comprehensive discussions of which you will be aware as a result of discussions here in the Chamber this afternoon.
A total of 11 amendments were made to the Bill at committee. These included a new definition for "pilots-in-command", an amendment limiting the Minister's authority to require a bond or letter of credit to where there had been a history of non or late payment of charges, an amendment clarifying the statutory defence of "due diligence" with respect to violation of the Act and regulations-


Marcel Prud'homme: We will give you your amendment. We will it to you.


J. Michael Forrestall: As a result of consultations, my House Leader may be able to correct the matter. I will just thank the members of the committee for their co-operation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise a point of order. There is something in the air. The Opposition Members are being the most reasonable and wonderful people in the world.


Marcel Prud'homme: Always.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They continue in this wonderful mode tonight.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't overdo it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, I won't overdo it. There was a question raised with respect to the last motion before the House at report stage. The observation was made that the position of the Government side was placed on the record by the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Forrestall) and you did not hear any dissenting voice with respect to that motion. By virtue of discussion, we have come to an agreement in the House. I think that by unanimous consent the House would revert back to report stage and the last motion which was in fact carried would, by unanimous consent, be withdrawn and recorded as a negative vote. We could then proceed to third reading stage. If you put that proposition to the House, I think you would find agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent to revert to report stage of Bill C-36?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Aeronautics Act
The House reverted to the consideration of Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported with amendments from the Standing Committee on Transport.


Iain Francis Angus: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-36, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 25 at page 53 and substituting the following therefor:
"first occurs, but any such suspension or revocation of licences or certificates
made prior to the coming into effect of this section shall be subject to the
review procedure referred to in section 6.1 (6)."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion (Mr. Angus) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: For the record, we will proceed to concurrence.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the committee members for their work on this bill. I should also like to congratulate the minister, as I did on second reading, for his decision to introduce this bill which is similar in many respects to the one put forward by the former administration.
I want to thank the Department of Transport officials who worked for months and even years to prepare this bill and all those who submitted briefs to the committee supporting the bill or making proposals to amend it and make it better.
After so many years, it is appropriate that the Aeronautics Act be brought up to date. I hope that the sections on security, more particularly, will have a favorable impact on all air transport users in Canada.
On behalf of the Official Opposition, I want to support this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

June 20, 1985
Adjournment Debate


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Shall I call it nine o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on April 23, 1985, I raised a question with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) regarding the funding for research in this country as it relates to the tracking, primarily of birth defects, but illnesses in general. I was referring to the Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System, and concerns raised about the lack of proper funding to do the kind of job that must be done in order to monitor birth defects.
My interest in the question stems from personal knowledge of situations, as well as an awareness of what is happening to our environment. While we know that particular forms of wildlife and plant life are indicators, or barometers, of the impact of man's treatment of the environment, we must also recognize that the human body is also a barometer. Unfortunately, some of those indicators show as defects in new born children. We see throughout the land what are called "hot spots". These are areas of the country where a particular defect in human beings is above average, whether it is congenital heart defects, missing limbs or other defects. There are hot spots out there and they are beginning to become documented.
It is my position that we should do what we can do to ensure that the necessary funds are available to continually track those defects that result from what we do to the environment but cannot see. For example, there are the effects of PCBs and radiation or lead poisoning that we cannot see immediately. One's arm does not drop off or one's skin does not change colour from low levels of radiation. However, in the long term, they may have some impact.
One method for sending a warning signal is by tracking birth defects. For example, there is very sound evidence of effects on unborn children as a result of mothers who smoke or consume alcohol. We warn expectant mothers to stay away
from radiation from video display terminals. However, do we warn them to stay away from an area like Serpent River in Elliot Lake where the mine tailings were flowing into the river? What was the effect of that radiation on the young men and women who lived at Quirke Mine site, north of Elliot Lake, right beside the Serpent River? Do they have children today who are not completely formed or did they have children who did not live to see today?
I believe the time has come to put our efforts into this early warning system. While we may not be able to help those young children who are the evidence of the effects of what we have done to our environment, we should be able to use it to discover what caused this problem so that we can make changes in our laws that govern how we handle substances that have an effect on the human body.
We may find that man had nothing to do with these effects but that a natural phenomenon caused the high incidents of a particular abnormality. However, we have a responsibility to society to research this as much as we can. One technique is through full epidemiological analysis of births in this country.
I would like to see us go even farther than that and have a system in Canada that would compile information on diseases, on illnesses, on defects and put all of that in one computer with automatic sharing of information with the provinces and municipalities. It should include death records where there are high incidences of death from specific illness in certain communities.
We have to remember that something happening today does not impact tomorrow. The folks in Kenora who are worried about the PCB spill will not know for 20 years, for all intents and purposes, if that spill has had any effect on them. We need that kind of tracking system so we can work backwards and find out where the common element is.
Let me come back to Quirk mine site at Elliot Lake. Where are all the young people and the adults who worked in the Ontario Ministry of Corrections Institute today? We should track them. Let us find out what has happened to them. Is there an above normal incidence of birth defects in their offspring? We will never know the answers until we begin to track situations. That is why on April 23 I asked the Minister to consider this question. I note that he indicated at his Health Minister's meeting on May 16 and 17 that they would look to the future together. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can respond and tell us that the Ministers have looked at the question and will be providing the funding necessary for such a program.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, the accidental PCB spill in Northwestern Ontario has created renewed interest in the immediate and long term effects of environmental contamination. For this reason, questions have been raised in this House regarding the federal of monitoring
June 20, 1985

programs and their role both in the detection of high occurrence diseases and the study of their causes. I would like to describe the goals and expectations of the monitoring program and clarify the Government's position as regards environmental diseases.
Health monitoring has been defined as a thorough and onging review of all the aspects of the outbreak and dissemination of a disease that are useful to the implementation of effective control measures. The word "control" therefore involves the collection and systematic and ongoing assessment of a whole range of data on health and the communication of information to all parties that take part in control efforts. A surveillance system serves two main purposes. First, it must help assess the various health risks and provide an opportunity to use information gathered to design specific programs to fight diseases or to adjust existing programs to new conditions. Second, it must help establish differences between various population groups as far as the risk they run to contract a disease is concerned and thus facilitate the gathering of essential information on the thrust to give to such programs as well as provide for the assessment of action which has been taken.
Without minimizing the Government's concern over the recent PCB spill, it should be clear that this type of accident is not a surveillance issue in the usual sense. In fact, no practi-
Adjournment Debate
cable disease surveillance program could be expected to detect health effects such as cancer or birth defects from such a spill. The timing, location and extent of the contamination is known, as is the toxicology for short-term health effects. Persons who may have been exposed can be medically evaluated and have their health status checked periodically.

Guidelines on the transport of hazardous chemicals are being strengthened. Also there have been new regulations under the Environmental Contaminants Act which govern the disposal of waste oils containing PCBs. The Department of National Health and Welfare is working with its provincial counterparts and is seeking their participation in an enhanced sharing of provincial health data and federal disease surveillance services. This type of federal-provincial co-operation is required to increase the sensitivity and efficiency of our current disease surveillance systems. In this way, we will be able to further refine out surveillance abilities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 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).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 21, 1985