1985-06-13

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before putting the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), since today is the final allotted day, the House will go through the usual procedure to consider and dispose of the supply Bill. In view of recent practice, do Hon. Members agree that copies of the supply Bill be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe) moved:: That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions after January I, 1986.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reading this motion to the House slowly because it is not a motion of condemnation or non-confidence. It is not a motion which seeks to draw blood or generate an attack. It is a motion which seeks to right a wrong and do so immediately. The motion reads:
That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions after January 1, 1986.
At the end of the day we shall be calling upon members of every Party, regardless of political stripe, regardless of differences we may have on other matters in this House, to cast a vote to reassure the senior citizens of this country of their security in their old age; to wipe away the kind of uncertainty, worry, indeed quiet desperation which comes to somebody living below the poverty line, sheltered within four walls, with only $75 or $80 or $90 of discretionary spending a month, and who wonders how in the name of God he or she will make ends meet if the Government proceeds. That is all this motion purports to do. I hope Members will find it possible, no matter which side of the House they sit on, to not support a Liberal motion but to support a motion of confidence in the good will and wealth of this country to provide a measure of dignity and fairness to our senior citizens in their old age.
Last night, as I was sitting at home watching the CBC evening news, in particular The Journal, 1 was treated to a discourse by Mr. Douglas Fisher in that segment called The Last Word. As everyone in this House knows, in fact as a good many Canadians know, Mr. Fisher is a respected journalist, columnist, and a former NDP Member of Parliament. Last night, as usual, Mr. Fisher was eloquent. He told Canadians essentially that having recently turned 65 years of age he was amazed at the number of small breaks which are offered or afforded to senior citizens. He was amazed that a fair number of goods and services are offered to senior citizens at a discount. He indicated that he personally did not need the breaks and, furthermore, as a recent recipient of the Old Age Security cheque, he was not really all that terribly upset about the Government's proposed deindexing of Old Age Security pension benefits by 3 per cent a year. In fact, he said that outraged opposition Members, be they Liberal or NDP, and others who would protest the cut in the OAS, were not really speaking for him as a senior. He rhetorically asked his listeners, "Are they speaking for you?" I have learned to respect Mr. Fisher's powers of contemplation. He went on to say that he was willing to make a sacrifice for the young people of the country, to help reduce the deficit, to make things better in the future.
[DOT] (UIO)
I bring Mr. Fisher's comments to the attention of the House because I think those comments symbolize and fairly accurately reflect the narrow thinking that has been done by those who suggest that senior citizens can afford this attack on their security in their old age. While Old Age Security cuts may be acceptable to Mr. Fisher, and it seems even desirable, in economic terms Mr. Fisher has about as much in common with the typical senior citizen of the country as chalk does with cheese. Mr. Fisher does not depend on OAS to pay the rent or to put bread and butter on the table. I believe he draws a very reasonable salary and unless I miss my guess as to his credit, he is probably prepared for that time when he will get tired of political commentary and will retire with an adequate pension plan.
For the majority of senior citizens in the country, the majority of whom live just below or only slightly above the poverty line, an Old Age Security cheque is not a cheque which is left in the desk, forgotten until one can find time to go to the bank and cash it and decide how to invest or spend it. For the majority of senior citizens in the country, an Old Age Security cheque is quite literally the difference between a life with a measure of dignity and humble independence, or the prospect of being a burden on friends and family as they try to make ends meet. For those senior citizens an Old Age Security

June 13, 1985
Supply
cheque is not pocket change. It is bread and butter, roof and board and home, be it their own home, an apartment or a senior citizen's cottage.
We live in a terribly sheltered ivory tower here in Ottawa. We spend our time talking about senior citizens at "Wonderful Wednesdays" in the corridors of so-called power. We wonder what effect this latest uproar will have on the next Gallup poll. We wonder if, how, and when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will back away from this latest political blunder. It is thinking about senior citizens in terms of Gallup polls and measuring them in terms of what is politically possible or politically impossible that has brought the House and the country to the point where every recognized social, business, and government agency in the land is demanding that the Government of Canada withdraw now from this policy. It is telling seniors that they will live with the uncertainty of a decision which the Government will make six months or a year from now.
Senior citizens are not just numbers to be manipulated at election time and sold out when the first Budget is brought down. They are not the stereotype group of people who spend their time between cards, bingo and handicrafts, slowly slipping into a second childhood. They are a large group of 2.5 million people. The common denominator they share is that they are over 65 years of age. But in reality, that is where the stereotyping should end. They are 2.5 million individuals-as individual as any age group in society. If they are to be described as a group in any way, shape or form, let us recognize that our seniors, if anything, can be characterized by their tolerance, their wisdom-that wisdom that only comes from having lived and enjoyed almost all of life's experience- and their selfless nature. They are the least demanding of any among us.
The Liberal Party says, as our motion demands, that full indexation for Old Age Security must be restored immediately. In trying to defend this heartless measure, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have told us about the genuine concern that senior citizens have for their children and grandchildren. They say that the senior citizens to whom they have talked support this measure and are 100 per cent behind the Government because they are concerned about their children and grandchildren. There is some truth to that statement because senior citizens are concerned about their children and grandchildren. They built this country for future generations. But to extrapolate from that the notion that they can afford to pay now and that they should be asked to pay the burden and the price of providing a $125,000 capital gains gift to those who are most wealthy among us is absolutely ridiculous.
What do the children and grandchildren say about this ? Do they accept the proposition of the Minister of Finance that either seniors take a cut in their old age pension or live with less security so that the Old Age Security is turned into old age insecurity, or else youth will not get a job creation
program? Do they accept that either/or proposition: either the youth or the seniors receive some assistance, but not both? No, they do not.
The Prime Minister has told us that anybody who stands and challenges this Draconian budget measure is trying to incite class warfare. It is class warfare when the Government tells the people of Canada that it must choose between casting young people out without hope for a job or denying senior citizens the dignity of retirement in their later years.
What do young people say? Do they enjoy being made the scapegoats for a brutal government decision? Yesterday, the Ontario Federation of Students held their annual meeting at the University of Guelph. Much to their credit, they passed a motion calling upon the Conservative Government to "restore full payments to seniors". That is what I expected of them. I never had any doubt. Those young people, who have been told by the Government that it is either they or senior citizens so they had better get on side and support the Government, said that the Prime Minister does not speak for students when he says deindexing will help create jobs for youth and benefit youth. "We are the youth, but we are also the grandchildren of these pensioners". They said, "A lot of them do not have an alternative income besides their pension, which means that it will put our grandparents and our parents below the poverty line".
That is what the young people of Canada have said to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
The Government said it consulted everybody before the Budget was brought down. The Government said that it has talked to people and reached a consensus. Joyce King of the United Senior Citizens Federation of Ontario tells us there was no consultation with senior citizens. If anything, the opposite, a commitment that their pensions would not be touched. A sacred promise was given during last summer's election campaign.


Mr. Nunziata:: It was a lie.


Brian Vincent Tobin: There was no commitment, Mr. Speaker, no commitment. The Atlantic Liberal caucus travelled to Atlantic Canada last week. We met with senior citizens' groups in each of the four Atlantic Provinces. Not one group felt it had been consulted. Every group felt it had been deceived. Each group made up its mind that it was going to stand and fight, not fight the good fight, not fight for the sake of making a statement, not fight for the sake of expressing an opinion or of putting themselves on the record, but to fight and win.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rossi:: And they are going to win.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They have won, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Organization of Small Business, the Canadian
June 13, 1985

Council on Social Development, the National Council of Welfare, have spoken ont. Conservative back-benchers have spoken out, and I salute those back-benchers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: For having the guts.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Then there were the Quebec National Assembly, the Manitoba Conservative Party, Maritime Premiers, the New Brunswick Senior Citizens' Federation, Ontario Senior Citizen Groups, the Quebec Golden Age Association and the Ontario Federation of Students who have spoken ont. All of these people in society with diverse and different interests who came at this Budget from a different personal perspective have spoken with one voice in rejecting a move that would say to our fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers that they ought to bear the cost, that they ought to bear the brunt of balancing the books, of setting up a fiscal regime that pleases the stockbrokers' mentality but ignores the reality that a Budget is about people and not about a stockbroker's report.
I warn this Government. We have put a motion down. We have asked that immediately, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, not maybe next year but immediately, because the Government has lost the battle, it be gracious and accept that it has lost the battle. Immediately put an end to the uncertainty, immediately put an end to the kind of worry a man or woman who sits in his or her apartment or cottage has about deindexation.
I spoke to a senior citizen in Corner Brook. He said, "My son, I am 82 years old. I have $100 worth of discretionary income a month. Do you know what that $100 is for, my son? Do you know what it is for after I pay my rent, my heat, my light? I buy some groceries, but I also need to have money to give to the church because I support the church. I also need a few dollars to buy a few cards and gifts for my friends who are sick and who are ailing, because they expect that. When I was in the hospital and sick they came to me with a basket of fruit or a card. 1 need to have a few dollars to get the bus to K-Mart to get a few groceries. Stamps are going up. I like to write my children. They are all over Canada. They all have good jobs, Mr. Tobin. I am so proud and I try and stay in touch with them. That is what I use my $100 for".
I do not want that old man sitting in his apartment wondering when, if and how it becomes politically convenient for the Government to do what it has already decided to do, to back away from this program. I do not want him to spend the next seven or eight months wondering if he will have the price of a stamp after 1986 to write to his son or daughter who has gone to Alberta, British Columbia or Ottawa. Nobody in this House wants that. Not any Member on any side of the House. That is why I say to Members opposite that this motion is not a motion of condemnation. It is not a motion of non-confidence. It is not a motion that asks for the head of the Minister of Finance. It is a motion of confidence in Canadians, in their sense of justice and in their sense of sharing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is a rare chance for us as Members-and seniors one day we will be, God bless us all, hopefully-to begin practising today the central thrust of the reform committee. It is a chance for us, as recommended by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), to begin to vote in the House of Commons as Members of Parliament, questioning our consciences, listening to our constituents and doing what we know is right. I have no monopoly on my concerns. The NDP has no monopoly. In fact, none of us has any monopoly on concern or appreciation for senior citizens. I appeal to Hon. Members opposite today to join us in supporting this motion.
As I said earlier, I warn the Government not to come forward with a solution which begins a back-door exercise to erode universality or with a solution which double indexes the GIS, because that is a back-door attack on universality. That is not acceptable to the Liberal Party. That is not acceptable to many Members of the House. The eyes of the people of Canada are upon us today. They are watching us. They are weighing our words. They will see how we are counted this day in Parliament. I warn Hon. Members that we had better not try their patience too far.
I should like to reflect upon the comments of Mr. Fisher last night on television. He said that he really did not need the OAS and was not too concerned. I tell Mr. Fisher that I will survive this Budget. My income is sufficient that I will survive.
I am OK, Jack. Mr. Fisher has already told us that he will survive this Budget. His income is OK. He is OK, Jack. However, my 85-year-old grandfather, Jack Tobin, will not. He worked 49 years as a millwright, he paid into his company's pension plan and now he receives a little cheque which will not put bread on his table, let alone butter. He needs that OAS. Even though I will survive and others may survive this Budget, my grandfather is counting on me as a Member of Parliament to speak in my place today. He is also counting on others who may be OK themselves and may survive this Budget to speak for him. Without any more fanfare, I invite Hon. Members to consult-and I know that you really do not need to-and do what their consciences tell and invite them to do and that justice demands that they do, that is, support the motion today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Hockin) on a question or comment.


Mr. Hockin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pose some questions to the Hon. Member with the utmost seriousness, because my riding has a larger than average number of retired people, larger than the national average by about 20 per cent. My constituency office is located in the middle of about 20 large facilities for retired Canadians. This issue has been a concern of my Party, and of course of mine, for many years. We have discussed it intensely for the last few months.

June 13, 1985
Supply
I should like to share with the House two insights by way of posing a question. The first criticism I heard was a question posed by the Hon. Member. They are asking questions about the security of the OAS from the Oppositon. In his speech the Hon. Member-and I would like him to correct it, if he can- gave the impression that we are abolishing the OAS. We are not abolishing the OAS. We have made this absolutely clear. In fact, inflation indexation is there after the 3 per cent on the OAS, and the GIS is fully indexed. My constituents are simply asking for facts, and they are being unreasonably frightened by the kinds of scare tactics and the rhetoric of the Hon. Member.
Their second concern is that they want to know what we are doing about inflation. The Hon. Member opposite speaks not at all about inflation. The greatest damage done to the senior people in this country was done between 1980 and 1984 with interest rates at 22 per cent and with inflation through the roof. Seniors could not cope with it. This Government is trying to come to terms with inflation and seniors are willing to make a contribution too. Seniors with the lowest income, of course, should not be expected to, but others, I am told, feel that they want to make their contribution. What does the Hon. Member say about inflation? How does one come to terms with inflation? If, in fact, one comes to terms with inflation, is that not the greatest contribution we can make to the incomes of seniors?
The third question I would ask has to do with the Hon. Member's comments on polls. He said this Government is dictated by polls.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of order.


Mr. Deans:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the 10-minute period for comments and questions is intended to be shared. It is not intended that Members should utilize the entire 10 minutes to make a speech. I can well appreciate that he might have questions or want to make comments, and that is quite within the rules, but there are other people, I am sure, who might also want to ask questions or to make comments on the speech of the Hon. Member who has spoken on behalf of the Liberal Party.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, that you ask the Hon. Member if he could resume his seat and allow the Hon. Member to answer and allow other Members to take their turn, if they so desire.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The representations made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) are, of course, well taken. We have a 10-minute question and comment period, and the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Hockin) was nearing approximately three minutes. I ask him to conclude his comments so that we may proceed with other Members who may wish to participate.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have only put questions, I have not made a speech. The final question has to do with polls.
There is no poll that has ever asked the Canadian people whether they wanted to deindex the first 3 per cent of OAS. That has never been in the minds of any polling organization, much less a political Party, and to claim that that has been a part of any Government's polling apparatus is questionable. I ask the Hon. Member to answer these three questions, primarily to answer the question about inflation.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Be it ever so humble, Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief in making this comment. When the Hon. Member is here a little bit longer he will understand something, that on very rare occasions in the life of a Parliament there are days when the walls of partisanship disappear from this place. There are days when a special mood prevails in this place, when the importance of the issue at hand is not one that is subject to the cut and thrust of partisan debate. 1 say to the Hon. Member that he has missed an opportunity with the kind of comments he has just made to participate in that kind of very special mood, that kind of very special non-partisan debate.
I did not refer to polls. Inflation is less than 4 per cent. The issue is not whether or not you are fast on your feet or whether or not I can get up and be terribly partisan in my response, of which I assure you I am quite capable. The issue is whether or not we can isolate today and understand in human terms the nature and the effect of this budget measure on our senior citizens and whether we, as Members of Parliament, today are prepared to express ourselves to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance and urge them to do quickly what we know they are going to do ultimately anyway, and not in the process destroy the concept of universality.


Mr. Reimer:: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Hon. Member for his passionate plea that we really do look at what this measure is doing for senior citizens and for his desire that we set aside some of our partisan rhetoric on this issue. I commend the Hon. Member for that attempt.
I wonder if I could not ask the Hon. Member then, in view of that request that he has made of all of us, whether I could not also request him, to be fair and to be accurate and honest in what he is saying.
For example, early in his comments when he was referring to Mr. Fisher and his comments last night on The Journal he used the words, "The cut to OAS payments". I think we should state it correctly. It is not a cut to any OAS payments as they are today. What it is, is a proposal to limit the increase past 3 per cent. So I appeal to the Hon. Member, would he please be accurate and would he be fair?
I would also like to ask the Hon. Member, who I think was here when the six and five program was introduced, and I am sure he supported it, what was inflation at that time when the payments were reduced to six and five? Would he please indicate that? What is inflation today? Would the Hon. Member then please tell us, by how much did that measure then in the six and five program reduce the increase in the payments compared to how much this one will reduce the payments of OAS? I appeal to him to be fair so that the seniors who are watching this debate today will say, "Here is a
June 13, 1985

debate today where the Members are being fair and are being accurate and are trying to deal with the problem".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if I had the exact numbers in front of me, 1 am afraid that the answer would be very embarrassing for the Hon. Member opposite. Let me read from this six and five proposal as outlined in the MacEachen document. There is quite a difference. It reads:
Pensioners most in need must also be fully protected from the limitation on the indexing factor. The Guaranteed Income Supplement for senior citizens with lower incomes will continue to be fully indexed. In addition, everyone receiving the GIS will get a supplement to the GIS payment offsetting fully the limitation on indexation of Old Age Security payments.
Veterans' pensions will continue to be fully indexed.
Setting that aside, the important difference here is that the six and five program was a program that applied to every government Department, every government service, every government program, every government salary for two years. I do not have the exact numbers, but I will tell the Hon. Member that it cost everybody in this country very little because inflation went down to about six and five in those two years. The difference is that it did not fundamentally alter or change permanently the program as this budget measure does which says that every year for the next four or five years senior citizens will lose with certainty 3 per cent of the value of their pension a year.
That is quite different. You are not talking about a one-year program; you are talking about a change to the Old Age Security payment system in this country. It is fundamentally different. It has been expressed by many groups.
I heard the Hon. Member accuse me of providing false information. Is he accusing the senior citizens of this country of providing false information? Is he accusing the Council of Maritime Premiers, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Quebec National Assembly, the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party, or the Conservative Parties of the Atlantic region? Are all of those people wrong in their assessment of what this measure means for senior citizens? I beg to differ with the Hon. Member. I am afraid they are not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We will now resume debate with the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to participate in the debate, but not at all with pleasure to have to say the things that have to be said about this Government that has betrayed its commitment to the people of Canada in general and to Canada's pensioners in particular.
I also want to say that I listened with interest to the speech that has just been given and I want to say without hesitation that it was a moving expression of concern for the senior citizens of Canada. There was not one word uttered in that speech that would not have the wholehearted endorsation of my Party.
Supply
Some two decades ago, a very distinguished Canadian said the following:
I hope that, having accepted the principle that retirement security should be on the basis of adequacy, we will go on improving that basis, finding ways of raising the levels of our pensions so that all Canadians can look forward to a retirement in decency and dignity.
Those words were uttered by the Hon. Stanley Knowles, a man whom all Members of the House have honoured in the past, a man who assumes a special place in the Parliament of Canada and has a chair at the Table with the Officers of this Chamber, a man who, more than any other Canadian of any Party, devoted his life to improving the well-being of our senior citizens. I cite him because he was honoured by all Members of the House of all Parties as he had the support of the overwhelming majority of Canadians for that to which he had devoted his life, namely, ensuring that when Canadians retire, they do not simply have to eke out an existence but ought to be able to assume a life of dignity. There is a fundamental difference between the two.
What Mr. Knowles said some years ago is a tradition that we in our Party thought had come to be shared by Members of all Parties. We had thought that this attitude had become engrained in the traditions not only of Canadians outside the House of Commons but had become part of the traditions within the Parties of the House.
I regret to say that rather than building on the basic change in our attitude toward pensioners and rather than building to create the possibility of a greater dignity and a greater feeling of security for our pensioners, as has been the tradition of the Canadian Parliament for the past four or five decades, the present Government has done just the opposite. It has broken faith with the traditions of our House. It has broken faith with the traditions that we thought had become established within the Conservative Party itself.
Members of my Party find it heartless and cruel that we as a Parliament should be voting on legislation that will fight the deficit on the backs of the pensioners. We find it heartless and cruel and, frankly stated, a moral abomination, to have a Government in 1985 that would bring before the Parliament of Canada a measure that will add 200,000 pensioners to the poverty list in Canada. That is a moral abomination.
Half of the 2.6 million pensioners of Canada are already so poor in 1985 that they receive either partial or full supplements. That is how bad the current situation is. Among those Canadians are women, and I would like to mention, as it is significant indeed, the plight of Canadian women who become old.

Yesterday I was in Montreal where I met some senior citizens. One senior explained what the situation was like for elderly women today. I think what she said is far more eloquent than anything I could say, and I quote:

June 13, 1985
Supply
Women 50 years old or over are the poorest population group in Canada today, and one woman out of three in Canada is 50 years old or over. Figure it out for yourself.
She went on to say, and I quote:
There are now a million and a half female pensioners in Canada. Fifteen years from now, there will be at least two million. Old age is a woman's world.
The majority of us live alone, because our husbands often predeceased us, and we are poor. More than 70 per cent of widows, divorcees and single women are now living below the poverty line. The majority of us survive our husbands. This means that nearly 25 per cent of us are on our own when we reach retirement age. What happens to our financial security? When our spouse dies, we have no income. And not all women have husbands that are protected by a private pension plan. Only 39 per cent of workers today contribute to such plans. After a life spent raising children and keeping house, we have no decent level of security, and even in the best of circumstances, the wife will never get more than 60 per cent of the pension her husband was receiving-
Mr. Speaker, as you see these figures are most alarming, and they describe the circumstances in which the vast majority of the elderly in Canada are living, and in spite of these figures and facts the Progressive Conservative Government knows all too well, it is attacking one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. The de-indexation of pensions will perpetuate inequality among Canadians in the most regressive way by making our needy elderly even poorer. Mr. Speaker, it is an injustice and it is appalling but it is the truth!

We realized from the very beginning, from the very moment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) sat down after delivering his budget address, just how unfair is the Budget. We realized just how clear is the double standard according to this Party that is now governing Canada. The double standard is pervasive throughout the Budget.
Very quickly, what is in the Budget for the rich? Surely all members of all Parties of this House ought to be approaching a Budget from the point of view of fairness, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance said so often before the Budget came down. They told us to look for fairness. Well, we looked for fairness, and what did we find? We found for the rich a $500,000 life-time tax exempt capital gains provision. We found no minimum tax introduced this year. We found a surtax for the rich, yes, but payable on federal tax payable. Getting through the jargon, that means that if the rich hire the right chartered accountants and do not end up having any taxes payable, they do not even have to pay the surtax. We found all kinds of advantages that clearly exist for the wealthy of the country and for the corporations.
The Prime Minister cited the change that has been made in the taxation system for banks. A slight new tax has been added to the banks in Canada. There have been some additional increases in corporate taxes in other sectors, but when we look through the smoke and mirrors of the Budget to the net effect of tax proposals on the corporate sector, we find that by 1990, while individual Canadians will be paying more than $4 billion in additional taxes, the corporate sector will actually be paying $2 billion less in taxes rather than more. That, to us in the New Democratic Party, is not fair, Mr. Speaker. The rich individuals receive some benefits, the corporations receive
additional benefits, but the ordinary Canadian, what does he or she receive? Five hundred dollars in tax increases on everything from a gallon of gasoline-which, of course, will not come in until September 1, Canadians will feel it then-to pet food.
The purpose, surely, Mr. Speaker, of democratic politics ought to be for us in the legislative process to use our political power not to intensify inequalities in society but to change those inequalities. That ought to be the task for all of us who are elected. We should think day in and day out about how we can overcome inequality and unfairness in order to build a Canada which is more just for all. This Budget does exactly the opposite. I will just take two single items which ought to stand out in everyone's consciousness: first, the changes in the RRSPs, which is overwhelmingly used by those who earn more than $50,000 a year, and, second, the benefit which is given in the capital gains provision. Only 4 per cent or so of Canadians will benefit from that hand-out, the richest 4 per cent. The Government is giving to the rich $1.5 billion with those two provisions alone. And what does this Government take out of the pockets of pensioners? It takes $1.6 billion. The Government takes $1.6 billion away from pensioners and gives $1.5 billion to upper-income Canadians.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the principle is clear to the Tories that they are giving most to those who have the least need and taking the most away from those who have the greatest need. That sort of sums up the Tory vision of justice. As 1 said the other day, this Budget takes from the needy in order to give to the greedy.
Canadians ought to rise up in anger, as they are doing in increasing numbers all across our land. The Government, however, does not want to say openly what it is doing. It does not want to admit that there is a net transfer of wealth going on through this Budget from average and low-income Canadians to the wealthy. It does not want to admit that it is unfair, so it offers all kinds of excuses. We have heard them ever since budget night. First, we were told-believe it or not, Mr. Speaker-that pensioners actually supported it. All Hon. Members will recall that. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, all rose and said, "The pensioners want to do this. They want to do their bit to bring down the deficit". That lasted for about 12 hours, I think, until they abandoned that line, seeing themselves how ridiculous it was. Then they shifted to another kind of argument, one well known to the Prime Minister, they said they had no option. The Prime Minister said that everyone had to pay his or her share and the pensioners were out there so they had to pay their share as well.
But we gave the Government some options. My colleagues and I have spent the last ten days in the House of Commons proposing one option after another. We said that perhaps a minimum tax should have been introduced. That is not too heretical. Most countries in the world already have a minimum
June 13, 1985

tax on the rich. Most democracies in the world; western Europe, even the United States-even Ronald Reagan's America-have a minimum tax. It is time the rich in Canada paid their share. Why did the Government not bring in a minimum tax?
There was another option. We made a proposal, which has been applied in other countries, that all those corporations which have deferred taxes and owe all these revenues to the people of Canada, should pay a certain percentage of interest on what they owe just like other individual taxpayers. That would have given the Government additional millions of dollars.
Another proposal, Mr. Speaker, was with respect to the Western Accord. We agree with the Western Accord and those aspects which give to our producing provinces additional shares of revenue. That is entirely justifiable and overdue. But, we asked, why give multinational oil companies windfall profits? Why give them additional millions of dollars on oil which has already been discovered?
Another option we presented, Mr. Speaker, is that instead of expanding the loopholes in terms of extending the capital gains tax for upper-income Canadians, we should just leave it where it is. That would save us millions of dollars. Finally, we said we should restore to upper-income Canadians the tax rate which they were paying before the Liberals made the change in their 1982 Budget. Just bring back those marginal rates and that would give us additional millions of dollars.
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that from these five options we would get anywhere from $4 billion to $5.5 billion. They were real options. They were serious options. They would have given us a fair tax system; they would have been effective in stimulating the economy; they would have been comparable to what exists in most other democratic countries; and, very important in the context of this debate, they would have left the pensions going out to the pensioners at fully indexed rates so that they could continue to live with some dignity. But, in short, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives turned it down.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Prime Minister: Sir, you had not one, not two, not three options. You had five options. And in the crunch, Mr. Prime Minister, when you had to make a choice, you chose the few over the many. You chose the rich over the pensioners, and for that you deserve to be condemned by the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with some observations about this particular motion and about the abominable course of action which the Government of Canada proposes to take, which has now demonstrated three characteristics of this Government; first, its insincerity, second, its insensitivity, and, third, its intransigence. That is a harsh judgment, Mr. Speaker, but we are not here to be mealy-mouthed. We are here to be fair but firm and clear in our judgments. I want to hear Hon. Members of the Conservative Party reply to these charges because they are serious. I say
Supply
that the Government is insincere because the Prime Minister of Canada in Sherbrooke-

-in Sherbrooke he promised our country's pensioners he would continue to index pensions. And in the same speech on July 25, he indicated that as Prime Minister he wanted to consult pensioners on future changes in the system.

He said that the Government would keep the indexation and he said that pensioners would be fully consulted about any future changes to their pensions. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, responsible for pensions, himself, in a document in June, indicated that the Government of Canada would not be changing the pensions. We all know what has happened. We know that these promises have been categorically broken by the Conservative Government.
I will cite just a couple of instances of the Government's insensitivity. The Minister of Finance in the past week went all the way from saying we did not have enough rich people in Canada-which was insensitive enough-to making a speech a couple of days ago in Quebec City in which he made a proposal to make the rich even richer. He said we could no longer fully index pensions but he was thinking of bringing in indexation for investors. How insensitive can one be? The Prime Minister, responding to a question about pensions the other day, had the nerve to talk about car sales. 1 suppose he expects that half the pensioners living in poverty, and the 200,000 additional pensioners who will have to begin to live in poverty, are going to be able to go out and buy a car. That is great sensitivity.
The Government has shown intransigence almost without limits. Almost everyone in this country has indicated his or her opposition to what the Government is doing. If the Government wants to listen, now is the time. The three Atlantic Premiers who spoke out were opposed. The legislatures of Quebec and Manitoba unanimously disagreed with the Government. Tories all across Canada are opposed. Pensioners are opposed. Members of my caucus have submitted to the House of Commons more than 10,000 names on petitions of Canadians from coast to coast who say they are opposed to what the Government is doing.
Now is the time for the Government to listen to what the people are saying. Even businessmen have joined in. They have said the Government is wrong. I say the Government does not need consultations for another week, month or year; it simply has to listen to what the people of Canada are saying today. If it listens to that message, it will, at the end of this debate, get up and say it made a mistake and it is going to restore to the pensioners what they deserve, namely, fully indexed pensions.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the impassioned plea to stop partial deindexation. It seems that the basic premise of both the Liberals and the NDP is really twofold. First, because you turn 65 you should receive taxpay-

June 13, 1985
Supply
ers' dollars. The second premise is that wealth is created by the tooth fairy. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) talked about inequality. Perhaps he can answer this question in order to enlighten the needy elderly of this country. We have a former Prime Minister who is receiving some $90,000 a year in pension as a former Member of this place. How do we justify giving him $276 a month while we have others who are more needy?


John Edward Broadbent: I want to say very frankly to the new Member that I found the suppositions which lay behind his question very disturbing indeed. The first part of his question was whether I really think that someone, because he suddenly turned 65, ought to get money from the taxpayers, or something to that effect. I say to the Hon. Member that that is precisely what universal pensions are all about. But it is not money that is being given as a charity. Universal pensions mean we recognize as a society that men and women in our country work all of their lives, make a contribution to our society, and deserve a pension. They paid for it through their labour and their taxes throughout their lives. That is what we believe.
It is very clear that the Hon. Member wants what his Party threatened to do before Christmas, which was to put an end to universality. I say to the Hon. Member that in the 19th century people like him believed we did not need universal education because the rich could afford their own schools. Then they went on and said we did not need medicare for everyone because the rich could afford their own doctors. Very clearly he wants to dismantle our pension system and say that only the poor should get pensions. We reject that because we have a higher view of what we can create by way of decency in this country of ours.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), for questions or comments.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, after they finish congratulating each other, they might want to listen!
I have a question for the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, but first of all, I have a comment. . . Are you going to keep quiet and listen? Mr. Speaker, don't you think whoever is speaking has a right to be listened to? We didn't say a word when it was your turn!
The Leader of the New Democratic Party said that the greedy would benefit from this Budget. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that the greedy he is referring to include at least 100 CIP workes who were informed yesterday that contrary to what was going to happen before the Budget, they will not lose their jobs, new machines will be purchased, existing jobs will be maintained and the number of jobs in the bush increased, because of the new climate being created to stimulate the economy. And those people are not greedy. They are the ones that applauded-


An Hon. Member:: That is not the subject of the motion before the House today!


Claudy Mailly: Will you keep quiet!


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Guilbault@Saint-Jacques: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), on a point of order.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has a right to be heard, and my colleague should give her a chance to say what she has to say. However, I wish that what she has to say would be relevant to the motion before the House, and I do not think the subject she was broaching had any connection with old age security pensions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that the Hon. Member for Gatineau was giving the House a preamble to her comments, and I am sure that she will make those comments relevant to the speech by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) for giving me a chance to be heard.


An Hon. Member:: Speak to the motion before the House!


Claudy Mailly: Is that going to go on all day .. . Mr. Speaker?


An Hon. Member:: Of course!


Claudy Mailly: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition . . . excuse me, we-


An Hon. Member:: Bring on the jobs!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I want to take this opportunity to hand down a ruling.

Last week the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) raised a question of privilege in connection with the conduct of one particular Member, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi). The exchange is to be found in Hansard at pages 5335 and 5336. I stated that I would take the question of privilege under advisement and make a ruling later. Since there has been no problem between the Hon. Members for the last week I had not made the ruling, but I will make it today.
The matter as raised by the Hon. Member for Gatineau is not a question of privilege. It might more properly be classed as a point of order. The Standing Orders require the Speaker to maintain order in the Chamber, and it is the duty of the Chair to intervene or protect the Member where offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by the Member addressing the House or by any other Member present. It is also the duty
June 13, 1985

of the Chair, when its attention is drawn to certain words used, to determine whether or not they are offensive or disorderly. There is a lot of precedent and practice that language should not be ironical or offensive, nor should it contain ridicule, epithets or innuendo.
It seems to the Chair that the interjections across the Chamber by Members have become more frequent of late and neither side of the House is entirely blameless. Interruptions of another Member while he is speaking are most disruptive. They can confuse the Member who has the floor and can make for a most unpleasant atmosphere in the Chamber. The Chair is requesting Members' co-operation in this area and urges Members to cease shouting out and making interjections in debate when they do not have the floor. If that co-operation is not forthcoming, then the Chair will have to undertake its duties with more vigour, for Standing Order 15 is clear:
The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum-
I conclude by again urging all Hon. Members to show courtesy to their colleagues. That is in keeping with the best traditions of this honourable Chamber.

The Hon. Member for Gatineau.


Claudy Mailly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So back to our dialogue with the Leader of the NDP Opposition Party.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Well now, listen-


An Hon. Member:: You are making a speech, not a comment!


Claudy Mailly: I can hardly hear myself, let alone the answer of the Hon. Member. Well, Sir, I said earlier you were talking about greedy people who want to take every advantage of the Budget. I pointed out that such greedy people would have to include Gatineau's CIP workers who learned yesterday that their plant will be upgraded as a result of the new climate created by the Budget. It is altogether relevant to refer to the Budget job creation climate underlying all our measures, Mr. Speaker. The Budget has to be considered as a whole.


An Hon. Member:: That is not what today's motion is all about!


Claudy Mailly: For their own political considerations all the people you mentioned chose to instil fear in the elderly-


An Hon. Member:: Make your speech on your own time.


Mr. Parry:: This is ridiculous!


Claudy Mailly: Just a minute, let me finish, you do the same thing.


George Albert Proud: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Supply


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


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has every right to our undivided attention, but if she wants us to listen to her she ought to abide by the Standing Orders of the House. She is making a speech. Her comments would be welcome, but if she wants to make a speech we have about-


Carlo Rossi: She should not even have the floor.


George Albert Proud: Just a minute, please. We do have a few hours left for debate. Let her put her name down and we will be here to listen to her and make comments. But if she wants to make a speech, this is not the proper time.


Carlo Rossi: Right on!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With deference for the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I would suggest that the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) tried to make a comment a moment ago but was interrupted-including by the Chair who made a ruling. I think she repeated what she had said, properly so, and like all Hon. Members she is entitled to at least three minutes of the question period. 1 would invite the Hon. Member for Gatineau to go on with her comments.


Claudy Mailly: Talking about greedy people, those mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition would have to include plant workers who stand to gain a lot from the new economic recovery climate brought about by the Budget. We had proof of that in my riding yesterday and there will be more such encouraging news. It was quite obvious even before the Budget that the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had created a climate conducive to job creation. So instead of focusing too closely on the partial deindexation of pensions one ought to keep in mind the ultimate aim of the Budget, and that is job creation and economic recovery.


An Hon. Member:: The motion has to do with pensions, not unemployment and job creation.


Claudy Mailly: Please, Mr. Speaker, I can hardly hear myself!


An Hon. Member:: Speak to the issue of today's motion- pensions.


Claudy Mailly: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Waddell:: This is not the Rotary Club, you know.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, surely the intent of the 10-minute period for Members to ask questions and make comments is that the questions and comments should be brief so

June 13, 1985
Supply
that the Member who made the speech will have an opportunity to reply.


Claudy Mailly: I was being brief, but everyone keeps interrupting me.


David Orlikow: I have not finished my point of order. The Member keeps saying that others interrupt her. I wish she would at least have the courtesy to listen to my point of order.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Member, that she is going to use up the entire 10-minute period so that the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) will not be permitted to answer the supposed question she is asking. I say that that is wrong and you ought to rule accordingly, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can assure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that should there be a question at the end of the comment of the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) will certainly have an opportunity to reply.


David Orlikow: What is your question?


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I will finish my comment. I have every right to make a comment as well.


Ian Deans: A brief comment.


Claudy Mailly: The Leader of the NDP has made several comments and cast aspersions on this Budget. He has said that it is for the greedy. I am pointing out that among the "greedy" he has to think of the workers whose jobs have been maintained and the workers whose jobs will be created.
I want to make the further comment that he mentioned that pensioners did not support the measure. In my own riding pensioners have supported it.
[ Translation]
Mr. Tasse of Morin Street in Gatineau-

-has sent back his pension cheque for the month-


Mr. Rodriguez:: He must be a Tory.


Claudy Mailly: He is not a Tory. He has sent me back his cheque for the month of May saying, "Keep on with the good work because I know very well that the NDP and the Liberals are going to try to scare you into going back on your very good Budget". He has also encouraged Mr. Trudeau to do the same.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will give the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) an opportunity to reply, should he
wish to.


Claudy Mailly: I have not posed the question.


David Orlikow: You are finished. Sit down. Make your speech in your own time.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, first in English-

-the Member mentioned the pensioner who lives in her riding. I can only conclude it must be either George Hees or Doug Fisher.


An Hon. Member:: Or Charlie Lynch.


John Edward Broadbent: It may be someone else. To understate it, no more than 90 per cent of pensioners would be in opposition. I guess that would be the case. I do not want to be glib. The evidence is overwhelming. I hope that the Member understands that the vast majority of pensioners and all Canadians are opposed to what the Government is doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: She talked about the motion but, unfortunately, this debate has to do with pensions, not workers in general. I would like to talk about unemployment in Canada, as she would, but I must point out that pensions are the issue right now.
Not unlike her Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, she would rather talk about something else because she knows full well that the policy concerning retired Canadians is unfair. That is a fact.


Claudy Mailly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments-


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, a point of order to suggest-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask all Members to show courtesy to other Members. We had a very vigorous and lively debate on Bill C-31 in the last two days in the House. All Members were always courteous. I would ask the same thing of Members today on this motion.
We will resume debate on the motion with the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan).


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in today's debate because I regard this motion as a hypocritical motion by a hypocritical Party

whose tactics since the Budget have been almost exclusively designed to scare senior citizens in the country. The reliance on scare tactics by this Party is not new. Last fall when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced his economic statement, that Party tried to scare the unemployed by suggesting that the measures in the economic statement would reduce employment in the country by 50,000 to 100,000 persons. Everyone in the Chamber knows that those statements and innuendoes did not work. Today we are seeing the most rapid increase in job creation recorded in the history of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: The Party is hypocritical in its criticism because it raised the possibility that within the next five years, if nothing else changes, we may see an increase of 200,000 in the number of people living in poverty. That is hypocritical because under that Party's Government in the last five years we saw an actual increase by 400,000 in the number of Canadians living below the poverty line. They did not say a single word. They allowed that situation to develop. They cut OAS by more and did not tackle the basic problem of poverty among seniors in the country as it relates to pension reform.
Those problems are well known and are not new. The problems with our public and private pension systems were identified by the Conservative Government when the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) announced a national pension conference in 1979. The Liberal Minister of National Health and Welfare confirmed over five years ago that we had serious problems with our pension system, and particularly with benefits for single women over the age of 65. That Party knew for five years that we had serious problems with poverty among the elderly in the country, but it did nothing whatsoever other than delay.
When the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) raises his heartfelt pleas for the poor in this country who are receiving G1S, he knows full well that the NDP Government in Manitoba systematically increases the charge-backs to the poorest in Manitoba for the rent supplements. Every time the GIS is increased, the NDP Government of Manitoba reduces the net income of seniors in Manitoba. That is what his Party is doing to protect the elderly in this country.
The Liberal Party is hypocritical because it tries to extrapolate one section of the Budget for five years and literally scare our elderly. Where were the Liberals when these problems developed? Where were they when women over 65 years of age gradually fell further below the poverty line? Where were they when widows below 65 faced increasing difficulties? Where were those Members when the OAS was cut as a result of the six and five program? They were silent and did nothing about the basic problems.
This is not the only example of the hypocrisy shown by the Liberal Party Members in this Parliament. When the unemployment statistics were released, they stood up month after
Supply
month to complain that unemployment of 10.5 per cent was unacceptable in this country. They might have had some credibility if any one of them ever stood up to suggest that there was a problem in this country when unemployment was running at 12 per cent. However, they stayed silent. That is why 1 say that their actions now and then prove just how hypocritical they are.
Where were they in 1980 when the National Energy Program literally destroyed the energy sector in our country? They were silent again. Where were they during the last four years when poverty among our seniors rose by 400,000? It rose steadily, year after year, under their Government. They were silent.
A more recent example of their hypocrisy concerns interest rates. Last February when interest rates rose for two weeks, after a steady decline for four or five months, the Liberals were standing in the House trying to scare homeowners. They were saying that homeowners would lose again because interest rates were rising. Long-term interest rates are at a seven-year low, but the Liberals have been silent since that time. They did not protest the high level of interest rates when mortgages hit 22 per cent in 1982.
As a result of their bankrupt policies, the Liberals had no other policy than to leave the country close to economic ruin. The only tactic available to them now is to try to scare Canadians, whether it is our unemployed, our homeowners or our senior citizens.
The Progressive Conservative Party was elected to repair the damage caused by the Party which has proposed the motion today. Liberals should remember that it was one of their Prime Ministers, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who predicted that the 20th century belonged to Canada. There are 15 years left in the 20th century and I believe that we can develop the policies necessary to make the 20th century belong to Canada, rather than allow Canada to become a second rate nation as we did under the economic policies of the Liberal Party. We will do this by restoring prosperity, step by step, as we have been doing.
Our fall economic statement attempted to take stock of our country's situation and provide long-term projections of our goals. While we projected what would happen with such things as employment, the only tactic used by the Liberals was to scare people.
Second, we attempted to analyse objectively why the recovery in the United States had been so much more dynamic than the recovery in Canada. There are many similarities between the Canadian and the American economies. In both countries, for example, the automobile sector led the recovery. In both countries, the smokestack industries such as steel and textiles have not recovered.
However, there was a big difference between the economic recoveries in both countries. The energy sector in Canada was devastated while this did not take place in the United States. While the small business sector in both countries was almost the sole creator of jobs, that sector in the United States was

June 13, 1985
Supply
much more vibrant. Research and development in the United States played a much greater role in the economic recovery because it was true research and development rather than the quick flip schemes introduced by the Liberals two years ago, Those projects produced almost no economic benefit and wasted $2 billion of public money.
With respect to reviving the energy industry-


Mr. Marchi:: Talk about the motion.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I am talking about the motion because it concerns the economic situation in this country and what we are doing about it.
One of our priorities was to bring about energy accords. Again, the Liberals used scare tactics about the rising price of energy as a result of these accords. Prices in my riding have touched down to 37.7 cents a litre since the Western Energy Accord. That is the lowest price in the last year and a half. The Liberals are simply trying to scare the consumer unjustifiably. The same tactic was attempted in the United States when President Reagan decontrolled oil prices there. The opposition there suggested that oil prices would increase continually.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise to interrupt the Hon. Member in the middle of his speech. However, it seems to me that the Hon. Member should address himself to the motion before the House. There must be some rule about relevancy.
He has been carrying on for some time about subject matters that do not pertain directly to the motion. It seems to me that the Hon. Member is somewhat apprehensive in terms of addressing the motion directly. We on this side of the House would ask him, rather than speaking about extraneous, irrelevant matters, to address himself specifically to the motion which reads:
That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation-
I am sure that Hon. Members and Canadians would like to know where the Government stands on this particular motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has made his point. If I understand the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan), he is trying to relate the general economic condition of the country to the matter of old age pensions. However, I would ask him to be as specific as possible in relation to the motion.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was trying to do. If the Hon. Member had let me go on for one more sentence, he would have seen that I was coming to the fourth point.
In analysing the Budget, we came to the same realization as did the previous Government that the full cost of living indexation for all government expenditures and all tax deductions led to a systematic increase in the real deficit of this
country. There have been a number of private economic organizations that have developed estimates of just how much this problem has built up in the last four years. Those estimates indicate that up to $10 billion of our $35 billion deficit is due to overindexing, which is the combined indexing of all benefit expenditures and all government tax exemptions.
We have begun to address that problem by fixing the pension system as the previous Government neglected to do. In his Budget, the Minister of Finance has taken decisive steps. The first step is to correct the private pension system so that future problems will not develop to the same magnitude as they have today. For example, in 1980 a number of reports from the House, the Senate, Quebec and Ontario recommended that last survivor pensions in the private sector be made mandatory. The previous Government did nothing about those recommendations. For five years it did nothing. We had five more years of people retiring without protection, without spouses having the protection that almost everyone recognized they should have from our pension system.
By 1980 we knew that our vesting requirements were completely inadequate, that women particularly were losing out on their pensions and were going into retirement without adequate income because their pension provisions were not being protected. That consensus was there by 1980. But that Party did nothing about it. It did nothing about ensuring that women in the workplace have eligibility for pension plans whether they were full-time or part-time workers. We changed that in this Budget. The previous Government did nothing to protect divorced women, with the increasing rate of divorce, to ensure that they could keep pension credits in retirement. We changed that in the Budget by bringing in credit splitting on divorce.


Ms. Mitchell:: For how many women?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: We brought in unisex provisions in this Budget to ensure that women, particularly the ones with problems concerning pensions, have full protection.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: All women?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: That contrasts with the previous Government's record of no action whatever in the area of pension reform in the private sector since 1976.
In this motion the Liberals condemn our Government for partial indexing of pensions since-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order not to mislead the general public watching the Hon. Member, would he clarify that it is only women in the federal jurisdiction who will be affected-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I do not consider that to be a point of order.
June 13, 1985


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything we can to affect pensions under our control. We are trying to set a lead. That hypocritical Party that was the Government did not try to give any sort of leadership whatever. The Liberal Government let the problem fester over the last five years.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the Canada Pension Plan and the OAS?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: The Liberals were suggesting that we should be condemned for not fully indexing-


John V. Nunziata: Read the motion.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: -the Old Age Security pension. That is an important part of our pension system. It is not the only part. Since 1976 the previous Government had refused to increase by even one dollar the limit on money that people could set aside to put into pensions. There was no partial indexing for a cost of living above 3 per cent. The Liberals sat and watched the private pension system get weaker and weaker so there would be more reliance on OAS and GIS as a result. The Liberal Party is hypocritical because the Liberals did not take the sort of action they are espousing in this motion.
I mentioned that in the analysis of the Budget we decided that we had to take action to eliminate the structural deficit, the deficit that arose because of the full indexing of all government expenditures and the full indexing of all tax deductions. We did not take the steps which the previous Government took with the 6 and 5 program of a drastic reduction and of providing no protection regardless of where inflation went. We decided we would take the step of protecting our pensioners against the re-emergence of inflation. That is why we took the steps in the Budget, not only to limit the OAS for expenses and deductions but all government expenditures and all tax exemptions. We took an action which was long overdue with respect to Members in this House of saying that Members could not have special protection and special benefits which everyone else in the country cannot have. We eliminated the full indexing on MPs' pensions as well, a step which the previous Government did not take.
This Liberal motion is hypocritical because it focuses on one aspect of the Budget while assuming that nothing else changes in the meantime. The Liberals are hypocritical because if their Members who served on the Health and Welfare Committee had shown up for this debate, they would know that the all-Party committee passed a unanimous recommendation to study the structure of the OAS, the GIS, the age exemption and the pension exemption and asked for a referral back to the committee this fall. I fully expect we will have that recommendation implemented.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You said you would not touch the OAS. What about the blue book?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: No. In the blue book the Government was not looking at making a change at this time. The all-Party committee unanimously recommended that we take a look at the entire structure of OAS, GIS, the tax exemption for age
Supply
and the pension income exemption. Members know that that matter will be coming back to the House later this year, certainly before the April 1 deadline when the OAS limiting applies. Moreover, every Member of this House knows that the CPP is up for renegotiation with the provinces, that basic changes will be made in the next year in the design and benefits coming from the CPP which affect a level of protection provided our pensioners. This Party has a strong commitment to improving disability and spouse's pensions in the CPP. We can expect a full pension overhaul.
This motion, in assuming that nothing else happens anywhere in pension reform when it is obvious that this Government is treating it as a priority, is hypocritical by extrapolating one small item in the Budget and saying that is the only change and by trying to scare people as if nothing else were happening. The Opposition knows full well that all kinds of measures are under development that will affect the level of incomes for our elderly. That is why I say that this motion is hypocritical. In nine months we have brought forth Bill after Bill after Bill. I believe this Parliament will be recognized as one of the most active in history. In nine months we cannot undo 15 years of mismanagement. We are proceeding with programs step by step. Members know we have a strong commitment to pension reform.


John V. Nunziata: It is time to wake up. You fell asleep on September 4.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: It is time for you to wake up. I have been following and working on these issues. I have a fair idea of our commitment to pension reform. I can tell the Hon. Member that we have succeeded in increasing job creation. We have succeeded in getting interest rates down. We have succeeded in getting business expenditures up, more than double. We have succeeded in getting more benefits to single mothers through the child tax credit. We have succeeded in bringing in widows and widowers' pensions for those between the ages of 60 and 65. Just wait until the Opposition sees the results of the actions of this Government. The Liberals are trying to scare people once again. Their scare tactics are unjustifiable. Just as they tried with the November statement and as they tried in February with the Budget and with Challenge '85, the Opposition is trying to scare, but one by one their scare tactics are proving to be unjustifiable. They were wrong then; they are wrong now. They have no policies themselves. They are bankrupt of ideas. They have no policy other than to scare the weak in our society, particularly to concentrate on scaring the elderly, even though the Liberals have the knowledge that other steps are in progress which will change the situation and improve it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I am not a betting man, Mr. Speaker, but I would be prepared to wager $5 or so with any member of the Opposition who wants to wager about the change in the number of people under the poverty line during the next three or four years compared to the last three or four years.

June 13, 1985
Supply


David Orlikow: I will take that bet.


John V. Nunziata: One hundred dollars. Bet your salary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we forget about the bets please?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: The record of this Government as it comes to pass will indicate clearly that each of our economic measures has produced results. I fully expect and have every confidence that the number of Canadians below the poverty line will decline just as dramatically in the next four years as it increased so dramatically over the last four years under the last Government.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I want to say to the Member that my Leader asked me to apologize for his absence. He had an emergency call, otherwise he would have been here.
I want to put two questions to the Minister. The Hon. Member talked about the jobs created by this Government. Has the Hon. Member seen the most recent report of the OECD? 1 could send him a copy of an article which appeared in the May 31 edition of The New York Times and summarized the report. It was reported that in 1984, only one country among the OECD countries had a higher rate of unemployment than Canada, and that was Great Britain, with its 11.7 per cent unemployment rate compared with an 11.3 per cent unemployment rate in Canada. The OECD estimates are based upon information from experts in Canada in the Department of Finance and in the Department of Employment and Immigration. For the year 1985, it was estimated that the unemployment rate for the United States would be 7.25 per cent; for West Germany, 8.25 per cent; for France, 10.5 per cent; for Britain, 10.75 per cent; for Italy, 10.75 per cent; for Japan, 2.5 per cent; and for Canada, our country with this Conservative Government, 11 per cent, the highest percentage of unemployment of any OECD country.
Also the Hon. Member expressed some criticism of the policies of the New Democratic Party Government of Manitoba. I will not say that everything that Government does is perfect, but surely the Hon. Member realizes that the Province of Manitoba has a very high deficit. The reason for that is that it has done more to protect the standards of the old, the sick and the needy than any other Government. That Government may make decisions which he and I do not like, but does he not realize that the reason for the high deficit and for making decisions which none of us like is that it has done so much to protect the people who need protection the most?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his questions. I could not have planted better questions myself. With respect to the 1984 unemployment figures in Canada, I was trying to emphasize in my speech that exact point, that we inherited a mess.


David Orlikow: Talk about 1985.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: The Hon. Member indicated that those particular figures were published in May, 1985. Obviously they are obsolete because we have a 10.5 per cent unemployment rate now, not an 11 per cent one. Obviously they were prepared without any knowledge of what was in the Budget. If they were published at the same time as the Budget, they certainly could not have incorporated the effects of the Budget on the economy. It is obvious that someone in Brussels or Paris would not be able to keep up to date on what is happening in Canada.
I was dumbfounded when I heard the Hon. Member say that it was NDP policy, at times of high budget deficits, to cut back on the benefits to the elderly in Manitoba, the most needy in society, those collecting the GIS.


David Orlikow: I did not say that at all.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I wonder whether he talks with his Leader, who just apologized for leaving. Everything members of that Party have been saying in the House indicates that cutting back of that nature is unacceptable. The Hon. Member's own critic, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), made a point in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs concerning our unanimous recommendations-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: They were not unanimous. We did not support them.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: There were many unanimous parts of the recommendation. I believe the Hon. Member will agree that the part to which I am about to refer was unanimous, that we should approach all provincial Governments to ensure-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: And the federal Government, with which you did not agree.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: As I was saying, it was agreed that we should approach all provincial Governments and the federal Government to ensure that increases which we were giving to the most needy were not simply used as a vehicle for revenue reduction by the provinces.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the federal savings?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Her Party in that province is doing exactly what she recommended to stop.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, quite simply and quite honestly, I found the Hon. Member's speech to be disgusting. He skirted, he danced, he went back to 1970-72, but he refused to discuss the motion at hand. He talked about hypocrisy. Talk about hypocrisy; it was his Leader, the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and members of his Party during the last federal election campaign who went across the country and told senior citizens that full indexation was here to stay forever, that full indexation was a sacred trust and that they cared about the people who built this country. Then the Budget was brought
June 13, 1985

down, and the Government said: "Hold on, senior citizens, we will rethink what we told you last September and we will perhaps partially deindex pensions".
The Hon. Member talked about a motion which condemns, which is political, and which suggests a scare tactic. He ought to know that no one has a monopoly, as was indicated by our first speaker, on the concern for senior citizens-not this Party, not the NDP, not the Liberal Party. We are trying to be a vehicle, in this motion, for thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have been writing, telephoning, telegramming and trying to give the message to the Government and to its Leader that the proposal is regressive and will hurt. Through this motion we are trying to sensitize Hon. Members opposite to the problems faced by senior Canadians from one coast to the other. The Hon. Member ought to have the courage and the conviction to address himself to the motion. It does not condemn. It is not a vote of non-confidence. It reads as follows:
That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions after January 1, 1986.
Does the Hon. Member agree or disagree that pensioners should have fully indexed OAS payments?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker ignored that there are five parts to the pension system. There is the Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada Pension Plan, the provincial supplements and the private pension plans. All these have to be taken into account. It is the total result from the package which counts, not the individual breakdown.


Mr. Caccia:: No, no.


Carlo Rossi: No.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Absolutely. It is the total package, the total dollars to senior citizens which count, not just one package or another.


John V. Nunziata: It is not a package. Everyone does not get everything.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: The point I was making in my speech was that that Party has ignored all other sectors of pension reform, knowing full well that work is ongoing in those other areas, that we have already made major strides in the area of base protection in the private system, and that the changes in the OAS will not occur until April 1, 1986. There are various parts of the package which ensure the living standard of our elderly. This Party has a commitment to reduce the number of people living in poverty, particularly the elderly who are under the poverty line.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions I should like to ask, I do not know where to start. The Hon. Member talked about hypocrisy. The Government has shown great hypocrisy. In committee the Hon. Member said at one
Supply
point that indexation had no basis in reality and that it was just a gimmick of Statistics Canada. In my opinion, he personally led the fight to propose deindexation of the family allowance. We know that it will go down by 3 per cent, affecting all children.
I am sure he will have the figures which show that deindexing is certainly a reality to pensioners, starting with $100 less this year and moving up to $680 less in 1991, for a total of $2,284 less over six years. Since he referred to the matter debated in committee about the savings from reduced family benefits and trying to get them back from the provinces, would he agree that he would not support motions to put those funds directly back into increased benefits for children and that he wanted them to go to social programs?
Also, he said that this Budget gives more benefits to mothers through the increased child tax credit. Would he agree that those mothers in the $10,000 to $20,000 bracket will pay extra taxes, that they will pay increased sales taxes of up to $500 a family, that they will have their family allowance deindexed by 3 per cent and they will only get an extra $70 on the child tax credit and even that is reduced to a lower eligibility for lower income groups? So where does he see that the mothers are going to get increased benefits for their children? They are going to have at least $ 1,000 less money in their pockets.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, first with respect to the issue of indexing and the report, I firmly believe that the Hon. Member is wrong, that I have been fully committed to indexing, that I subscribe to it-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Deindexing.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: No, no, protection against the cost of living, and I have a record both within this House and within the Ontario Legislature of proposing this.
Second, the Hon. Member stated that benefits would go down by $100 this year. This is the sort of inaccurate statement that Hon. Members on that side have been making. Benefits will not go down one nickel this year. The Hon. Members have been consistently stating things which are not based on fact.


Mr. Riis:: In real terms they will.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Not in this year they will not, Sir, they will not. In terms of the savings in the social programs the Hon. Member is quite correct that I argued in favour of retaining savings from rearrangements of programs inside the social envelope rather than on any one specific plan. If the Hon. Member checks out the Budget this year she will see that the increase in social envelope spending more than makes up for any decrease resulting from the Budget in the next fiscal year. That commitment has been continued, and I am sure that as our economic situation improves we will continue to adhere to the commitment which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave in the House.

June 13, 1985
Supply


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, considering the last 15 minutes of the exchange on both sides of the House, I would respectfully request of you, Mr. Speaker, that you rule a little more harshly regarding interruptions on all sides of the House so that we can maintain proper order and decorum and so that the person speaking can say clearly what he or she wants to say. Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to you to do that on all sides of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point made by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) is well taken. The Hon. Member from Trinity (Miss Nicholson) on debate.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a very simple one and one that I would hope some Hon. Members on the other side may feel able to support. The motion reads:
That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions after January 1, 1986.
I want to approach this discussion, Mr. Speaker, in a non-partisan way because I think the issue is too important to all of us to be accompanied by the kind of acrimony we have heard recently, and I want to propose ways in which I think the Government might quite responsibly reverse its position.
I have some sympathy for budget makers in these difficult times. Canada is recovering from a world-wide recession, but the recovery is fragile and the budget decisions need to be made very wisely; indeed budget makers almost need to be prescient. The cost of servicing the national debt is worrisome and needs to be addressed but, Mr. Speaker, this is not the way.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) yesterday indicated that the plan to remove indexing was tentative and that it may not go ahead. I would ask, if the budget proposal to deindex pensions is to be regarded only as a tentative proposal, why was it presented at all? The usual reason for giving advance warning is, of course, so that people can take measures to protect themselves, but if the indexing is to be reduced as planned, if, over the next five years a couple now aged 70 stands to lose about $1,500, what can they do with advance warning? Between the ages of 70 and 75, are they likely to be able to go out and find part-time jobs to make up for the income they will lose? They cannot do a thing. That is one of the reasons why this particular measure of deficit cutting offends all of us, that it is attacking a group who are helpless to find other solutions. Advance notice is of no help to them. It only causes anxiety and stress.
If, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, cut-backs on old age pensions are not graven in stone, if the cut-backs are not going ahead, then say so now and let the senior citizens relax and enjoy their summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: If this was meant as a trial balloon, the Government has had its answer. Senior citizens, young people, business, labour have all united to oppose deindexation of senior citizens' pensions. Clearly the Government received bad advice immediately before the Budget and there is no shame in saying no and in going back to the positions that it took during the last election. In July of last year, the Prime Minister said that he thought full indexation to the full cost of living should be maintained for senior citizens. That was an honourable position, Mr. Speaker, and surely one to which the Government could go back without any loss of face particularly if, as we are told, this proposal was tentative.
In January there were further statements from the Prime Minister which I think he and his supporters might very well want to reconsider. In January the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), I believe, although I am not quite sure whether this was said by the Minister of Finance or by the Prime Minister, but in any case, in January the Conservative position was that "the Government regards the present system as a good one, which is working well", and that it "is a sound one which should not be disturbed", that "changes in these programs which may result from this review should improve benefits for those in need", and that "savings should not be transferred to deficit reduction".
Again thus was a very good statement of policy made in January by the Government which may very well, on reflection, prove to them a more acceptable policy than the trial balloon we have before us.
May I call it one o'clock and continue after the recess?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Government continues to boast of its success with job creation as a result of the marginal improvement in employment during the last two months. We are all pleased with that slight improvement, but it is still too early to tell whether it is the beginning of a real trend or simply an aberration.
Furthermore, the unemployment rate is still at 10.5 per cent. Who can be content with that? Before the recession in 1981, the average unemployment rate was 7.5 per cent, and that was not satisfactory. More important, no one in Govern-
June 13, 1985
[Stage Direction]
ment can honestly tie the recent improvements to any government program. As a matter of fact the only government program fully implemented to date is Canada Works 1985, a Liberal program. In the Budget and the Regina statements, there were lots of promises but no details and no implementation.
The Globe and Mail of June 8 reports that many economic analysts are reluctant to attribute job improvement to any federal policies. Thomas McCormick of Data Resources has said: "I wouldn't attribute a whole lot to what they've done". He traced the new jobs to the continued strength of Canadian exports, and to buoyant consumer demand. This means that there will not be any significant and steady improvement in the employment picture unless the Government brings in specific job-creation programs, with specific goals. We need a six and five program for employment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reveal to Hon. Members some realistic figures on the Beauce region which reflect the energy and confidence of our business sector.
Under the Challenge 85 program, we have been able to get jobs for over 515 students in Beauce, a considerable improvement over last year, and more than 70 per cent of the jobs created were provided by the private sector.
Also, for the sector covered by the Conseil economique de Beauce-Sud, yesterday's statistics show an increase of 17 per cent in permanent jobs, an increase of 34 per cent in the value of goods shipped and an increase of 65 per cent in investments in small and medium-sized businesses. In fact, this means 840 additional jobs.
In concrete terms, Mr. Speaker, this amounts to a real increase of $100 million in sales in just one sector in the greater Beauce region.
Mr. Speaker, the regions must help each other and have confidence in themselves. The important thing is to restore a climate of confidence and to maintain it. It takes team work. Small- and medium-sized businesses, workers, pensioners and Government authorities, supported by a positive press, must work together to create jobs. They have a moral obligation. And that is what is happening in our region. Before improving social programs, we must control the deficit and have a healthy economy. That is what we believe in my region because the people of Beauce are known for their common
sense, and they know we cannot live with a deficit that is gnawing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).



POLITICAL PARTIES


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, with the election last September 4 of hundreds of Conservative back-benchers, many Canadian senior citizens have lost a strong voice to defend them in Parliament against the attack on pensions by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). However, there is still time to encourage Conservative MPs to speak out for the people they were elected to represent.
I am told that there is to be a special Conservative caucus meeting this coming Saturday. I encourage all those people who live in Conservative-held ridings and are concerned about the Government's attack on pensions, to call their Conservative MPs immediately to demand that they speak out in caucus on behalf of the senior citizens of Canada. This is especially important to those who live in ridings where strong NDP voices were lost to silent Conservative back-benchers.
People who live in the riding of Nanaimo-Alberni should call their Member at 613-996-4971; people who live in the riding of Kootenay West should call their Member at 613-9922855; people who live in the riding of Kootenay East-Revel-stoke should call 992-2876, and people who live in the riding of Winnipeg-St. James should call 992-2474. They should tell their Members to get off their butts and fight for pensioners at that special meeting of the Conservative caucus on Saturday.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, 1 had a chance to accompany the delegation of French-speaking parliamentarians in connection with the activities of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians. The purpose of the meeting was to look at water technology and science. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that most parliamentarians and representatives from thirteen countries who attended the meeting were very much impressed with the abundance of natural and human resources in this great country of ours. They were constantly saying how lucky we were to have such a wealth of resources.

June 13, 1985
Mr. Speaker, I then asked myself once again why we have so much unemployment in this great country, with all its natural resources, and men and women who are anxious to use their knowledge and skills for our country's progress. I then realized that the previous Government had introduced regulations that inhibited hopes for success and restricted personal initiative. Today, our Government is giving Canadians new hope and urging people from all over the world to come and work in this land of opportunity.
The Budget of the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is telling Canadians to work and succeed. Mr. Speaker, this Budget will reward only those who work and succeed, instead of those we think might succeed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the Conservative Government announced in the Budget that it would limit indexation of Old Age Security pensions, more and more senior citizens' groups have been expressing their dissatisfaction with this proposal.
In New Brunswick, the Senior Citizens' Federation, with a membership of 30,000, said outright that the Government proposal to deindex pensions is unacceptable.
More than 73 per cent of the elderly in my province are already living below the poverty line. According to the president of the Federation, Mrs. Edna Bourque, "the changes announced by the Minister of Finance have greatly increased anxiety among the elderly and seriously affected their quality of life."
"Fully aware of this intolerable situation", Mrs. Bourque went on, "today our Federation is launching a campaign that will have repercussions from the Atlantic to the Pacific, in order to reverse this immoral federal decision."
It is clear that deindexing Old Age Security pensions is discriminatory and unfair in the extreme.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is now being attacked by its own citizens, and it has no choice but to revert to a more equitable position.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, last week marked the first anniversary of the storming of the
Golden Temple in Amritsar, India. The Golden Temple holds the same significance for the Sikhs of the world as does the Vatican for the Catholics of the world. The destruction of this holy centre has contributed to deep division in India, and has led to several tragic events.
For a year the Punjab State has been under martial law, and communication has been difficult. Many are concerned that serious transgressions of human rights have occurred and continue to take place in the Punjab. Such organizations as the International Red Cross and Amnesty International have been denied entrance to this State.
The citizens of my riding are concerned. I would like to quote from a letter addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) dated May 30, and written by the Mayor of Williams Lake, British Columbia. The letter reads:
I believe that both yourself and Canada are well respected as being truly concerned with world peace. A good percentage of our well respected new Canadians are from India and are truly concerned with the problems in their homeland. We have a large Sikh community in Williams Lake who have proven their responsibility to Williams Lake, British Columbia and Canada by not holding any public demonstrations concerning the reported atrocities in India. The East Indian population are good sound residents of Williams Lake and are truly concerned with the safety and lack of communication from their family and friends in India.
I would truly appreciate you and your government taking the lead in doing anything within your jurisdiction to assist with the peaceful solution to the problems in India.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 

POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the election of September 4 has resulted in 211 seats being held by Conservative Members. What Canadians, and especially seniors, are now realizing is that these Tories are a silent majority when it comes to protecting the pensions of our senior citizens.
This coming Saturday, Conservative MPs will be holding a special caucus meeting in Ottawa. I would encourage all those who are represented by Conservative Members to call the constituency offices or the Ottawa offices of their Members before Saturday, to demand that they speak up for Canada's senior citizens at that meeting. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should be given a clear message to withdraw the deindexation of old age pensions.
I would especially urge those who live in ridings where strong NDP voices were lost to call their silent Tory Members. Those who live in the riding of Saskatoon East should call 343-6060 in Saskatoon. Those who live in the riding of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake should call 446-2144. In Dauphin, Manitoba, they should call 638-9633, and in Selkirk-Interlake they should call 785-2918. The voice of the people can, and must, prevail.
June 13, 1985



THE BUDGET


Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, since May 23 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced his Budget, he and other members of the Government have been stressing the need for Canada to reduce its deficit and live within its means. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there are countless Canadians who share these views, and 1 would like to share with you excerpts from a letter 1 received from a lady in Prince George, British Columbia, whom I have never met but who, 1 am sure, all Hon. Members will agree is an outstanding Canadian. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Sir,
I hereby return my old age pension cheque, and pledge its return for six months. It is plain to see that Canada is in deep trouble. Our beautiful Canada is becoming a decadent nation! I grieve for her.
That is not enough, and while it is ludicrous to think that my cheque can make a difference, I feel that is the only honest thing I can do-could this tiny drop become a trickle, then a torrent that would wipe out this debilitating debt? I believe it could. I believe there are enough people in this country, who, like myself have had the privilege of working and rearing families in this beautiful land, who would now be willing-no glad!-to pay back the debt we owe to this great land.
Thousands of men and women gave their lives for this country, and many more thousands gave several years of their lives during recent wars. Surely the rest of us, who live above subsistence level, can give-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the letter which was sent by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) to the President of the Canadian Nature Federation, Greg Sheehy. In this rather snarky letter the Minister indicates to the President of the Canadian Nature Federation that she would like to be judged only by her actions and not by her words. I want to say to the Minister that I think anyone who has been around here for a while will know that Ministers must also to be judged by their words. What Cabinet Ministers say creates a political context, sends out a message, sends out a signal. If the Minister of the Environment muses about logging and mining in national parks, she sends out a signal. In fact 1 am informed that some logging companies have already expressed an interest.
If the Minister says that people have worked for 30 years with PCBs and no harm has come to them-as a rather pathetic defence of government inaction on that issues-she sends out a signal to polluters that the Government is kind of relaxed about that issue.
If the Minister of the Environment muses about privatization in public parks, that says something to people who might be interested in the private exploitation of those parks. It may be that the public nature of our parks is not as sacred as it used to be.
So I say to the Minister of the Environment that she is to be judged not only by her actions but by what she says, by the kind of signal she sends out, and the sooner she realizes that, the better.



CITIZENSHIP


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most rewarding parts of being a Member of Parliament is being able occasionally to attend citizenship ceremonies. I have been to many, as I am sure other Hon. Members have as well. One of the most interesting parts of the ceremony is to see the very large families which show up to become Canadian citizens on these occasions.
That may change as a result of the increase in citizenship fees imposed by the new Government, and which become effective at the beginning of April. The fee used to be $25 for an adult. It is now $40. For a child it used to be $8. It is now $15. So for a large family it can cost well over $100.
Last week I telephoned the citizenship office in Toronto to ask if there had been a drop in the number of people applying for citizenship. I was called back a few days later and told that this April there was a 40 per cent drop compared to what there had been in April a year ago. Canadian citizenship is priceless, but this 40 per cent drop is the result of the actions of the Tory Government.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's thirteenth ecumenical memorial service in Ottawa commemorating the suffering of the Baltic and Ukrainian nations, and the continued violation of human rights by the Soviet Union, was an emotional reminder of the existence of human oppression. This year's ceremony was all the more special since the conference of experts on human rights is being hosted by Canada in the nation's capital.
Yet while the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) pledged that both he and the Canadian delegation would find ways to press and raise individual cases with the Soviet Union, and with any others violating human rights, this has not occurred. I believe the Government's silence at the conference has been politically questionable, highly regrettable, and morally wrong.
The Canadian delegation must raise these concerns with the Soviets. They must speak up in defence of fundamental human rights, and press the offenders to live up to the Helsinki

June 13, 1985
Oral Questions
Accords which they all signed. Quiet diplomacy, unfortunately, is all too often met with quiet denials. Therefore, in the last remaining days of the conference I urge the Government to take to the high road, to publicize the harsh realities, and name the names, for it is in the court of public opinion that the guilty will be judged, and in which we will bring to an end the immoral and unacceptable oppression of humanity. It is a battle we cannot afford to lose.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED KINGDOM MINISTER FOR OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to indicate to the House the presence in our gallery of the Right Hon. Timothy Raison, Minister for Overseas Development, of the United Kingdom.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to direct my questions to the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe everyone in this House recognizes that this is a very historic day in the establishment of a more civil, tolerant, and equitable society in Canada. The opinion rendered by the Supreme Court on the establishment of minority rights is a very clear verdict and a very clear signal which, considering the past judgments of this House, I am sure we all endorse.
However, 1 think it also raises some very crucial and immediate questions about the kinds of initiatives which will have to be taken by the Government of Canada and by the Government of Manitoba. Because of the very immediate timetable which was set out by the Supreme Court in terms of a response to the establishment of minimum standards, I would like first to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government of Canada intends to do to respond to those invitations and directions from the Supreme Court. In particular, can the Deputy Prime Minister give us assurances that the Attorney General of this country will clearly submit, within the 120-day period, a timetable? Or will the Government follow the option of negotiating and consulting with the Government of Manitoba to see if there is another political solution, to avoid the major expenditure of time and resources which would be required under the decision by the Supreme Court?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that that decision was rendered at 10.30 this morning. It is a very lengthy judgment, well in excess of 200 pages. The Hon. Member would, as would all Hon. Members, I am sure, expect the Government to examine very carefully the detail of that judgment before arriving at any conclusions. That will be done, and it will be done as quickly as is reasonably possible.
Of one thing the Hon. Member can be assured. As has been demonstrated while we have been sitting on this side and the other side of the House, this Party is and remains unequivocally committed to the official languages course in this country.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we fully recognize the importance of taking a proper and careful look at the decision. I would want to remind the Deputy Minister that part of that decision states that any law which is passed by the Legislature of Manitoba from this day hence forward, which is not in conformity with the decision, is invalid. That, therefore, puts an incredible responsibility and onus on the province for the provision of language services so that the Legislature can continue to function as the proper body for that jurisdiction.
Can we receive assurance from the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government of Canada will immediately offer every assistance, by way of resources and personnel, to ensure that proper language services can be obtained by the Legislature of Manitoba, so that it can continue to function in its proper capacity?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can be absolutely certain that the federal Government will offer whatever resources are necessary to ensure that it fulfils its obligations under the official languages policy, and to comply with the often expressed views of the Prime Minister and this Party with respect to the obligations of government to two official languages in this country.
It may well be that the Hon. Member's interpretation of the laws passed from this date on in the Province of Manitoba requires that sort of immediate attention which might well become the focus of some initial action by the federal Government. My information is that laws passed have effect for the time being, but whether it is-the Hon. Member shakes his head. That is our problem. The judgment is extremely lengthy, as I say, and will have to be examined very carefully. But whatever is required of the federal Government in that regard will be done.
June 13, 1985


SUPREME COURT DECISION-CONSULTATIONS WITH FRANCO-MANITOBANS AND GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the tremendous importance of this decision and of participation by all Canadians in the political process, could the Deputy Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the Government of Canada will be having consultations with the Franco-Manitoban community and the Government of Manitoba, with a view to proceeding together, with firm resolve, to put into effect the decision handed down by the Supreme Court?


Erik Nielsen: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, as a preamble to my question, directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, and following what was said by my hon. friend from Winnipeg, I want to say, as a Francophone, and I imagine all Francophones in the House must be delighted with the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court today that this is an historical gesture which I think guarantees not only the rights of Francophones in Manitoba but also those of Francophones everywhere in Canada where those rights are not yet fully respected. I think we can look forward to an even brighter future.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Government consider that the resolutions adopted unanimously by the House of Commons in 1983 and 1984 can and in fact do constitute a minimum basis for seeking both a legal and a political solution for Franco-Manitobans?


Erik Nielsen: Well, to begin with, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Government would want to look at the judgment today in the context of those resolutions, which would require some memory refreshment. But I can assure the Hon. Members that we in this Party and this Government look upon languages in our country as an instrument of unity. That is our approach, and given that kind of approach by all Members of this House, indeed by our citizenry at large, we will achieve a far greater degree of unity than has ever been achieved in the past.
Oral Questions


LEGISLATION PASSED BY MANITOBA LEGISLATURE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
1 am quite pleased with what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say, but I think it should be understood that Francophones will never again tolerate second-class treatment, in Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada.
I would like to get back to a point made by my hon. colleague regarding the urgency of the situation. On page 65 of the Supreme Court judgment, which covers 88 pages, the following is said, and I quote:
As for the future, the Constitution requires that from the date of this judgement, all new statutes of the Legislature of Manitoba be adopted, printed and published both in French and English. Any statute of the Legislature that does not meet this requirement will be invalid and inoperative.
Therefore, regarding the point made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, does the Government of Canada intend to give its immediate and urgent attention to this matter so that the Manitoba Legislature's operations will not be paralysed by a lack of resources for operating in French and English in its legislation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond very positively to the hon. gentleman, as I thought I was doing with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Not having studied the judgment which, as he will appreciate, is very lengthy, it is my understanding that the laws passed by the Manitoba Legislature would in the interim have validity until such time as the 120 days-


Lloyd Axworthy: Past laws, not future.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Past laws.


Erik Nielsen: That may be incorrect. I have not yet studied the judgment in detail. There may be a catch-up period in there. However, whatever is required to be done by the federal Government to assist in achieving the, I am sure, mutually desired objective of implementing the spirit of that judgment, will be done in order to achieve equality of language rights not just in Manitoba but throughout the entire country.


THE BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: Since the Prime Minister is absent, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Today's Globe and Mail reports that the Minister of Finance knew before bringing down the Budget that one of the

June 13, 1985
Oral Questions
most unfair measures was the capital gains tax exemption. Can the Government at least change the capital gains provision so it would not apply to real estate and use those millions of dollars to restore full indexation of pensions?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: With respect to the capital gains tax exemption, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is referring to an article pointing out to what extent the exemption would be helpful in the real estate sector. I would simply draw his attention to the fact that, in most cases, the exemption as it relates to real estate applies to our agricultural sector. Farmers have been working very hard to turn our lands into an asset to the benefit of the Canadian people. They deserve assistance through the Budget and I am pleased that our Government was able to give them the help they have long since earned.


REAL ESTATE SPECULATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the reference in The Globe and Mail was to the past provisions of the capital gains tax, not the proposal by the Government. As far as I am aware, all Parties in this House are in favour of exempting capital gains for the family farm and individual homes. That is not the point.


Some Hon. Members:: What about small business?


John Edward Broadbent: The question concerned real estate speculation, and my question to the Minister of Health, in the absence of the Prime Minister, is this. Given that in 1983 most of the millions of dollars that were given away through the capital gains provision-we do not have the figures, but the Government does-went to real estate speculators, will the Government at least change the law it now proposes in order to make those provisions inapplicable to that kind of speculation, and use the millions saved to reindex pensions?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Government will continue to pursue measures which have as their prime objective the creation of jobs. That is what this Budget is all about, and that is what this measure is all about; it is jobs throughout the economy, throughout industry, and throughout every region of Canada. We have already had a demonstration of that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, even a Minister in a Conservative Cabinet should know that real estate speculation just makes bucks, it does not create jobs. That is the point.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: In the past the Minister of National Health and Welfare defended Canadian pensioners. Was he aware that, as reported in The Globe and Mail today, the previous capital gains provisions overwhelmingly benefited real estate speculators? If so, did he stand up for
pensioners saying that that is not the kind of provision he wants, but rather that as Minister he wants full indexation for pensioners? Did he do that in Cabinet, or did he accept this nonsense?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the provisions referred to by the Member fall largely within the Department of Finance and should be explained by that Department. However, I would point out that if we can get additional activity in the housing and real estate markets, there will be many spin-off effects. He must realize that the creation of more activity in those areas will create more jobs.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows that speculation only drives up prices and rents.


EFFECT OF BUDGET
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is an attempt to clarify an ever-increasingly confusing situation. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister referred to the Budget measure to deindex OAS as a budget proposal. In response to a question from the Hon. Member for Beaches he said, "Yes, it is proposed for January 1 of next year".
My understanding is that budget measures are budget measures; they are not proposals and are not a White Paper.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is the measure with respect to OAS indeed a budget measure which will come into place on January 1, 1986, or is it a budget proposal? If it is a proposal, why is it not in a White Paper? What is it doing in the Budget?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will try to clarify for the Member in order that he will understand the budgetary process and legislation in the House.


Jacques Guilbault: Don't lecture.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He asked for an explanation, and 1 will try to give it to him. If he looks at any Budget he will find that there are aspects which take effect immediately. On the other hand, any change in existing legislation would have to have legislative change and be voted on in the House in order to come into effect. Until that has taken place the matter is a proposal in that sense.


CONTENT OF BUDGET
Brian Vincent Tobin: Given that explanation, Mr. Speaker, are we now to assume that all tax measures that do not take effect immediately, such as the capital gains exemptions, the changes to the child tax benefits,
June 13, 1985

the deindexing of personal income tax, and the deindexing of OAS, are all proposals and open for discussion? That is the argument the Minister has just made. He is confusing the situation much more and is causing increasing anxiety for senior citizens.
Will he now make up his mind whether it is a Budget or a White Paper on tax changes that is before the House? He had better clear the air because senior citizens do not deserve the anxiety, heartache, and uncertainty that he and his colleagues are inflicting upon them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the answer that I gave to the first question applies to this one. In the preamble to this question he tried to-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The whole Budget is open for discussion. That's what you're saying.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Your question was too long. Keep quiet for a while.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He tried to tie taxation in with changes on the OAS as legislative initiatives. The first answer which I gave him was correct and applies to the second question as well.


THE BUDGET
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On budget night the Minister of Finance stood up and went on and on about how fair and just this Budget was for Canadians. We have learned from The Globe and Mail that the Government's own documents indicated that that was not the case and that in fact the Budget was biased in favour of the wealthy, and was particularly going to hit the poor and middle income earners of Canada. The Minister of Finance lied to the people of Canada in that particular statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister to table those reports now.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I understood correctly, I believe the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap accused the Prime Minister of having lied.


John Edward Broadbent: No, the Minister of Finance.
Oral Questions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If that is not what the Member said, 1 shall take his word for it and read the "blues", but that was my understanding of what he said.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not accuse the Prime Minister of lying. If I accused the Minister of Finance of lying I will retract that statement, but I will say that I am probably the only person in Canada who believes him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Globe and Mail has indicated that the Government's own studies indicated that this was a very biased Budget. Since at least there appeared to be a conflict here, will the Deputy Prime Minister now say that these documents will be tabled so that the people of Canada will see what the Minister of Finance knew when he made his statement on budget night?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the article that the Hon. Member refers to quotes a number of statistics applying to 1990. I personally do not know the origin of these statistics, but having worked in economics for a long time I know that projections for 1990 must be based on a lot of assumptions.


John Edward Broadbent: 
Robert René de Cotret: To answer that in terms of 1986 I will give you the numbers contained in the Budget Papers. In 1986 someone with an income level of $20,000 would see a tax increase of $104. Someone with an income level of $200,000 would see an increase of close to $5,000. Therefore, for a ten-fold increase in income there would be a fifty-fold increase in taxes. I do not believe that is taxing the poor more than the rich.


MONITORING OF ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In that last response I think the Government was saying that it has confidence in the Budget and that the economy will in fact improve.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I take it from the applause, Mr. Speaker, that the Government benches are in agreement with that. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is going to monitor the situation carefully. If the Prime Minister and the Government have confidence in the Budget and in what they are doing, they must have confidence that things are going to improve, and there is therefore no need to monitor the situation any longer. Let us stop the deindexation for pensioners right now. Let them relax for the summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 13, 1985
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Say you don't have confidence now.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Think positive.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the convolutions and distortions of the Hon. Member in whatever participation he has taken in Question Period since the opening of this session of Parliament, I can truthfully say that I am probably the only one in the House, or elsewhere in the country, who gives any veracity whatsoever to his bald misstatements during the period for questions.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Solicitor General, to whom I have given notice. Press reports from Buenos Aires indicate that the Argentinian Government yesterday released a report that $4 million Canadian of Canadian taxpayers' funds was paid in bribes by AECL of Canada, and its Italian contractor on the Argentinian Candu reactor construction project, to the late Mr. Jose Gelbard, then the Argentinian Minister of the Economy, in the period 1974 to 1978. The same Mr. Gelbard, who was then a Washington resident, refused to appear before the Public Accounts Committee of this House.
My question relates to the fact that the Government of the day and the RCMP at that time indicated that they were powerless to trace those funds beyond anonymous bank accounts in Switzerland and Lichtenstein. Why were the Argentinian authorities able to trace the money beyond those numbered accounts in Switzerland and Lichenstein when I was told, as Chairman of a House of Commons committee, that the Canadian Government was powerless to do it? Has any report ever been received by the Government of Canada relating to whether or not any of that money came back to Canadian citizens? Will there now be a-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -an investigation into that matter?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for giving notice of that question. However, he will appreciate that as Acting Solicitor General I am not in possession of all of the facts with respect to the matter which he raises, and which he has raised over the course of the years.
All I can tell the Hon. Member is that it is the practice of the Solicitor General neither to confirm nor deny that there is any criminal investigation taking place at any particular time. However, I will take notice of the question and make sure that
the Solicitor General receives the information which the Hon. Member has been good enough to convey today.


THE BUDGET
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Government is apparently now willing to reconsider the proposal to reduce indexation of senior citizens' pensions next year, will the Minister also undertake to review the Budget's family allowance proposals which, if enacted, would hurt many thousands of low-income parents?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the changes to the family benefits will in fact help low-income families. For example, families with incomes of approximately $28,000 will see their child benefits increased in the 1985-89 period. Some 325,000 families with incomes below $10,000-many of whom are single parents-will be better off by some $300 by 1990-91. If the Hon. Member looks at those projections, the premise on which her question is based is in fact not the case.


Aideen Nicholson: Without arguing the Minister's figures, he did not answer my question asking whether this is a firm measure or a proposal.


CAPITAL GAINS TAX EXEMPTION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. If everything in the Budget which is not in effect today is to be treated as a proposal only, as implied earlier, why not reconsider the capital gains benefits which would be paid for by low and middle-income Canadians and will benefit a very small number of affluent Canadians without necessarily creating one single job in the process?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the impact of the capital gains measure is very clearly identifiable. It is a measure that will help people in the agricultural community, small-businessmen, small investors, and fishermen all across the country. It is a measure of fairness to create jobs.
The most severe unfairness that we had to face following years of Liberal Government was the high rate of unemployment that was bestowed upon the youth and middle-aged people in our country. This Budget is concerned with creating jobs, and this measure will go a fair way in doing that.
June 13, 1985


PENSIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the Minister recall his Government's statement in the Throne Speech last November:
-a priority goal of my Ministers will be to breathe a new spirit into federalism and restore the faith and trust of all Canadians in the effectiveness of our system of government.
A constant process of consultation and co-operation must be restored.
If the Minister recalls that statement, how does he square the lack of any kind of consultation not one scintilla, with senior folk, with respect to the changes he has made by deindexing old age pensions, with the Statement in the Speech from the Throne?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member has read the throne speech because it was valid then, and it is valid today. I want to tell the Hon. Member as well that he should not say there was not one scintilla of consultation, or that there is no continuing consultation with senior citizens. He should not make that statement without looking at what an individual Member, or this Minister, for that matter, is doing. That kind of statement by the Hon. Member is simply not the case.


John R. Rodriguez: There was no formal consultative process. There was no system to get an opinion from senior folk or their organizations.


REQUEST THAT PROVISION AFFECTING PENSIONS BE WITHDRAWN
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in light of what is taking place across the country among senior folk and their organizations, does the Minister think it is fair and sensitive to have senior citizen pensioners dangling in the wind all summer, fall, and next winter? Will he now say that he will not have senior folk go through that kind of insensitive process, and withdraw the deindexation proposal now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member of the statements made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons yesterday. Those statements are on the record, and that is the position of the Government. I refer the Hon. Member to those statements made by the Prime Minister.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it has to do with the historical judgment rendered today by the Supreme
Oral Questions
Court. I find altogether surprising and unacceptable the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister, with all the human resources at his command, could not find enough time today to acquaint himself with a judgment which 1 consider historical. It is unacceptable!


An Hon. Member:: A 200-page document!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Not 200 pages, 88 pages. Mr. Speaker, it is symptomatic of his lack of interest in this matter.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether his Government has already contacted the Manitoba Government before today's judgment, precisely to avoid chaos and take the necessary corrective measures in anticipation of the Supreme Court judgment?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rather regret that I do not have the 15-second wisdom that is possessed by the Hon. Member. I think he will agree that the kind of historic decision to which he refers is very lengthy indeed and deserves very careful and thorough study.
In the meantime, I am assured that the judge refers to a process that has to be triggered to ensure that the federal Government is involved in a judicial process with respect to the time which is to be set during which the transition is to take place. I see no need for instant action. However, whatever action in whatever timeframe is required, after that careful consideration has been given to the matter, will be taken by the federal Government.
Let me repeat once again that I am sure no Hon. Member of the House would want to take advantage of the timing of this situation to use any question with respect to the official languages of this country as a political opportunity to create any divisions. That is certainly not the purpose of anyone in government.


CONSULTATIONS WITH MANITOBA GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY OF FRANCO-MANITOBANS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 quote from page 68 of the English version:

The period of temporary validity will not apply to any unilingual Acts of the Legislature enacted after the date of judgment.
After today. Therefore, Manitoba needs attention now. It needs consideration now, and it needs help from the federal Government to translate the documents. Will the Deputy Prime Minister-

-can the Deputy Prime Minister give us the assurance that this very day he will get in touch with the Manitoba Govern-
5730

June 13, 1985
Oral Questions
ment and the Franco-Manitoban Society to find a fair and equitable solution to this problem?


Mr.   La Salle@: We know what to do, but you did not do anything during twenty years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We ought to let the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, even if there is merit in the Hon. Member's interpretation of the judgment, I question whether his mien and the manner in which he delivered his question in a very combative way does anything to contribute to the unity on this particular issue in our country.
I can assure the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members of this House, that whatever is necessary on the part of the federal Government to give effect to the judgment, whatever the requirements might be after studying the judgment, will be done. 1 can assure the Hon. Member of that. There will be no hesitation in coming forward to fulfil the federal Government's obligation in that regard.


THE BUDGET
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who changed him mind once, and I hope he will change it back again. The Minister said in January that no changes were required in the OAS or GIS payments. Then the Government, of course, deindexed old age pensions.
The Minister has also preached that his Government would help those in greatest need. He said this many times. How can he say he is helping those in greatest need when many families earning between $10,000 and $20,000, with two kids, will have to pay up to $500 in sales tax, will have family allowances deindexed by 3 per cent, some will have to pay income tax, and many will lose their family benefits? How can he possibly say that he is helping those in greatest need?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: First, Mr. Speaker, the term which the Hon. Member uses of deindexation is not correct. The full indexation on the Guaranteed Income Supplement is maintained and contained in the Budget. Partial indexation does apply on the Old Age Security. I hear Hon. Members say they want seniors to have clarification. Hon. Members opposite should not use words or examples which are not contained in the Budget.
Having said that, if the Hon. Member takes a look at the family benefits, part of the argument has always been from social groups-I have heard her say it herself and I have argued the same point-that the most regressive part in terms
of family benefits was that, as the tax exemption was applied, the higher the income of a family, the higher the taxable income, the greater was the benefit. That trend has been reversed. One can argue more can be done and should be done as the economy improves. I suggest to the Hon. Member that can be a consideration once we get the economy generating not only more jobs but more wealth.


CHILD TAX CREDIT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Minister that any pensioner who is on GIS is having his OAS deindexed, and further, 200,000 more will be on GIS.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Of course; they get the OAS too.
I would also like to say to the Minister that the increase he is proposing in the child tax credit is an insult to the poor. Seventy dollars the first year does not even nearly begin to cover taxes.
Does the Minister care about Canada's children? There are parents really struggling to have their children brought up and provide decent meals. If he cares, will he reindex family allowances? Also, will he have another look at family benefits and make sure any changes really go to benefit families and not the federal Government, which is what the Minister is doing now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member persists in using a word or phrase that she knows is not correct. Deindexing, if it had been put in place, even for the OAS, would have meant absolutely no protection for any increase in the cost of living. The Hon. Member knows that is not the case. She feels if she repeats these words often enough in this House, or in other venues, that some of the people will start to believe it. That is simply not the case, and the Hon. Member knows it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You are too busy preaching.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The point I want to make to the Hon. Member again is that she now deprecates the very thing she supported in the committee. The very thing she said was to put more money in the child tax credit, because it is the fastest way to get money into the hands of families that need it. Today she changes her mind. Also, if we had taken away the $70, the Hon. Member would have made the argument that that is a burden those families cannot bear. Suddenly, when they get the money, she says it is not enough. The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways.
June 13, 1985


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and relates to the closing of the Saint-Denis military base at Saint-Adolphe-d'Howard in my riding. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with a group of citizens who are rightfully very concerned about the economic impact of the closing of this base.
Can the Minister today, first reassure my constituents by saying that the base will not be closed without a committee looking into what can be done and, second, can he assure my constituents that his Department will take appropriate measures to help them find alternate use for the existing base facilities?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member on taking the initiative in setting up that local committee in the first instance, which is the desirable course of action for any Hon. Member who has one of those Cadin-Pinetree lines in his or her riding, so that such local committees can act in close concert with officials in the Department of National Defence and in the Department of Employment and Immigration, and others, all of whom have been instructed to minimize any impact that might occur socially and economically within those ridings. I am pleased to assure the Hon. Member that the unemployment impact will be minimal in her riding.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It is about Crosbie Offshore Services Limited, a company which owes the federal Government at least $332,000 alone for payroll deductions withheld and not transmitted.
Is the Minister aware that in November, 1984, when that company was petitioned into bankruptcy, his Department officials seized a bank account of that company with over $1 million in it and that they could have paid the debt owed to the taxpayers? Instead of doing that, three days later they released those funds which were used by the company for general operations without any repayment to the taxpayers of Canada. Is the Minister aware of that?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, what surprises me about this is that in the Hon. Member's desire to attempt to gain some profit from this sort of an incident-
Oral Questions


John V. Nunziata: Answer the question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -the Hon. Member would attempt to disclose income tax information related to taxpayers. As the Hon. Member, who is a former Solicitor General, would know, it would be against the law for me as Minister of National Revenue, in fact it would be a contravention of Section 241 of the Income Tax Act, to disclose in any way the confidential information relating to a taxpayer's file.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the information I have used comes from public records in a bankruptcy proceeding in St. John's, Newfoundland.


REPRESENTATIONS INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Let me ask the Minister a supplementary question. Why was this done? Were any representations made that it be done, by or on behalf of his colleague, the Minister of Justice?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that it is against the law under the provisions of Section 241 -


John V. Nunziata: What are you hiding?


Henry Perrin Beatty: I see the Hon. Member has moved from the back row to the front row so he can shout from a seat in the front row, but his interjections do not make any more sense from the front row than they do from the back.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: As the Liberals should know, this provision is in the Income Tax Act for a very good reason, and that is to protect the rights of Canadian taxpayers.


John V. Nunziata: Quit stonewalling.


Henry Perrin Beatty: For the Hon. Member to come into the House of Commons and to ask for me to release information which he knows I cannot release under the law, is obviously an abuse of his role as a Member of Parliament and is an abrogation of the rights of taxpayers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENSIONS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. The high percentage of retired people on Vancouver Island, combined with very high unemployment figures, means that the deindexing proposals of the Budget will hit our area of the country even harder than they

June 13, 1985
Business of the House
will hit other parts of Canada. Because of this negative impact, even the Conservative Hon. Member for Victoria is trying to dissociate himself from the Conservative Budget of May 23.
In the interest of fairness, both to senior citizens and to depressed areas of Canada, will the Minister now urge his cabinet colleagues, particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, to reconsider this very unfair policy, and reinstitute full indexing of the Old Age Security for senior citizens?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct when he identifies the unemployment factor, not only on Vancouver Island but in other areas of Canada. This is why the Government and, I think, Canadians generally, were pleased with the trend which is beginning, that more jobs are being created, that more people are going back to work, and that there is more confidence, both in the investment community and in the Canadian public generally, in the manner in which the economy is starting to perform. We have a long way to go yet, but at least we can take some benefit out of the trend lines.
On the second part of his question, which was similar to other questions asked of the Prime Minister yesterday and of me today, the assurances of the Prime Minister as he gave them yesterday are the assurances of the Government of Canada. The Hon. Member should re-examine those assurances in light of today as well, because they stand.

[ Translation)


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be delighted to respond to your invitation to ask the Government House Leader what business he proposes for tomorrow and subsequent days of next week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we have not quite concluded our discussions with respect to the business for tomorrow and indeed carrying on into the next two weeks. I have presented a proposal to the Hon. Member on which we certainly have the agreement of the New Democratic Party. If the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition is in agreement, I could bring forward the order which was the subject of discussion. If not, perhaps we could continue with our discussions, as it impacts upon the order of business for tomorrow. As the Hon. Member knows, we talked about bringing on some Bills tomorrow. I just want to ensure that we are on the same wavelength in respect of the sequence of business for tomorrow, which impacts on the business for the next two weeks.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the spirit in which the Hon. Member has made his remarks. I have to complete certain consultations. Hopefully, with Your Honour's indulgence and if it is necessary, later in the afternoon we could revert to this question so that the information will be placed on the record of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have one item which is now agreed upon. It is an order of reference to the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to northern transportation issues, which I withheld because of the request of the transportation critic of the New Democratic Party. Since the assurances he sought have now been obtained, I am in a position, with the consent of the House, to put forward the following order of reference:
That the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to study and report on federal transportation policies and programs affecting northern, remote and isolated areas, and in particular,
(1)	the criteria which should be used to define the adequacy of transportation services to a community;
(2)	the manner in which the cost of services should be assessed in terms of costs to the Government versus the need to provide a necessary transportation infrastructure; and
(3)	the degree to which the Government should participate in the provision of a transportation infrastructure in the North as opposed to the Government revising its role in the ownership or regulation of transportation services themselves;
That the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
And that the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staff.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, all I would like to say on behalf of the Official Opposition is that we agree to the proposal put forward by the Hon. Government House Leader.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 13, 1985

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table in both official languages copies of an inter-governmental position paper on the principles and framework for regional economic development. In a spirit of new co-operative relationship, the document has been signed by representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial Governments.


DISASTERS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, several tornadoes struck central Ontario, devastating many homes, businesses and farms. While most of the damage was concentrated in my riding and that of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), other areas were also seriously affected.
The full extent of the losses and cost of restoration are not yet known, and federal officials are co-operating with other levels of Government on detailing the extent of damage and the status of clean-up and repairs.
This natural disaster has left hundreds homeless and put several hundred temporarily, and perhaps permanently, out of work. My purpose today is to describe the steps which our Government is taking to help alleviate the human and material loss, while recognizing that there is nothing that we can do to ease the sorrow of those persons who have lost family or seen their homes or lifetime work destroyed.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), in his capacity as the Minister responsible for emergency planning, will provide federal financial assistance to help Ontario meet the costs of recuperating from the effects of the May 31 tornado. This federal aid will be provided under the terms of the Disaster Financial Assistance arrangements, administered by Emergency Planning Canada.
The DFA arrangements provide a mechanism for responding to provincial requests for disaster aid. A formula relating the disaster expenditures to the population of the affected province is used to calculate the appropriate federal contribution. Federal cost sharing begins when provincial expenditures on disaster relief exceed one dollar per capita, and becomes progressively more substantial as expenditures increase. The DFA arrangements include guidelines which describe disaster relief needs eligible for federal financial assistance.
Based on the Ontario Government's most recent estimate of the need for financial assistance, the province may be contributing about $18 million and the federal Government about $9 million, for a total of $27 million. If the need is greater, then for each additional dollar conbributed by the province up to $22.5 million, Ottawa will contribute $3; and for each
Statements by Ministers
provincial dollar over $22.5 million, the federal Government will contribute $9.
The agricultural community was especially hit by the tornado. Houses, farms, buildings and some crops were damaged or destroyed, and many farmers now face cash flow problems. Agriculture Canada is prepared to provide financial and counselling services to assist in rebuilding about 200 farms affected.
My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), who is here today will be setting up a special fund for farm assistance to finance a portion of farm capital reconstructions and re-establishment which are not covered by commercial insurance or by the DFA. Up to $5 million has been set aside for this purpose.
Under the Central Ontario Disaster Relief Committee, Agriculture Canada, in co-operation with the province and with farm organizations, will set up a working group to co-ordinate delivery of information, counselling and aid to the farm community. Agriculture Canada will also assist in damage assessment.
If required, a temporary Farm Credit Corporation office may be established in Orangeville to assist producers in assessing damage to their farms and in developing financial plans for future viability. As well, the FCC will assess requests from any of its borrowers in need of assistance as a result of the tornado. The corporation will consider reamortization of loans, temporary deferral of payments, or other special arrangements to suit the needs of individual borrowers.
My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), will take action to alleviate the hardship of residents in the stricken communities by making job creation funding available under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act to assist in community repair and restoration. This will help fund special restoration projects in such areas as Barrie and Grand Valley.
As well, Mr. Speaker, the commission recognizes that some urgently needed skills may be in short supply during the next few weeks. Under its mobility program, the commission will assist in defraying the costs of bringing skilled workers into the area to hasten the rebuilding, if necessary.
Fifteen additional employment and immigration staff members have been assigned to an emergency centre in Barrie to supplement the local staff in dealing with the loss of employment.
To help those who have lost their jobs as a result of the tornado, the Barrie office has set up a central unit to speed the processing of unemployment insurance claims, as well as an emergency cheque distribution centre.
The Ontario regional office of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has established a task force to address the damage to manufacturers and service industries in the area.

June 13, 1985
Statements by Ministers
After a preliminary assessment, DRIE plans to assist in several ways: First, free business counselling will be provided through the sector and financial expertise of the Ontario regional office or the CASE service of the Federal Business Development Bank.
Second, DRIE has posted officers to work out of the Barrie branch of FBDB with responsibility for the immediate assessment of damage to business. They will assist business with reconstruction efforts, through the whole range of the Department's activities and, if shortages of essential building materials develop, DRIE's network will be used to locate supplies throughout Canada.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) will establish a $3 million central Ontario tornado damage business development program to encourage modernization and expansion in the affected area. The fund is designed to go beyond insurance and other aid as an inducement for businesses to seize the opportunity to expand and to upgrade their operations beyond simple replacement of storm damage. The fund will help generate additional long-term jobs and will contribute positively to the strengthening and future prosperity of the affected communities. Assistance will be available up to a maximum 35 per cent of eligible capital costs for firms which can demonstrate viability and significant economic benefits. The Department will discuss future prospects with affected firms, which should make their business plans known by September 30, 1985. In addition, the Minister has asked the FBDB to consider temporary payment deferral or reamortization for affected customers' loans in the same manner as does the Farm Credit Corporation.
Several dozen units of temporary housing have been made available through Canadian Forces Base, Borden. Additionally, 700 soldiers from the base have done a superb job in assisting, and over $25,000 in goods and services have been provided.
My Ministry, the Department of National Revenue, will treat donations to recognized disaster relief agencies or to municipalities as tax deductible. We believe that this measure will give added incentive for Canadians to contribute to rebuilding the damaged area. As well, recognizing that many financial records have been lost, I have instructed my officials to assist any person or business unable to provide supporting documents for tax purposes.
Both Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Public Works have arranged to have inspectors in the area. CMHC will assist with identifying restorable buildings and help local officials with the issuing of building permits. The Department of Public Works will assess damage to public infrastructure.
Through these measures, Mr. Speaker, we hope to restore essential services and assist individuals, farmers and small businesses to begin reconstruction.
If I may be permitted a personal comment, I would like to state on behalf of my colleagues from the affected area that we deeply appreciate the compassion and generosity of the thousands of people who have offered assistance to the people who are most in need who have suffered from this disaster. Their kindness has enormously assisted as these families begin the long job of rebuilding their lives.
Finally, I know that every Member of this House would want me to express our sorrow for the victims of the disaster. No one can adequately describe the sense of loss of many of those families. But their courage and their determination to rebuild inspires us all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Minister in expressing very deep sympathy particularly to those people who have lost relatives or friends. Our hearts go out to them. There are no words to express the distress that they must feel.
For those who are left and who have to rebuild their homes, their businesses and so on, this aid on the part of the federal Government is, of course, a very correct step which we in this Party approve and support.
Canadian disaster relief has generally been efficient and well co-ordinated, and we commend the Minister for ensuring that it be so in this case again. We have all been very impressed by the courage and resourcefulness shown by those people who have lost everything and who are having to start to build again, and it is obviously very right and proper that everything possible be done to help them take up their lives again, as they will. The voluntary groups are already there. Indeed, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that favourable tax treatment will be given to those assisting in this way. There are also volunteer groups there that are assisting with their physical labour and with their presence and comfort. We certainly expect that the situation will be monitored so as to ensure that the existing help is adequate and will be added to as time goes on.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to express some appreciation to the Minister for the statement he has made today to say, on behalf of my colleagues as the Minister did, that we have a deep sense of sympathy for those who lost fiends or relatives in this unfortunate disaster that occurred.


Ms. Jewett:: Some disasters are fortunate?


Ian Deans: My colleague says some disasters are fortunate.
I did not mean to give that impression. I hope that she understood that.
For those who watched the events unfold, it was an incredible situation, almost beyond belief. I want to say that we are pleased that the Government has moved to make a statement today to clarify the involvement of the Government of Canada-and I hope that it does in fact-where there are new initiatives involved, establish a clear pattern in the event that other similar occurrences, undesirable as they may be, should ever face us in the future.
June 13, 1985

What was said by the Minister I take as a preliminary statement in that it sets out the basis upon which assistance will be given but that there is ample evidence to show that the losses may well be far in excess of the original determinations that were made at the time, and with each passing day there are clear indications of even greater losses than might have been anticipated.
1 would say to the Minister that it is interesting and commendable to see the comprehensive nature of the Government's involvement in this matter. It is good to see the thoughtfulness that has gone into seeking out from the many and various Ministries the kind of support that will assist people who have lost belongings or, in many instances, businesses and the way in which the Government has been able to co-ordinate things through the office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). There has been an over-all effort on the part of the Government in all of its manifestations.
I suppose the key to the matter is that an ongoing assessment must be made and that this assessment may take a long time to reach a conclusion. It may be a year from now or even longer, based on previous experiences with similar circumstances before we are able to assess accurately the extent of the damage and loss.
I hope that the Minister will come to the House from time to time to update us on the level of contribution from private individuals, the continued involvement of the provincial Government of Ontario, to what level that involvement is incurred and also to what level the federal Government becomes committed in terms of the allocation of financial resources in particular.
As I said, it is not often that people in the House of Commons join together with one common goal. However, I think it can be said that in this instance, everyone here shares the concern expressed by the Minister. 1 would say on behalf of this Party that we are prepared to support the initiatives brought forward by the Government.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am not from Ontario. Actually, I am originally from Ontario but I now represent British Columbia.
I would like to say to the Minister that I found it very impressive when watching the television to see neighbours helping each other after the disaster. We are very proud of those Canadians who live in that area for rallying so quickly. I do not think that I will ever forget seeing on television the woman who spoke of losing a 13-year old boy who babysat for her family. I will continue to remember that, as I am sure will many watchers of that program. One can replace lost property but one can never replace lost family.
My question to the Minister is a broad one. Sometimes we learn things from a disaster. At least the smart people learn things from a disaster. This area was hit by a tornado. Perhaps there could have been better warnings or perhaps people could have responded to the warnings more quickly. Perhaps people
Statements by Ministers
could have understood more about what tornadoes do. What have we learned from this disaster? What will the Government do to try to make sure that if there is another tornado disaster like that one, there will not be loss of life?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. There are a number of things which I think all of us have learned from this disaster. Emergency Planning Canada in conjunction with its provincial and municipal counterparts will be doing an assessment to see how the emergency services responded. I think that for the most part the emergency services responded astoundingly well. I was on the scene within a matter of an hour or two after the disaster took place and was astonished to see how quickly the OPP, the Red Cross, the Canadian Forces people from Base Borden and others were on the scene to help out. Obviously we will gain from this experience and what we learn will be applicable in the future.
One of the things that is clear is that it would be extremely helpful for us in the future to encourage all levels of Government to develop disaster contingency programs. This should be done as well at the municipal level and at the hospital level to ensure that the provision of emergency services is there as quickly as possible when they are needed.
I do not want to sound trite in making these observations, but two things left a very deep impression on me. The first thing was that sometimes we as human beings are arrogant enough to think that we have tamed nature. We have not. By having a chance to visit the area on the ground shortly after the disaster took place and by touring the area from the air, 1 was able to see the absolute capriciousness of the disaster. It was simply a matter of fate whether a person lived or died. We now realize something about the frailty of human beings and how subject we are to the whims of fortune.
The final thing that stands out most pointedly in my mind is the essential generosity and strength of the individuals who were involved. Being in the area both immediately after the disaster took place and in the days following, I was astonished to find people coming to the area who had no connection with the area at all to say that they had shovels and strong backs and to ask if there was anything they could do to help out. Just to give one example of this, a crew of over 200 Mennon-ites came to the area and moved systematically from the western to the eastern end of the disaster area to clean up farmers' fields and assist in hauling physical damage out of the way. This generosity and neighbourliness on their part was something that I think has left a permanent impression on everyone who was affected.
At the headquarters in the area where relief was being provided, immediate offers of accommodation were being made. People offered to take whole families in to live with them if they needed help. In visiting the area, 1 saw that there were stockpiles of blankets, food, clothing and other necessary goods. It was just overwhelming that people were offering everything they could. The number of generous individuals who volunteered financial contributions was remarkable as well.

June 13, 1985
Statements by Ministers
I do not want to protract this discussion, but let me cite one other example. When the work crews came to the area, one of the organizers said that they needed 75 pies to help feed the crews in West Luther Township and the surrounding area. The church members from Mount Forest sent some 200 pies and soup for 500 people. That sort of generosity is something which will remain with people for the rest of their lives.
One cannot help but be struck by the tremendous courage and dedication of the people who were affected. There was no sense of self-pity evident; there was simply a sense of courage and determination to rebuild. I think that is an inspiration to all of us.
Mir. Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put one question to the Minister. 1 must say that I have been very impressed with the way the Minister has handled the disaster, and I know that not only he but the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) visited the area in person.
I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the area designated by the Province of Ontario has been expanded to include the some $40-mil!ion worth of damage which occurred the evening before in Leamington where a large number of greenhouses were destroyed. I wonder if the Province of Ontario has designated only Barrie and surrounding areas as disaster areas or whether it has asked for assistance out of the fund to include that area of southwestern Ontario that was affected the evening before. I understand that there was considerable damage in the Niagara Peninsula as well. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether or not the province has designated those additional areas.
As well, I would like to comment on the generosity of the response to the disaster. I do not recall a disaster occurring in Ontario in recent years for which a whole network of radio stations including at least two in my constituency took part in a telethon last Monday which raised many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think that the spirit of generosity and charity is alive and well in Ontario, as has been demonstrated by this disaster.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is currently having discussions with the Government of Ontario as to the parameters of the disaster areas. Initially the area that was looked at by the province of Ontario was the area from Arthur or Alma in the east.
It touched some areas on the far side of Barrie and the east side of Barrie, into central eastern Ontario. That area is certainly covered under that. In addition, other damage which was done as part of the same weather system will be included under the program. The difficulty is in terms of determining whether damage that was done, for example, the day before, was done as part of the same weather system or whether it constitutes a second disaster.
No one minimizes the amount of damage done there. The problem is that under current federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangements, there is some difficulty in terms of lumping two
disasters together. Each one would have to be considered separately unless they were part of a common weather disturbance.
The other point I might make is that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), has already visited the Leamington area. I can indicate, I believe, on his behalf, that some of the measures which I announced today relating to agriculture would apply in the Leamington area. Most of the damage which was done there was done to the rural area, to the farmers, and we hope that the relief which has been offered by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will provide some assistance there.


PETITIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition containing the names of hundreds of people from Winnipeg who protest the government's proposals to partially deindex the old age pension. Through this petition they join with thousands of other Canadians,-and thousands more to come over the next few weeks-who want to indicate their opposition to this unjust measure by the Government and they call upon the Government to change its mind, go back to the commitment it made in January, and even before that to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said before the election, and fully ensure the indexation of Old Age Security payments.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several dozen citizens and constituents in the Algoma and Sault Ste. Marie area who call upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the old age pensions. They note, for instance, that the average pensioner will lose $100 next year; more than $200 the following year; and over $600 by 1990. They simply call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government to keep their campaign promise and restore full indexation of the old age pension. When the Prime Minister receives a petition like this, I know-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition signed by over 800 residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Burnaby, Surrey, Vancouver East, Langley and Delta, British Columbia, who once again protest the partial deindexation of the Old Age Security. They ask the Government to fulfil its promise to fully index the old age pension.


David Orlikow: Mr. speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by more than 600 residents of Manitoba, who call upon the Government to restore the indexing of pensions. They point out that the losers
June 13, 1985

by this proposal of the Government will be the poor, the unemployed and women.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to present a petition signed by many hundreds of residents of Toronto who protest the proposal of the Government to reduce the purchasing power of the old age pension cheque by 3 per cent. They call upon this House and this Government to restore full indexation of the old age pension.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the tireless efforts of my constituency officer, Mr. Nick Wihnan, and many volunteers, I have the honour to present petitions with 834 signatures from my riding, including Fort Frances, Devlin, Emo, Shevlin and Stratton. These Canadians request a remedy to the government's plans to deindex pensions which will impose hardships on pensioners, and call for the full reinstatement of indexing of the Old Age Security program.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a number of petitions here from hundreds of Manitobans who consider the deindexation of pensions, whether partial or otherwise, to be unfair. They call upon the Government to implement its promise to fully index pensions and to restore the cuts which will cost each and every pensioner $100 during 1986 and $680 by the year 1991.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I aslo have a petition with respect to pensions. It is signed by a number of Canadians, some of whom live in Surrey, which is represented by a Conservative who does not speak up on this issue for the pensioners. The petition states that the May 23 Budget imposes undue and unfair hardship on pensioners-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member summarize.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -by deindexing the Old Age Security program. I would like to file this petition.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, added to over 2,000 names which have come in already from Vancouver East, I am honoured to again present petitions today from a number of people from the lower mainland of British Columbia, including petitioners from Vancouver East, Coquitlam, New Westminster, Burnaby and from many surrounding communities. These petitioners ask that the Conservative Government reconsider and reindex old age pensions so that people will not suffer. They ask that the Conservative Government carry out the promise it made to the people of Canada.
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-243, an Act to amend the National Anthem Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, this Bill simply amends the National Anthem Act in a minor but significant way. At present our national anthem "O Canada" contains a reference to "all our sons" in relation to patriotism. This masculine designation denies the equality of the sexes and is not consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This amendment changes the reference from "all our sons" to "all of us", and does away with this improper designation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 295 will be answered today.


Mrs. Sparrow: How many copies of the book Information did Canada Post Corporation print and (a) to whom was this book distributed (b) what was the total cost?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The
Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
Canada Post printed 700 copies of the book Information.
(a)	The book was distributed to Members of Parliament and Senators at their House of Commons offices. It was also distributed to the Members of Parliament constituency offices.
(b)	The total cost of printing the book was $4,106.14. [Translation]


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 13, 1985
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Mr. Tobin:
That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions after January I, 1986.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) had the floor.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose, I was quoting some very good statements from the Government's consultation paper on child and elderly benefits of January, 1985. I was suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that on reflection, Hon. Members on the government side might find those statements more to their liking and a better basis for public policy than some of the statements which appeared in the Budget paper. In particular, there were the principles announced in the paper which were to be considered as firm commitments, and I quote, "The concept of universality is the keystone of our social safety net. Its integrity must not and will not be called into question", and, "Any savings which mirrors out in program changes will not be applied to reduction of the deficit".
For whatever reasons, the Government changed its position between June and Budget day, but we were somewhat reassured to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) say yesterday that some of the measures in the Budget are in fact to be treated as proposals and are not graven in stone. It is in this spirit I am putting forward some thoughts which I hope will assist Hon. Members of the Government to vote for our resolution and to encourage their Ministers to reconsider.
The question of retirement security in our country has for a number of years included some layers; first, whatever kind of private pension people have if they are in the workforce, and these really have not proved very useful for most Canadians. This is either because the period required to vest the pension is too long, because many smaller firms do not have pension plans at all, and because Canadians are mobile and they lose their pension rights in the course of several moves in a career. Therefore, the private pension plans up until now have not proved to be of great use to the majority of Canadians; second, the Canada Pension Plan, since its inception, gives a certain floor to Canadians in the labour force, but of course it is of no help to housewives, for example, who are out of the labour force for a very long time; third, then there are private savings or investments for people in a position to make that kind of provision for their older years. Then for everyone, regardless of income or whether one has been in the labour force or not, there is the Old Age Security. For the poor, those who have
nothing except for the OAS, there is the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
When one looks at the people now on pensions, an overwhelming majority receive the OAS and the GIS. Those who had savings very often found them eroded by inflation and they are in the situation of requesting a partial GIS. Regardless of private pension plans, private savings or the CPP, for most Canadians the OAS is the only reliable source of income in their later years. As I said, two thirds have nothing else and, therefore, they receive the means-tested GIS. Our old age pensioners, by and large, are not in a position to defend themselves against a sudden and unexpected loss of income.
The people currently receiving OAS are of a generation which has gone through a lot. Many of them grew up during the Depression and lived through a world war. They are pretty tough people for whom life has not been easy. Nevertheless, it was they who supported all through the years the various measures which put in place our present social security net. Indeed, one of the leaders of a senior citizens' group has been quoted recently as saying that they are the generation which put in place this compassionate society we have. They built it and they feel that they have some rights in the matter and that drastic changes in our social security system should not have been made without consultation with them.
Let us contrast the statements made by the Prime Minister last July, last November, and those in the government consultation paper, all of which were very good, with the present situation. When the Budget came down, we saw just four lines devoted to this proposed measure, four lines to say that old age pensions are being deindexed, and that indexation will remain for the GIS. That still hurts those receiving the GIS because their income is still being reduced. Let us look at what some of these figures might mean.
The two and a half million old age pensioners stand to lose close to $1,500 each over the next five years because these measures are cumulative. By 1990 a further 200,000 of those receiving OAS today will fall below the poverty line. The measure will save the Government $15 million in 1986, rising to $1.6 billion in 1990. Another measure in the same Budget conferred a $1.25 billion give-away in capital gains to the wealthy in our society, a small group, and this gift has no strings on it. There is no requirement that it create Canadian jobs or relate to Canadian assets.
There is a certain apparent insensitivity to the plight of the poor here which is in rather stark contrast with a very sensitive statement made by the Prime Minister in July where he said that recent statistics indicate that more than 60 per cent of women and 40 per cent of men over the age of 65 who live alone have incomes below the poverty line. At that time the Prime Minister promised, if elected, he would reinstate complete indexing of old age pensions to the actual cost of living as of January 1, 1985. The reality, of course, we have seen in this Budget. As I said, it described the measure in four lines. It gave no examples of the impact on senior citizens, but we learned that very detailed tables were prepared by the Depart-
June 13, 1985

ment of Finance, presented to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who elected not to make them public.
In this Budget, apart from the proposal to reduce the indexing of senior citizens' pensions, we have a number of measures which are clearly going to add to the cost of living. We have tax increases for gasoline, health care products and so on which could amount to hundreds of dollars a year in lost income. Our senior citizens will be faced with an increase in the cost of living and a decrease in their income.
We have heard a lot of accusations about how the opposition are exaggerating, but let me read what senior citizens themselves say. First, this Budget was delayed for months because the Government was consulting. We have 10 groups representing one million of Canada's 2.6 million elderly who issued a joint statement on June 11 in which they say that, contrary to government pronouncements, there was no formal consultation with senior citizens' organizations. That was stated by Joyce King of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario. Ray Applebaum, of the Older Adults' Centres Association of Ontario said that with deindexing, hundreds of thousands of seniors will drop below the poverty line. The Canadian Council on Social Development estimates that deindexing will add as many as 200,000 elderly people to the poverty ranks by 1990.
The statement by this coalition of 10 senior citizens groups also pointed out that Canada's elderly are being asked to contribute $4,536 billion over five years to help bring down the deficit. The core of that statement was the following:
As senior citizens, we have helped to build a society of social justice and compassion. That society is now under threat by the Government's proposal to the Old Age Security system. We must not, and will not, let that happen.
Another factor in the Budget which was not outlined in the published Department of Finance projections, but was leaked, shows transfers to the provinces being reduced by billions of dollars over the next five or six years. That will, of course, impact on various services which are used by senior citizens. Yhetta Gold, President of the 18 member National Advisory Council on Aging, said that any further erosion of pensions or social benefits will have a direct negative effect on health care.
If this proposal goes forward, it will not be good for the country. I keep hoping that the Government will return to the position it had taken prior to January of this year, which is a much saner position. I hope the Government will consider the question of acquired rights. Making changes in pensions that will affect people in 20 years will give people a chance to plan and readjust, especially if the changes are made in the entire pension planning. However, making changes in this way affects people who have no redress because they are in a situation they cannot change. With all my heart, I recommend that the Government reconsider the matter.


Mr. Jardine:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that everyone in the House appreciates and accepts the sincerity with which the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) speaks. She has a certain civility which we may all wish to emulate. In fact, it is
Supply
a pleasure to sit in the House while she is speaking. The decorum is much different then than it was earlier today.
I would like to make reference to comments made by the Hon. Monique Begin when she was Minister of National Health and Welfare and spoke on Bill C-131. She said:
-the Government is asking as many groups as possible-taxpayers, public servants, mothers receiving family allowances and pensioners-to help set the course toward achieving this goal. We ask these Canadians to accept a cap on the indexation of their income taxes and benefits over the next two years.
She goes on to say:
The purpose of Bill C-131 is twofold. First, it proposes to limit indexation of the basic Old Age Security pension, known as OAS, to a maximum of 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent the year after.
Finally, she said:
We are asking 1.1 million old age pensioners to help lead the way in the fight against inflation.
I have to stress that it is not without reluctance that we make this request. We do so with the knowledge that these pensioners who are relatively better off, will be able to adjust accordingly.
In light of the Member's earlier remarks, and the fact that she was a member of the Government at the time that the Minister made these statements, how can she now reconcile these remarks with the ones she made today?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question because I know the Member asked it in good faith and it is a question that should be asked. The situation at the time of the six and five program was very different than the present one in that inflation was at 12 per cent. This program was put into place reluctantly, as Monique Begin said. Capping was put in place for two years only and with the aim of bringing inflation down. It did indeed bring inflation down in that very year.
If my figures are correct, in those two years the average senior citizens lost about $2 a month. That program was also time limited. The program which has now been put in place is cumulative and will cause single pensioners to lose $1,500 over five years. There is no foreseeable end to the program. It is true that the Government has said that it will monitor the situation and may make changes, but we have not been given a definite termination date. Therefore, the two programs are quite different.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and a comment for the Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). I listened with interest to her presentation. I understand why she is concerned about the senior citizens of Canada. We are all concerned with the welfare of our senior citizens, but at the same time we recognize that compassion will not provide senior citizens with comfort. It will not pay their food bills or help them with their rent. In order to assist senior citizens and all citizens of Canada, we must have sound financial policy. It is that sound financial policy that we want to present to the House of Commons and implement across Canada in order to help our senior citizens and all citizens as time goes on.
My question is in relation to a particular program of the Liberal Government of which she was a member. She sat in

June I 3, 1985
Supply
this very Chamber on the Government side of the House and listened while her Minister of Finance, Mr. Marc Lalonde, introduced the research tax credit program. An editorial in The Toronto Star today says that the measure with respect to the modification of indexing of old age assistance will save the Government $1.6 billion by 1990. However, an article in The Gazette of Montreal refers to the research tax credit program which will cost the taxpayers of Canada $1.9 billion to $2.3 billion. Two billion dollars have gone down the financial drain in scams and fraud. One Ed Fitch, who is 29 years old, gained $20 million. Frank Hertel gained $13 million through the tax scam introduced by the Liberal Government.
It is that kind of financial mismanagement which has put the Progressive Conservative Government in a position where it must consider difficult measures in order to restore financial responsibility to the country. Would the Member for Trinity tell the House where she was when her Government introduced the research tax credit program which cost this country $2.3 billion?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I hope you are going to allow me time to reply to this very long question. 1 supported the research tax credit at the time but, in retrospect, 1 can see that it has been terribly abused. It was abused because it was a tax measure which was demand driven. It took on a momentum of its own and there were not sufficient safeguards in it. For precisely the same reasons I oppose the proposed capital gains tax change.
I support easing capital gains tax requirements for family farms, small business and Canadian business where there is a clear requirement and expectation that Canadians will benefit. However, the Government has introduced a plan that is wide open and just as likely to be abused as the program of which the Hon. Member spoke.
The Hon. Member spoke of responsible financial policies. I believe there will be a difference between his position and mine. Whatever recovery we have had in the country in the last year has been largely consumer led. The Government is proposing to take purchasing power away from low and middle income Canadians, the people least likely to start an inflationary spiral, who spend their money on necessities. In fact, some of the measures in the Budget may drive the deficit higher than what we have seen.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member favour a top-up of the GIS rather than reindexation because this appears to have been the philosophy of the Liberal Party in the past? I would be concerned about that because it erodes universality, just as the six and five program did. It means pensions will go up. For example, those who are 50 years old will lose about a third of their purchasing power when they are of pensionable age.


Aideen Nicholson: In the present situation I do not believe that topping up the GIS is an acceptable solution
because that does not touch the basic question of the security of the Old Age Security pension.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate. [Translation]


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity with enthusiasm, though tempered by a somber sense of duty, to rise in the House today to speak in support of the motion by the Official Opposition. Every Member of this House will recall that before the Budget was brought down, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) used the following terms to qualify the Budget: Tough, but fair. Well, I think Canadians would do better to remember what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said before the election, and I will quote him in English since I find his French difficult to master:

"If I told you what we were going to do, you wouldn't elect us", and "We are going to do things that are tough, mean and nasty".

So to describe the Budget we are discussing in the House today, the words used by the Minister of Justice are obviously more appropriate than those of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
The Progressive Conservative Budget brought down on May 23 is not fair to our families, our children and especially not to our parents. The injustice of this Budget is best illustrated by the de-indexation of the Old Age Security program. As a result of this proposal, in 1986, the elderly in Canada will each lose $100, while by 1991, the amount lost will have risen to $680 annually, adding up to a cumulative total of $6.6 billion withdrawn from the Old Age Security program in five years.
The impact will be most severe on elderly women, the most vulnerable group in our society, since 60 per cent are either single, widowed, separated or divorced and already living below the poverty line. Furthermore, de-indexing Old Age Security pensions constitutes a direct attack on Canadian women, on our mothers and grandmothers. De-indexation will perpetuate the inequality of Canadian women in the most regressive way possible by making those already in need even poorer. About 800,000 Canadians over 65 are so poor they are receiving at least part of the income supplement. More than 60 per cent of Canada's elderly women living alone are below the poverty line. In 1991, the Government will have taken a total of $4.2 billion from our mothers and grandmothers.
As a result of de-indexation, a term innocent enough in itself but cruel in its impact, the consequences of the Budget will be worse than expected. It is a term that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) never used in speaking to Canadian men and women during the election campaign. In fact, during the campaign, the Prime Minister gave the solemn undertaking that "the Progressive Conservative Government would rein-
June 13, 1985

state indexation of Old Age Security pensions to the real cost of living on a quarterly basis". He did not keep his promise. As a result, Old Age Security benefits will be de-indexed in such a way that they will no longer be fully protected against inflation. Benefits will not be adjusted to absorb the impact of the first 3 per cent of inflation. That is what the Prime Minister calls a Budget that is "tough but fair". It is tough, but it certainly is not fair. Tough for whom? Fair to whom? We may well ask.
No Government measure has as much impact on the lives of Canadian men and women as a Budget. Nothing better illustrates a Government's sense of equity and the extent of wealth distribution within our society. A Budget is the best example of the kind of society a Government is trying to achieve; it shows the program the Government has in mind and where the tax revenues will come from. A Budget also reveals the soul of a Government. This Budget tells us that the Conservatives have no soul. It is a hard and unfair Budget, and ordinary Canadians alone will bear the brunt of it.
When dealing with ordinary Canadians, the Government can only take something away from them. However, when it deals with major companies, it takes a little with one hand and gives a lot more with the other hand. By 1990-91, the Government will have levied the equivalent of $4.1 billion in additional taxes on personal incomes and $2.6 billion in consumer taxes, while over the same time the corporate tax load will have decreased by $2.2 billion. The Government therefore takes drastic measures against ordinary people and makes ever more generous concessions to the corporate sector. The saddest part of the story is that the Budget penalizes the most vulnerable people in our society-the unemployed, the poor families, native people, women, youths, farmers and the elderly. At the same time, rich and well-to-do Canadians as well as big companies get more than before. This is how the Conservative Party sees fairness: less for the needy and more for the rich. And if I may quote from the Holy Bible in English, since that is how I learned it:

"Taking from those that have not, to give to those that have. From those that have not will be taken that which they have." [Translation]
The Conservative Government was given a mandate to create jobs and implement a fair tax system. Yet it gave Canada's men and women a Budget which says nothing about jobs and makes unfairness even worse. Nothing better illustrates such inequity than the despicable way the Conservatives are treating retired Canadians. Every elderly person will be affected by the Budget. As a result of deindexation, old age security pensions will go down 3 per cent every year.
Deindexation will have a devastating impact on the standard of living of all elderly Canadians, men and women alike, and
Supply
that includes our parents and grandparents. The annual decrease in the amount of every old age security cheque-and these figures bear repeating-the reduction in the amount of the cheque of every retired Canadian will be $100 next year, $205 in 1987, $315 in 1988, $431 in 1989, $553 in 1990, and $680 in 1991. That year the Progressive Conservative Government will be able to save $2 billion at the expense of senior citizens.
The Government is taking money out of an already hard pressed pension system, a system which prevents elderly men and women from living their last years in dignity. The Government is reaching into the pockets of old Canadians, yet roughly 1.8 million of them live below the poverty line as it is. Thus the Government is forcing the poorest of our senior citizens to make do with even less.
Another consequence of pension deindexation is that the income of elderly Canadian men and women will be eaten away by inflation. Deindexation means that senior citizens can no longer look forward to a decent retirement income. It is a contemptible attack against the youths of the depression years, against those people who grew up through the economic crisis, who became adults during the war and who did so much for our economic welfare. Better still, it is to them that we owe the type of affluent society in which we live today. How can anyone deny them the right to retire in dignity?
Elderly people have done more than their share. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister maintains that the Budget rewards those who get up half an hour earlier. It is a bad joke. It is a mean joke for those who worked very hard throughout life.
The Right Hon. the Prime Minister has a rather peculiar notion of equity. As he had promised during the election campaign, he does give more to the big oil companies, but he forgot all about his commitments to the elderly. Last summer the Right Hon. the Prime Minister promised that full pension indexation would be restored as of January 1, 1985. It is a glaring injustice on the part of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister towards the elderly.
For the Conservatives, there is one kind of justice for the privileged classes, for the rich, for the big corporations and another kind of justice for the elderly. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was worried about the lack of rich people in Canada. When he makes that kind of statement, I wish the Minister would reflect on what he is doing to the elderly in this country and I wish he would realize what their situation is.
While the Government is hacking away at Old Age Security pensions, it gives away $2.4 billion to the oil multinationals. It gives $600 million to the rich in a form of a capital gains tax exemption. It gives $235 million to those who are well off by increasing and fully indexing the ceiling on RRSP contributions. It gives $2.2 billion more to corporations by reducing corporate taxes. After eight months in power, the Government has found dozens of new ways to tax the average taxpayer, but it has failed to introduce a minimum income tax for the rich.

June 13, 1985
Supply
Average taxpayers could be paying less income tax and the rich could be paying their fair share, if just two changes were made in the tax system: first, by introducing a minimum income tax of 20 per cent for the rich who are paying little or no income tax, and second, by setting marginal income tax rates for the rich at the pre-1982 level. These two changes in the tax system would bring in $2.1 billion, and thus make more than ten income tax and tax increases for low-income Canadians unnecessary.
Their incomes would not have been diminished as a result of de-indexing of Old Age Security pensions, family allowance payments and the personal tax exemption; the elimination of RHOSPs and de-indexing of tax tables; and increased taxes on consumer goods.
Canadian men and women wanted a fair Budget, a Budget that would create jobs. In spite of a widely publicized consultation process, the Government has failed to consider the concerns and priorities of ordinary people. It has listened only to the voices of wealth and power.
We in the New Democratic Party intend to ensure the Government hears the voice of ordinary people. Our Party has constantly defended the right of Canadian men and women to be able to retire with dignity. We are committed to this cause. The Prime Minister and Progressive Conservative Members have broken their word, and over the next few weeks, the New Democratic Party intends to pursue its efforts to restore indexation of Old Age Security pensions.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my French is not as fluent as that of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). Does the Hon. Member feel that in addition to the deindexing of old age pensions, the reduction of indexing of family allowance is almost as bad and that this really reflects the Conservative Government policy of eroding universality as a general policy?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for her question. During the pre-Budget conferences held as part of the so-called consultation process, we of the New Democratic Party suggested to the Government a number of options in connection with family allowance and tax exemptions for families, which we feel would have made for a fairer tax system for Canadian families. Now it seems the Progressive Conservatives have decided to ignore that option in favour of one that benefits only the rich, and now, as a result of changes in the family allowance program, Canadians with a gross income over $18,000-I think that is the correct figure- will be paying more taxes.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I would be delighted to ask another question, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You are practised from Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am surprised the Minister is not asking questions.
A mutual colleague of ours, the Hon. Member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) in Vancouver recently raised the whole question of the impact of the reduction of indexation on pensions as it would impact on people who are age 50 now. 1 know the Hon. Member was speaking as an accountant so perhaps he could confirm some of the figures. Apparently the impact on a 50 year old person today in the year 2000 will mean a lifetime loss in purchasing power equal to $36,000 in 1985 dollars if that person lived to be age 85.
Another figure we have heard is that one-third of the earning power of a 50 year old when he or she gets to pensionable age would be lost. It appears the big losers are those who have not yet retired because of the cumulative effect of this measure.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that de-indexation of pensions will result in a permanent net loss for Canadians who retire in the year 2000 or after. This means that if de-indexation is maintained ad infinitum, the longer a person lives, the more that person stands to lose as a result of these measures.
What we are asking the Government is for a policy that would end de-indexation at some point, because it is clear that if we go on indefinitely with pensions indexed at 3 per cent below the general level of inflation, we will reach a point where pensions will be worth half what they are today. I would like to quote some figures that go back in history; instead of being projections for the future. In 1967, the Old Age Security pension was set at 20 per cent of the average salary, while today, in 1985, as a result of the austerity measures of the previous Government, which prevented pension increases from keeping pace with general salary increases, this percentage has already slipped back to 15 per cent of the average salary. According to our calculations, by 1991, the Old Age Security pension will be down to about 13 per cent of the average wage, the tragic result of de-indexation.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask my colleague a question relating to reducing the deficit and job creation. We have heard, certainly in the last week, government Members justifying the deindexing of the Old Age Security and the saving of some $1.5 billion by 1990, while having given the oil companies some $2 billion by that time in extra tax relief.


Miss Carney:: Wrong, wrong.
June 13, 1985


Simon Leendert de Jong: Very often it is justified by saying that the oil companies will create more jobs. Would the Hon. Member comment on whether $2 billion given to the oil companies or $2 billion given to old age pensioners would create more jobs?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is deliberately misleading the House or giving the impression of-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Pat Carney: The Hon. Member is presenting erroneous information. Mr. Speaker, would you care to ask him to address the matter under debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Minister knows that that happens to be a question of debate, not a point of order.


Pat Carney: He is not on the subject.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has certainly made an unparliamentary statement. I would ask you for a retraction by the Hon. Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my understanding that the Hon. Minister said that the Hon. Member was deliberately misleading the House, and that language is unparliamentary. If that is the case, I am forced to request that the Minister retract the word.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to withdraw that word at your direction, and I would like to restate the case, that the Hon. Member is so ignorant and so belligerent and so malicious that he would attempt to criticize something which has brought unity to this country.


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


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has been eating nails or raw hamburger. She is certainly not in a very fine mood. Not to distract from the question which I am essentially-


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I direct Your Honour's attention to the fact that the Hon. Member is making value judgments about my feelings and what I eat, which is not appropriate to the conduct of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Again that is not a point of order; it is a question of debate.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Far be it from me to speculate or comment on the feelings or moods of the Hon. Minister.


Pat Carney: Sexist, sexist.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Minister flabbergasts me. The point I wanted to make or the question I wanted to ask of my colleague, if government Members will
Supply
allow me to do so, concerns job creation. Would $2 billion of extra revenues to the oil companies create more jobs than $2 billion being given to old age pensioners who would be out there spending every nickel of it at the corner grocery store, perhaps on chesterfields or whatever? Very often, in the case of oil companies, very much of that $2 billion would be invested in other places.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for leaving me so much latitude with my answer. This leads me to the subject of consumer behaviour, which is one of my favourites. Frankly, the case is exactly as he stated it. If I could restate it, without being ignorant, belligerent or malicious, everyone who has studied economics knows that putting money into the hands of pensioners ensures that it will very rapidly go into the consumer economy and indeed into that sector of the consumer economy which has the highest potential for job creation and job maintenance, namely, the purchase of the daily necessities of life. On the other hand, the oil companies-and here we talk about some organizations which can be belligerent and malicious-will be using the money to spruce up their balance sheets, as the Minister should very well know.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House for debate today, in the name of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), reads as follows:
That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions after January 1, 1986.
Let me begin by saying that 1 think all Members of the House, and Canadians generally, accept that position as a desirable goal. However, we have to take a look at the situation. As we examine this question, it is important to keep a number of facts in mind. While this is a desirable goal, when opposition Members are forced to put these matters before the House in the form of motions, they use correct words, but when they ask questions in Question Period, as did the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) again today, they use phrases which, while hoping to get some short-term political gain, do nothing for the debate. Twice today she used the term "deindexing". She knows and 1 know that that is not correct.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Partial.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: She just now said "partial" indexing or deindexing, depending upon one's point of view. That is correct. I am pleased she admits that and has come around to that position.
We hear members of the New Democratic Party, day after day, saying that the position of the Government relative to the Budget is wrong. From their socialist position, I guess they are right. I happen to disagree with their position. 1 happen to disagree with them when they say that if we keep raising the deficit, we will have more employment.

June I 3, 1985
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: Get to Saskatchewan.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will get to Saskatchewan.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Collect the money somewhere else.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that when they speak, they want to be listened to. They are very capable of handing it out, but they do not like taking it. If deficit financing is such a successful policy, and if it creates the numbers of jobs as they keep insisting in the House, why is it that in 1968 our accumulated deficit was some $18 billion and our unemployment rate was substantially below what it is now, and today our annual deficit runs in the order of $35 billion and we have 1.4 million people unemployed? In fact, our annual deficit is double the deficit which we accumulated in our first 100 years of history, and our accumulated deficit is now some $190 billion.
Those are issues that they do not address or want to address. They like to live in that world of theirs in which they feel that somehow you should spend more money, even if you do not have it. They have even given advice to go to New York to get more money and give more interest to those who buy the Treasury bills. I say to them they like to have it both ways, but they do not like to look at the responsibility of their suggestions.
I will be even more specific than that, because they say that they are the most conscious of the needs of Canadians. Let me give them a very specific example. The best example I can give is the Manitoba NDP Government. Let us take a look at its record. What did it do? Now I have their attention. What happened when the $25 increase was added to the Guaranteed Income Supplement for those retired Canadians who have the lowest income? What was the Manitoba NDP Government's response?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Probably the same as B.C.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comment that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) just made. He said probably the same as the B.C. Government. How many times have we heard them in this House condemn the British Columbia Government as the most hard-hearted Government on the face on the earth? Now he identifies with it and says that the Manitoba NDP Government would do the same thing.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would remind the Minister that he now is a Minister of Government and we would like to hear, and pensioners would like to hear, the justification for the program that is so hard on seniors. He is not really in Opposition. If he wants to take his time as an opposition Member-


An Hon. Member:: He is a statesman.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Fine, but I thought he was a Minister. Let us hear something that is going to define government policy.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, they do not want to be reminded of their actions. They just want to make their point for political reasons-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Do not make a political speech, make your point.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am going to make the point. No matter how much harassment, I am going to make the point.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the Hon. Minister on his debate, but I would simply like to appeal to the House and to the Chair that perhaps he can address himself to the motion rather than NDP-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint the Liberal Member. I will get to him, too. I say to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap what happened in Manitoba was that of the $25 increase, the Manitoba Government, looking at its situation and its financial reality, reduced the amount of money to those very Manitobans who were getting a shelter allowance by $8. When asked the reason why, the argument was not that they wanted to do it or that they preferred to do it but that they had to because of the deficit situation that they were in. The point I make to him is whether it is an NPD Government, a Liberal Government or a Conservative Government-


Nelson Andrew Riis: You said we do not care about the deficit. Now you are saying we do. You cannot have it both ways.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am saying to you very clearly that you in the federal NDP Party put those points forward, but when you have to take Government, as in Manitoba, then suddenly the shoe starts pinching a bit because the proposals that are made in this House by the NDP are not in the same manner or the same reality that that Government has to deal with.
Let me give another example. Take a look at the percentage of increase that has been given to Manitoba hospitals and to Manitoba post-secondary educational institutions under the present situation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Are we in the Manitoba legislature or are we in the federal House?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The only point I am making, and 1 hope he understands it, is this: regardless of what he wants to say in this House or regardless of the motions he puts forward, Governments, whether at the provincial level or the federal level, all recognize that one cannot continue deficit financing without it starting to have an effect on the very programs we want to maintain. That is the point I am making to him and, being a responsible Member and the finance critic of the NDP,
I think he recognizes that. He might not want to say it for
June 13, 1985

political reasons, and 1 can appreciate that, but I say to him that when Governments look at the financial situation that they find themselves in, either provincially or federally, those are the conditions that have to be applied.
The Liberals like to put forward the notion that they have nothing to do with the legacy, it is not theirs, they are not responsible. Today, for example, they say, do not change the pension conditions. If you take a look at just the revelations of today, you will not hear them say anything about the fact that they lost on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers more money through scams on the research tax credit than the total amount that is identified for five years on the pension plan.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, 1 point out to them that it is those kinds of losses, that kind of profligate spending that has not put this Government into the situation it finds itself, but has put Canadians into that situation. That is the point of departure, I would suggest, that all of us have to take a look at.
1 am saying to the Hon. Members in the House today that what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said yesterday-the reasons and the assurances that he gave that we would be monitoring the impact carefully and we would take remedial action as circumstances warrant it and as resources permit it- that commitment which the Prime Minister gave yesterday stands.
It is clear that the proposal that is the subject of the debate today was not introduced because of some ideological zeal to cut spending for its own sake but a trend in the public finances of Canada which would, if not arrested, have led us in a relatively short period of time to a point where today's hard choices would have been replaced by even harder necessities.
Just 10 years ago, only 11 cents of every dollar that the federal Government spent went to pay interest charges on the debt, and 50 cents of every dollar spent by the federal Government went to programs in the social policy envelope. In the fiscal year just ended, 22 cents of every dollar of spending went to pay interest, double the amount of just 10 years ago, and just 43 cents of every dollar was available for programs in the social envelope. Those were budgetary realities, spending realities of the former Government. I am sure when they looked at those statistics, they also took no comfort in the fact that the amount of money available for social programs had declined over the last 10 years and the reason it had declined was not because the government expenditures had declined but rather because there was less money left from government expenditures because of the ever growing cost of maintaining the debt.
In fact, we spent more last year to pay the interest on the Canadian debt than we spent on old age pensions, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, family allowances and cash transfers to the provinces for health and post-secondary education combined. I cannot put that any other way. That is the situation.
Supply
As well, I cannot put it any better than did the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, whom I knew well and who said in a speech made to this House that the ever-increasing debt is wasted money from a social policy point of view. That is the issue. That money does not come back and is not available for pensions or health care after it goes to pay the debt. It is the only factor in the expenditures of the Government of Canada on behalf of its taxpayers that is self-driven and over which we have no choice and no determining power. One could argue that agreements between the provinces under Established Programs Financing, once passed in legislative form, have the same conditions attached to them, but at least that is a portion of our expenditure which we can negotiate.
I trust that I do not need to emphasize for Hon. Members of the House where the trend was leading us. As a larger and larger share of tax dollars would be consumed to pay interest on the debt, there would be less and less money available to spend on pensions, health and our other important social programs. That is the same dilemma that would face a family that was paying out a larger and larger share of its income on charge-card interest charges. Soon such a family would have to cut back on basic items to regain control of its finances. Borrowing more to maintain its current spending on such items would simply hasten the day when absolute essentials would have to be sacrificed to keep afloat financially.
In taking measures now to prevent us from reaching a point where even more difficult measures would become imperative, we have not spared other groups of society. High-income earners will pay a surtax this year and next. A tax on bank capital and a corporate surtax have been introduced. Those who have used various exemptions and deductions in the past to avoid paying taxes on relatively high incomes will be required to pay a minimum tax in 1986. All taxpayers will be affected by the move from full to partial indexation in the income tax system. There are expenditure reductions in many other government programs and the size of the Public Service will also be affected. However, when all these steps have been taken, they will still not add up to enough of a deficit reduction in the years ahead to ensure that we regain control of our public finances. We also had to look for savings in the programs which are the subject of today's debate.
I would think that regardless of one's partisan stripe, one could only get the finances of Canada into a position where the deficit does not become an ever-increasing burden through cost reduction, efficiencies, and the creation of new wealth. That is the three pronged approach being taken by the Government. Therefore, we said in the Budget regarding this specific item about which Members have asked that we will monitor the situation. That was in the Budget papers, as was known from the moment the Budget was announced. We hope and have reason to believe that the economy is beginning to perform better. As this happens, we will look at the economy and the matter will be monitored. Again, I would refer to what the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday.

June 13, 1985
Supply
Let me say that while there can be legitimate controversy here and elsewhere over whether or not we should have pursued other deficit reduction measures in the form of tax increases or stronger reductions in other programs, 1 think any person who honestly looks at the situation will have to admit that other options would not achieve the turnaround for which all of us are looking.
What gives us the greatest encouragement is that investor confidence is up in Canada. We have seen somewhat of a reduction in interest rates. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of Canadians who are employed. We have not heard opposition Members say anything positive about that. If they have, I am willing to retract those words, but I do not recall hearing anything of the sort. In fact, if opposition Members were to look at the figures, they might argue that the jobs created are short-term ones. They might even concede that there are more people working, but only in the short term. I was looking for that concession, but we did not even receive that.
If opposition Members were to look at the figures more closely, they would find that not only are more Canadians working, but that those who were unemployed for the long term, many of whom were women, have found work. However, that has not been lauded. I am not asking opposition Members to laud the Government. I am saying to them that if they want to use their criticism, let them do so, but they said the very same thing after the November 8 economic statement. Opposition Members have a different philosophy. Their philosophy is that wealth is created by taking it from those who earn it and allowing Government to filter it through its fingers. They feel that somehow that creates more wealth. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
In 1982, opposition Members said that there was a legitimate national goal and the legitimate national goal was to reduce inflation. They said that inflation was eating away at the incomes and purshasing power of Canadians. No greater emphasis was placed on any group than on Canada's senior citizens. That was a correct evaluation of the system and opposition Members then took action. However, if that was a legitimate national goal at that time, surely reducing the cost of the debt and its effect on programs and people is worthy of being the national goal of the Government and the people of Canada today. Opposition Members might not like that, but that is the reality and that is the truth.
Opposition Members have asked me to give examples of groups and individuals that approve of the Budget. I have received such letters from senior citizens but-


Sergio Marchi: Name them.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am not going to name them and I will tell you why.


Sergio Marchi: Why?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am not going to put those letters on the public record-


Sergio Marchi: Why not?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let me answer. Give me that respect and I will do the same for you.


Sergio Marchi: I am always giving you respect.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will not put a letter on the Table indicating that these senior citizens support me. No, I am responsible, I am the Minister and 1 am going to take both the acceptance and criticism of the program. That is my responsibility and 1 am going to do it just that way.
We can argue about how best to deal with the situation, but let us first recognize that if the situation is not addressed today, people who are now 60 years of age and will retire five years from now will have to look at pensions that have been eroded. People who are now 55 years of age who will retire in 10 years will face an even further erosion of their pensions. That is the reality and those-


Sergio Marchi: How about those who are 65 today?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If the Hon. Member were to go back to the very statements made by myself, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the Budget, he will find that it is for those who are 65 now that we will monitor the situation and adjust it as needed.


Sergio Marchi: I heard with some interest, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister and it seemed to me that he certainly could have passed for a Minister of Finance. I think we should remind the Minister that he is the Minister of National Health and Welfare and that as part of his responsibility he must be an advocate, speaker and vehicle for those seniors. However, I heard him simply talking in numbers and facts about those things which had to do with the economy of this country. Notwithstanding the fact that that is very important, surely to goodness he could have rose in his place and talked a little more passionately about his constituents and his clientele.
He made a number of comments. If we accept those comments at face value-which I certainly do not, but let us assume they are true-all those factors and figures he espoused for the last 15 or 20 minutes were certainly well known to him, to his leader and to his Party last summer. Given the fact that those figures and facts were known-if we accept them at face value-then why were they prepared at that time to go from one coast to another and tell the senior citizens they would not touch the indexation of their pensions?
They said, "Elect us, and that will be a sacred trust". If that was said, how can the Minister stand in his place today and justify the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) giving multimillions of dollars away to the multinationals? Why is he doing their dirty work? Why can he not stand up and talk to the senior citizens and maintain the promise he made to them last summer?
June 13, 1985

As well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about the Opposition being completely negative and solely criticizing without seeing some of the positive aspects. You can turn that coin as well, Mr. Speaker, and ask why the Minister continues to try to defend the indefensible. Why can those Hon. Members of the Government not stand up and admit to this country and to the senior citizens that what they did was wrong? They should stand up and say that, cut their losses and get on with the security which should be provided to the senior citizens.
I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister the promise which was made during the summer. All the financial statistics given by the Minister today, when he said there was no other way of manoeuvring, were there when he went across the country and gave the seniors his promise. Why is he prepared to renege on that promise? Why can he not stand up and be courageous, have some conviction for his own clientele, not for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Finance? He is the advocate for the senior citizens.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 will try to explain to the Hon. Member again what the effects are on senior citizens. The Hon. Member conceded that what I have been dealing with is facts. That is what I have been dealing with, facts. 1 have also said that I will, and am, speaking for seniors. I hope he understands the point that we did not know, and he did not know-he was not in the House and he cannot be held responsible for it-about for instance, the kinds of scams which were costing us $2 billion plus as Canadians.


Sergio Marchi: Come on.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just a moment. The Hon. Member did not know. If he takes a look at the last Budget of the previous Government, he will see that the trend line was down on the deficit. Not only for the one year was the deficit $5 billion more than projected, but the trend line was quite opposite to what had been announced. What had been announced was that the trend line on the deficit was going down, but in fact what had happened was-and it was not only for the one year in which we came to power-the deficit was approximately $5 billion higher than had been announced in the House.
The first point I make is that during the election it was not known. It was withheld by the previous Government. Second, if the trend line would have continued, not in the far distant future, a year or two, that deficit would be $40 billion on an annual basis. I appreciate that projections can be imprecise on either side of the issue. I accept that point made by the Hon. Member. However, if he would look at the projections for the five-year period for which most budgets are now projected, he will find that the projection by the end of that five-year period would be approaching $50 billion annualized deficit. I think the Hon. Member would admit generally that that trend line had to be reversed because it is the seniors who are getting the pensions, who are part of the social structure, and the expenditure in the social programs could not be maintained or sustained if that kind of debt were incurred or continued.
Supply
The Hon. Member also stated that money was given to the multinationals. That is another quick throwaway line which is used so easily. What happened with the National Energy Program? That is part of the recession and part of the problem of the deficit. We saw in western Canada young people who, as Canadians from various parts of Canada, had come to the West to work. We saw them on the Trans-Canada Highway going through my riding. They were going back unemployed. Instead of being able to create wealth and develop the future of the country, these young people had to rely on unemployment benefits through no fault of their own.
If the Hon. Member does not like that example of the wealth those Canadians could have created so that we could maintain social programs, I will give him another example. I have heard from time to time Hon. Members of the Opposition saying, "It's a deal for western Canada". I'm not sure the Hon. Member realizes, but for every dollar invested in the oil and exploration industry in western Canada-and 1 am speaking as a Manitoban and, in my part of the province we do not have oil exploration-over 40 cents is spent in industrial Canada.
The point I make to the Hon. Member is simply that I want better pensions for old age pensioners. That is why we came in with the widow's pension and why we are coming in with the widower's pension. That is why we came in with a disability pension. That is why I would like to see full indexing restored when the economy improves. That is why I would like to see the spousal allowance extended as the economy expands. That is my goal. That is why I work for seniors. That is why 1 work for others in the social programs. That is my intention and that is what I am going to work for. That is what my colleagues are working for.


John V. Nunziata: He is making a speech.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I believe I have the right, Mr. Speaker, to respond, unless the Hon. Member thinks I do not.
I believe the Hon. Member asked the question with all sincerity, but what I am saying to him is let us protect not only the present, let us protect the future, and the best way we can do it is just this way.
I could give the Hon. Member the example of the Scandinavian countries. Many people would put them forward as a model we should emulate. I point out to the Hon. Member that one must take a look at the tax rate and speak to people in the social programs, as I have done both in Sweden and in Denmark. I was told that they now have to re-examine and the reason they have to do so is because the deficit has now become such a load that they cannot maintain programs. They have to create new wealth. That is a reality. I cannot put it any other way.
I am saying to the Hon. Member that the best protection for seniors, or for any other Canadian, is to create wealth not only in order that the programs can be maintained, but that we can also create jobs and the wealth which comes from those jobs. That is for young people, for middle-aged people and for

June I 3, 1985
Supply
everyone in the country. The people who should benefit first, as we have said, are the Canadian senior citizens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. de Jong). He has less than a minute left in the question and comment period.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is unfortunate that the Minister used the question and comment period for most of his speech. The point I would like to make is, first, the Minister went against the Liberals because they introduced the five and six program. At that time he also voted against six and five. He cannot have it both ways. Canada, on a per capita basis, is the second lowest spender on social programs among OECD countries. To say the reason we have this huge deficit is because we are giving too much money to our old folks in social programs, I think, is unbelievable. The Minister talks about the deficit. Indeed, that is a very important point. He makes reference to the R and D tax credit being a scam. I stood in my place in this House and asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) about that scam.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The period for questions and comments is now over.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we have put forward today a motion which is couched in very reasonable terms. We have done so in order to elicit a sense of co-operation and understanding across the floor, and also to give courage to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in his deliberations. Instead we have heard in a speech by the Minister a Minister of Finance speaking to us. I wonder whether there is something wrong with a Minister of Finance who needs the help of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or whether there is something wrong with a Minister of National Health and Welfare who has to project his speech in defence of a mandate which was not given to him in the first place. Something is wrong when a Government begins to operate in that fashion. This is particularly so at a time when senior citizens across the country are sending in petitions to Ottawa from ridings everywhere. Outrage is spreading across the country, and it is legitimate that we should ask ourselves, regardless of the Party we belong to, why this is happening. Evidently one group of citizens has been asked to make a sacrifice while another has not. I will explain.
The Government is asking pensioners to accept an erosion in their purchasing power of 3 per cent per year beginning in 1986. This quickly turns out to be approximately $120 in the first year, and that amount will grow in subsequent years. It did not take a long time for people to see through what this portion of the Budget meant to them as pensioners. People affected by this are therefore up in arms. They have discovered that they were deceived by the Progressive Conservative Party. They were deceived in the last election because of the promises made and they were deceived when, last December, as a result of an uproar on this side of the House, the concept of universality was retained or salvaged which, in itself, meant
retaining also the purchasing power and indexing of people's pensions. When people discover they have been deceived, they get angry. That is normal and natural and it happens to each one of us. This is why the petitions are coming in and will continue to come in between now and the end of the month. They will continue to pour in over the summer if we sit over the summer. The phone calls are coming in by the dozens because evidently people are angry.
What is the Government doing in this situation? Well, the Government is on the run, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is retreating. He is now talking of a proposal. It is no longer a Budget measure or decision. All of a sudden we hear the unthinkable, that it is now a proposal. The Government is saying that it is changing its mind and the Tory back-benchers, and I do not blame them at all, are on their knees. They are pushing for change because they do not want to go back to their ridings and face the music. They know they are going to face the music and they would like to go home with an ease in their mind and their political consciences. This is why the motion we put on the Order Paper today is an attempt to somehow be helpful to them. It is an opportunity to say look let us get together and resolve this nonsense.
Canadians have seen through the rhetoric of this Government. They have seen that the promises made in social policies as well are rapidly evaporating with the passage of time. We have seen the outstanding public relations that the Prime Minister was able to develop over the last few months vanish because he is now talking a language different from that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). That Minister is still promoting his Budget. He is still pushing ahead with his measures, but he does not seem to have the support of his Prime Minister. There is some wavering taking place over there.
It would be interesting to know what went on in Cabinet this morning as we see where this Government is heading in light of these developments. The Minister of Finance said on Budget night that there shall be deindexation of the OAS; the Prime Minister is now saying there may be deindexation. In a few weeks the Prime Minister is likely to say that there shall be no deindexation at all. We will then ask him why he subjected the pensioners of Canada to the anxiety they have been living with these days. Why was it necessary to provoke such an uproar?
Why ask the grandparents, with a rhetoric which only the Prime Minister is capable of, to pay for alleged jobs created for their grandchildren by way of deindexation? Have you ever seen such distorted rhetoric in your life? It is as if this generation of pensioners has to finance the jobs of their grandchildren in the market-place now that they have reached retirement age. I sometimes wonder what is the logic process in the minds of this Government. Therefore, it is inevitable that one would conclude that the whole basis of this Budget is ill-conceived.
No one in his right mind would remove a tax on the oil companies and shift the burden, in a way, to the pensioners in order to make up for the lost revenue. Nobody in his right mind would go for the $500,000 capital gains concession, a
June 13, 1985

bonanza for speculators but a loss of tax revenues which the Prime Minister is asking Canadian pensioners to carry on their backs. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker: Does this make sense to you? It does not make sense to me. It does not make sense to a lot of people. If it did, we would not be getting all these inquiries and petitions that are pouring in every day.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that we are wrong, but that is political debate. In politics we start from the premise that our Party knows better than the other Party. This sin has been committed since politics was invented. However, is the Minister of National Health and Welfare saying that the Premiers of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick are wrong in condemning this measure? Is he saying that the Premier of Manitoba and the Quebec National Assembly are wrong on this matter? Is he saying that Ontario, with its lame duck Premier, is wrong to have disagreed with this measure? Is he saying that the Ontario Student Federation and the Business Council on National Issues are wrong? Can all of these people be wrong while he is right on this matter? Evidently, Mr. Speaker, a conceptual flaw allowed the Government to arrive at this decision.
The Tories thought that they could tell pensioners to accept a 3 per cent loss in purchasing power and that they would use the money saved to create jobs for Canadians. They thought that this kind of logic would stick because we have been told that in Question Period dozens of times. They also thought that the cancellation of some $920 million in tax revenues from oil companies would not be considered by pensioners. Pensioners are mature, well informed, intelligent people. They have perhaps more time to read than some of the Ministers in this Cabinet. They put two and two together fairly quickly and that is why they are reacting so energetically.
In the 1970s, Senator Croll said that the day would come when senior citizens would have to organize and exert pressure with the Government. At that time everyone smiled. Those words have turned out to be prophetic. He was right. That great man has done a lot for pensioners in this country.
It is important to build the pension system in our country rather than to weaken or appear to be dismantling it by saying that this is just a proposal. It is irresponsible to do that. If anything is done, it should be to make a proposal which strengthens the pension system and gives hope for the future rather than raise a spectre of erosion and losses to the most vulnerable sector of our population which does not have the opportunity of being employed.
The proposed measure would add 200,000 pensioners to those who live under the poverty line. Does that seem progressive to you? Is it fair to tell a pensioner, who is already living on Old Age Security, to turn to the GIS if he cannot make it with the deindexation? The vast majority of Canadians would not want the Government to take that direction.
Corporation taxes were decreased by $2 billion through the Budget. Individual taxes were increased by $4 billion. The
Supply
Budget also introduced a personal capital gains exemption of $500,000. The general thrust of the Budget inevitably draws one to the conclusion that it is in the interest of the well-to-do in our society. Therefore, it is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are all up in arms and why this motion is before us today.
I submit that our motion offers an opportunity. It says:
That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions after January 1, 1986.
This motion urges the back-benchers of the Government Party to put our social security pension system back on the right track to protect pensioners from the vagaries of inflation by protecting their purchasing power. They must be ensured they will not lose ground to economic development over which they have no control.
In 25 minutes it will be necessary for us all to recognize that a mistake was made. This motion offers an opportunity for the redress of potential damage before the summer recess in order to allow our senior citizens to enjoy the summer in the full knowledge that their future is not threatened by this kind of "proposal". If this is only a proposal, the Government has heard enough from this side of the House, and from outside of the House, to reconsider its stand.
I call upon the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Minister of Finance to make this announcement before Parliament adjourns for the summer. They must read the mood of the country and understand the anxiety that is developing in the country. They must take the step that will be applauded by everyone in the country.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the remarks of the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and on those of some of the other Members of the two Opposition Parties. They continually refer to the so-called windfall profit to the so-called multinational oil companies. The two areas where they believe our Government is giving them money are; first, through oil deregulation and second, the termination of the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax. As far as deregulation is concerned, the price of oil has been falling internationally and it seems that there is much less money, if any, in windfall profits.
When they talk about the termination of the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax, they should also remember the $1.7 billion that the oil companies received last year from the Liberal's Petroleum Incentive Program. That program will be terminated, commencing March 28, 1986, while the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax does not terminate until 1989.
Let me also remind Members opposite that as part of the Western Accord, the consumers of natural gas are saving $900 million a year which would have been tacked onto the price of natural gas. This is money coming from the pockets of the oil companies and going to consumers. I would ask them to remember all the facts.

June 13, 1985
Supply


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, all that 1 can say in reply to the Hon. Member is that judging from the length of his intervention in which he devoted himself only to one subject, he seems to be more interested in the petroleum industry than senior citizens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?
[ Translation]


Mrs. Bertrand:: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention whatsoever of trying to score political points in this debate. I sincerely believe that there is nothing meaner in a difficult situation than to try to make political hay out of the plight of the weakest and poorest in our society.
But I just cannot understand, and I even think it is indecent on the part of the Opposition to attempt to lecture us under these circumstances. I am thinking about some of them, not necessarily the lesser luminaries of that Party. Among others, I have in mind the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, Miss Begin, who said this in December 1982: "The Government intends to amend these laws after carefully considering the situation and because it realizes that all Canadians must be prepared to make sacrifices to fight inflation and ensure our economic recovery". Nobody was even talking about creating jobs then. Miss Begin went on to say: "Reduce the indexation of benefits to senior citizens who do not need the guaranteed income supplement. They were asked to make the same sacrifice as other Canadians." It was Miss Begin who then expected that from the elderly.
She added: "Most Canadian men and women are now faced with a new economic reality. The only way to solve our problems is to take drastic measures to reduce inflation. Canadians in every walk of life have to adjust to that situation, however difficult it may be, so that they will not be up against harsher consequences in the future".
Here are the comments at this time of Mr. Johnston, today's finance critic: "The problem raised by the Budget deficit is serious and must not be overlooked. It could lead to a loss of confidence and jeopardize other necessary measures. That is why we must never miss an opportunity to reduce it". And then, further on: "We hope that when they debate these crucial problems in this time of serious crisis the Members of the House will demonstrate that they understand the significance and the general characteristic of this problem. This is not the time to make speeches to gain short-term political benefits even if some prospects-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the Parliamentary Secretary, but I would simply remind her that we are still in the questions and comments period. I may have misled her when I gave her the floor, but we are still in the questions and comments period.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Those were comments, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Perhaps I might remind Hon. Members that questions and comments are allowed during the questions and comments period but, as much as possible, comments ought to be reasonably short so that the person to whom they are directed might reply.
This remark is for the benefit of all Members of the House.
I will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to complete her comments.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Well, I will conclude, Mr. Speaker. The then Opposition finance critic said: The national interest requires a national approach to this problem.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, 1 want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary and inform her that we are talking about the policy for 1985, not 1982. There really is a tremendous ideological and philosophical difference between her party's approach to controlling the deficit and mine. The Progressive Conservative Party seems to think, indeed it has high hopes of reducing the deficit through cutbacks and controlling the deficit at the expense of senior citizens. We believe that to reduce the deficit, we must develop and strengthen the economy, and as the Government's revenue increases we can gradually start reducing the deficit. That is the difference between the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have a short but strongly-felt question for the Hon. Member. Does the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) believe that the effort of the Government to extend pensions to low-income widows and widowers between the age of 60 and 64; that tripling of the number of persons eligible to claim deductions for disability; that the pension reforms that were brought in through earlier vesting and portability and that more fair RRSP contributions will have significant impact immediately and in the future for the security of our senior Canadians?


Charles L. Caccia: The Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Hockin) will remember that while we supported the concept, we wanted it expanded to include the single widows and widowers in that age group and we felt that the measure was not comprehensive enough. However, we on this side of the House have a rather long standing tradition and history of building up the social security system of this country.
We really have nothing to learn from the Progressive Conservative Party. If anything, we would urge the Progressive Conservative Party to stop fighting the deficit on the backs of the pensioners, as this measure does in its present form, but to build the system further, strengthen it and reduce the retirement age gradually from 65 to 60 to provide an even better future for our pensioners so that we can be proud of our social security because it is a measure and a mirror of the quality of our society.
June 13, 1985


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, permit me to commend the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for caring about the senior citizens in his constituency and for expressing a sense of justice and fairness. I commend him because he is standing up for his constituents. That cannot be said for Hon. Members opposite who are refusing to stand up and speak for the many constituents in their ridings who are telling them that what the Government is doing is unfair.
It seems that what is at issue is the integrity, honesty and credibility of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in particular. The Prime Minister and the Government promised senior citizens that they would ensure full indexation of their pensions. The senior citizens of the country were promised that any money saved as a result of a social benefit program being touched would not be used to reduce the deficit, but that is precisely what is being done by the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The period for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to stand in support of this motion today. I certainly hope all Members in conscience will look at it individually from the point of view of their constituents. Regardless of what Party they support, I hope they will support a reversal of policy that would be helpful to seniors rather than harmful. We know that the Budget calls for the deindexing of the universal OAS-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: No.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -by CPI minus 3 per cent. How about that?


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: This same deindexation of 3 per cent will be applied to the income tax spouse's allowance for widows and widowers aged 60 to 65. Senior citizens, and the poorest of seniors are elderly women, have been singled out in the Conservative Budget for particularly unfair measures. The Conservatives' fervour to control the deficit and their aversion to taxing the wealthy has lead the Conservatives to target senior citizens for cut-backs in a Budget that they were trying to sell originally as tough but fair.
As we have asked many times in this House, is it fair to take $1.6 billion from seniors while giving $1.5 billion to those who no longer will have a tax on capital gains and roughly $2 billion to the oil companies? Is this fair? I think most Canadians by now know very well it is not because the message has got out over the past week that this is not a fair move and something must be done to change it. We are appealing to the Government today to change.
Partial deindexation of the OAS actually, in our opinion, is underhanded and sneaky. Even worse, it is dishonest. During the campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that a Progressive Conservative Government once more would
Supply
index the old age pension. 1 agree with the Conservatives that the Liberals did impose a form of deindexation in the six and five program. The Prime Minister said the Conservatives would restore the OAS once more to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis. We know they have not done this. The Prime Minister should be very concerned. People have lost faith in the kind of promises he has made and then not kept.
More recently, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Government in its Blue Paper to discuss elderly and child benefits stated that in the Government's view no change was required in the OAS-GIS payment system. The Government went on to make a change in that system, no matter how the Minister seems to try to distort this.
I cannot understand why he does not see for the GIS group, the poorest of the elderly people in Canada, the majority of whom are women, that he is taking away from their old age pension as well. The Government certainly did not keep its word. We know the effects of this Budget will be both immediate when the Government brings in the 3 per cent deindexation and in the long term.
I heard a Member of the Government back-bench say in a rather sarcastic term "Oh, $100. Isn't that too bad?" I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House that I have talked to a number of senior citizens in my riding and in other meetings that I have attended that even a loss of $100 is a great hardship to many seniors. In Vancouver, bus fares have gone up recently. Many elderly people will not be able to get around the city as they used to. Phone bills have gone up and many seniors have had to have their phones removed. Hydro and rents are up. Many seniors who happen to own their own homes are in desperate straits because they cannot get RRP funds to improve them and they will have to move out.
Federal sales tax hits seniors particularly hard. In British Columbia no longer can seniors get non prescription drugs on their Pharmacare cards. Every time they go to the drug store, seniors will be hit with extra taxes. Many seniors have pets. Many pensioners who do not have families have pets. They will now be taxed on pet food and they will have to get rid of their pets. Why should senior citizens not be able to have a glass of wine? That is completely out of the question now. Senior citizens in Vancouver have told me that their pension just covers food, rent and second-hand clothing. They have had to give up newspapers, telephones and they will never be able to afford new clothes. They cannot even afford now to get on the bus and visit friends and relatives.
The one positive thing about this whole Budget is that it has aroused such anger in senior citizens as well as other Canadians. They are organizing and there is no way they will take this, no way at all, Mr. Speaker. I know Government Members must be receiving just as many protests as we are, saying that seniors will not take this and will be demanding the reindexation of pensions.
I would like to refer particularly to the Council of Senior Citizen Organizations of British Columbia. I talked with a number of their officers. They refer to the organization as COSCO. They sent a telegram to the Prime Minister three or

June 13, 1985
Supply
four weeks ago on behalf of over 100,000 pensioners and many affiliated groups, including the Old Age Pensioners of B.C. which has 47 branches and the Senior Citizens Organization of B.C. which has 43 branches. They say it is quite unfair what the Budget has done, that COSCO and affiliates with over
100,000	members protest the loss of indexing on the universal old age pension, something that should be protected at all costs. They go on to ask the Government and the Prime Minister to reconsider their move.
The 3 per cent deindexation of old age pensions we know has a cumulative effect which is particularly significant when you really look at it. The loss of $100 will be hard on people when that reduction is instituted next year. Over the course of five or six years, as many Members have said, seniors will lose $2,284 and added to that is the extra loss in spending power because of taxes. It is really a pretty tragic situation. It is very symbolic. People are saying right across the country, not just those who support our Party but those who supported the Conservative Party in all faith in the election, that "We cannot trust this Government anymore. We have lost faith. The Prime Minister and Ministers make promises and then change their promises." The Budget itself is dishonest. There is no question about it, Mr. Speaker.
The 3 per cent deindexation in the Budget has become a symbol of hypocrisy and unfairness and also of the Conservative Party and its Government.
As NDP Members know, we launched a petition campaign. We have already submitted well over 10,000 signatures. I know there have been at least 2,000 from my riding. I want to tell the Minister who is laughing that this is only the start of it. He will see many many more. I wish the Minister would take this matter much more seriously since his Members have said he is supposedly an advocate for seniors-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, I am.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -rather than making them victims of his policies.
Pensioners groups are very concerned. They are holding meetings. The Government will continue to hear from them. 1 hope also that the pensioners, and I am sure they will as they get on with this campaign, will not forget their grandchildren. They will be suffering the same deindexation, a 3 per cent reduction in family allowances. Of course it is not as much money, but it is the same kind of nasty social policy which is typical of this Government.
I should like to mention particularly a meeting which was held in Toronto the other day. 1 flew there to attend it. It was called by 11 major organizations in Ontario, as well as national organizations, representing over one million pensioners across the country. I would like to read into the record the names of the groups represented at that time: United Senior Citizens of Ontario, representing 300,000 seniors; National Pensioners & Senior Citizens Federation, representing 400,000 seniors; Canadian Pensioners Concerned, representing 50,000
seniors; Metro Seniors Council, representing 700 senior clubs and many more members; Canadian Council of Retirees, representing 45,000 seniors; Older Adult Centres Association of Ontario, representing 80,000 seniors; Ontario Association of Residents Councils, representing 20,000 seniors; Third Age Learning Age, representing 900 seniors; Network for Home Support Services of Metro Toronto, representing 40 senior home support agencies; Association of Jewish Seniors, representing 6,000 seniors; and the Toronto Mayors Committee on Aging.
If the Minister has not read this joint statement, 1 wish he would at least read the statement in which 1 summarized some of their points. As I said, they represent one million senior citizens. There was complete consensus on the part of those people and they were of all political stripes. There was no question that they were absolutely fed up with the Government. Some of them were even advocating that seniors who voted Tory and joined the Party should cut up their membership cards and send them in.
I hope the Minister will listen to their points. One of the first points they raised, the one on which they commented with the greatest degree of feeling, was that after the Government talked so much about consultation, there was no formal consultation with organizations representing senior citizens. They were assured in the blue report that there would not be changes and therefore there was no need for them to appear as witnesses before the Standing committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The Government went ahead and really betrayed them. At the meeting they were asked by a reporter: "Do you feel betrayed?" As one voice, everyone at the meeting said: "Absolutely".
They also referred to the fact that the Prime Minister, in his pursuit of office, when he was out to get votes, pledged on behalf of his Party that a Progressive Conservative Government would index Old Age Security pensions to the actual cost of living.


An Hon. Member:: A betrayal.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Certainly that was a betrayal; there is no question about that. They have done just the opposite, and I think the Liberals did the same thing when they imposed the six and five program. I am glad to hear that they have changed their position.


John V. Nunziata: We are in this together.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There should be no reduction of indexing for senior citizens or for families. The Conservatives also demanded that seniors make a significant sacrifice to help reduce the deficit.


John V. Nunziata: Let's fight together.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am quoting senior constituents from Ontario, including senior citizens in the riding of the Hon. Member, as well as those represented by national groups, if the Hon. Member is interested.
June 13, 1985


John V. Nunziata: I am interested.


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


Margaret Anne Mitchell: They deplore the fact that the Government is trying to make seniors sacrifice to reduce the deficit and that far too many of them already live on meagre incomes. By any definition, it can only be considered a state of poverty. Also, they indicate that to subject seniors to the removal of inflation indexing is immoral, and that deindexing, coupled with increased taxation on consumer groups, will deliver a further blow to those Canadians who are struggling to live with some semblance of dignity.
An Hon. Member rose in the House and said that our senior citizens were very proud. That generation suffered during the Depression and world wars. They do not want to admit that they are poor. Many of them are very poor, but they would prefer to suffer rather than to ask for help. These are the people that the Government is victimizing once again.
They went on to say in their statement that the proposed policy of deindexing would mean a loss to each old age pensioner from $100 up to $553 in 1990, representing a total loss of $1,604 per person over the next five years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order to ask the Government House Leader to present the information which he now has about the business of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I hope my report will be relatively brief, but it will be in two parts.
Pursuant to the Standing Orders, on the tenth last sitting day of the House in this trimester, provision has been made with respect to a motion which deals with extended hours. There have been discussions between the Parties. Rather than proceeding with this matter tomorrow, and with the unanimous consent of the House, I should like to present this draft order which I think Your Honour will find is acceptable to the House. The order reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding the provision of Standing Order 9 commencing Monday, June 17, 1985 until Friday, June 28, 1985 the House shall meet at 11:00 o'clock a.m. and continue to sit without interruption until 9:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays and that the House shall meet at 2:00 o'clock p.m. and continue to sit without interruption until 9:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and that the House shall meet at 11:00 o'clock a.m. on Fridays and shall continue to sit without interruption until 5:00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays provided that during this period:
(a) the Private Members' Hour shall be suspended, and
Business of the House
(b) for the purposes of Standing Order 45(1), adjournment debate shall commence at 9:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursday and conclude not later than 9:30 o'clock p.m. on the said days and that it be conducted pursuant to Standing Order 45; provided that from 4:00 o'clock to 5:00 o'clock p.m. on Friday, June 14, 1985 the House shall consider Government Orders; and
provided that adoption of this Order shall preclude the moving of any motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 9; and
provided that when the House adjourns on Friday, June 21, 1985 it shall stand adjourned until 11:00 o'clock a.m. on Tuesday, June 25, 1985.
If Your Honour seeks the unanimous consent of the House to have that order adopted, you will find that consent to be forthcoming.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of order.


Ian Deans: As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is a debatable motion, but I have no intention of debating it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to announce the business of the House, so that we will have an idea of the sequence of Bills. Tomorrow, the House will consider Bill C-41, Bill C-2 and Bill S-3. I hope we will deal with those Bills in their final stages. Continuing on Friday and carrying on into next week, the sequence will be: Bill C-51, the Borrowing Authority Bill; Bill C-44, respecting the Western Grain Transportation Act; Bill C-26, respecting the Old Age Security Act; Bill C-27, respecting amendments to legislation by virtue of the Charter; Bill C-36, amendments to the Aeronautics Act; Bill C-24, respecting COSP and CHIP amendments; Bill C-39, respecting supplementary equalization; Bill C-32, respecting fisheries; and Bill C-53, respecting the Northern Transportation Company Disposal Act.
It is my intention to call them on the basis of this listing for the convenience of Members so they will have some idea of the procedure and plan accordingly. I hope to keep it in that sequence, but as House Leaders will understand, there are Bills in committee and a few other items of legislation which

June 13, 1985
Supply
we have discussed in the House Leaders' meeting that will be brought forward. Obviously, the reporting of Bills in committees will have an effect on the order of precedence here. We will monitor the legislation from time to time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I originated the word "monitor". It was such a popular word, it was included in the Budget. We will monitor the progress being made on this legislation and when other matters are reported from committee and, indeed, when other items which have been discussed with the opposition House Leaders are introduced in the House, there may be a change in the sequence.
We look forward to making progress on the hours that have been indicated so that we will be able to adjourn on June 28 according to Standing Orders.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 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 Bill S-4, an Act to extend the term of Canadian Patent No. 855,255 to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Tobin:
That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions after January 1, 1986.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being 5.50 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrup these proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 62(10).
[ Translation]
Mr. Tobin, seconded by Mr. Nunziata, moved:
That this House urges the Government to commit itself now to maintain the present system of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions after January 1, 1986.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 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 of the motion 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.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 20, in the amount of $179,960,000 under Agriculture-Agri-Food Regulation and Inspection-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Corbett Cossitl (Mrs.)
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crosby
(Halifax West)
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
de Cotret
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gass
Gervais
Girard
Gottselig
Gray	_
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gustafson
Hardey
Harvey
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
James
Jardine
Jepson
Joncas
Kcmpling
King
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
MaiUy (Mrs.)
Mantha
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McCuish
McDermid
Mclnnes
McKenzie
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
N icholson
(Niagara Falls) Nielsen Nowlan Oberle Pennock
Peterson
Pietz
Plamondon
Plourde
Porter
Ravis
Reimer
Ricard
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Stackhouse Stevens Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Toupin
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Vankoughnet Vezina (Mrs.)
Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Winegard
Wise-125.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
++NAYS


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?
Messrs.
Allmand	Garneau	Mitchell (Ms.)Althouse	Gauthier	Nicholson (MiAxworlhy	Gray	(Trinity)Berger	(Windsor West)	NunziataBlackburn	Guilbault	Ouellet(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Henderson	PennerBroadbent	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCaccia	Jewett (Ms.)	RiisCassidy	Keeper	RobichaudDeans	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	MacLellan	RossiDingwall	Manly	SkcllyFoster Gagliano	Marchi	Waddell-39.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I understand that, after consultations, there would be some disposition by the House to abbreviate our sitting day by agreeing that the results of the division on Motion No. 1, that is on Agriculture Vote 20, be applied to all of the remaining motions on the opposed items in the Main Estimates, on the remaining Main Estimates, on the Supplementary Estimates and on second and third reading of the Appropriation Bill, and that the results of the division be printed in the Votes and Proceedings and Debates as if they had been held separately.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have to think about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 13, 1985
Supply


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have thought about it and it seems like a good idea to all of us over here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of Corporate and Special Services Program- Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 50, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 50, in the amount of $21,817,000 under Energy, Mines and Resources-Atomic Energy Control Board-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 55, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 55, in the amount of $299,528,000 under Energy, Mines and Resources-Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Robert René de Cotret: No 7
That Vote 1, in the amount of $42,026,000 under Finance-Financial and Economic Policies Program-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of $75,364,000 under Justice-Administration of Justice Program-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote I, in the amount of $39,979,000 under National Health and Welfare-Departmental Administration Program-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 1, DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of $38,613,000 under Privy Council-Privy Council Program-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 1, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Robert René de Cotret: June 13, 1985

No. II
That Vote 1, in the amount of $233,756,000 under Regional Industrial Expansion-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 5, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 5, in the amount of $1,305,000 under Regional Industrial Expansion-Textile and Clothing Board-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 10, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 10, in the amount of $966,186,000 under Regional Industrial Expansion-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 45, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 45, in the amount of $25,507,000 under Regional Industrial Expansion-Federal Business Development Bank-Payments to the Bank, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 35, DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 35, in the amount of $113,091,000 under Secretary of State- Public Service Commission-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 1, DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 1, in the amount of $21,801,000 under Solicitor General-Solicitor General-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 25, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 25, in the amount of $10,605,000 under Treasury Board-Comptroller General-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
	Messrs		The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on		
Andre	Cochrane	Epp	the following division:	Beatty	Comeau	(Provencher)	Belsher	Cook	Fennell	Bernier	Cooper	Ferland	(Division No. 97)	Bertrand (Mrs.) Blackburn	Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)	Forrestall Fraleigh	(Jonquiere)	Cote	Fretz	YEAS	Blais	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Gagnon	Bouchard	Cote	Gass	Messrs.	Bourgault (Mrs.)	(Langelier)	Gervais	Boyer	Crosby	Girard	Andre	Caldwell	CooperBradley	(Halifax West)	Gottselig	Beatty	Cardiff	CorbettBrightwell	Crouse	Gray	Belsher	Champagne	Cossitt (Mrs.)Caldwell	Dantzer	(Bonaventure-lles-de-	Bernier	(Champlain)	CoteCardiff	Darling	la-Madelcine)	Bertrand (Mrs.)	Charest	(Lac-Saint-Jean)Champagne	Daubney	Greenaway	Blackburn	Chartrand	Cote(Champlain)	de Cotret	Grise	(Jonqui&re)	Clark	(Langelier)Charest	Della Noce	Guilbault	Blais	(Brandon-Souris)	CrosbyChart rand	Desjardins	(Drummond)	Bouchard	Clifford	(Halifax West)Clark	Dick	Gustafson	Bourgault (Mrs.)	Coates	C rouse(Brandon-Souris)	Dorin	Hardey	Boyer	Cochrane	DantzerClifford	Ellis	Harvey	Bradley	Comeau	DarlingCoates	Eizinga	Hnatyshyn	Brightwell	Cook	Daubney
June 13, 1985

Supply
de Cotret	Messrs. Joncas	RavisDella Noce	Kempling	ReimerDesjardins	King	RicardDick	Lawrence	St. GermainDor in	Layton	St-JulienEllis	Leblanc	SchelienbergElzinga	Lesick	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Epp	Lewis	Schellenberger(Provencher)	Mailly (Mrs.)	(Wetaskiwin)Fennell	Mantha	ScottFerland	Marin	(Victoria-Haliburton)Forrestall	Martin (Mrs.)	ShieldsFraleigh	Mazankowski	SiddonFretz	McCain	SparrowGagnon	McCrossan	(Mrs.)Gass	McCuish	StackhouseGervais	McDermid	StevensGirard	Mclnnes	Tardif (Mrs.)Gottselig	McKenzie	(Charlesbourg)Gray	Merrithew	Taylor(Bonaventurc-1 les-de-	Minaker	Thackerla-Madeleine)	Mitges	ToupinGreenaway	Moore	TupperGrise	Nicholson	TurnerGuilbault	(Niagara Falls)	(Ottawa-Carleton)(Drummond)	Nielsen	ValcourtGustafson	Nowlan	VankoughnetHardey	Oberle	Vezina (Mrs.)Harvey	Pennock	VincentHnatyshyn	Peterson	WarnerHockin	Pietz	WenmanHorner	Plamondon	WhiteJames	Plourde	WinegardJardine	Porter	Wise-125.Jepson Allmand	NAYS Messrs. Garneau	Mitchell (Ms.)Althouse	Gauthier	Nicholson (Miss)Axworthy	Gray	(Trinity)Berger	(Windsor West)	NunziataBlackburn	Guilbault	Ouellet(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Henderson	PennerBroadbent	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCaccia	Jewett (Ms.)	RiisCassidy	Keeper	RobichaudDeans	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	MacLellan	RossiDingwall	Manly	SkellyFoster	Marchi	Waddell-39.Gagliano


CONCURRENCE IN MAIN ESTIMATES, 1985-86
Robert René de Cotret: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March, 31, 1986, except those items disposed of earlier this day, and less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
Robert René de Cotret: That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, laid upon the Table, Tuesday, May 28, 1985, be concurred in.


Robert René de Cotret: that Bill C-54, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1986, be read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that copies of the Bill be distributed. As well, 1 want to ask the President of the Treasury Board for his formal assurance that the Bill is in the usual form.
June 13, 1985


Marcel Danis: On the first point, I am informed that the Bill was distributed this morning. On the second point, the President of the Treasury Board.


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, the form of the Bill is the same as that passed in previous years.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule A carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Bill agreed to.
Supply
Marcel Danis: Shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 14, 1985