1985-02-06

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, as if Canadian farmers are not worried enough about increasing farm costs, they now have an additional worry, the announcement by the Conservative Government that ad hoc disaster relief agreements with the provinces will end.
Instead of special disaster relief funds involving the federal Government and provincial Governments, farmers will be forced to absorb extraordinary disaster relief through higher crop insurance premiums.
While disaster could strike any part of Canada, the impact of this new Conservative Government approach, which amounts to disaster relief for the provinces, not farmers, will have its greatest impact in western Canada.
Presently, crop insurance programs are not comprehensive. Although efforts are being made to extend crop insurance programs to all crops, the special needs of feed producers and of livestock producers have yet to be met.
More than just damage to crops, disasters such as drought or floods damage the land itself through erosion and other problems which affect not just crops in the ground but crops yet to be planted.
Major disasters such as spring flooding in Manitoba, drought in Saskatchewan, and late flooding in northern Saskatchewan, have required extraordinary relief needs, which were provided in conjunction with the provinces by previous Liberal administrations.
This amounts to disaster relief for the mostly Tory provincial Governments and higher costs for farmers, particularly farmers in western Canada. It is unacceptable. The Government is abandoning the farmers of this country.


RAILWAYS
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an issue of serious concern to thousands of Saskatchewan farmers and their families. CN Rail and two grain companies have applied to allow special, lower freight rates at certain times in my home town of North Battleford and two other western communities.
On the face of it, this appears to be an incentive to farmers. However, Mr. Speaker, I am suspicious and gravely concerned that this is merely the first step toward variable freight rates. Lower rates being used at certain locations will have a drastic effect on smaller communities, farmers, and grain movement. Variable rates will sound the death knell for many of the small towns and farmers who use local shipping points. I ask that the Canadian Transport Commission hold extensive, full, and open hearings to let producers voice their opinions on this application. We don't want variable rates.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Vancouver Sun newspaper reported that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) had reached an agreement with sports fishermen in the Province of British Columbia.
This agreement indicates that he is prepared to allow them a catch limit of 20 fish per year. For 400,000 sports fishermen this amounts to 8 million fish. Assuming they fish with children under the age of 16, we could expect to double that figure to 16 million Chinook. Since the Americans are only going to allow us, under the treaty the Minister signed, 275,000 Chinook in total in the Gulf of Georgia, would the Minister please present to this House a plan on how he intends to allocate those sportsfish between the sports fishers, the Gulf trollers, and the incidental net catch fishers?
A suggestion from this side of the House would be that the Minister either explain the plan, take remedial arithmetic, or present to the House a piece of legislation that would indicate, one, that he is able to allocate the salmon resources of British Columbia and, two, how he intends to do that, before he imposes the treaty?

February 6, 1985


CROWN LANDS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, Duncairn Dam was constructed by PFRA in the early 1940s. The reservoir thus created is located in southwestern Saskatchewan, some 20 miles upstream from the city of Swift Current. Some 30 years ago a number of local individuals placed summer cottages on Crown land on the shore of the reservoir. These Duncairn cottage owners were left alone, and no serious attempt made to remove them until the Department of Justice, at the request of the PFRA, began court action in 1981 to reclaim possession of the land on which the cottages are located. The cottages do not cause the Crown any problem in terms of water quality or supply. I am advised the cottages cannot be flooded because they are situated at levels higher than the top of the dam.
The PFRA apparently fears that setting up such resort areas would be an open invitation to other potential cottagers to do likewise around other reservoirs. PFRA also says there is no jurisdiction in the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to permit such developments.
These cottagers are causing no harm to the Crown. They pose no risk. It appears that the public good could be well served if the cottagers were left alone. It should be noted that recreational shoreline in southwestern Saskatchewan is scarce indeed and, considering the lack of water recreation in the area, it might well be advantageous if additional development were permitted.
It is time to seek an amicable solution to this long-standing problem.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, we know that at this time of year ice hogs emerge from their holes in the Canal in Ottawa during Win-terlude. But all across Canada a certain species of shark also emerges, the kind that preys on the economically disadvantaged. These sharks charge a fee to provide cash advances for tax rebates. If you annualize the fee of 15 per cent they charge, it comes to as high as 90 per cent. Sixty-five per cent of those who use these services have incomes of less than $8,000. Forty-two per cent are women receiving the Child Tax Credit. Fifty per cent to sixty-five per cent of the clients are unemployed or on welfare. This year close to one-half million Canadians will pay out $43 million to these people.
I have raised this matter with the Government before, and so have groups such as the National Anti-Poverty Organization. Two provinces have outlawed the practice. But across the country this practice is mushrooming, and the ripoff of lower income people and the Canadian taxpayer is enormous, and growing. I call on the Government to implement the recommendations of my former colleague, Judy Erola, and immediately bring in steps to outlaw the practice, or somehow stop this ripoff of lower-income Canadians.


Ms. Mitchell:: You were the Minister who did nothing.


REQUIREMENTS FOR CREATION OF POSITIVE INVESTMENT CLIMATE
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's energy sector, if properly stimulated, can provide immediate and long-term employment which will contribute to economic growth throughout Canada without aggravating the current government deficit.
Since the introduction of the disastrous Liberal National Energy Program, the industry has suffered an erosion of internally generated cash flow due to front-end taxation. The energy industry is unique in Canada in that it is taxed on gross revenues rather than on net profits.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is now formulating the new Conservative energy program. It is important in this new program, first, that we move to market pricing for oil and gas; second, that we phase out PGRT; and, third, that we phase out PIP. These three items will create a positive investment climate here in Canada.
I urge the Minister of Energy, along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to treat the resource industry the same as other industries, by moving to a profit-based system of taxation and giving the industry a long-term program to enable management to set realistic goals and budgets for its future operations and investments.


CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Progressive Conservative Party proposed an increase in funding to the Canada Council which would at least keep up with the rate of inflation.
As deserving as any other industrial sector in Canada, the arts deserve the promised increase. The arts are the eleventh largest of the manufacturing industries in the country, and first in terms of size in employment and labour intensity. Yet its workers form the second lowest income group in Canada, next to pensioners. At a time when everyone acknowledges unemployment as the single greatest domestic problem, it makes good sense to foster an industry which is part of the solution.
February 6, 1985

Aside from the economic importance of the arts, I should like to stress the value of the contribution which the arts play in creating a cultural identity for Canadians. The quality of life in many cities across Canada is immeasurably enriched by the contribution of artists. Public support of the arts is an investment in the cultural lives of all Canadians.
The Canada Council is the only entity which provides direct aid to artists. The recent cuts in funding to the Council should be reconsidered and restored, and the inflation-based increase that was promised should be honoured.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that Canadians can't stand, it is bureaucratic red tape. Hundreds of entrepreneurs during the Liberal regime became so frustrated that they either put their money in the bank or invested it in another country. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our Ministers have told the world that investment under our laws is welcome in Canada.
If our country is to employ the thousands of unemployed, we will have to increase our world trade immensely. For example, western U.S.A. and Pacific Rim countries want our agricultural products, but at the present time there is no Canadian transport dedicated to moving such cargo. Canadians saw this gap, formed a world cargo international company, and already have a potential minimum one-year contract involving 5,000 revenue hours. It is a large agricultural sale, in excess of $15 million.
The application to provide this full-time service was received by CTC early in January, and CTC was asked to move as quickly as possible. When informed that the $15 million contract would be lost if the CTC took too long to consider it, CTC asked: "How many foreign carriers have you checked with in order to send this cargo?" Foreign carriers! We want the jobs for Canadians which will come with the realization of this great potential in world trade. If the bureaucrats can't change, let's change the bureaucrats.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: "Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should apologize to the people of this country for having made these horrible appointments", so said the Leader of the Conservative Party on July 25, 1984, in reference to appointments made by the Liberal Government. So far, after five months in power, this same double-talking
Oral Questions
Leader has already appointed hundreds of his own cronies. This is the same man who said, and I quote: "The overriding criteria for an appointment will be competence and a willingness to serve Canada".
Remember when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that Liberal appointments were "a fraud, a deceit and a sham"? I dare him to stand up in the House and repeat these words now. I ask the Prime Minister: where is the promised patronage reform? Where are the criteria for quality appointments? Where is the screening committee? If the Prime Minister was sincere about his promise during the campaign, why did he not wait until all of those were in place before making his appointments? This is a Prime Minister of Marie Antoinette in reverse. Let them all eat pork is what he says.
[DOT] (MIS)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It relates to her statement outside the House about an hour ago. She, with her colleague, the Minister of State for Youth, just tried to pull off one of the biggest public relations stunts in the history of this country, at the expense of our youth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Last summer the Government dedicated $200 million to summer jobs. In November the Minister of Finance specifically cut $215 million off student programs. This afternoon the Minister and her colleague restored $205 million, for a net shortfall to the students of $10 million. It was cut by the Minister of Finance, and restored to a partial extent by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Why did she not have the guts to tell the students and the young people of this country that she really meant to cut their programs?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of Party which allowed only $85 million-


Mr. Axworthy:: That's not true.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Liberal Government allocated only $85 million to Summer Canada this year. We, I am proud to announce, have put $205 million into that program for this year. The name of the game is really not the amount of money. The name of the game is the number of jobs that will be

February 6, 1985
Oral Questions
created. This year there will be 95,000 jobs produced from that program, and a great many more will be provided by the private sector.


MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in her announcement had no commitment from the private sector whatsoever, no allocation to the constituencies of the country. I repeat that in November the Minister of Finance cut Canada Student Loans, General Industrial Training, Young Workers' Exchange, Environment 2000, The Young Entrepreneurs Programs, Parks Canada employment, and even cut Katimavik. Will the Minister of Employment and Immigration acknowledge that her announcement this afternoon was purely an exercise in public relations and a cruel attempt to hoodwink the young people of this country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that 95,000 jobs is very significant to the young people of this country who are looking to the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That approach is substantial. It is not the smoke and mirrors that the Leader of the Opposition tried with First Chance. This is substantial. It will provide jobs for young people this summer. What is more, it will encourage the private sector to take up its responsibility, something which the Leader of the Opposition did not think was necessary in the programs he put forward.


ACQUISITION OF JOB TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned the First Chance program, which was a program-


An Hon. Member:: Last chance.


John Napier Turner: It will be the last chance for you over there if you don't put it back, I can tell you that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If they feel like they are getting roasted this afternoon, wait until the young people of this country really look at this program. The Minister mentioned the First Chance program, which was a program of the Government which would build up to 100,000 training jobs per year for our younger people, to fill in that gap between school and a job. It would give them some experience for their resumes.
Would the Minister be specific in telling us what she will do to fill this training gap and provide what we attempted to
provide in concrete terms and in co-operation with the provinces, the private sector, and labour, that would give our young people some training on the job? What does she have that will answer that question?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has not had a chance to review the program that we have announced for this summer, but I would encourage him to do so at the first opportunity. This program will provide young people with opportunities for career-related employment this summer. They will be able to get jobs that will take them back into school but will provide work experience for their CVs. It will help them get permanent jobs. That is one benefit of the program, and that is the method the Leader of the Opposition spurned earlier. He did not want to work with the provinces and the private sector. We believe in that kind of co-operation, and it will be for the benefit of young people this summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the outcome of yesterday's meeting of Environment Ministers in Montreal hinges entirely on one key commitment which can only be given by the Prime Minister of a Government which is regrettably prone to cuts. Can the Prime Minister give this House, the Canadian people, and the concerned provincial Governments, an ironclad assurance that there will be no cuts to the Industrial Regional Development Fund in order to ensure that the modernization of the polluting industries, in conjunction with the private sector, gets under way?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday an agreement was concluded with all provinces, an agreement qualified by our Quebec counterpart as a historic one, under which funds will be allocated to the provinces for the purpose of reducing acid rain. We also agreed, this in reply to the Hon. Member's question, that the responsibility for paying the cost of cleaning up pollution lies with industry, but that considering present market levels and depending on individual circumstances, there must be a measure of participation by the provincial and federal governments.
February 6, 1985


INDUSTRIAL REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Prime Minister declines to answer this question in light of his strong commitment, then I must ask my supplementary question of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, because I did not get an answer. Will the Government give an ironclad commitment to the House, to Canadians, and to affected provinces, that there will be no cuts in the allocation to the Industrial Regional Development Fund that will permit the modernization of the non-ferrous smelter industries?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the Hon. Member would be seeking ironclad assurances after there was such a sad, sad reflection on that term when his Party was in power. In answer to the Hon. Member's question, I would like to assure him that he received a very forthcoming answer from my colleague, and I do not think that any further assurance is needed.
[DOT] * *


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning her announcement today of the summer job program. Last year a Liberal Government, faced with record levels of unemployment amongst young people, announced a sum of money that the Conservatives, then in opposition, said was totally inadequate to meet the task. Why has the Government now, which was then in opposition, produced the same amount of money for jobs which last year it described as inadequate? Why is that amount adequate this year when produced by the Tories, and why was it totally inadequate when produced by the Liberals?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is an entirely different approach.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This measure provides a wage subsidy program-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I know that some Liberals will not be able to understand this, but it is a wage subsidy program which will encourage the private sector to participate. I would like to bring that home to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. It encourages the private sector to take part in the program, so that the program will be extended by the involve-
Oral Questions
ment of the private sector, and the involvement of the provinces, which goes over and beyond what the federal Government itself is prepared to do.


ROLE OF COMPANIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the amount of money is totally inadequate. We in this Party, who know that students want jobs, and want to be able to save for their education, also believe that a Government ought to be able to make work available to them when they want work.
Since the Minister has said that the details of the program have been changed, is she aware that companies in Canada now have more than an average 30 per cent of employees on lay-off. Why in heaven's name, when they already have layoffs, will they want to hire students? The Government is leaving students out there swinging, and the Minister knows that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that I did something last evening which I do not believe he could have done. I met-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am sure you will understand.


Lloyd Axworthy: Explain!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There's lots I can do and he can't do. Nevertheless, I met with the chief executive officers of eight major corporations last night and asked them if they would be prepared to assume some responsibility in this regard, over and beyond what the federal Government is prepared to do. Jointly, they are going to create 10,000 jobs. That will add to the number of jobs which will be available to young people this summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MORE FUNDS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear how the Minister spends her evenings. However, I think the Minister had better go back and do her homework again, because that is fewer jobs than were announced by an equal number of corporations last year, and we ended up with 180,000 unemployed students. Unemployment is no easier for students when it comes from the Conservatives than when it came from the Liberals.
I would like to ask the Minister a very straightforward question. When she sat on this side of the House she expressed great concern, not only about students, but about the poor and other groups of Canadians who needed assistance. Why can she not get some compassion and care into this uncaring Cabinet, to get more money for students who want to work?

February 6, 1985
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is because of those very characteristics, which are shared by every member of this Government, that the announcement has been made today-$205 million; 95,000 jobs-which shows our concern for young people.
I can tell the Hon. Member, and all Members of the House, that while we are working to get commitments from the private sector at the national level, with national organizations, I hope the Hon. Member will take the opportunity to go into his riding and do the same kind of work with business, corporations, and community groups, so that they too will help to create jobs for young people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESEARCH
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister is aware that his Government's cut-backs and indecision regarding research funding are threatening the lives of hundreds of young Canadian scientists. While the Minister of Employment and Immigration talks about new approaches, the reality is otherwise. According to a prominent neuroscientist, we are in danger of losing a whole generation of young scientists-


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister informed the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on December 4 last year, and I quote:
It should be clear to everyone that the current uncertainty surrounding the total budget of the Council must be resolved, and resolved quickly. I will do everything within my power to be back before you with further supplementary estimates-
My question is a very simple one. We are still waiting to hear from you. When are you coming back to the Committee?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the appropriations for the present fiscal year are being honoured by this Government. If there had been an opportunity for additional supplementary funding, it is rather puzzling that our predecessor did not put that through Cabinet in the earlier part of last year when it had that opportunity. I would remind all Hon. Members that when certain financial measures were announced on November 8, there were absolutely no reductions in the levels of funding for research within our Canadian universities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Question.


David Berger: -because of the dithering of the Conservative Government. When will the Minister make a decision regarding funding for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Medical Research Council? Is he waiting for these young scientists to move to the United States to join the Prime Minister's friend, Mr. Reagan?


CHALLENGE '85-STUDENT SUMMER JOB PROGRAM
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration said that the name of the game is the number of jobs created by, I gather, faith, hope, and "wait and see". She also admits that she is having difficulty with the process of consultation on the question of ensuring jobs, and wants us to join in. Why would the Minister not stick with the program which was project oriented last year which could guarantee jobs this year as it did then?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member rather over dramatizes the situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: In fact, Mr. Speaker, he knows that NSERC receives in excess of $300 million in funding this year. This Government is committed to a continuation of adequate funding and stability of funding in support of post-graduate research in all of our Canadian universities, and I will be submitting shortly to Cabinet the next five-year plan to ensure that funding is realized.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can understand where the Hon. Member is coming from and, obviously, he will take a number and say that is all that can be done. We don't believe that. We don't follow that logic. We think that there can be more jobs generated in the private sector by working with it, not by ignoring it as did the project approach last summer.


ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, no one dismisses the possibility of private sector co-operation, but what we have here is the Minister challenging the



February 6, 1985

private sector to do her job, and what we are concerned with is jobs this summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I ask the Minister again, what guarantees does she have from the private sector that those 80,000 or more jobs that she speaks of are actually going to be produced?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the 95,000 jobs which we have determined for this summer will be in place because of federal Government projects. But we are not satisfied with that. We want to see more. That is why we are going out and challenging the private sector. That is why we are taking a wage subsidy approach which produces two jobs for one, which is different from the approach which was taken previously.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. BRIGITTEA DAHL, MINISTER OF ENERGY, SWEDEN
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings to advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery today of the Honourable Brigittea Dahl, the Minister of Energy for Sweden, and her delegation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services and concerns employment.
There has been a lot of talk about historic agreements, and I think we are indeed making history this week in the House of Commons: the Progressive Conservative Government is getting ready to shaft the province of Quebec a second time in a row, the first having been on Monday, when the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion brought an industry to his riding without giving Quebec a chance to make an offer. Today I would like to ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether it is true he intends to cancel the contract on which Marine Industries Limited was working in Sorel and which it can no longer fulfil because of a strike, and whether it is true that instead of awarding the contract to the second lowest bidder, Canadian Vickers Limited in Montreal, the Minister
Oral Questions
intends to put out a new tender at the request of his colleagues who want to give this contract to another province?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that there are no shipyards in Calgary bidding for the work.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I would also like to tell the Hon. Member that the Department of National Defence requires the Saguenay to be outfitted for manoeuvres next winter so we can meet our commitments to NATO. While we do not in any way want to intrude ourselves into the labour dispute which is presently going on, it may be necessary for the Government to take action to ensure that our defence commitments can be made. When that action is taken, it will be done in a way which will preserve the jobs and ensure that the taxpayers receive proper value. I believe the Hon. Member is jumping to a conclusion in assuming that any decision which might result in the jobs being transferred to Calgary, or any other shipbuilding area, has been taken.


BIDDING INQUIRY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is none in Calgary, but I know there are shipyards in the province of the Minister of National Defence. If at this time the Minister is about to ask for some new bids, it is going to be unfair to the second bidder because its price is already in the market and a competitor will know that tender of Vickers Canada Inc. I know that Vickers is willing to do the job for the same price. Will the Minister guarantee to the House of Commons that he will do nothing to undermine Vickers and the workers in the shipyards in Montreal?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I intend to ensure that Canada and Canadian taxpayers are well done by. The Hon. Member is taking an accusatory stance. He has created a straw man on a decision which has not been taken, and is flailing away at the straw man. I can assure the Hon. Member that if-and I say "if'-and when any decision is taken to have the Saguenay refitted in another yard, that decision will stand up to scrutiny and will be defended and, indeed, applauded, by taxpayers from coast to coast.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This afternoon we witnessed a most incredible political shell game. After two months of delay
[Stage Direction]
February 6, 1985
Oral Questions
and procrastination we have a student summer employment program with less real dollars this year than it had last year, and more money being directed to the big business sector than to the voluntary non-profit sector. How does the Minister intend to provide work for students in those parts of the country where there is not a big business sector, such as the Maritimes, the Gaspe, northern Quebec and Manitoba? What about the students in those areas?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I had sent a copy of the release and the details to the Hon. Member well in advance of Question Period and I thought he might have read it, but he will have noticed that there is the same allocation of funds this year, or more, to every province in the country. That means that that money is going to be allocated and, as the release points out very clearly, if it is not taken up in the private sector, it is there for municipal Governments and community organizations to use, and it is there for groups right throughout all sectors of society to use in creating jobs this summer.


SCOPE OF PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, while the Government is diddling around looking for jobs in the private sector, it will be summer. The summer will be all over by the time the money is available for these other community organizations to use. The Minister knows there is not the private sector strength in those areas to hire those students during the summer. I am asking her-and we have all Conservative Governments down there in the Maritimes and in the West-what about the thousands of children who were taken care of in summer day camps? This not only benefited students but it benefited community organizations, the handicapped, the blind, and senior citizens. How does she expect her program not only to help students but to help those people in need?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can only reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member should reread the press release. Community organizations will be able to participate. What is more, they will receive a 100 per cent subsidy in order to allow them to do so.


KATIMAVIK PROGRAM FUNDING
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It was announced today that Katimavik has been cut from $50 million to $19.7 million. This is a community-based program, and in many of the constituencies across the country we do not have the benefit of large corporations. The program is also bilingual, and provides equal opportunity for women workers. Can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that he is prepared to reconsider this disastrous step of cutting Katimavik?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will again read the release he will see that community organizations are addressed in this program.


John Edward Broadbent: A small part of the money.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The people he talks about, women, young people, and the disadvantaged, will have a very real opportunity to take part in this summer program.


AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Minister's nocturnal admissions with the corporate leaders, we know who is being screwed in the process.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I want to ask the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: I want to ask the Minister what provision-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


John R. Rodriguez: I want to ask the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Boo!


An Hon. Member:: Why do I have to be sitting here?


John R. Rodriguez: If you will just settle down over there, I want to ask the Minister-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Apologize!


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Lloyd Axworthy: We're getting a lot of hot air from over there.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I suppose you think that is funny, Lloyd?


John R. Rodriguez: I want to ask the Minister what provision there is in this announced program for affirmative action to make sure the increase for post-secondary institutions for women-what provision is there for some affirmative action to ensure they get their fair share of the jobs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for my nocturnal activities when I can come out of a meeting with 10,000 additional jobs for young people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the programs which have been announced will be extremely helpul to women because they do not rule them out of so many programs as they did in
February 6, 1985

the past, programs which were directed particularly to construction activities where they were not allowed or not able to participate. What this program does is to allow them to be involved in wage subsidy programs, in businesses large and small, and they will have a more than adequate share of what comes out of this summer's program.


ACID RAIN
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question directed to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, an important federal-provincial conference on acid rain was held in Montreal, and our Government must be delighted with the outcome of this meeting which represents a major step towards improving the quality of life of Canadians. Could the Minister inform the House whether specific measures were discussed with her Quebec counterpart to provide assistance to industries like Noranda Mines which are a major source of pollution in my riding?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question. Quebec has made a commitment to reduce sulphur dioxide pollution by 600,000 tons by 1994, and our financial input will depend on the discussions we have with Quebec and Noranda Mines. In any event, the federal Government will be taking part in this collective effort to reduce acid pollution.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister will know that at this time of year tax discounters arise to prey on low-income Canadians. He knows that between 50 per cent and 65 per cent of those Canadians are on welfare or unemployed, and 42 per cent are women receiving the child tax credit.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Why didn't you do something about it, then?


Bill Rompkey: The Minister has had recommendations put together by the former Minister, Judy Erola, since last spring. Will the Minister now act on those recommendations and stop this rip-off of low-income Canadians?


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't you do something?
Oral Questions


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. In fact, what we have here is legislation that has been in effect since 1979, and I am referring to the Tax Rebate Discounting Act. We are now negotiating with provincial representatives and a majority of the discounters involved, and as soon as the consultation process has ended we will be in a position to issue a definitive policy on the subject.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Minister to stop consulting and act. Two provinces have brought in legislation to outlaw this practice, and the Minister should do the same thing.
[DOT] * *


INCOME TAX
Bill Rompkey: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will not bring in legislation to outlaw this practice, will the Minister of National Revenue take steps to speed up the delivery of the child tax credit and other tax rebates to low-income Canadians so that this swindle of low-income Canadians and Canadian taxpayers can be stopped?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member quite correctly understands that obviously any direct action has to be taken by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. However, with regard to the Hon. Member's question to me, I have good news for him.
In contrast to the delays there were when he was Minister of National Revenue, we are taking steps to speed up the processing of cheques. This year we are going to be starting the processing of cheques one week earlier than last year, which means that on error-free returns Canadians will be receiving their cheques at the earliest date in history.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for employment. In her earlier comments she indicated that 95,000 jobs would be created as a result of her initiative today. She would also recognize that more than two-thirds of those jobs would look to the private sector to be willing, and more probably able, to provide that opportunity.
The Minister knows that the private sector in most parts of Canada is operating at between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of

February 6, 1985
Oral Questions
capacity. Major plants have laid off employees. What guarantee does the Minister have that the private sector will be able to co-operate to the levels she is anticipating?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, prior to this announcement today there was a great deal of consultation with the private sector on what they would be prepared to do in order to further this very worth-while program. We do think it is worth-while and it will be successful. We do, because we have faith in the private sector of this country, something which the NDP should learn about.


PRIVATE SECTOR CAPACITY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister admit that what she is really saying is that at least two-thirds of the jobs that she is promising to 95,000 Canadians today depend on the ability of the private sector to produce those jobs? Will she not agree that in many parts of Canada, even if the private sector is quite prepared to provide those job opportunities with the 50 per cent subsidy, it is simply unable to because it is operating at 60 per cent to 70 per cent capacity and cannot expand when its own employees have been laid off for many months?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not admit to that. I simply will not take that kind of interpretation which the Hon. Member chooses to put on it, because the money has been allocated for summer jobs beginning in April or at the end of April this year. That money will be going into summer jobs.
As the Hon. Member says, there may be parts of the country where the private sector is not able to pick that up. That means it will be going into jobs created by municipal Governments, created by community organizations-


John Edward Broadbent: It will be too late then.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -created by groups across the country.


John Edward Broadbent: It's too late then.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Leader of the NDP Party says that it is too late. If he thinks it is too late in Oshawa he should let me know, and I will go to Oshawa and make sure that it is not too late for them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: You will get a phone call, Flora.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the Minister announced that additional funding would be allocated to VIA Rail for the purchase of rolling stock. Could the Minister give the House the assurance that VIA Rail's first purchase will be made from the Bombardier Company in Quebec?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the budget for the acquisition of new rolling stock will be made from that which is already proven and established, and it will be Canadian.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Members from Quebec were asking why. Thanks to the Hon. Member for Champlain, we now know that Progressive Conservative Members from Quebec are all a bunch of "deuces of spades". I would like to get from the Minister of Transport the assurance that he will not again send his Minister of State, his "jack of spades" to Montreal to announce that VIA Rail's first orders will be placed with General Motors, rather than with Bombardier.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, let me advise the Hon. Member that there have been a number of discussions with Bombardier and other suppliers. The discussions have been very fruitful and productive, and the acquisition of new rolling stock and new equipment will be fair to all parts of Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the agreement on acid rain reached yesterday between the federal Government and the provinces. As it stands, the agreement reached yesterday is a reconfirmation of previous agreements with the provinces. In fact, as it stands, it is only an agreement for a 42 per cent reduction instead of a 50 per cent reduction.
When will the Canadian public know just how much the federal Government is prepared to pay, what it will require of the polluters, and what will be expected of the provinces, so that we can know what action is contemplated, as well as intentions?
February 6, 1985


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a few things just referred to by my hon. colleague. It is true that 50 per cent of acid emissions were to be reduced by 1994. The very difficult aim was to allocate emissions to each Province. That tremendous difficulty was overcome yesterday in a co-operative spirit and if my hon. colleague will have enough patience, we will shortly announce the Canadian Government's participation in that area.
[English)


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister because it is the Prime Minister, not the Minister of the Environment, who will be meeting with Mr. Reagan on March 17. Does the Prime Minister not think it would be useful for the Canadian public as well as the Americans, to know by that time just what the Canadian Government is prepared to put up, with respect to acid rain? When will the Prime Minister put our money where his mouth is, not just for our sake but for the sake of our negotiating position with the United States?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Canadian public knows that for the first time the national Government of Canada is taking the calamitous problem of acid rain seriously has indicated its capacity to reach an important accord with the Provinces of Canada in a short period of time, and is committed to the resolution of the problem. I am honoured to tell my hon. friend that the thrust of our activity has met with approval across Canada, including the Coalition on Acid Rain.


MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES* PROFITS


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The combined profits for Imperial Oil, Texaco Canada, Gulf Canada, and Shell Canada are 42 per cent above the profits for 1983, or $1.42 billion in total.
In her discussions with these four multinationals, has the Minister received an undertaking from them that they will reinvest these profits in new developments in the energy sector in this country, and not for other purposes such as buying up Canadian-owned companies, or sending the profits to their head offices outside Canada?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for his endorsement of Conservative oil pricing policies. He was recently in Calgary-imagine a Liberal in Calgary-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss Carney:: -where he was advocating an oil pricing agreement with a fiscal framework that would be conducive to increased energy activity. Of course, that is what we are doing. He joins his colleague, the NDP critic, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who was in Edmonton-imagine a New Democrat in Edmonton-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Waddell:: We are the opposition in Alberta.


Pat Carney: He was advocating a safety net for consumers.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to thank the Minister for her travelogue. I want to say to her that she better get used to Liberals in Calgary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INVESTMENT OF PROFITS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister have absolutely no concern for the unemployed, or does she not care where the multinationals are putting these profits? Has she received that undertaking from these four multinational corporations?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether we have to get used to Liberals in Calgary; it is whether Calgary will get used to Liberals there.


Some Hon. Members:: Never!


Harvie Andre: We have a spare telephone booth.


Pat Carney: I can only add to my comment that it is essential to our negotiations with the producing provinces that the economic activity, or investment activity, is increased.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Many Canadians across the country have been expressing concern over the case of Bruce Curtis, an 18-year old boy from my constituency of South West Nova, who was sentenced to one of the harshest prison terms in New Jersey court history. Would the Minister inform the House what actions have been taken by his officials to ensure that justice has been carried out in this case?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the

February 6, 1985
Petitions
question about Bruce Curtis. That is a case that has attracted the interest of Members throughout the House.
The Department of External Affairs, the Government of Canada under three administrations, I believe, have been working assiduously to try to ensure that the interests of Bruce Curtis were fully protected in court proceedings in the United States. It is the view of this Government that those court proceedings were proceeded with in a way that fully followed American law. A decision has been rendered.
It is the view of this Government that it would be as inappropriate for us to interfere in the judicial proceedings of the United States as it would be for us to accept interference in judicial proceedings in Canada, by the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: One question. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the Canadian frigate program. Would the Minister confirm to this House that the frigate patrol program's management and production are in the hands of Americans from Bath Iron Works, and that the services provided by Bath Iron Works will run in the order of $100 million or more? Since the last Government made a commitment that there would not be any financial overruns, could the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I asked the Member to put one question. I cannot, therefore, allow him to put three. The Minister of National Defence.


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there was a report to the House last week in relation to the situation of the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program. The people at Saint John shipyards have indicated to my departmental officials that they have made some additional rearrangements in their operations. They will be reporting back to my departmental officials in early March, and at that time I will be in a position to provide additional information to the House with regard to that program.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) on Tuesday, February 5, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) on Tuesday, February 5, 1985, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret having to rise at this point after the Question Period, although it is the appropriate time to raise a point of order which I think casts a serious reflection on the proceedings in this House.
I draw reference to the remarks during Question Period made by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), which I consider, and I am sure most Members in this House consider, to be in the nature of a vulgar and sexist remark which is unacceptable in this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is a serious place and profanity has no place in the House of Commons. If you look at Beauchesne's Citation 319(3), Mr. Speaker, it states that in the House of Commons a Member will not be permitted by the Speaker to use any profane or indecent language. What I have to say I say with some sadness because I respect the Hon. Member and the Party that he represents, but when a Member of the New Democratic Party stands up and utters what I consider to be a sexist and obscene statement on the floor of the House of Commons, I think it is incumbent upon him to stand in his place and withdraw those remarks unequivocally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. I have already sent a note to the Minister in which I clearly pointed out that there was no insult meant and that no casting of any aspersion on the Minister was intended. It is an unfortunate remark and I apologize to the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Government House Leader


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Once a Member has risen in his place to withdraw the offending comments, the matter is normally regarded as over. I say normally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order of that sort is normally regarded as over. Does the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. February 6, 1985

Ouellet), however, have some comment on a separate point of order?


André Ouellet: I rise on a similar point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take great exception to the Government House Leader standing here in this House and asking the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to withdraw his remark.
A similar type of intervention was made earlier this week by the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) against the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). If the Government House Leader is going to adopt this type of attitude, namely, citing remarks made during Question Period, I would ask that he counsel his own Minister to make sure that he does not utter sexist remarks, as he did earlier this week.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept that the Hon. Member for Papineau had a point he wished to make to the Government House Leader, but if there was language used earlier this week that he thought was improper, I suggest to him that it was his right and in some ways his duty to bring it to the attention of the House at the time.
I take it we may regard the matter as closed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, once again it is my duty to bring before this House another petition from the people in Sackville who view very seriously the cuts announced to the Canadian Wildlife Service, and those people once again are asking the Minister of Environment to reconsider her actions and reinstate the programs.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents in the riding of Sarnia-Lambton who are concerned with Cruise missile testing. They ask that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons-free zone and that Canada be actively involved in working for the multilateral de-escalation of the arms race.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada
Order Paper Questions
who request this House to amend the income tax laws so that large corporations will receive the customary tax breaks only in proportion to the number of net new jobs they have created or have guaranteed to create, and that the number of jobs created by each corporation and the tax breaks will be reported quarterly to Parliament.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 207.


Mr. Henderson: Does any relative of the Prime Minister hold a position in the Prime Minister's office, either in Ottawa or in his constituency and, if so, what is the salary of that employee?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: There is no relative of the Prime Minister holding a position in either the Prime Minister's Office or in the Prime Minister's constituency office for whom a salary is paid by the Government of Canada.


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


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to question No. 93 on the Order Paper which has been there since November 19. It inquires with respect to the scale of fees which the Government proposes to charge for those setting up camps on Parliament Hill. As the summer approaches, perhaps if that fee schedule were announced, those intending to protest would determine where to apply and what fees are to be paid.


Paul Wyatt Dick: This is a very complicated matter, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the response will come soon.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 6, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice of an application under Standing Order 30 from the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 30, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the Government's late and inadequate employment creation programs, including those for youths in the summer of
1985.


Mr. Speaker:: As is customary and as I said, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has given me notice of his application for an emergency debate.
As Members know, Standing Order 30 provides a procedure for:
-the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration-
What is envisaged is a sudden emergency of such importance that the national interest calls for its immediate consideration by the House. The adequacy of programs designed to create employment is a matter which has been with us for a long time and is ongoing. It is a matter of continuing debate. Standing Order 30(5) requires the Speaker to have regard to, and I quote again:
-the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
Four allotted days remain during the current supply period and the subject could be chosen for debate on one of those days. As to whether the Government's employment-creation programs are, to quote the Hon. Member, "late and inadequate", this is a matter of political judgment. It would be difficult to find that a difference of political opinion could form the basis of an emergency debate within the meaning of the Standing Order.
Therefore, I am unable to agree that the Hon. Member's application meets the requirement of Standing Order 30.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that if we do not deal with this today and change that program, or convince the Government to change that program, there will not be adequate employment for students this summer. That is an emergency for the youth of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not take that as a comment on my ruling. I will simply recognize that the Hon. Member was getting his point on the record. I understand why he rose.
[ Translation]


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in terms of House business, I have informed House Leaders of the Opposition Parties that the order of business for today and tomorrow, until further notice, will be the Bill with which we dealt on Monday with respect to the spousal allowance, Bill C-26. If it is concluded today, we would then deal with Bill C-20, the one relating to the CRTC.


Mr. Lapierre:: Forget it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Member of the Liberal Party says "forget it". The people of Canada want the Bill regarding spousal allowance passed so that the seniors of the country will have more equity than they had under his administration.
I simply want to point out that tomorrow we will deal with the Bill relating to the Small Businesses Loans Act, and if by chance we do not reach the conclusion today of the Bill relating to the Old Age Securiuty Act amendments, then we would carry on with the consideration of that Bill after concluding the one relating to small business loans.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Government House Leader whether I understood him correctly when he said that we ought to hasten passage of the Bill dealing with the old age security improvements. Might it be his intention to put them into force before the month of September, when they are intended now to come into force, if we pass the Bill more quickly?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I appreciate the Hon. Member's question because it shows that he is following the debate. I should like to have the Bill dealt with in an expeditious fashion so that Canadians would know the effective date and we would have the legislation in place. Then people will in fact be entitled to benefits which they would not otherwise have had, were it not for the election of this Government.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On the same question!


Mr. Speaker:: On the same question. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).

February 6, 1985


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, what the House Leader of the Government has just done to me is indicative of the tyrannical attitude of the majority. We have had one day of debate on this bill. We want to improve it. We want to convince the Government that what discrimination there is, is the one being incorporated in our Canadian laws. We want to ensure-


Mr. Speaker:: Question! I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I know exactly what is happening. What is happening is debate on the Bill and its progression.


Mr. Gauthier:: Well, he started it.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate how it started. My dilemma is that if the House business question starts being used as a time for debate on the progression of a Bill, we are introducing an entirely new procedure with regard to the business question. If the Hon. Member for Shefford has a question on House business, I will allow him to put it.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the House Leader of the Government. I want to ask him whether he would agree to widen the scope of the bill so as to extend the benefits to previously married or divorced people. If he were, we would be willing to agree to the bill immediately.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, of course, I am not the Minister, but he has said to me personally that he can hardly wait to have the Bill before committee so that we can hear the wonderful suggestions of all Members of Parliament and in fact bring forward the best Bill possible for the people of Canada.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have resumed debate on this legislation. I must say that it was rather comical to hear the Government House Leader suggest that he would like the benefits to arrive on the doorsteps of old age pensioners much more quickly. However, he showed a distinct reluctance to change the legis-
Old Age Security Act
lation so that it could come into effect earlier. If he really wants the benefits to get to people more quickly, why not have the legislation say that it will come into effect in March? If these calls for quick action from the government side are to mean anything, then they should put something behind them.
Indeed it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. While I must say that we support the measure which the Government has brought in, it is a limited one. I want to reiterate just briefly what I said on Monday when I started my speech. When we discuss pensions in the House, it is only proper that we pay tribute to the work of those who have gone before us. I am thinking of the former Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, and his predecessor, J. S. Woodsworth. I want to assure Hon. Members of the House and people in the country in general that we in this Party will continue the fight for adequate pensions for seniors started by these two gentlemen.
Just as I began my remarks on Monday, it was five o'clock. Thereafter I talked with Mr. Knowles and he described to me the very severe conditions in which elderly people lived when he was a young man and began the fight for an adequate pension system in the country. From his description of conditions then, I must say that we have certainly made considerable progress as a country in providing decent pensions in retirement years. Obviously the job is not finished because large numbers of Canadians, even though they receive pensions, still live below the poverty line.
The measure before us today will extend benefits to spouses. This is welcome, particularly by those approximately 85,000 individuals who will receive them. It will be of real benefit to them, and this is why we support the measure.
At the same time it is sad that senior citizens who are experiencing the same need will not be receiving the benefits simply because they have not been married. Clearly that is a discrimination on the basis of marital status and something which we would deem to be unacceptable today. It would make eminent sense for the Government to extend these benefits not only to spouses but also to older single women who never married. This would not be a major step on behalf of the Government and it would not bankrupt the country. It probably would not even add to the deficit because these people need the money and, when they received it, they would spend it immediately. Therefore economic activity would be stimulated, and it would be to the benefit of the Government in that money would come back in the form of taxes. I would recommend most strongly that the Government give immediate consideration to extending these benefits to single women as well as to married women. It is a modest proposal but one that would eliminate discrimination on the basis of marital status which is inherent in the legislation before us.
I hope the Government gives this matter serious consideration and that by the time it passes through this House that discrimination will have been eliminated from this proposal. It is not simply incremental change or modest proposals in terms

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
of pensions that we need. We need much more fundamental change in our pension system in order to bring about a situation in which all Canadians can enjoy adequate pensions and security in their old age. This notion is not just something I or the Members of my Party believe or something that the Members of the Liberal Party are now advocating. It is something which Members of the Government caucus have recognized. They recognize there is a need for fundamental change in pension plans in order for people to have an adequate income in their old age. They certainly recognized this when in opposition.
I want to remind the House of the remarks of the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) when she was in opposition. It would appear that when the Hon. Member was in opposition she had a heart and now in government she has lost that heart. This is what she said in a motion that she moved on May 10, 1984:
That this House profoundly regrets the two-year delay of the Government in bringing promised legislation to improve guaranteed income supplements for low-income single elderly Canadians, and condemns the Government for its failure to respond to the innovative proposals of the all-party Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform to expand opportunities for Canadians under age 65 to make adequate provision for income in their retirement years.
She made a few comments to support her motion which are relevant to the debate today. For example, she made the observation on May 10, 1984, while in opposition, that "there is still no sign of legislation to address the pressing needs of Canada's 600,000 elderly poor". She recognized there were
600,000	elderly people in this country living in poverty. She is now part of a Government which is taking action for only a small fraction of those 600,000 poverty stricken people, some ameliorative action for 85,000 elderly women who are in need. However, even after this action is taken, those people will continue to live below the poverty line.
She went on to describe the inaction of the Government in very descriptive words. She described the lack of action of the Government with regard to those 600,000 elderly Canadians as "a national disgrace", as an "indictment of the Government". She went on to describe the Government as "bereft of ideas, drained of decency, and unable to recognize the priorities" of the country.
It is strange to see Members of this House who less than a year ago recognized the circumstances of 600,000 elderly Canadians living in poverty and who now in government fail to take action on this priority. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands went on to say: "We know what the priorities of the Government are". She was talking about the Liberal Government. I suggest these words can apply to the present Conservative Government. She continued:
For the people who have, throughout their lifetimes, worked for and contributed to the development of this great country, there is only a promise trotted out time and time again that some day, some time, they too will become a priority.
The circumstances and the needs of 600,000 Canadians who live in poverty were recognized and these people were given promises when the Conservative Party was in opposition, when it was seeking office and seeking power. Now that they are in government, the interests of these people are swept under the
rug and they continue to be ignored. That is a sad commentary on this Government which has developed quite a reputation as a flip-flop Government, a political Party and a group in this House who in opposition would say one thing and now in government do something altogether different. If there is one thing that has characterized this Government it is the fact that what they called priorities in opposition they ignore when in office. While we need fundamental pension reform, what we have been getting from this Government is a series of questions about social programs.
We have had doubts sown across the country by the Government about the notion of universality in social programs. They recently backed away from this as it affects pensions. It is obvious they did that because they started to feel the heat of public opinion. When the public said it did not want them to fool around with their heritage or the fruit of the labours of people such as J. S. Woodsworth and the Hon. Stanley Knowles, who fought for justice for elderly Canadians, under the heat of public opinion and public pressure the Government backed away from questioning universality in pensions.
Rather than questioning the universality of social programs and pensions, the Government could have questioned the tax expenditures which the Government makes. Governments give out billions of dollars to the private sector by way of tax write-offs for various purposes. The Government should look at those tax expenditures and make a distinction between those which result in employment for people and those which have no visible impact upon the level of employment in this country. Having examined those expenditures and made the distinction, we could use the savings that we reap to buttress and increase the social programs that we need. Those saved dollars could be used to help the 600,000 Canadians in their retirement years who continue to live in poverty.
I call upon the Government to come to its senses, to remember the statements it made while in opposition and to realize that we need fundamental reform in the area of pensions. As a short-term measure, it could extend the benefits it is now proposing for people who were married to those who have never married. Why continue with this discrimination against single people? All elderly Canadians need financial support to give them real security in their retirement years. Let's cut out the discrimination and realize that we need fundamental reform in the area of pensions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Hon. Member. I know that he is aware of the situation and that he works hard for his constituents. In his speech, he said that it is the single people who are left out in this bill. He is certainly aware that there are not only 80,000 single people in Canada, but also previously married people, who for personal reasons are now separated or divorced and who will be
February 6, 1985

completely excluded from this legislation. Can the Hon. Member tell us his position in this regard?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for elaborating on the weaknesses of this legislation. Clearly, those weaknesses need to be redressed. The Government is taking some incremental, piecemeal action which, of course, deserves support because whenever we can extend benefits to those in need, we should do so and do so expeditiously. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for pointing out additional faults and gaps in the legislation to which I did not refer in my speech. I believe those gaps needed to be closed as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in today's debate on Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, I wish to express, first of all, my full support for this legislation.
The Bill embodies the policy announced in the Throne Speech on November 5 of last year, by extending the income tested spouse's allowance to widows and widowers aged sixty to sixty-four regardless of the age of their spouse at death. The objectives of this legislation have been defined, first of all, in terms of improving the financial situation of a particularly vulnerable group of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House today is a very important one and is to be seen as a measure that will improve our universal system for the basic old age security pension and also as a way to encourage low-income taxpayers. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Government's social policies are adapted to the constantly changing needs of our society. By tabling this Bill the Government has shown it is concerned above all about redirecting programs to make them of greater benefit to those Canadians who are most in need.
To do so, the Government is reconsidering tax exemptions which today mainly benefit the wealthier taxpayer. In the case of programs for the elderly, it was obvious that this amendment was necessary. Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that the Government has no intention of cutting benefits to low- and middle-income Canadians who are retired or are about to be. We are not only concerned that our social policy should be in line with the needs of these people or groups of people, we must also ensure that our income support programs are in line with our socio-economic objectives.
Bearing in mind the fact that the universal old age security pension is only part of the Federal Government's system of benefits and advantages provided for our senior citizens, we are fully aware that considerable improvements remain to be made to the system itself so as to provide for a better distribution of funds allocated under existing programs. Since the
Old Age Security Act
Government intends to consider carefully what is involved in each element of the system of benefits and advantages provided for the elderly, there is certainly no question of betraying the social commitment we made to the Canadian people several months ago.
Canadians have a three-tier pension scheme: the OAS program, the Canada Pension Plan-or the Quebec Pension Plan-and private pension plans. Since the OAS program was launched over thirty years ago, the Government has always urged Canadians to consider the basic old age security pension as a starting point on which to build their retirement income, and all our private or public retirement plans have been designed in light of that principle. That explains why most Canadians expect to get the old age security pension since they have contributed to the pension fund of others who have retired before them. We intend to make sure that people who are now planning for their retirement will also be able to rely on that source of income, like others who are now retired.
Anxious as we are to improve the benefit sharing formula which elderly Canadians now enjoy under our system, I want to say today that I fully agree with this progressive measure, Bill C-26. Mr. Speaker, I should think that most Members see nothing untoward in the purpose of this Bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. To understand the significance and scope of this amendment, one must compare the proposed and the existing formulas.
Now then, what exactly is the existing spouse's allowance program? It is a monthly allowance subject to a means test and offered to the 60-to-64 spouse of a retired individual who receives the basic old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement.
Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the allowance is geared to income, in the sense that the higher the income, the lower the allowance. A recipient of the spouse's allowance who becomes a widow or a widower is entitled to the allowance until age 65.
Under Bill C-26, eligibility for the spouse's allowance program would be extended to a category of people, mostly women, who are most in need. Under the existing provisions, as we all know, the allowance can be paid only to the spouse of a pensioner, alive or deceased, who receives or has received the guaranteed income supplement. Estimates and recommendations in that respect made by the task force on pension reform show that 85,000 Canadians should benefit from this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity not only to express my support for this bill but also to answer the allegations make by our colleagues opposite who suggested that the bill is both discriminatory and incomplete. However, I remain convinced that, when they hear the arguments put forward during our sittings, our Liberal and NDP friends will

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
support Bill C-26 if they sincerely want, as they have always claimed, to assist our most needy citizens.
Of course, this amendment does not go far enough. However, we should not forget that this bill is only a substantial stage in the improvement of social justice and it should be emphasized that we are taking this step during a period of economic restraint.
The cost of such amendment which is supposed to come into force in September 1985 is estimated at $190 million for the next fiscal year but it is an expenditure that we have to make even if we remain conscious of the fact that the program is only a complementary measure consistent with the comprehensive development of our social policies. Under the present circumstances, we had to accept that partial option if only for two main reasons. First and foremost, we have to give recognition to those people in the 60-to-64 age bracket who have limited financial resources, but who made a very worthwhile contribution during their more productive years by coping with the daily problems of their families.
Besides this strictly humane consideration in the Bill, which is aimed at a group of married people whose needs can best be defined as being urgent, the Bill also has a political and social connotation. The extension of programs already existing within the structure of our system, derived as they are from the Old Age Security Act, is the fulfilment of our political commitments as well as the reflection of our obligations towards the less fortunate among our fellow Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to make these few remarks today, and I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on responding to the expectations of thousands of people whose daily existence is highlighted by hardships. I commend him as well for having had the courage to take action in spite of the precarious economic context, and to propose such major amendments to the social benefit structure. Most Canadians will welcome this initiative, for they realize that those changes are long overdue. The new provisions will cushion the impact of the increase in the cost of living and, in keeping with a more equitable redistribution of social benefits, give less fortunate Canadians another chance to raise their standard of living.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the fairly well written speech which was read by the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and which, obviously, was mostly aimed at praising the government for the legislation it is about to adopt. I have no basic objection to the fact that the Hon. Member wants to support Bill C-26. He sits on the government side. However, his speech had a major flaw in that he has failed to mention this bill's major shortcoming, namely, that single, separated or divorced persons and those who are not widowed will not be eligible for these benefits. I wonder whether the Hon. Member has no such people in his riding and whether he has not been pressured by
such people who feel treated as second class citizen because they are excluded from the benefits of Bill C-26.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to my hon. colleague. First of all, my riding of Duvernay is not so poor or unorganized as all that. One is fortunate to have the privilege of representing such a riding. I want to indicate to the Hon. Member, however, that I have not had many opportunities to discuss this issue with my constituents. 1 shall certainly discuss it with them, and that is the reason I am interested in this bill.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say that in view of the means at our disposal, it is a beginning and a step in the right direction. I indicated in my remarks that this was not yet quite enough, that this is only a beginning which we will be able to improve upon with the cooperation of all our colleagues, and I see an Hon. Member behind him who is very much interested in this issue. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this requires money, and as soon as we have some ... 1 agree that we should not penalize anybody.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the critical tone of the Hon. Member with respect to the role of the NDP on pensions. I wonder if the Hon. Member has taken enough interest in the history of his Party to know that in 1926, when the first pension was introduced, the Conservative Leader of the day, Arthur Meighen, remarked that it was a social evil and that we would all come to regret the notion of pensions and providing income for the elderly. That is the historical inheritance of his Party. It is an attitude which has not completely disappeared.
The Hon. Member acknowledged that there was more work to be done. I regret that he was not more specific. There are a number of areas in which the Government could have acted. One area which comes to mind is the improvements which could be made to the pensions for CNR and CPR pensioners. We are all aware that the Standing Committee on Transport is looking into this matter and will either have a subcommittee or the whole committee look at the question of railway pensions.
Time and time again CN pensioners have made a good case for having the status of their pension fund, and the need to be able to get more out of that fund, reviewed by the Government. CN pensioners have received support for that stand from Members on all sides of the House. The same is true of the position which was taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway Pensioners' Association. CP pensioners also need to have the status of their pensions reviewed. Many pensioners who retired 10 or 20 years ago are in bad shape with respect to the ability of their pensions being able to match the purchasing power that those pensions once enabled them to have.
I know that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) has given support to that cause in the past. I hope, now that he is on the government side, that he will have the opportunity to make representations and to get action with respect to Canadian Pacific pensioners and Canadian National pensioners. Over the years those pensioners contributed a great
February 6, 1985

deal to the building of the country. Many of them are very elderly and in need. We owe it to them, through any sense of justice which we might collectively hold, to get the CPR and the CNR to loosen up the purse strings and provide those elderly pensioners with the income they deserve.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comment which was made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). As of yesterday, I received a communication from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) which indicated that action will be taken on the railway pensioners' situation. The Minister is quite familiar with the problem. I think there have been enough studies on railway pensioners; therefore I am pressing for fast action with respect to CN and CP pensions.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon. colleague from the NDP. I have only been here for four months. I am sad that my colleagues in the Opposition always talk about the past. I was not even born in 1926. I am surprised that his Party criticizes the Government as it does. I believe the NDP should be the first to join us in something positive. The NDP should not be concerned with 1926. I am concerned about 1985 and 1986, because I too have old people in my constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I can repeat what I said earlier, namely that it is a beginning. It is certainly not enough. I find this initiative interesting and I am sure we could do more if we had more money, but this first step represents progress, and I am ready to defend my party. I am proud of being here to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) has some talent in the field of energy, but he did not impress us today in the area of social legislation. He had a good speech prepared by the Library, but I would like to ask him one question.
I would like to know, and this is the question that I ask all Conservative Members of Parliament, how, in all conscience, the Prime Minister could decide that a widow or widower aged between 60 and 64 with a very low income could be facing more hardship than someone else in the same situation who is only separated.
I understand that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) could make a compromise to please everyone where the metric system is concerned, but this bill deals with human beings. I am convinced that this legislation affects people even in the constituency of Duvernay as it concerns a total of 80,000 people, including 30,000 in Quebec. In all conscience, how can the Hon. Member say that he will help
Old Age Security Act
only half of them this year? Would it not have been better instead since he is an energy expert, to take the increase of three cents a litre on the price of gasoline and use it to help these 80,000 people? Would this not have been better?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce).


Vincent Della Noce: I will speak briefly, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words. It is a fact that I worked for 20 years in the energy area trying to make a positive contribution. I would now like to reassure my colleague that my conscience is perhaps more at peace than his own. I can also tell him that the last increase in the price of energy is not 3 cents but only 1.1 cent. If you want to go back to 1942, as my colleague did, it is another matter but if you refer to the tax last year, it is also a different thing. You have been here for a very long time and you may have more experience than I do on the matter, while I have more in the energy sector, but we are now dealing with Bill C-26. What did you do in the past to improve the program? We are trying to improve it and you had the opportunity to state your views. Perhaps if I had been here for 8 or 10 years, gas would not now be that expensive in Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. We will resume debate.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-26, whose purpose is to extend the spouse's allowance by providing a similar allowance for widows and widowers. We agree that widows and widowers in this country between the ages of sixty and sixty-five, many of whom are in need, certainly deserve and need Government assistance. That is why our Party is in agreement on the principle of the Bill and will support a measure to have this allowance paid to widows and widowers in this country. However, Mr. Speaker, although the Bill as such is a good piece of legislation, it is incomplete. As other Hon. Members mentioned earlier, there are many Canadians in the same age group who are just as much in need and are facing problems similar to those faced by widows and widowers, and I am referring to people who are single, separated or divorced or have any status other than that of widow or widower. They will be getting nothing. In fact, the numbers involved are quite considerable. Bill C-26 will benefit about
85,000	widows and widowers in this country. However, there are 80,000 Canadians who will receive absolutely nothing as a result of this measure. That is why we on this side of the House say it is a discriminatory measure.
I advise all Members of this House, and especially those on the Government side who are supporting this Bill, to listen very carefully to their constituents. What are people talking

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
about in homes for senior citizens, at senior citizens' clubs and meetings of the AQDR? What is being discussed around the bridge table? One woman says to her friend: You are lucky to be a widow because on September 1, you are going to get an allowance. Why is the Government doing this? My income is less than yours, and just because I am single, I will not get the allowance. The elderly do not understand. They do not consider that their marital status should make a difference. To us, this measure is extremely discriminatory because it only helps half of the people who should benefit from it. Even the Government Members who support this Bill agree this is true. The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) who spoke earlier said in reply to a question by one of our Members: It is a good Bill but it is not enough. It certainly is not enough if we are going to neglect part of the population in favour of another.
For instance, why are so many elderly women in this country living below the poverty level, in utter poverty? Because in most cases, these people on low incomes depend on welfare. Hon. Members are aware that welfare benefits provide less money than old age security benefits or the spouse's allowance. This means that all senior citizens between sixty and sixty-five who are not receiving allowances and are living on welfare are looking forward to the day they turn sixty-five, when they will be eligible for a federal pension.
What about the philosophy of the Progressive Conservative Party which the Prime Minister has expounded so many times in this House and which, if we are to go by his words, is to help those who are in the greatest need? Can we identify in our society people who are in greater need than those people on low incomes, between the ages of sixty and sixty-five, most of whom are women? If the Government is serious when the Prime Minister says that his priority is to help those who are most in need, the Government would extend these allowances to cover, without exception, Canadians who are single, separated or divorced, as well as those who are widowed. On the Government side they will say it is a matter of money. Of course, the whole Cabinet and the whole Conservative Party have been mesmerized by the sharp knife being wielded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in an orgy of cutbacks.
The Hon. Member for Duvernay said that it would already cost $190 million to make the allowance available to widows and widowers. Clearly, the question we are entitled to ask is this: If we want to include those who are single, separated, divorced and so on, where are we going to find the money? Well, Mr. Speaker, I can suggest one way of finding the money that is fast and fair in my view.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) recently introduced his white paper adorned with a blue cover, to redistribute the money that goes into family allowances, child tax credits and exemptions, he started with a fiscal attack on middle-income citizens, withdrawing the equivalent of $571 million in benefits and redistributing only $161 million
to the people most in need, to the families in need. The Opposition criticized this action saying that it was giving a meagre 48 cents a day to those really in need. Something must be kept in mind however, namely that out of the $571 million which the Minister will be taking from the pockets of Canadians, of average workers, only $161 million will go to the neediest. Where then is the balance going? Well, the federal Government is saving $80 million and the Provinces are getting $330 million.
Those $410 million are more than enough to extend benefits to those people who are single, separated or divorced. Why give $330 million to the Provinces, which are mostly run by the Conservative Party? In my view, a much better use would be made of that money if it were directed to senior citizens who are now subjected to crass discrimination by Bill C-26. So let not the Progressive Conservative Party pretend they do not have the money needed to extend the allowance to people who are not currently covered by the legislation.
In fact, since the Minister is about to launch his $571 million fiscal attack on middle-income workers, he should redistribute the benefits he will reap to those who need them, including our senior citizens, rather than funnel most of the funds to his Conservative friends in the provincial governments.
Mr. Speaker, eventually we will be referring Bill C-26 to committee. We will do so because we want associations representing senior citizens, such as the AQDR, to be able to appear before the committee and explain to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) how discriminatory his legislation is because it only gives benefits to half of the people who deserve them.
We are certainly not impressed by the threats and claims being made by the Government House Leader who says that we are trying to delay the implementation of this measure. In any case, the Government does not expect the cheques to reach senior citizens before September 1. In fact, we think that is far too late, and we will certainly have finished talking about the subject well before September 1.
As soon as we manage to make Hon. Members on the other side of the House understand that half of the people who should benefit from this measure will not, one of the first questions I would ask is: Why wait until September? This measure could be made effective at an earlier date.
We want the Bill to go to committee because we intend to propose changes. However, considering the changes we wish to see, namely that single, separated or divorced Canadians will also be eligible for the allowance, it will be difficult to propose amendments of this kind, in committee, to Bill C-26 as it is now, with a royal recommendation that only covers those who are widowed. We will not be able to propose an amendment to
February 6, 1985

include others who are not covered by the measure because this would require a change in the recommendation.
I think the Government House Leader . .. the Minister of National Health and Welfare should consider this aspect and change the Bill here in the House by providing a new royal recommendation, so that the Bill can be referred to committee in a form that is equitable and non-discriminatory.
Mr. Speaker, I warn the Government that we on this side of the House, and especially the Liberal Members, are looking into ways to ensure, by proposing amendments or through any other form of parliamentary action, that this Bill is changed, because although we are in favour of giving allowances to widows and widowers, we do not agree that people who are separated, single or divorced should be excluded. I warn the Government that this Bill will not be given an easy passage through Parliament unless the discriminatory aspects it contains are removed and this is done before the Bill goes to committee. Those were my comments, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with great interest to the passionate plea that the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) made in his argument. It must have been very discouraging for him to make it in the name of the Liberal Party when no member of his Party was present until one came in during the last few minutes of his speech. Nonetheless, he made his speech with enthusiasm but I had to wonder why the enthusiasm was so long delayed.
He kept asking: Why is this benefit not extended to people who have suffered marriage breakdown or separation and living on their own? I suppose the answer could be, for the same reason his Government could not provide that benefit during the long years it was in office. The Canada Pension Plan has been in existence since the mid-1960s. It existed during years of government surpluses. Now we have a deficit. Yet during all the years of prosperity his Government enjoyed, it did not once expand this benefit to cover the people for whom he is now the self-appointed advocate.
We are doing our best as a Government, Mr. Speaker, during a time of great deficits. We could have a very strong case to make for not doing anything at all in view of the financial needs of the country. In spite of that, this Government is taking to heart the needs and claims of people in their sixties who require this kind of social assistance. Instead of ending his speech with the threat or warning he gave, I wish that, on behalf of those people, he might have ended with an assurance of support for this Bill.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed funny that the Hon. Member would have the nerve to rise in this House and accuse the Liberal Government of having done nothing for the elderly in this country. The seniors of this country know better than that. They know that successive Liberal Governments passed legislation for their benefit and
Old Age Security Act
improved on that legislation year after year. What he is telling the seniors of this country in his remarks is simply that we are not going to do it because the Liberals did not do it. If that is his answer to the people of this country, let it stand on the record.
As far as we are concerned, we are doing our job in the Opposition. We are not on that side any more. If I was on that side I would plead for the seniors of this country, the same as I am doing here. But I am doing it from the place the electors of this country have given me.
The Conservatives accused us during the whole campaign of not doing right for years and now the Member is saying they are going to do just like the Liberals and not help the singles, divorced, the separated and so on. Let that be his stand, Mr. Speaker.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the fact is we are not taking a stand-pat policy. This Bill is taking us further, even further than the financial situation might justify if we wanted to take our stand there. We are going beyond those limits and taking this country into a social program where it could have been years ago if the Liberals had had that social consciousness when they had the opportunity.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks of the Hon. Member who has just spoken, I would like to make a comment and ask a question to my colleague. Obviously, he does not know anything about social issues. Among other things, he asked why the Liberal Government did not do anything.
I will enlighten the Hon. Member and tell him why the previous Liberal Government did not do anything for people living alone and aged 60 to 64. It is simply because, between 1980 and 1984, people aged 65 or more and living alone were below the poverty line and, unlike the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals did not see any point in taking half the benefits from poor people to give them to other poor Canadians so that they would all be equally poor. The first thing to do would have been to use the guaranteed income supplement to increase the income of people aged 65-people living alone or couples. I would remind him that the Government raised the guaranteed income supplement by $35 in 1980, $17.50 for each spouse, and in the last budget there was another $50 monthly increase in the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance for people living alone. I might also point out that, contrary to what the Hon. Member has just said, the Liberal Government promised during the election campaign that all needy individuals-married, couples or people living alone-would be eligible at age 64. That was a commitment.
It so happens that the Bill has been introduced by the Progressive Conservatives. The Hon. Member might honestly answer this question: Why would a widow suffer more hard-

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
ships than a single person with a similar income? Why that person? Some 165,000 Canadians are in the same situation, their standards are identical, so why make a distinction? As far as the money is concerned, would he not agree that instead of spending $36 million to change the colour of the uniforms of our-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), but he knows very well that his questions ought to be directed to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), not to the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). I take this opportunity to draw this to your attention, and give you a chance to "redirect" your questions if you wish. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the question was for me because I made the main speech. To reply to my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), I can obviously not speak for the Progressive Conservatives and tell the Hon. Member why they took such action. They tried to improve a program introduced by the previous Liberal Government. The spouse allowance is basically a Liberal initiative introduced by the previous administration. We are not blaming the Members opposite for taking a step in the right direction. The reason for our criticism is that they are not taking the second necessary step.
When introducing social legislation in this House, the Liberal Party of Canada never proposed discriminatory amendments and this is what is happening now. What we find objectionable in this bill, and this is why we are trying to improve it, is its discriminatory nature. Otherwise, we believe of course in giving money to widows and widowers, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Still on questions and comments? The Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin).


Mr. Marin:: Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting and enjoyable to listen to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). These comments were all the more interesting since his speech seemed to deal more with the facts than with the circumstances. Naturally, like everyone else in this House, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques is aware of the problems facing Canadian men and women between the ages of 60 and 65. He suggested, which I found interesting, a means to take what he called the second step. It would seem that this was not considered to be the best option by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). However, it would be interesting to know whether or not when it is impossible to take two steps at the same time, it would be better to stand still. I believe that following the studies and initial consultations of the Conservative Government it was decided that it would be better to take a first step and do
something for widows and widowers between 60 and 65. Why that particular group? I could perhaps simply reply with a rhetorical question. It is perhaps because it was in the interests of justice to provide widows and widowers with some of the social benefits earned by their spouses during their lifetime.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments are now over. The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay).


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: The Chair is very kind, and I am most grateful.
Mr. Speaker, it is of course with very great pleasure that I join previous Hon. Members in support of the proposal in Bill C-26 dealing with the spouse's allowance.
First I would like to remind the House that this is not really a new piece of legislation, but rather an amendment to an existing statute. Clearly, the Bill implements the policy outlined in the Throne Speech of November 5, 1984, by extending the spouse's allowance to all low-income widowers and widows aged 60 to 64, irrespective of the age at which their spouses deceased. Of course this proposal is aimed at improving the financial situation of a group of Canadian men and women who are specially vulnerable. It is estimated, as was said earlier, that some 85,000 people will benefit from it or, it is important to stress it, something like 72,000 widows and 13,000 widowers. Also, this group represents some 61 per cent of all widows and widowers in that age group.
For the fiscal year 1985-86, that measure will entail extra expenditures totalling $190 million, and for 1986-87, that is a full fiscal year, totalling $350 million. Most widows and widowers close to 65 years of age and not entitled to old age security pensions are in urgent need. This is a tremendous step forward, an improvement-and I stress the word-in the help provided to people nearing retirement age.
In the speeches that have been made today on this Bill, we have heard the Official Opposition yelling at what they chose to call discrimination. Mr. Speaker, clearly as the Government Party we have many lessons to learn. But for the Official Liberal Opposition to try to teach us lessons in that way, is going a bit too far! Talking about discrimination, apparently they are referring to the meaning in their dictionary. And to that same extent, not being in power but in opposition would also amount to discrimination. Or again, how else can one explain that the Act we are amending with this proposal needs to be amended? Was there discrimination before?
I would remind you that it was in 1979, under a Conservative Government, that the spouse's allowance program was amended in order that all widows in need should keep on getting the allowance until age 65. Mr. Speaker, they had every opportunity to get rid of that "discrimination" they are referring to. They are bringing the debate down to a level that
February 6, 1985

suits them well, a very low one. Either wilfully or by ignorance, they make no difference with the concept of discrimination in the legal sense of the term. A distinction must be made between a right and a service. Otherwise, discrimination can be seen everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, it is all too easy to refer to particular cases encountered in our ridings and say that so-and-so, being separated or divorced, is not eligible for the spouse allowance. It is all too easy to underestimate the scope of the legislation and raise a special problem or the case of a citizen who will not be eligible. What we should consider, Mr. Speaker, is the bill in its entirety. As mentioned by other speakers, a move in the direction suggested by the opposition would represent a $1.5 billion cost in a single year.
I would remind the Liberal party that in February last year, their Minister of Finance realized that the treasury was empty. He announced that, from last October, if I am not mistaken, the sales tax would be increased by 1 per cent. Already in February, the government knew that their coffers were empty. At the beginning of the election campaign, they realized they were in trouble-I will refrain from referring to their shameless waste-that they were going to be beaten. The Canadians, who witnessed the whole thing, literally evicted the former government.
Mr. Speaker, we are proposing a series of social and economic measures, because it is fine to set up the best social structure in the world but without a sound economic system, short term measures will not go far enough. A moment ago, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) said that we were providing funds to the provinces. We said from the start, and it can be confirmed now that we are in power, that we would go through a period of consultation.
As 1 have expressed or stated on previous occasions, Mr. Speaker, there is no magic formula to any system. There are, on the other hand, favorable attitudes and resolves. In short, what is needed or what we think is needed is to convince the various levels of government to reach a consensus and pull together in the same direction with all interested parties being involved, so that we can truly improve the economic framework and, ultimately, update our social legislation accordingly.
I would be delighted to deal today with a bill that would include all the people who are currently excluded from this bill, but we must realize that this laudable objective must be supported by reality; in view of the situation we have inherited, we have chosen to act in a reasonable way. There is something which becomes clear when we return to our own ridings: the Canadian people are aware that this Government is trying to act in a responsible way, because of the manner in which we administer the country and the direction we set for all Canadian men and women. I have had opportunities and I will have more opportunities to meet with senior citizens and discuss
Old Age Security Act
with them the legislation from which they will benefit or not benefit. When we explain to them how things stand in a calm way, not in the vociferous way which the opposition seems to prefer, when we take the time to examine the situation and explain the development and progress, first of the situation we have inherited, and second the steps we have taken to improve this situation, the people are all for us, they congratulate us, and one can sense a feeling of hope which we will not dissap-point.
In this context, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who, in spite of very difficult circumstances and within a very short time, has managed to put an end to the old discrimination imposed by the previous government. We are gradually opening the gate, and from the legal point of view, this is no longer a form of discrimination, but rather a breakthrough toward short and middle term improvements which we aim to bring to full achievement.
I am pleased, therefore, to support the provisions of this Bill and I am sure that my colleagues will do likewise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marin):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has the floor.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Hon. Member who just spoke, and I must say that I miss the former member for Lotbiniere, as do the people in his riding, 1 am sure, because he was not here simply to sell the Government's wares. He was here to truly defend the interests of his constitutents.
Mr. Speaker, the comments I have just heard ... He said he removed one discrimination and created two others, Mr. Speaker. This is true Tory policy. I know that in Quebec, all those Members are not true Tories, because some of them happened to be last-minute Conservatives. But not the Hon. Member who just spoke. He is a Conservative to the core. He could easily live in the West with all those Conservative Members. I would like the Hon. Member to tell us when he goes to his constituency office, when he goes calling on senior citizens' clubs, how he is going to respond when someone says to him: "I have worked all my life, I have raised children, I have paid taxes like everyone else, but it so happened that I have had to separate." We know there are programs and initiatives for the benefit of battered wives. That someone will tell him: "Should I have stayed on and kept being battered in order to qualify? How come you, the Member of Parliament for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay), did not stand up and fight for me? You said you were taking a short step forward. Then how come the Minister of Justice said: "We are going to increase the judges' salaries, they only earn $100,000?" What will the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere answer to that?


Maurice Tremblay: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this, if I may: I have never heard the Hon. Member for

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) strongly object to his personal salary increase effective as of January 1st of this year. Never! He has not uttered a word in that regard.
About his question concerning separated people, as I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, obviously we would prefer to extend this allowance to them as well, and we are working towards that. However, circumstances are such that we have to consider the situation as it comes. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that he and his colleagues have had every opportunity in the past, having been in power not just for six months but for a good many years, to amend the Old Age Security Act and eliminate all those discriminatory provisions !ie has been referring to. That benefit was already extended to the widow under 65 years of age, providing her husband had been receiving it. However others did not get it. So that was discriminatory, according to his own way of thinking. And speaking about women who are separated from their husbands as opposed to widows, you know full well, Mr. Speaker, that short of knowing the future or being instrumental in that decision, widowhood is a state that occurs unexpectedly, without warning. It is an act of God which is beyond one's control. Things are altogether different with those who are divorced or separated. I do not know what the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is referring to, whether he is personally in this situation or friends of his are, but one thing is sure, our ultimate goal is to improve the situation of those people. But right now, we must choose our priorities. Considering the limited financial resources available to us at this time as a result of the situation we have inherited, we believe that those widows and widowers should benefit without delay from this spousal allowance, even before those who are separated or divorced from their spouses.
Mir. Malepart: The Hon. Member is entirely mistaken when he says that I never discussed my salary. When I was a Member of the Quebec National Assembly in 1973, there was a debate on a salary increase, and, my colleague could bear me out, when the vote was held I recall that the six P.Q. Members at that time acted like hypocrites in voting against, only to pocket the increase afterwards. What did I do? I took the salary increase cheque voted under Robert Bourassa and gave it to community groups in my riding. That answers his first question.
Mr. Speaker, I find it shocking to hear him say a widow is more sorrowful. He does not know anything about this legislation. He says that one becomes a widow overnight. Mr. Speaker, there are widowed men and women who have been in that situation for ten years and will become entitled to the benefit; this will not come as a surprise to them. As for divorced people, divorce is no more surprising, people are not unhappy. As for single people-Come on, stop joking! Since when should we draft a social legislation on the basis that "this particular group of people is more distressed"? That's going back to the 1880s!
I would like to know what the Hon. Member thinks, and whether he still maintains that the woman who has been a widow for the past ten years is in for a surprise on September 1.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, even if it means repeating myself, again, it has nothing to do with the number of years that one has been a widow or a widower. I simply said that one becomes a widower or a widow through the whims of fate, it is a factual matter. It it not the same for people who are separated or divorced, even though again we are aware of their status and we are concerned about them. When the Minister introduced or tabled the Bill, he actually said that. We want to correct this situation eventually but at present, we give priority to widows and widowers who need it. As a Government, we have set that priority just as the people have set the priority for the Progressive Conservative Party to lead the country and for the Liberals to be in opposition.


Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to tell the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) that I would gladly do without the 2 or 3 per cent raise we received in January if he is ready and willing to vote against that bill.
Second, I totally agree with the Hon. Member that this legislation could be wonderful in theory if it were fair and equitable. But in its present form, it is perfectly scandalous and totally discriminatory. I believe the Hon. Member is a lawyer. Although I do not have any figures, he will probably be able to demonstrate that separated or divorced women are probably in a worse financial situation than most of the widows. What should you answer to these separated or divorced women when they ask you why they are not eligible?


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, you have been kind enough to recognize me again. I will make the best of it although it is not enough to repeat oneself to get through to the opposition.
I would remind the Hon. Member that even before this Bill is adopted, our legislation contains a provision granting the spouse allowance to widows under 65 years of age whose husband received the old age pension. In a way, it is a discriminatory measure according to either the French or the English definition of the word, but it should be considered in the context of its social and legal definition. My hon. friend seems to be a bit confused, and it is quite normal since some Hon. Members are boasting and claiming that they are ready to give up their 2 per cent. But they have been getting it for a few months, two months to be exact, but as soon as we push them a bit, they suddenly agree to give it up. But it is too late and too little!


Jean-Claude Malépart: This allowance is not meant for the widowed, otherwise we would have no need to introduce a bill. He is a lawyer and I am a "people's lawyer". So, I imagine that I have a better understanding of the world. At the present time spouse allowances are being paid when one spouse gets the Old Age Security Pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the other, between 60 and 64, is eligible. We are the ones who introduced the spouse allowance and it was not meant for the widowed persons. Moreover when he speaks of the Opposition's role, let me tell him that without the work of the Opposition Members, both Liberal and NDP, and of certain groups, the Tories would have put an end to the universality of old age pensions.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in my years as a Member of Parliament I have not very often spoken on the question of pensions because until the election of 1984 my friend and colleague, the former Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, was the one Member among all Members of Parliament, and certainly of our Party, who spoke most often on this issue. He put the case for improving the lot of senior citizens, of those who were retired, if not every day, certainly it was every week.
1 am pleased to participate in this debate. The pension plan was begun in Canada in 1926 because of the efforts of the then labour Members of Parliament from the constituencies of Winnipeg North Centre, then represented by the Hon. Stanley Knowles, and Winnipeg North, then represented by Mr. Heaps. After the election in 1926, no Party had a majority, so those two Members wrote to the then Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Meighen, and the then Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. King. They said that they would support whoever of them promised to bring in a pension plan for retired people. Mr. King responded to that proposal and brought in a pension plan. It was $20 per month for people aged 70, with a means test. It was a very small beginning, but it was the beginning.
The pensions of retired people were very low for many years. It took continuous agitation by members of my Party and its predecessor, the CCF, and the threat of elections to get Governments to improve pensions. In the 1960s we urged the then Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, to increase pensions to $75 per month. Mr. Pearson was loathe to do it because he said that the country could not afford it. From my experience in Parliament I do not think we ever made a more important improvement in the lives of people than when we indexed pensions during the minority Government of 1972-74.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It was a Conservative initiative.


David Orlikow: I hear the Hon. Member. It was a Liberal minority Government and the New Democratic Party-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Bob Stanfield suggested it first.


David Orlikow: It was NDP Members of Parliament who told the then Liberal Government that unless it brought in the indexation of pensions, it would be defeated. Indexing pensions
Old Age Security Act
or tying them to cost of living increases has been the salvation of pensioners. Without it pensioners would still be waiting from year to year or would still be running hat in hand to whichever Party formed the Government to obtain the improvements they needed.
We have indicated quite clearly that we will support the Bill, although it meets only a small part of the needs of older citizens. It extends the benefits now provided to elderly Canadians to widows and widowers in the age group of 60 years to 65 years. That is an improvement. We support it. As was indicated by members of my Party who spoke earlier, this has been advocated by us for years and it was ignored and rejected by previous Liberal Governments. I find it passing strange that Liberal Members have risen during this debate to ask the Conservatives why they are only taking the first step and not taking the second step to cover people between the ages of 60 and 65 who were never married or are separated. The Liberals would not even take the first step when they formed the Government. Now they are saying to the Conservative Government that it should take the second step. We are where we have always been. We say that the people between the ages of 60 and 65 need to be covered by these programs, not just those who are widowed and widowers, but all those in that age group, including those who were never married or who are separated.
The problems of older women include poverty, loneliness, poor health and poor housing. Increasing the pension as we are doing only meets a small part of the problems and difficulties of older Canadians. The Canadian Council on Social Development estimated that the poverty line for a single person in 1982 was $7,925 a year. All those whose income was below that live in poverty.
We know that 600,000 older Canadians receive income below the poverty line and that more than half of them have incomes at least 25 per cent below that. Women are much more likely to be included in that group than men. Very often women have no pension at all, no insurance and no income except welfare because they have only worked in their homes raising their families.
I am sure I am not the only Member of Parliament who received letters on this. Approximately two years ago I received a letter from a woman in my constituency. I want to place part of that letter on the record. I quote:
I am over 60 and a widow. We did not pay into the pension fund as we did not earn much. My husband was sick for quite some time. He died one month before his sixty-fifth birthday in 1975. I was told we have to draw the line somewhere. I happen to be on the wrong side of the line.
She could not get the assistance we felt she was then entitled to because the Liberals did not believe the country could afford it. We get the same argument today from the Conservative Government, saying "We cannot afford now to give this benefit we are giving to widows and widowers to people who were never married or who are separated". Women nearly always worked at jobs in the lowest paying sectors of society. Almost always the employers provided no pension plan. Our

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
pension system still leaves a great deal to be desired. We in Canada like to think that we are generous, that our country does the most for our seniors citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are way behind most countries in western Europe. They do much more for their pensioners than we do.
Less than half of all working Canadians are covered by private pension plans. Only 38 per cent of full-time employed women are covered by such plans. If you look at our present pension system, you see that while the old age security, guaranteed income supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan are indexed and tied to the cost of living, private pension plans are not indexed. People retire, the cost of living goes up sharply and no adjustment is made. Most private pension plans are not vested, so people who change jobs lose most of the benefits they should have earned.
Private pension plans do not help women who earn less and work fewer years than men. Only one-third of those who receive Canada Pension Plan benefits are women and their benefits are about 40 per cent less than the benefits received by men. That is why we are so concerned about this legislation and why we say it does not go far enough.
We have been told again and again by Conservative Members of Parliament including the Minister, that this is the first step, that this is all we can afford now. That is not what Conservative Members of Parliament were saying before the election. They did not say they would move very slowly. I wish to put on record a few of the promises made by Conservative Members of Parliament. The Toronto Star for August 16, 1984, just a few months ago, quoted the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as saying:
-many elderly women live in poverty "and it is the obligation of the state that we provide more than just subsistence against poverty ... and that's why this matter... should be addressed in the very highest priority at the next session of Parliament."
Now we have this legislation. It improves the lot of widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65. Let us compare what it does with what the Prime Minister was saying last August. After this legislation is passed, most people who will benefit by it, and I do not question that they will benefit, will still be living in poverty.
Let us look at a speech made by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, now Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), on May 10, 1984, when she moved a motion of non-confidence in the then Liberal Government dealing with the plight of elderly Canadians. I wish to read a few excerpts from that very eloquent speech in which she put the case for helping seniors in this country. She painted a picture of the plight of our older citizens much better than I can do. I will put on record a few sentences from the speech. I quote:
The fact that we have 600,000 elderly Canadians living in poverty in a country as rich and bountiful as Canada, in a society supposedly as compassionate and humane as ours, is a national disgrace.
It was a national disgrace in 1984 under a Liberal Government and it is a national disgrace in 1985 under a Conservative Government. The only thing that has changed is that the Conservative Members who were then on the opposition side of this House have moved to the other side and are now the Government. She further states:
For the people who have, throughout their lifetimes, worked for and contributed to the development of this great country, there is only a promise trotted out time and time again that some day, some time, they too will become a priority.
Those words were true when she described the attitude of the then Liberal Government. Those words are still true under this Conservative Government. Since bringing forward this legislation, the Conservatives have been saying time and again that they are taking this small step and making this improvement now, but some day, some time when the money is available and the economy is better, they will move another step or two. It reminds me of an old World War I song which said "You will have pie in the sky when you die". People will have pie in the sky if they wait for the Conservatives to do much for the pensioners. She then said, apropos the then Liberal Government:
We condemn it not only for its failure to introduce legislation that would meet the current needs of today's elderly poor, but also for its failure to bring about long overdue pension reform of the whole system so that we can ensure that the poverty of today will not be meted out to those who will be senior citizens in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. We must begin to come to grips with this issue and reverse what is happening.
Those were very, very eloquent words. The Minister was enunciating a very important principle.
The fact that the Minister has moved from the opposition benches to the government benches has not lessened the importance and truth of what she said less than a year ago. The position of our senior citizens is as bad now as it was then. As she said then, 600,000 of them are living in poverty. I would ask how many fewer will be living in poverty as a result of this relatively minor change we are debating today.
We will support this proposal as we have, over the years, supported any proposal which would bring the slightest degree of improvement to those retired Canadians. We say, as the Minister said a year ago, that senior citizens have worked and contributed to the building up of this country. They have contributed toward building one of the most prosperous countries in the world. They contributed whether they worked on a job or in the home helping to raise their families. They made their contributions and are entitled in their retirement years to live in comfort and dignity. Too many of them do not live that way. We say that while we will support this Bill, it simply does not go far enough.
Let me conclude by indicating some of the measures which we think are required if we are to provide for retired citizens the kind of life to which we believe they are entitled. Community care facilities like adult day centres, home care and community health centres should be financed and expanded as practical alternatives to the expensive institutional care we have now. Housing for older Canadians is still far from satisfactory. Despite the efforts of the Government and of non-profit organizations, thousands of older citizens still live in
February 6, 1985

single rooms. We need to increase accessibility to non-profit housing for older Canadians. Last, and this will not solve all of the problems of senior citizens, we need to amend and improve the Old Age Security Act. The amount paid to a retired citizen must be raised so that no retired Canadian will live in poverty as so many of them do now. We need to increase the amount paid to pensioners and the pension must be fully indexed. Until that is done, members of this Party will not be satisfied with the proposals made by the Government.


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


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great appreciation to the speech of the Hon. Member and especially to the historical discourse he gave at the beginning of his speech. I certainly join with him in acknowledging the significant contributions made to the history of pensions in Canada by the late James Woodsworth and by Mr. Stanley Knowles. However, to be complete and accurate, as I am sure the Hon. Member would want us to be, he should have acknowledged at least two other significant contributions. One of them was the leadership given by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. In 1957, after having been elected partly on his commitment to increase old age pensions to a reasonable amount, he carried forward expeditiously the fulfilment of that promise, raising pensions from the inadequate $46 with which the Liberal Government had been content to $70 a month. That may not seem to be much to us now but in terms of 1957 dollars, it was an impressive amount.
I would also want history to include the very important contribution of the Hon. Robert Stanfield. In the election campaign of 1972, it was Bob Stanfield who introduced to Canada the idea of indexing old age pensions so that old age pensioners would not be the victims of inflation and so that the Government would not make a profit on inflation. During the campaign, that idea was derided by the Liberal Government of the time but-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Not the NDP.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Maybe not, but the idea was introduced and pioneered not by the NDP but by the Progressive Conservative Party and its Leader. The idea received such approval and support from the media and the Progressive Conservative Party came so close to winning that election and forming the Government that the Liberal Party, clinging to office by the skin of its teeth, was shamed into introducing a proposal that it had derided during the election campaign. That was a very important addition to social improvement in Canada and it ought to be included in any record of such improvement.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments I took to put on the record the parts played by two Members of Parliament from the part of Winnipeg which I represent, Mr. Woodsworth and Mr. Heaps, in getting our pension system started, 1 of course did not deal with all the people who worked for improving pensions over the years. I would never suggest for a moment that ours was the only Party and that NDP Members
Old Age Security Act
were the only people who advocated improvements in pensions. What I did say and what I will maintain is that we were the first and we have been consistent in that support.
Of course Mr. Diefenbaker improved the pension system. I wish that there were Progressive Conservatives like Mr. Diefenbaker in the present Government. I do not see many of them. What I see are Conservatives but I see very few if any progressives. As a matter of fact, I tried to indicate the difference between Progressive Conservative Members when they are in opposition and Progressive Conservative Members when they form the Government by putting on the record the speech made by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration when she was a member of the Opposition and comparing it with the actions of the present Government of which she forms a part.
There were Liberals like Mr. Paul Martin and Senator Croll who were great advocates of pensions. Of course, when one looks at the history of the pension system, one should give credit to all those people. There were many outside of Parliament who contributed as well. One of the most honourable and important roles in the fight for better pensions over the years as well as today was and is played by the trade unions of the country which have been among the foremost advocates of improving the pension system.
I am prepared to give credit where credit is due. I would say to the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) that if and when the present Government brings in the kind of improvements it promised when it was in opposition, I will be very quick to support it and give it credit for that. However, I am afraid that given the state of the economy, in which I do not see any real improvements in the next few years, we will hear the usual excuses from the Conservative Government that we used to hear from the Liberal Government, which is that the economy is just not good enough to allow the Government to make those improvements.
Yes, we have difficulties. Yes, we have a deficit. Although this is not the time to go into it in great detail, I would say that there were over 8,000 Canadians who had incomes of over $50,000 a year who did not pay a penny in income tax. There are corporations which have hundreds of millions of dollars in deferred corporate taxes, taxes which some of them have admitted they will never pay. I do not agree with those Conservatives who have suggested that they know that what the Government is proposing does not do everything but that it is a first step and the Government cannot afford to do more. I say to the Hon. Member for Scarborough West that if the Government wanted to do more, it could do more. If it taxed the people who would be paying the taxes, the money would be there.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The serious problems which senior citizens in the country face are important. In my riding there is a serious problem which pertains to the Minister of State for Science and Technology

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
(Mr. Siddon). In my area many senior citizens have a problem with income, but they also have a problem maintaining meaningful involvement in the community. I wonder if the previous speaker could provide me with some guidance in this matter.
Three senior Cabinet Ministers come from the Province of British Columbia-the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and, of course, the Minister of State for Science and Technology. It is unfortunate that many senior citizens' groups which have been working on major projects have not been able to meet with or get a response from the Ministers who represent British Columbia. Those Ministers are not only responsible for their own specific Ministries, they are also responsible for representing the people of British Columbia and its senior citizens in Cabinet. I wonder if the previous speaker could provide me with some guidance on how we might be able to persuade Conservatives, particularly the three Ministers I mentioned, to pay attention to the general needs of senior citizens, and what might be done to encourage the Government to respond to their requests for meetings. Could the Hon. Member comment on the integrity of such a Party and its concerns about the senior citizens of the country, in particular those who live in the riding of Comox-Powell River?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give my hon. colleague some advice, but I do not have any more information than he does as to why Conservative Cabinet Ministers will not meet with concerned citizens-seniors or any other group. I find it passing strange that the Cabinet Ministers in the Government who speak so much of consultation will not consult with the people in their respective provinces who have problems which they want to discuss.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments has expired. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) on debate.


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in the House today to make my maiden speech, I feel both pride and humility at the responsibility which was entrusted to me in representing the citizens of London East. At the same time I would like to thank the voters for the support and confidence which they showed on September 4. At this time I would like to reaffirm my commitment to upholding their interests in Parliament. It is a goal which I pursue with confidence, a confidence that can only come from being a member of a decisive, strong and open Government.
I would also like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on the sensitivity and competence with which he is carrying out his responsibilities. I commend him for wasting no time in presenting this Bill which is of such importance to women and older citizens, two groups who have not always enjoyed credit and opportunity commensurate with their contributions to society.
It is very satisfying for me personally, in the first debate in which I am taking an active part, that the subject is one of such immediate concern to senior citizens. London cannot
adequately be described without reference to a vitality which reaches all sectors of the community. The City of London is the southwestern Ontario regional centre for the three pillars of our economy: services, retailing and manufacturing. It has many small businesses which, as we all know, form the heart of our economy. London's educational and cultural resources rival any city which is twice its size. Its ethnic and religious organizations give a rich and varied character to the city. One exceptional quality of the city which comes to mind today is its broad array of facilities which address the needs of senior citizens. We are privileged to have several senior citizens' residences in the riding, as well as Parkwood Veterans' Hospital, and many service clubs and organizations which work closely with the senior community. They give London an outstanding record and bring credit to the people of London.
In the interests of social justice and, even more important, on account of its significance to a great many citizens of London, Ontario, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on a subject which badly requires reform.
Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, cannot be faulted on either its logic or its substance; both are consistent and well thought out. This proposal will extend the spouse's allowance to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 who are trying to live on a very low income. It will make no difference when the applicant's spouse died. The legislation will assist approximately 85,000 widowed persons, which represents over 60 per cent of the people in that age bracket who have suffered the loss of their spouse.
Those 85,000 people, in all likelihood, are having an unfortunate amount of difficulty trying to make ends meet. To relieve this burden from so many older people, Bill C-26 allows the Government to keep a very specific promise which it made to senior citizens during the election campaign. More important, through passing this legislation, we can demonstrate to the Canadian people the seriousness of our commitment to a comprehensive system of financial assistance to help the disadvantaged. I feel strongly that Bill C-26 is a very effective piece of legislation. I am glad to see that all Parties of the House have recognize that.
Some opposition Members have expressed faint criticisms regarding the Bill, in terms of what it does not do. I would like to spend time addressing those concerns. Legislation which is drawn up carefully and responsibly has very precise limits. There are both logical and natural boundaries to the effects of the policy instruments which the Government chooses in any particular circumstance. That is certainly true in the case of Bill C-26.
Both the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) have tried to seize moral high ground by pointing out that the Bill does not address the problems of older people because it does not tackle the issue of high unemployment due to technological and economic readjustment. I share their concern for what is one of the largest social issues which faces industrialized nations. It is my sincere hope that the Government can address, in a comprehensive way, the increasingly severe eco-
February 6, 1985

nomic hardships which are experienced by the older people in the labour force. However, to criticize the Bill for not solving this distinct, larger and very much more complicated issue, represents a failure to recognize that the point of Bill C-26 is to provide a solution for one very serious and specific problem. As only a few members of the Opposition have suggested in their remarks, this piece of legislation can only be judged in terms of how effectively it relates to its clearly stated goal. To do otherwise is irresponsible and does a great disservice to the thousands of needy Canadians who will benefit directly from the implementation of this amendment.
In the remainder of my remarks I shall attempt to describe the natural scope of the legislation and explain why Bill C-26 effectively targets financial assistance to one particular group which has a legitimate need.
The Government is trying to adjust the spouse's allowance provision of the Old Age Security Act. Opposition Parties should examine that fairly obvious point more closely. The purpose of the Bill is to amend or correct imperfections in an existing piece of legislation. Since the part of the existing legislation which is affected is the section that establishes the spouse's allowance, it is logical and consistent for us to address our remarks to the difficulties faced by a particular group in society, namely spouses. Clearly, divorced and single people are not spouses, although they have problems similar to those experienced by widows. However, enough differences remain to justify the decision of the Government to try to reduce the particular difficulties encountered by widows and widowers of advancing years.
If members of the other Parties choose to continue using the very negative sounding word "discrimination" to describe this legislation, I will be disappointed. This would reveal an insensitivity to the unique position which the spouse has in the marriage and in society. Our society is changing very quickly, Mr. Speaker, for better or for worse. The role of the family and of the parents is no longer as clear as it once was. This point applies particularly to mothers. In my riding of London East over the past five years, the number of men in the workforce has decreased marginally while the number of working mothers has jumped by well over 10 per cent. There is no alternative for this Government but to recognize that it must adapt its legislation and its policies to quickly changing circumstances.
I rise today with a concern that must not be kept from a debate on a subject like this. It is a message that, in a slightly disoriented society, is not always remembered. It concerns the important contributions of the family throughout Canada's history and the significance it holds today. It is particularly relevant to say this in the debate on Bill C-26 because it is a Bill which implicitly recognizes that many men and women today are members of families which are organized along traditional lines. In this circumstance, one spouse, usually the wife, is very often totally dependent upon the husband in terms of her economic well-being. I praise Bill C-26 because, in a
Old Age Security Act
sense, it protects this traditional arrangement which has been the building block of every stable civilization. I do not hesitate in supporting this Bill that, while allowing people to conduct themselves as they choose, removes one of the misfortunes that can result from a commitment to the family unit.
Among the elderly women in our society, the group that is the most dependent and vulnerable surely consists of those who have committed themselves to staying in the home to raise a family. It is only because of the self-sacrifice to their families that many of these women may not have a marketable vocation with which they can support themselves. Today, through Bill C-26, we have the chance to extend some relief to the most needy of this group, those bearing the burden of widowhood. To delay this decision because other poverty-stricken individuals are not also helped is at best a case of misplaced good intentions.
I would now like to talk briefly on the subject of another matter that comes to mind in consideration of this Bill. Whenever we look at government legislation, particularly the implementation or expansion of a social program, it is natural to evaluate it from a cost benefit point of view. Hon. Members of the Liberal and NDP Parties must have some concern that due consideration be given to efficiency and effectiveness in the dispensation of government money. To expect good management and financial prudence from a Government, a charity, a business or a household is not unusual; it goes without saying. Even so, financial responsibility seems to have been forgotten in Canada for the last 20 years. We see from the mandate of the new Government that people have finally got tired of listening to political Parties which would solve all social problems by throwing money at them, while fostering dependence on the state and plunging it into debt.
Our new Government has committed itself to financial responsibility. You would think, Mr. Speaker, this would be an easy task with so much room for improvement. However, it is easier said than done when you are carrying nearly a $200 billion debt on your back. I have to say, therefore, that it is not easy extending the spouse's allowance to some 85,000 widows and widowers. It is not easy but in this case it must be done. This is representative of our Government's firm commitment to the Canadian tradition of looking after the less fortunate. As a Government, we will never overlook the need for initiatives such as expanding the spouse's allowance plan.
As the House supports this measure, it must also recognize and support the context in which it is put forth. The Government can propose legislation like this, and in the future it will continue to do so because we are confident that the resources will be there when we really need them. This can only be a reality through responsible Government. Control over government spending does not mean spending $35 billion more than revenues allow. Controlled spending means reducing the deficit.
I hope that everyone in this House who supports the need to expand the spouse's allowance will also support the measures the Government is taking to generate real economic growth and jobs, and to return honesty and good management to

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
government. When the next generation, our children, are running the Government, they will be able to do a lot more for their senior citizens or unemployed youth if we leave them a debt of $30 billion and not $300 billion. Now is the time to work toward this goal.
I would like to say in conclusion that I am indeed very happy that we will very quickly be able to provide some badly needed assistance to elderly people since it appears that we have the support of all Parties on this Bill.
In the course of this debate, some well deserved attention has been given to the needs of the older part of our population. Bill C-26 is a good and substantial start on the Government's intention to address the host of problems of this nature which confronts society. I am optimistic and confident that a number of other issues will be dealt with by this House in such a constructive and expedient manner. Hon. Members of all Parties have used the occasion of this debate to draw attention to the serious questions that must be dealt with to ensure that our seniors enjoy full and equal participation in society. I will take this opportunity publicly to urge my caucus to continue its consideration of measures designed to assist older members of the labour force who, because of changing technologies and demands for skills in the market, often find themselves dislocated from employment. These people are legitimately concerned that they will not find some way to contribute to society and earn a living from the skills they have relied on for so many years.
Finally, I will say that I support this Bill with great enthusiasm because of the recognition it gives to our collective obligation to widows and widowers. It is good that so many people undergoing hardship at this time will have their problems alleviated, and I am happy that this Bill has allowed the Government to recognize those who have sacrificed so much in contributing to their marriages and families. Over the next few months and years of this session it will become obvious that the tradition of this Government is one of responsible stewardship, with a conscience for those who are truly disadvantaged.
May I also say, Mr. Speaker, that we should not look to Government alone when addressing the needs of those who are in financial need. Let each of us ask ourselves what we can do to help a disadvantaged brother. Are we not our brother's keeper? I hope that all Hon. Members of the House will join me in supporting this very thoughtful, compassionate and practical piece of legislation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on that triumph of piety over precision and ask him whether or not he holds the same view about throwing money at problems when it comes to our economic problems. I notice that the Hon. Member, like many other Conservatives I have had the opportunity to listen to over the years, is always very quick to criticize the throwing of money at social problems. In fact, when I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) a question in the House the other day about the corporate tax sector, he said, "We don't believe we can just throw money at the environment". But we never hear from Conservatives about the habit which has developed in this
country over the last ten or 20 years, or even before that, of throwing money at the corporate sector in order to create jobs with no guarantees that those jobs will be created. There are no performance guarantees, no strings attached. We do not see any indication from the Government at this point that it is prepared to stop throwing that kind of money at problems. There are no strong indications there will be tax reforms so that we will stop throwing money at the rich in the form of reduced tax rates and enabling some of the wealthy in this country not to pay any taxes at all.
Is the Hon. Member against that kind of throwing money at problems? If he is, will he give us a commitment, as a colleague and an Hon. Member of the House of Commons, that he will go after his Government to stop that kind of throwing of money at problems, which, I might say, amounts to a heck of a lot more money than we are talking about when we are talking about pension reform?


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for his question. As one member of the Conservative Government, I want to see responsible stewardship with accountability to all Members of the House for the Government's programs and spending. In addressing the allocation of funds to areas of legitimate need, I have observed over the years that the NDP is all "spend", but I do not see any emphasis on finding where the dollars are to come from.
I happen to be an individual who has a great deal of confidence in the free enterprise system. I believe our corporate citizens make a great contribution toward the wealth and stability of our country. I have every confidence that the business community, if properly and responsibly encouraged, can be and is the only vehicle for the growth needed to make dollars available for the programs so desperately needed. I hope that answers the question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is obviously practising for the day when he will be in Cabinet because he did not answer the question at all. I asked him whether or not he was against throwing money at the wealthy in the form of tax concessions and loopholes. He says the NDP is in favour of spending. Well, it seems to me that over the years we have developed a great way of spending that is not always recognized as spending. It is called tax expenditures. The last time we had an accounting of tax expenditures in this country was in 1979. To its credit, the Progessive Conservative Government of the day produced a tax expenditure account. Those expenditures were in the neighbourhood of some $32 billion. At that time the yearly deficit was, I believe, around $14 billion. There we were in the position of having an annual deficit of $14 billion while not collecting some $32 billion. That is a form of spending.
What I want to hear from the Member, if he is truly concerned about government spending, is why he does not stand in his place and reject the kind of hidden spending that goes on every time the Government allows taxes to be
February 6, 1985

deferred, allows tax loopholes, shelters, write-offs and depreciation allowances and all the other ways in which the corporate sector in this country has the nerve to be on welfare while criticizing ordinary Canadians who happen to be the beneficiaries of social programs at which the Hon. Member does not want to throw money.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member, as a member of the NDP, that he does not have to worry about ever having to prepare for a Cabinet post.
I hear this same political rhetoric from the NDP on corporate tax rip-offs-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Get used to it because you are going to hear a hell of a lot more of it.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: -and all the figures about which they rant and rave and which they throw about. However, I am not yet convinced, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to cite figures.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Answer the question.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: If the Hon. Member would like to discuss this with me on a private basis-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is a public issue. Answer the question.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: No, you are throwing Figures at me-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Your Figures.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: -and it is very easy to bounce figures around when you are making speeches. You show me, my friend, and I will be glad to sit down. But I suggest that if you want to do it in a public forum such as this, your motives are transparent. You are trying to score political points rather than making legitimate and constructive criticism for the best interests of Canadians.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I can't help it if you are not prepared. [Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Hon. Member said that he was happy and pleased that his government had decided to help people in need. I would like him to explain to me why there are in Canada 165,000 people who share the same need for help, the same age, who live alone, in an apartment, who have the same income . . . and I shall give him Figures for Quebec; I do not have the figures for the other provinces.
Some people between 60 and 64 now receive $427 a month, whether they are widows, widowers, separated or divorced. This is an allowance that safeguards human dignity. How can the Hon. Member boast that he is pleased, that he helps people in need, that he is going to help half of them on the basis of their civil status. Is it not a move backward to the time when the help given was a handout and the dignity of the individual was not taken into account? Can the Hon. Member
Old Age Security Act
explain that when people have the same income, when they are in the same situation?


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: The Hon. Member reminds me of someone walking up to someone else and saying: "Isn't it a beautiful day?" The answer you get back from the Liberals is, "Yes, but it must be raining somewhere else". No matter what positive initiatives the Government takes, it seems the natural response from the Liberals is that it is not enough. Well, on September 4 the people said it is enough and they gave us a very decisive mandate. They saw a Government that was not willing to show responsible stewardship, a Government that indiscriminately threw money at everything it could. This was not in the best interests of the people but it was in their own best interests.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Government will not take that posture. This is a Government that will do what it can within its means and, hopefully, it will achieve a financial position in the very near future that will allow more revenues to go to those many people who are still suffering economic hardships, those people we would all like to help. As this Bill indicates, we are covering a very specific sector and we are pleased to be able to do this. But we are just not going to throw money around indiscriminately in the hope that when we go to the well, it will not be dry. The well is dry and it is time we started Filling it up again in order to allow us those opportunities in the very near future to meet needs far greater than those that exist today.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to condemn harshly all divorced and separated men and women. He said they are not spouses. Later on, he praised the united family, and rightly so, but it seems to me, from his speech, that the Hon. Member believes these people are second class citizens. I would appreciate his comments on that particular aspect of his speech.


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


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today to a Bill I think is very important and which should not be considered along party lines. I think it is one of those Bills that all Members of this House should examine with a great deal of humanity and sensitivity, in order to produce a measure that is fair and equitable and respects the dignity of the individual.
If we look at the Bill's definition, what exactly do we have now in terms of security programs for senior citizens? There is the old age security pension, which is universal. We have the guaranteed income supplement for people in need, and something was done for couples when one spouse was sixty-five and eligible for old age security pension and guaranteed income
2082

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
supplement and the other spouse, being between the ages of sixty and sixty-five, would normally not be eligible for any benefits. The age criterion discriminated against the person living alone. The Liberal Government introduced the spouse's allowance. The Conservative Government has now decided to extend the spouse's allowance, part of our old age security programs, to any person in need and living alone, between the ages of sixty and sixty-four. I can only applaud this. However, the Government decided, and perhaps people who know more about the subject could check this-I think it is the first time in the history of this country that a Government has added a criterion based on marital status, a criterion that raises the question whether we should help people because the spouse died ten years ago, and she was married, or whether we should penalize people who are separated or people who have decided not to get married at all.
Mr. Speaker, the program had three criteria which were acceptable: age, living alone, and income. Now they are adding the widow and widower criteria, in other words: marital status. At the present time, to be eligible for the spouse's allowance, no marriage certificate is necessary. It is not necessary to have had a civil wedding. The law is humane. The two parties must sign a form and acknowledge that they had been living together for a year. That is it. The law does not intrude in people's private lives. But the amendment that the government wants to bring in might give rise to a class struggle. In my opinion, from a human point of view, some thought should be given to this matter. I do not want to put the blame on the government and suggest that it acted in bad faith. I know that it is a technicality and that any well-meaning person in a hurry is liable to forget the technical aspect and cause discrimination as in the present case.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I think that this bill concerns all members and should be above political partisanship. In its present form, it will have an impact on other social measures, because it may be found in the future, regardless of the government in power, that according to statistics there are 100,000 aged married couples, while there is only enough money available to help half of them. It will be decided, since there are fewer women and more men, to help men first, then women. I suggest that we are on shaky grounds with that kind of criterion, because we have Conservatives in office now, but tomorrow it might be the NDP or the Liberals, and they might be tempted . . . We ought to think it over before adopting that criterion. I think we should be realistic.
Mr. Speaker, this Government has been bragging about consultation. Fine, I have nothing against consultation. But it now has an opportunity to show whether it consults only to dictate its own views, or if this consultation process is just another way of lending an ear to the big shots. Let us admit for a moment that the Conservative Members and the Minister think that the NDP or the Liberals do that for political
motives. Let us suppose that such is the case. I have here letters from various organizations in Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Sault Ste. Marie in Ontario, organizations concerned with elderly people and women. To this day, all those organizations are asking and urging the Government to make any person living alone eligible for the spouse's allowance.
I also have a copy of a letter, and I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) bragged about being anxious to meet with various groups, he would rather wait before making any changes in other social programs about which we will be talking later on, family allowances and old age security pensions in general. I have a letter dated October 4th that was sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), on behalf of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, by Mrs. Yvonne Raymond. This letter was sent after October 4th, and that committee was set up to advise the Minister, October 4th is later than September 4. On page 12, it says:
The Council recommends that the spouse's allowance be replaced by benefits determined following a means test and equivalent to the combined guaranteed income supplement and the old age security pension, for all low-income men and women, aged 60 to 64, whatever their marital status. That last detail is important: the spouse's allowance is extented to certain low-income spouses and certain widows and widowers aged 60 to 64, but not to many other Canadians in the same age group who are also in need, and this is creating difficulties. The Conservative Party's election promise to extend the spouse's allowance to all the 60,000 low-income widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 is a major step forward, but it will not help the 190,000 single men and women in the same age group who also need financial help. Of course we know that some reforms are too costly to be implemented overnight, but we are asking you to give them your special attention in coming years as they represent a fundamental part of an overall pension reform program.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a telex from the Quebec organization which fights for the rights of pre-retired and retired people, an organization with branches in all of our ridings and whose mission it is to fight for the rights of senior citizens. 1 think all Hon. Members will agree that senior citizens are not the noisiest people, or the most vocal protesters, and that they are not the group of citizens in our society that has the best structures needed to make himself heard, as opposed to the workers' unions struggling against industry, as opposed to the farmers who are a lot better organized and in a better position to come here to do what we call lobbying and get their points across.
I think everyone will admit that senior citizens need the parliamentary support of their representatives in this place.
Mr. Speaker, if we had wanted to play politics and make political gain, we would have let the Government pass this legislation and we would have blamed it for four years. The debate began long before the Government introduced its legislation because we knew quite well that, when the Government had made up its mind and decided to freeze certain funds, it would be impossible to make any changes. We in the Liberal Party said: This is not a partisan debate; it deals with
February 6, 1985

human issues and we shall start immediately to try to prevent the Government from doing this. As 1 said earlier, the various groups also advised the Government against such action before it introduced the bill.
What does this represent in monetary terms? We hear that it means a lot of money. Granted. If we look at what the Government is paying out to these 85,000 widows and widowers, we find a figure of $325 million, but what the Government is not saying is that there are now people between the ages of 60 and 64 who receive social welfare benefits which is also a social program, but whose costs are shared equally. As far as the benefits to these 85,000 people are concerned, the federal Government is saving $20 million and the provinces another $20 million.
There are still 80,000 people who need our assistance. If the bill is not amended, 80,000 people in Canada will be forgotten, which means about 30,000 in Quebec. This is a lot of people. It would cost $300 million to provide assistance to these 80,000 people. As far as the benefits to these 80,000 people are concerned, the federal Government is saving $18 million and the provincial Governments another $18 million. What is the income of these people? I shall take Quebec as an example. What is the present income of these people? They are not wealthy. We are not talking about extending the universal pension benefits.
They are now receiving social welfare benefits of $427 a month. What would they be getting tomorrow in concrete terms if we made them eligible for those benefits? Would we make them rich overnight? Would they be sitting pretty, as some Conservative members would like us to believe, if we granted them those benefits of $533 a month, or $106 more than they are getting? It would mean a lot to these people although they would still live below the poverty line. I am not asking the government ... If I wanted to play politics, I would tell the government to grant this allowance to all those in need between 60 and 64 years of age, whether they live alone or with their spouse. In his speech, on Monday, the Minister quoted the figure of $1.5 billion. That is how much it would cost to give benefits to single people and couples. I do not want to score political points with that issue any more than any other member either New Democrat or Liberal. The government has made up its mind and we respect it. After all that party was elected on September 4 and it decided to help the people who live alone.
The Liberals had promised during the campaign to help all those in need, by first reducing eligibility age to 64. It is matter of choice and I am not going to question it. I respect the decision the Conservative have made. What we do not accept, however, is that you should stop half way, and this is where the discrimination lies. The strange thing about it is that not so long ago, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) tabled some amendments to various Bills so that they would be in
Old Age Security Act
accordance with the Charter of Rights which was passed in this House to prevent discrimination. This is the reason why I still hope that the Minister will reverse his decision or consult with his Department's officials to get a clear picture of the situation. Quite frankly I do not understand why he should insist on a discriminatory approach Mr. Speaker, in monetary terms what Liberals Members were asking for would not have amounted to that much money. I have met privately with some Conservative Members and I am convinced they would agree, but I am not expecting them to come forward and admit it here. My party has been in power before and I know that it is easier to make one's mark at caucus meetings than by delivering a speech in the House. Now the Conservatives are in power, their speeches reflect the Ministry's wishes. Some Conservative Members, in fact a good proportion of them, are worried about this legislation and would like the Government to reconsider. We are only short about $200,000,000 or $250,000,000 not billions of dollars. 1 could be partisan and say: what is 36 millions? I believe that is more or less what Canadians said about changing the color of military uniforms; we do not need long consultations, everybody would agree to transferring that and 36 millions would be found easily.
During the campaign, I believe all leaders had promised to levy a minimum tax on people making $50,000 or more, who pay no tax thanks to tax shelters. $200 million could be netted and that would settle the matter.
I, for one, am convinced that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) wants to look into ... I am convinced that the Minister of National Health and Social Welfare (Mr. Epp) would like that. But I believe that the Prime Minister should be sensitized to it because he will have to make the decisions. During the debate on universality who decided to flip-flop? The Prime Minister. I believe he alone can change that legislation. If he does not want to be remembered in future as the man of injustice, he will have to reflect on that, to reconsider his position and then he will certainly find those $200 million.
The Canadian Government could have reduced its advertising budget by $40 million. I think that every Canadian and every member of this House could examine the budget and make cuts ... In my opinion, it is a humanitarian question. I could play politics and name the members who said: "What were the Liberals doing for older people when they were in power?" It is quite easy. If you want to know, you only have to refer to the blue book tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on programs for children and senior citizens. Look at the series of dates and years and put names beside. You will eventually find a Tory measure.
I congratulate the present Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Crombie) who, with respect to the spouse allowance, did right a wrong even if a Liberal government was involved. But I admired that minister who was not like his colleague, unless this one changes his mind. Indeed, when the bill was before the

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
committee, we reminded him that some people would not be eligible unless his proposal was made retroactive. The minister did not try to hide behind the statement of the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). And he did not pretend either that the government had no money. He said that we were right, that he would try to do something about it. And when he returned, he had won his case. But he was a minister as dedicated as Mrs. Begin. I do not think anybody in Canada could question the honesty and the work done by Mrs. Begin.
But the then Minister of National Health, who is now Minister of Indian Affairs, had taken seriously his role as spokeman and advocate of the rights and needs of middle and low-income citizens. Without exception, he would side with senior citizens, with families and children, and he would defend the health system. But, unfortunately, the present Minister of Health, unlike all his predecessors, is only a spokesman for the Minister of Finance. That is not his job. The Minister of Finance and the executioner at Treasury Board can manage by themselves. Within the Cabinet, we need someone who is concerned, someone with guts. If the Minister of Health cannot play that role, he should change jobs with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, because his colleague could do the job. I think he will make his mark.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary. I trust her. I think she is a kind person, who knows life, who has political experience, who knows her riding and I am confident, I am convinced, that she will try to do her best to persuade the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to come up with a solution, not givaways but an honourable solution. As I said, it should be remembered that in each of our ridings, when the legislation . . . After all, there is no urgency, we do not have to pass this legislation tomorrow because, anyway, it will not become effective until the 1st of September. So, why pass it right away? People will not have more money. It is only on the 1st of September that they will get anything. Is it to silence people that we are trying to pass this bill so quickly? We Liberals say no. We will not let the bill pass unheeded.
I think it is important that each and every Hon. Member think it over. Over the holidays and weekends, we will return to our ridings; perhaps it would be important to raise the issue with our constituents. Let us forget the financing factor. I am sure that if we look carefully into the expenditures of all departments, we can find the money to behave in a humane manner.
Remember that if we allow this bill to pass without change, an elderly women may visit your riding office and say; "I am 62. Being on social welfare, I do not live below the poverty line, but under the distress line. I have raised a number of children and I meet all the requirements. Yet, when I went to the Old Age Security office, my application was turned down." You will ask: "How is it possible?". And she will say: "Well, you see, I separated from my husband a number of years ago".
She will feel that the House is penalizing her once again. Perhaps she will feel guilty for not putting up with her husband who was beating her. We are trying to assess what it is worth in dollars and cents. Is a widow more deserving than a single or separated woman? I think there are Hon. Members representing rural ridings . . . How many people here have had to support dependent children-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the 20-minute period is now over. Questions or comments! The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) has the floor.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the last words of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who was referring to a potential cause for divorce. I would like him to tell us whether it is widespread, whether most divorces and separations come about as a result of the kind of situation he referred to. I would also like him to explain why during his last term, from 1980 to 1984, when he was in power ... the Government did not improve the situation of the widow who received a spouse allowance provided her husband had previously received the Old Age Security Pension. That being, according to his definitions, discriminatory, why did the Government not then extend the application of this provision in order to do what he is suggesting today?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, he is asking me: How many persons? I am not the one ... I am not an expert nor a lawyer, but I have the figures from the Department. There are 80,000 separated and divorced people in Canada, 30,000 in Quebec. So, I do not need to know whether the woman who is separated deserves more than the single one. I think it is inhuman, and I am even humiliated to be forced to debate the question in these terms. I think it would be preferable to say that we will help the persons who are on their own. They have the priority, although there are couples as well who are not a lot richer, but 1 understand that the government cannot find $1500 million. 1 think that we have to be realistic and say that this applies to all persons on their own, whatever their status. Is there going to be a police investigation? What you don't know is that a divorced person will not be eligible, but a separated person will become eligible when the spouse dies. Have you thought about all the problems caused by this? Have you thought about how it will be applied? Have you considered the human dimension?
The second question was: Why was it not done before? I will state again for the Hon. Member the reasons I have given earlier: In 1984, we fought to have the Minister of Finance grant funds to increase the guaranteed income supplement for people 65 and over living alone, because it was under the poverty line by $70. Unlike the Hon. Member who looks like a true Progressive Conservative, we were not in favour of keeping people poor and of taking the money to make
February 6, 1985

other people poor. You remind me of the review, on the subject of family allowances. Take the money from poor people and give it to other people. It is like your $1 billion ... The Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) boasted that he had a $1 billion for job creation. He cut $4 million from projects which created jobs and he makes $1 billion from that and says: What do you think of my SI billion? Well, it does not make sense.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for his eloquent speech in favour of a class of citizens who are extremely poor. I understand he made a vast operation of consultation on that subject. I would like to know whether in those consultations he met one person or one group, that is in favour of the bill under review.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. colleague, 1 can tell him I did meet ... In the Province of Quebec, we have three federations, three organizations dealing with older citizens, representing thousands of people. They are FADOQ, AQDR and the Forum des citoyens du troisieme age. I met with these groups during the Christmas recess. There is no doubt these three organizations are opposed to any discrimination. I really cannot understand ... if a journalist asks a Member of this House "Are you in favour of discrimination?", I do not think any Member, assuming he is not stupid, will answer "Yes". These three groups have asked questions. I mentioned earlier a telegram sent by one of them, but the other two groups as well made representations to the Prime Minister.
I think Members should visit groups of older citizens and meet with them. We are talking of 80,000 this year, but some people are going to turn 60 next year and will suffer the same discrimination because it will not end this year.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a brief question to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part). Will he vote against the Bill or for it?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member probably does not know my style. At 12, I went on strike as an altar boy. I am 46 now. You surely remember that in those days it was unheard of, but I won. I was getting 5 cents a mass, but I immediately got the quarter I wanted, and I was kept on-I learned something then. I am not fighting for the sake of glory,
Old Age Security Act
I never do. I got through the worst Conservative landslide in my riding. I was not fighting for votes, but I had something on my mind. Whether or not my party was going to win the election was not the main issue for me. The issue was that I wanted to fight to avoid discrimination against 80,000 Canadians. I call upon all Hon. Members, whatever their party, to join in that fight. If they do, nothing can stop us!


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Like other members of my Party, I have no intention of holding up the legislation because it provides some relief for one small group of senior citizens who are not covered by previous legislation. It extends spousal benefits to low income widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65. It is important to emphasize, as my colleagues have done, that the Bill does nothing for people who were never married or for people who are divorced. In fact, it does nothing for couples between the ages of 60 and 65, neither of whom has reached the age of 65. It illustrates illogical discrimination on the basis of marital status and is indicative of the patchwork approach of the Government toward pension reform. It really follows what the last Government did. It is a patchwork approach rather than a comprehensive one.
I should like to refer to some of the history of our pension system. When they were first introduced in 1926, they provided for a pension of $20 per month for seniors over the age of 70, with a very strict means test. It was not much, but I was more than those people had before. We are proud of the founder of our Party, J. S. Woodsworth, in securing that for senior citizens of Canada. Through his efforts and the efforts of his successors, Stanley Knowles and others within the CCF and the NDP, as well as the efforts of other Parties, as has been pointed out, improvements have been made since then. The means test was abolished in 1952. During the sixties the age was gradually reduced from 70 to 65. I remember that my father was in the cross-over period, and I think he finally received the pension when he was 67. He was very thankful to get it. Later we introduced a partial means test for spousal allowance for those aged 60 to 65. Now we are extending that, as I pointed out, to widows and widowers who can pass an income test. This is well and good, but it does not go far enough.
The Government missed a golden opportunity to bring in the kind of comprehensive pension reform for which the Conservative Party called when it was in opposition last spring. Last May the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) introduced a motion of non-confidence in the Liberal Government. She did well to do so. She condemned the Government for its failure to deal adequately with the real needs of Canada's seniors and for not bringing in a comprehensive program.

February 6, 1985
Old Age Security Act
1 should like to read the following few lines from what she said at that time:
Is it any wonder, Sir, that today we condemn the Government? We condemn it not only for its failure to introduce legislation that would meet the current needs of today's elderly poor, but also for its failure to bring about long overdue pension reform of the whole system so that we can ensure that the poverty of today will not be meted out to those who will be senior citizens in 10, 20 or 30
years' time. We must begin to come to grips with this issue and reverse what is happening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, February 7, 1985