1985-06-05

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this brief intervention is on the desirability of establishing a pest management advisory board. In December, 1983, the Hon. Eugene Whelan, the great and former Minister of Agriculture, announced the assessment and registration of pesticides would become a public process. The Government at that time recognized the danger that indiscriminate use of pesticides poses to the public, the environment, and the economy.
There is a need for public scrutiny of new compounds being introduced to the market to ensure there has been satisfactory testing of these products with regard to human health, carcinogenic and mutogenic properties, and environmental persistence. Potential risks of a particular pesticide must be weighed carefully against the potential benefits derived from its application. It is only reasonable that the affected public be party to and have a say in the decision-making process.
The pest management advisory board was seen as a mechanism to provide appropriate public consultation. Mr. Whelan made a commitment to establish such a board, in May, 1984. The present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) confirmed his commitment to the creation of a pest management advisory board in October, 1984. The Minister also assured the House on March 1 of this year that an announcement was coming very, very soon.
We are patiently awaiting an announcement on the formation of a pest management advisory board.


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


COMBINES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the Government for its continuing failure to address the problems of competition in the news industry.
In January competition was substantially decreased with the merger of United Press Canada with Canadian Press. We are seeing the adverse effects of that merger in terms of coverage of Parliament today because of cut-backs in service by CP, something it would not have dared do if United Press were still functioning.
On Monday the Government went a giant step further by reversing the previous ban on newspaper publishers holding television licences. This was done without any consultation with the public. In effect, this confirmed the status of the entire Province of New Brunswick as a journalistic slum where the Irving family controls the major media, and a good chunk of the rest of the provincial economy. Other areas and cities, such as London, Ontario, have similar problems of one family or corporation controlling the means by which large numbers of people get their news.
Yet the Government saw fit to take this action well in advance of tabling its proposals for amending the Combines Act, and well in advance of the report of the committee which was appointed to conduct a review of our broadcasting system. This leaves me and my Party to conclude that, yes, Conservatives do believe in competition and market forces but only when they do not get in the way of their friends, friends who own the newspapers, and friends who hold the broadcasting licences and make hefty donations to the Conservative Party.


WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, today is World Environment Day as identified by the United Nations, and symbolized by our white carnations. I am proud to bring to the attention of the House that this year's theme of Canada's Environment Week is "Environment: A Shared Responsibility".
Ceremonies today across Canada will highlight the participation by volunteers in the different environmental services
from which we all benefit.

June 5, 1985
[ Translation]
In fact, some 1,600 Canadians regularly provide the Atmospheric Environment Service with indispensable weather data. Forty inspectors spend a large part of their time monitoring and supporting the work of these volunteers.

There are 25 volunteer associations throughout Canada that assist in the utilization of our national parks, historical sites, and canals.
Parks Canada alone benefits from the work of over 2,000 volunteers who are involved either in conservation, reconstitution of historic events, or guided tours of historic sites for parks.
I would like to join my thanks with those of the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) today as she issues certificates of merit to outstanding volunteers. We need their enthusiasm, and I am certain our Government's recognition of their tremendous contribution will provide further encouragement for them to increase their involvement in our environmental development.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House on behalf of the people of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, the riding of Chicoutimi and especially the residents of the Lower Saguenay, to offer their thanks to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).
It has taken our Government only eight months to reach a consensus with the Government of Quebec on federal participation in the Saguenay Park, only eight months, while our predecessors were still negotiating after fifteen years of discussion and useless confrontation.
In the Throne Speech our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) referred to a new spirit of cooperation in this country, and I think this is an eloquent example.
Our Government is therefore proceeding with the development of Canada's first national marine park. Under the direction of Parks Canada, we shall be preparing a feasibility study with parameters for intervention to be applied in the years to come.
This study, to be conducted jointly with the Government of Quebec and wholly financed by Environment Canada, will make it possible to integrate the Saguenay Fjord in our national parks network, which will also stimulate the development of the tourism and recreation industry in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
Mr. Speaker, the future looks promising for the people in this area, who were fed up with empty promises and for fifteen years had been kept isolated from any positive impact that Canada's tourist industry might have.


PENSIONS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget has proposed that each senior citizen couple take a cut-back in the purchasing power of their old age pensions next year in the amount of $200. In the next five years this will amount to a cut-back of over $1,200 in the purchasing power of their pensions. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I appeal to the Government to listen to its backbenchers like the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), who are telling it that to cut back on old age pensions next year would be wrong.
The Budget will put 750,000 of our low-income families below the poverty line during the next several years.
The Budget has given the multinational oil companies $10.9 billion over the next five years in reduced taxes and increased oil revenues.
Last year the multinational oil companies had record profits: Imperial Oil, $533 million, up 83 per cent; Gulf Oil, $308 million, up 41 per cent; Texaco, $423 million, up 23 per cent; and Shell Oil, $123 million, up 20 per cent.
This action of asking the senior citizens to give up $200 a couple next year in order to lower taxes for the multinational oil companies which have already recorded maximum profits, is unfair, unjust, and totally obscene. The cut-backs in seniors' pensions must be restored immediately.



Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), has just returned from Moose Jaw where he spoke to the annual convention of Saskatchewan senior citizens, a group called Action Now. They passed a resolution opposing the Government's very cruel plan to deindex the old age security pension. Their motion reads:
Be it resolved that the Mulroney Government immediately cancel the proposed deindexation of pensions.
They are not alone. Three courageous PC back-benchers,
the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), the Hon.
Member for York East (Mr. Redway), and the Hon. Member
June 5, 1985

for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell), appear to be opposed to deindexing as well. However, I want to help my friends in the PC Party get rid of this cruel and heartless proposal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
I have here copies of a petition which we in the NDP caucus are distributing to people in our constituencies. I have had some 252 more copies run off this morning, so 1 can send a copy to each Member of the House. If I can have a page, I will send 211 over to the PC Whip-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -which he can distribute to his caucus; and if I could have another page, I have another 40 here for the Liberal Whip, which he can distribute to his caucus as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the page please revert to his place?


PETRO-CANADA ANNOUNCEMENT OF REDUCED GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, further to the concerns of consumers and our friends opposite, I would like to remind the House that on June 1, in accordance with the Western Oil Accord, we abolished the Canadian Ownership Special Charge. I therefore welcome this opportunity to inform the House that Petro-Canada was the first to announce a reduction in the price of gas of 0.7 cents per litre, thereby setting an example for the other companies who immediately announced they would follow suit by posting this cut in the retail price of gas.
It is high time Petro-Canada acted as a good corporate citizen, something Canadians have been waiting for for a long time, and this is the First time I have wanted to congratulate the Corporation on showing such excellent leadership.


WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today being World Environment Day, it is important to emphasize the impact of environmental issues on each and every one of us.
The damaging storms and tornadoes which swept through Ontario and the United States have served as a grim reminder of the enormous devastation that can be wrought by nature. Yet, far more powerful is the ability of man to alter and destroy his environment. In my own riding of Parkdale-High Park the sewage ridden Humber River is the largest source of pollution of the western beaches of Lake Ontario. PCBs and chemical spills in the Junction Triangle are a continuous threat to the schoolchildren and residents of west Toronto.
Ontario's northern lakes have become polluted to the point where they are considered dead. Our wildlife is endangered by the upset ecological balance, and acid rain has become a fact of life in most industrialized countries.
The environment is a shared responsibility between all levels of government and all nations. We must act now to protect the environment and to reverse the cycle of destruction already begun. Initiatives have already been taken by the Government with the introduction of the new automobile emission standards, and $300 million has already been committed over the next decade to the war on acid rain. I urge the federal, provincial, and municipal Governments in Canada, and leaders of all nations, to continue these efforts and to expand their commitment to dealing with this most important issue.

* *


QUOTAS ON SHIRT IMPORTS FROM BANGLADESH
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, on page 5 of today's edition of The Globe and Mail there is an ad asking Canadians to contribute $1 million to help Bangladesh cyclone victims. The ad is sponsored by groups such as Oxfam, UNICEF, Save the Children Fund, and Canadian Hunger Foundation.
On page 8 of the same newspaper there is an article entitled: "Ottawa to Institute Quotas on Bangladesh Shirt Imports". This measure is to be imposed in spite of the fact that shirts are almost the only product Bangladesh sells to Canada and that they do not compete with shirts manufactured in Canada but rather with imports from South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Bangladesh is also the largest single recipient of Canadian foreign aid, and much of that aid has been for training rural women in the textile industry.
I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms the imposition of quotas on shirts from Bangladesh. I remind the Government of the public response evoked by the song We Are the World, and its own commitments to make the domestic industry competitive. Imposing such quotas will demonstrate that the Government has no brighter day to offer Canadians and the world; just shop-worn, regressive, and defeatist policies which will encourage dependence in Canada and in Bangladesh.

June 5, 1985
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF JAMAICAN MINISTER OF YOUTH, SPORTS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Speaker:: May I advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery today of the Minister of Youth, Sports and Community Development for Jamaica, Mr. Ed. Bartlett.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ONTARIO MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to bring to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Dennis Timbrell, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ONTARIO SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Speaker:: I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Bud Gregory, the Solicitor General for Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope some day to have the opportunity of putting a question to the Prime Minister on his Budget, but in his absence 1 wish to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday 1 met with a number of senior citizens in Cap-Pele, Shediac, Moncton, and Fredericton, New Brunswick. Aside from the fact that the Budget has ravaged Atlantic Canada, senior citizens in these communities wanted me to put a question to the Prime Minister, and to the Minister of Finance, with respect to living up to the promise they made to senior citizens across the country with respect to fully indexed pensions. Will the Deputy Prime Minister consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and prevail upon them to live up to the undertakings which they gave to the senior citizens of the country to index old age pensions fully?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the right hon. gentleman, whom I know to be an honourable man, also told these senior citizens that in looking at the Budget and at the finances of Canada the projections are made in terms of what the cost of the national
debt is to Canadians, inclusive of senior citizens' programs, and others to be instituted in the future. 1 hope he pointed this out when he was speaking to the senior citizens.
1 refer the Leader of the Opposition to page 13 of the Budget. When he spoke to the senior citizens, did he tell them that the matter would be monitored as of January 1, 1986?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the senior citizens of this country-


Mr. Chretien:: Giving money to the oil industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The senior citizens of this country remember an unconditional promise given by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.


SOCIAL SECURITY
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary. The Minister knows perfectly well that by 1990, an additional three-quarters of a million Canadians will be living below the poverty line as a result of the de-indexation of social programs. Even Members of his own party are showing their discontent, and across the country, those responsible for agencies representing senior citizens are furious.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister is as follows: Is he going to listen to the comments of his Conservative colleagues? Will he acknowledge the incredible injustice and harm being done by the Budget of his colleague, the Minister of Finance? Will he recommend that the Minister of Finance restore full indexation of old age security pensions in order to meet the commitments made by his colleagues during the election campaign?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that I am always conscious of the reasonable positions put forward by my colleagues. 1 will also be receptive to reasonable positions put forward by members of the Opposition.
I say to the right hon. gentleman, as fairly as I can, that in looking at the projections with respect to the cost of the deficit up to the end of the 1980s and into the early 1990s, that Lalonde Budget of February, 1984, projected that the deficit would go down. When we took office, it was $5 billion more than Mr. Lalonde had said it would be, and the projections were going up. If the Right Hon. Member wants to talk to me about reality, he should go back to the February, 1984, Budget in which Lalonde said one thing and put into effect quite another thing, when he got into office. That is where he should start.
June 5, 1985

Oral Questions



REQUEST FOR CHANGE TO BUDGET


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister who has a portfolio which gives him responsibility for those who are retired does not want to curtail or control the deficit on the backs of the weaker elements of society, the senior citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I said on budget night that this was a sneaky Budget because it contained a hidden tax on senior citizens. I would say to the Minister again today that we will fight this deindexation right to the end. I will give him one more opportunity to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The Minister said that he was willing to listen to reason. I know that he does not want to cut old age pensions in order to provide money for wealthy speculators to speculate in European art, through the capital gains tax relief. Will the Minister meet privately with his colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, to tell them that the rest of his colleagues do not like this measure, that senior citizens' organizations across the country are outraged, and that his credibility as a Minister is being jeopardized?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in regard to social policy I would quote the words of a speech that was made on November 18, 1984, when the six and five discussion was taking place. At that time it was said:
However, beyond a certain point, the interests payable on the deficit become intolerable because, from the point of view of a minister of social affairs, it is a waste of money. We must be realistic and avoid seemingly easy answers which would only prolong the economic crisis and exert even more pressure on all future social budgets.
That was a speech made by the Hon. Monique Begin.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Right Hon. Member might disagree with her perspective as well. I am saying to the Right Hon. Member that we do want to maintain those programs, but we cannot sustain them when more money is being paid to the bankers for servicing the debt-


Ms. Copps:: To the oil companies.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -than we are paying for old age pensions, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and the federal share of health care costs. The Right Hon. Member's proposals actually support the bankers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems rather obdurate. Fortunately his colleague, the Minister of Finance, is beginning to show some flexibility. Yesterday in Toronto, according to reports, the Minister of Finance said that Old Age Security would indeed be increased if hardship emerges. The Minister knows that when purchasing power is stripped from people who are already living below the poverty line and already in hardship, a hardship is created. Therefore, that change must be made. Why will the Minister not do the correct, honourable, and just thing by insisting on that change being made before Parliament rises in June?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can read to the hon. gentleman some words that he said on June 30, 1982. At that time the Hon. Member said the following:
Our society is in a time of crisis. That is what the Budget is doing. The deficit issue is clearly a real one and it is obviously something that cannot be wished away.
That is what the Hon. Member said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The deficit in-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You may be laughing, but senior citizens are not laughing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that the questioner and the Minister would both like to be heard.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The deficit in 1982, when the Hon. Member spoke, had been projected at something like $12 billion for that year. It came in at around $19.6 billion. The deficit has doubled that on an annual basis. I think the Hon. Member understands economics. What answer would he give to Canadians? Would he tell them that he is willing to continue on the road on which they embarked, which has put the largest single amount of spending on the accounts of Canada today with respect to debt payment? How would he justify that to senior citizens?
[ Translation]



NECESSITY FOR ACTION

Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I must respect the policies of the present Government.
However, I have a supplementary. The Minister realizes and knows perfectly well that pensioners are now suffering from anxiety as a result of that policy. This anxiety cannot be allowed to continue, and these pensioners need our help and your help. We must eliminate that anxiety immediately.

June 5, 1985
Oral Questions
The Hon. Member for Victoria has said so. There have been other Members, in fact many Members among the Conservatives who agree with us. That being the case, would the Minister not agree that immediate action must be taken?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member of the position which he took on six and five. I would say to him, as it is clearly spelled out in the Budget, that we will monitor the situation when the matter comes into effect, as projected, on January 1, 1986. I would also hope, when he is trying to be fair-and when they said that there was no minimum tax- that he would take a look at the date on which the matter is to take effect. If he did that he would realize that it is also the same time when the minimum tax will come into effect, which the Minister of Finance said. That is what he said.


An Hon. Member:: Maybe.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I always thought that the rule in the House was that a Member's word was to be understood and believed. So, I am saying to him-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They obviously do not want an answer, Mr. Speaker.



MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday the Minister of Finance indicated that if hardship were proven the Government would be willing to take another look at the deindexation of pensions.
Day by day numerous organizations, such as the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, the National Advisory Council on Aging and others have made the argument that there will indeed be hardship to seniors as a result of the proposal. I would ask the Minister, if the Minister of Finance is out looking after the interests of Bay Street and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is out looking after the interests of the oil industry, when can we expect the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for the welfare of seniors, to stand up and fight on behalf of seniors?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what 1 am doing, and if the Member looked at-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is exactly what I am doing. If he is suggesting that senior citizens are best protected by
having more and more of our tax dollars going for the payment of debt rather than going toward making more money available for social programs, then 1 do not understand how that protects senior citizens. I suggest that he should take a look at that position. What he is asking is to have more go to the banks and to have less flexibility for the social programs which he and 1 want to support.



POSITION OF MINISTER

Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity today to watch the Minister on CBC television at noon, when he appeared with Mr. Hanmer from the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, and Mr. Hanmer gave exactly the same message as other organizations, and the same message that senior citizens gave me when I was in Saskatchewan yesterday. I simply want to ask the Minister again is he going to wait until these hardship cases which are projected appear on the critical list, before he will fight for seniors within Cabinet and in the country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 say to the Hon. Member that that is exactly what is happening. The proposals are going forward. I keep on saying to the Hon. Member that there is no greater crushing blow on seniors, or any other Canadian, than a debt which cannot be controlled. That is the first point I make.
Second, as 1 have said to the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members in the House, the question of monitoring the situation which the Hon. Member puts forward was in the Budget. But I am sure that he did not say to one senior citizen-and if 1 am wrong, I am willing to listen to him say otherwise-that the Government has also committed itself in the Budget to take a look at the impact. I am sure that the Hon. Member did not say that to one senior citizen in the proposal he made.


Mr. Deans:: What difference does that make?


Neil Young: It was the same Minister who made the same promises during the election campaign, and every one of them was broken, Mr. Speaker. Why should they believe the Government now?



REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET SENIOR CITIZENS

Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the Government and the Minister have been saying that seniors' organizations do not represent seniors. I want to say to him that they do, and the seniors have spoken up through petitions to us and everyone else. I intend to be in Toronto tomorrow to meet with seniors, and every day next week. I want to invite the Minister to come with me, to listen to the concerns of individual senior citizens so that he can start fighting on their behalf. Would he come with me? I'm not scared of them; are you?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 5, 1985


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, I am not. In fact 1 am meeting with them, and I will continue to meet with them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And 1 am willing-


Some Hon. Members:: When?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just a minute-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I don't know if they want an answer or not, Mr. Speaker, or do they just want to barrack.
I say to the Hon. Member, if he is talking to seniors, to put the whole proposal forward and 1 will put the whole proposal forward, but don't be selective and don't use fear tactics with selected details which you want to use for your own political purposes.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with the absences in the front-bench, I would like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. In fact I may have a cooler answer from him to clear up the confusion created by the Minister yesterday. Would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm this simple fact, that the Minister of Justice is responsible for putting the names of the two law firms in Newfoundland which employ his sons on the law agency list in the Province of Newfoundland for getting federal government legal work?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we had several questions yesterday which generated a full exchange between Hon. Members of the Opposition and the Minister of Justice on this subject. The hon. gentleman is fully familiar with the procedures which are followed within the Department for the appointment of agents. He might have the courtesy, as a parliamentarian, to put that very personal question to the Minister when he returns to the House, if that kind of detail is required.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is a very important detail, and the Minister of Justice gave some confused answers on that subject yesterday.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You were afraid to ask him questions
directly yesterday.
Oral Questions



REQUEST THAT CORRESPONDENCE BE TABLED

Robert Phillip Kaplan: This question is more simple, and 1 would like to direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary as well. Will he table today, on behalf of the Government, some very important documents; the two letters which were sent by the Minister of Justice, or on his behalf, to the two law firms in Newfoundland informing them that they were on the legal agency list, so we can look at those two letters? Will he also table today the two statements of account which have been sent by those law firms for legal services provided to the Government so that we can see who signed those two statements of account?


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have given particulars with respect to the quantum. Those are also available in Public Accounts. I can say to the Hon. Member that, with respect to the dates and approval of the accounts, those will be forthcoming. Whether or not the actual body of the account involving income tax matters and dealing with specific persons would be able to be put before the House, is a matter on which I would like to consult with senior law officers of the Crown. I will take the Hon. Member's question as a representation, and the Minister of Justice will be back to him.



PENSIONS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Canadian Federation of Students which represents a half million students and young people who reject the notion that their future should be assured at the expense of the senior citizens of the country. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare listen to the voices of the elderly, the poor, the youth, and Hon. Members of his own Party-


Mr. Dick:: Louder.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: -and put a stop to putting the boots to the elderly in this country by his Government?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the latter part of the question, I do not accept that premise, as I have already explained to his colleagues and other Hon. Members. With respect to the first part of his question, the answer is, yes.



MINISTERIAL ACTION

Howard Douglas McCurdy: Are we to
understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister is in fact going to respond to the voices all across this country and put a boot to the Minister who is putting the boots to the elderly?

June 5, 1985
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think all Hon. Members would recognize that that was the same question, and the same answer applies.



QUESTION PERIOD-ATTENDANCE OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. During the last two days my colleagues and I have tried to put questions to the Prime Minister regarding the Government's policy on patronage and on its conflict of interest guidelines for Ministers, but the Prime Minister has not been here.
An Hon. Member:: He's hiding.


Mr. Allmand:: It appears, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has been in Ottawa but has arranged his schedule to be away during Question Period. These issues, Mr. Speaker-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


William Warren Allmand: -these violations of the guidelines by Ministers, and his campaign promises on patronage, can only be answered by the Prime Minister.
Has the Government adopted a new policy for the attendance of the Prime Minister at Question Period whereby he systematically misses a Question Period-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


William Warren Allmand: -two or three days a week? Is that the new policy of the Government with respect to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow the one question, but I have to remind Hon. Members that any comment on the presence or absence of an Hon. Member is entirely against the Orders. I will allow the question, but I must advise the Hon. Member that he is getting very close on that question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is going to resign soon, anyway, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gauthier:: Who, the Prime Minister? The PM is never here, anyway.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: So Crosbie is resigning, is he?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there have been several references today by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and other Hon. Members, as well as the Hon. Member who has just now put the question with respect to the policy of the attendance of the Prime Minister in Question Period. Naturally, he intends to make himself available to the House at every opportunity. Today he is in the City of Montreal addressing a very important-


John Napier Turner: At seven o'clock tonight.


Erik Nielsen: He is addressing a very important meeting with Jewish organizations and he is engaging in other activities.


John Napier Turner: At seven o'clock tonight.


Erik Nielsen: I hear the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition intervening, but the fact of the matter is, Sir, that the Prime Minister has been in Question Period- and that is his policy-answering questions during the whole of this session thus far-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Budget was the last time he was here.


Erik Nielsen: -much more frequently than the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the New Democratic Party.



REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ATTEND

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would like to remind the House that a few years ago, when the Government of the day tried to introduce a roster system regarding the presence of the Prime Minister and his Ministers, it was the subject of questions in the House because it was a question of policy. There is no comparison between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister-
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It must be Wednesday.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that government Members recognize that the Prime Minister has a responsibility to be in this House and answer questions on behalf of the people of Canada. They should follow through on those cheers and make sure that the Prime Minister is here to answer questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Speech.


William Warren Allmand: It is completely unacceptable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the Hon. Member to come to his supplementary, but 1 also invite Hon. Members to allow me to know whether he has come to a supplementary, by keeping quiet.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, these are questions of policy about which only the Prime Minister can give answers, policies relating to patronage-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the Member to come immediately to a supplementary.


William Warren Allmand: Will the Acting Prime Minister assure this House that the Prime Minister will be here tomorrow and Friday to answer these important questions?
June 5, 1985


Erik Nielsen: Sir, it is the responsibility of every Cabinet Minister to answer questions of policy put by any Member of this House. It is my responsibility today, as well as that of other Ministers, on behalf of the Government, to answer questions of policy, as has been done by the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the best part of this Question Period. But neither in his first question nor in his supplementary did the Hon. Member address a question of policy to me so that I could answer on behalf of the Government, which I would be delighted to do in keeping with my parliamentary responsibility.



PENSIONS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has been made clear, and he has heard from a number of his own caucus members, such as Don Valley East, York East, and Victoria, that he is being asked to reconsider the deindexing of seniors' pensions. Yesterday he heard from a number of national groups representing seniors across the country indicating that what he has done has been essentially a betrayal of those he set out to assist. We are aware of the multitude of groups which have met and communicated with the Minister about their concern and displeasure. He has talked about all the groups he has met who support these measures. Can he tell us what groups of senior citizens he has met who say what he is doing is the right and honourable thing to do?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: George Hees.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Member was right when he said I am meeting with groups.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: The Forest Hill Seniors League.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just yesterday I met with the social policy reform group prior to their press conference-


David Orlikow: What did they tell you?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He asked me who 1 met with, and 1 give that as an example of people I met with yesterday.



SUPPORT INQUIRY

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I put the question poorly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: All of these groups who have met or communicated with the Minister have also been in touch with the NDP
Oral Questions
caucus, telling us that they have indicated their displeasure, and that they consider his action to be a betrayal. 1 am asking if he has met with a single group who support the Government program of deindexation, a single group, or any seniors, and who are these groups who support his action?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If the Hon. Member is asking do all these groups-


Ian Deans: Give us one seniors' group who supports this.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Come on.


Mr. McKnight:: They cannot make up their minds who should ask the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Is he asking do all groups that I meet support-


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Ian Deans: Name one.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Will you give me some time?


Some Hon. Members:: Name one.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, they obviously don't want an answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East.


Some Hon. Members:: One!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Last week he announced the selection of Saskatoon as the site of the 1989 Canada Summer Games. These games will leave Saskatoon with new and upgraded facilities which will be used by thousands of athletes for national and international events, as well as Saskatoonians for generations to come. As part of the bid for the Games, it is my understanding that a new approach to financing the Games was undertaken. Could the Minister explain to this House the unique agreement reached between the City and the federal Government, and its potential implications for such funding in the future?
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, first of all allow me to tell the Hon. Member that the choice was a most difficult one in that the bids by Regina and Saskatoon were the best bids in the history of the Canada Games.

June 5, 1985
Oral Questions
To answer the specific question, there is indeed a new era of fiscal responsibility launched by this Government, the City of Saskatoon, and other communities, in that we are attempting to work together to raise funds from the private sector, and we are succeeding. We will be splitting any excess, which we believe there will be, on a 50/50 basis. It is these types of positive agreements which will do more for amateur sports and amateur sport facilities with less tax dollars.



FINANCE


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance and concerns the Budget proposal which would allow pension funds to invest up to 31 per cent of their assets outside Canada. Will the Minister tell the House what consultations were carried out to ascertain if Canadians are willing to see one-third of their retirement savings invested outside the Canadian economy?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer this question because there have been some very important changes on behalf of Canadian pensioners through the pension system, in the Budget. What the Budget says is that for every dollar pension funds invest in Canadian small business, they can invest an additional $3 outside the country. The pension funds have been asking for this change for some time because it is in the interests of pensioners that their pension funds earn the best possible rate of return.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Outside Canada? Sellout. That shows your mentality.


Some Hon. Members:: Quiet!


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right; buy American.



MINISTER'S POSITION

Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if the Government's three to one offer is taken up, the amount leaving Canada could be as high as $28 billion. A capital outflow of this order would surely increase inflation, put pressure on the dollar, and could cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Will the Minister not admit that this measure was ill considered and needs to go back to the drawing board?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Hon. Member is suggesting that $10 billion invested in Canadian small business is a bad thing.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of policy for the Acting Prime Minister, and it concerns the appointment of standing agents by the Minister of Justice. I learned yesterday that the Minister personally appointed the firms employing his two sons. On Monday the Deputy Prime Minister said that these appointments were made on the basis of merit alone. Yesterday, his colleague, the Minister of Justice, said that they were made on the basis of merit as well as on whether, in a political sense, the appointees are known to the Government and can be trusted.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his colleague, the Minister of Justice, that appointments of standing agents should be made not just on the basis of merit but also on whether they can be politically trusted by the Government of the day?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, one thing I can say is that one cannot trust that kind of preamble. To say that the Minister of Justice personally appointed his sons as standing agents is false-


Ian Deans: He didn't say that.


Erik Nielsen: -and not in keeping with what the Minister of Justice explained to the House, in the House yesterday and in the public media accounts which I observed.
To say that I said in the House that the only criteria upon which-


Svend Johannes Robinson: That is what you said.


Erik Nielsen: -these appointments were based-the Hon. Member says to me: "That is what you said". That is not what I said. I did not place any words of limitation when I referred to the criterion of merit in my response. But that is the implication that the Hon. Member very untruthfully wishes to leave in the House. It does not behoove him, either as a Member or a professional lawyer, to attempt to leave that kind of impression upon the House of Commons.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES

Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said on Monday that these appointments were made on the basis of merit, and merit alone. The Minister of Justice's own executive assistant confirmed to me that the Minister personally appointed the firms containing his two sons as standing agents.
Who is responsible for the enforcement of the conflict of interest guidelines which have clearly been breached in these circumstances? Is it the Deputy Prime Minister? Is it the Prime Minister? Whoever it is, when will he start enforcing

June 5, 1985
these guidelines, or are they not worth the paper they are written on?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, having been on shaky and false ground with respect to two of the statements in his original question, now makes, what I can only assume in the kindest interpretation, an unintentional effort to compound further the falsity of the preamble by deviating from his allegation that the Minister of Justice made appointments personally, to a position where he says an officer on the staff of the Minister appointed the firms personally. That is what he just said.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: It is totally not in keeping with his role as a Member of Parliament to attempt that kind of intentional confusion.
As far as the policy is concerned, the guidelines which existed at the time of assuming office are still in place, and the Ministers of the Crown are expected to abide by those guidelines.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Could the Minister inform the House why the Government has not restructured the Scientific Research Tax Credit Program instead of replacing it with a new program? I think basic research is important, and some industries in my riding are concerned about the termination of this program.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert for giving me this opportunity to point out to the House that the Minister of Finance has taken steps to stimulate research and development.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker-


Ian Deans: How can you read the answer to the question?


Mr. Axworthy:: What a phoney.


John Napier Turner: Author.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Obviously Members opposite are not interested
in listening to answers to questions in the House.
Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: En fran^ais.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Government has chosen to replace the scientific research tax credit with a much superior form of investment tax incentive known as a refundable research and tax credit. It will provide a much higher quality of investment on the part of government revenues to ensure that first class research projects are funded and are of particular benefit to the small and medium-sized business sector. These benefits will be of tremendous importance to the Hon. Member and her constituents.



PATENTS


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns ending patent examinations in Canada.
In the introduction to the report of the Nielsen Task Force it is stated on page 1 that the Private Sector Advisory Committee was established "to ensure objectivity, to make consultation an integral part of the process". Yet the President of the Patent Institute of Canada has said: "They never sought our views or those of anybody else we know of involved in patents". Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why his consultation was a sham, and why all of the industry representatives on the study team, apart from representatives of a bank and an accounting firm, have come from subsidiaries of foreign multinationals?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the assertions of so-called fact that are imbedded in that question. Quite frankly, I think that it does the Hon. Member no service to be critical of private sector participation in a very unique-


Sheila Maureen Copps: By America.


Erik Nielsen: No, not by America, they are all Canadians. It does him no service to be critical of that participation in a unique exercise in public administration in this country where, for the first time, the private sector has been engaged in a government-wide review of over a thousand programs.
I might say that they have been doing that without any remuneration. For the Hon. Member to ridicule their efforts, and their consultative efforts, is rather disgraceful, if I may say so.


David Berger: I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister knows what he is talking about.



TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION

David Berger: Mr. Speaker, what we are
talking about here is being the only industrialized country in
the world to grant patents without domestic examination. How

June 5, 1985
Oral Questions
could the Deputy Prime Minister recommend abdicating Canada's technological and industrial sovereignty? How could he recommend putting over 1,000 persons in the private sector out of work, people who earn over $35 million in foreign exchange for this country? How can he recommend closing an office which earns the Government some $13 million in the 1985-86 Budget? What possessed him to make such a recommendation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the charges which the Hon. Member makes are totally false.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Totally true.


Erik Nielsen: The objective-


David Berger: It comes from a Tory.


Erik Nielsen: I sat silently while the Hon. Member put his question. I see no reason why he should not listen in the same kind of silence and courtesy. The objective of the task force is to review all government programs with a view to streamlining, eliminating duplication and overlap, and to deliver in a more efficient and cost effective way to the Canadian public the services to which they are entitled. That is the central objective of the task force. It is not a cost cutting exercise. It is a managerial exercise which is long overdue.



PENSIONS


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In yesterday's Speech fromt the Throne the Conservative Government in Ontario stated:
-we will make strong recommendations urging the Government of Canada to compensate fully for inflation those pensioners receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
If you will not listen to senior citizens, will you listen to Frank Miller, do your job, and get the Government to abandon this measure which taxes poor pensioners in order to pay for a Budget for the rich?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is not a Budget for the rich, it is a Budget for people in his own riding who have small businesses, it is for people who need jobs, and it is for people across the economic spectrum.
When the Hon. Member asks those questions he should keep in mind what is in the Budget. The matter will be monitored as of the date it becomes effective.



ENDORSATION INQUIRY

Michael Morris Cassidy: If you have failed even to convince the Conservatives in Ontario and Frank Miller, the Premier, can you name one group representing senior citizens, in the 4,000 miles from coast to coast in this country, which in fact has endorsed the proposal to deindex Old Age Security?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can give him more than one on this basis.


An Hon. Member:: How many brothers have you got?


Mr. Rossi:: Tell me a brother over 65 who approves.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If I have a brother? I do not think that the Hon. Member has to hurl that across the floor. I suggest to the Hon. Member that he at least use some sense of decorum in this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: When I speak to senior citizens and I sit down with them to discuss the issues, as I said to the House yesterday, while senior citizens want protection against inflation and that is also what we would like to do, they do understand-


Ian Deans: Give us one group.


Mr. Nunziata:: You broke your promise.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -that one cannot continue spending the amount of money on debt, that leaves the country-


Ian Deans: One group, please.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member can put up one finger, two fingers, and if he has more he can put those up too.


Ian Deans: Name one group.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I say to the Hon. Member, surely when I speak to senior citizens and put the proposal forward, do not think that they also do not have an understanding of Canada's reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: One group.



CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of eight presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 4, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Longueuil (Mr. Leblanc) and certain petitions presented by the Hon.
June 5, 1985

Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a number of questions of privilege. I propose to deal with them in the order in which they were received.
1 have been advised that two Members who had earlier indicated an interest have withdrawn their questions of privilege.
Therefore, the first question of privilege of which I have received notice comes from the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday during a wide-ranging interview with News Radio I made certain comments about the Speaker which the long-standing traditions of the House would prohibit me from making.
Those comments were reported in certain newspapers on Monday. Out of respect for the House and the Chair, 1 withdraw those specific comments completely and unequivocally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member would allow me to say that I appreciate deeply what he has done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CORRECTION OF STATEMENT MADE DURING QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 3, during Question Period I said that Robert Pittman, a Newfoundland lawyer, had been the campaign manager for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the Minister of Justice said that I was wrong and that Mr. Pittman never worked in his campaign.
I have checked with sources in Newfoundland and I am told that Mr. Pittman was not the campaign manager for the Minister. On the other hand, a Mr. Finton Aylward, senior partner in the same firm as Mr. Pittman-
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


William Warren Allmand: -was a senior campaign manager in the Minister's leadership campaign, and the firm Aylward, Morris, and Pittman was awarded legal business by the Minister.
I apologize to the House for the error I made, but the principle in my question on Monday remains the same.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Don Valley East is rising on a question of privilege?



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, two Hon. Members, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), incorrectly used the name of my riding, Don Valley East, implying that 1 have a position that differs from that of my Party and my Government about the change in senior citizens' pensions included in the Budget.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has explained our Party's position in a clear and sensitive way today and several times in the House this week. I agree with his position. I also wish to make it crystal clear that I stand totally behind all the provisions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the President of the Privy Council rising on the business question, or is the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville rising on a question of privilege?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on the same point of order. I am sorry, but I thought the Hon. Member was a man of conscience and would defend the seniors in his riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Show respect.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order raised.


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


Mr. Speaker:: 1 apologize. I take it the Hon. Member is rising on a point of order and I will hear him when we get through routine proceedings. Is it a point of order or a question of privilege arising out of Question Period?


Bill Attewell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I think the President of the Privy Council would be delighted to be given the opportunity to have a question asked about the business of the House and get the attention of the public away from the mess that his Government has got itself into over the Budget.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have such great respect for the House Leader of the Official Opposition that I will not tell him we took a laughter gauge on that comment and it received one out of 10.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 5, 1985
Business of the House


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would recommend that maybe he could grow the mustache which the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) shaved.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The business for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will be as requested by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). It will be third reading stage of Bill C-15. We hope to finish that off, and, if necessary, have a vote tomorrow. I will be consulting to see if we can just have a voice vote.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of pushing things too far, is there any way that we might find out, maybe, what we might do perhaps on Friday?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is
yes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, would it then be appropriate to ask what method we might use to find out?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Carrier pigeon.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The method would be to ask the business question on Thursday, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, now that we have got to the point, are we going to operate on a day-to-day basis? Or would it be possible for the Government perhaps to provide us with more than one day at a time?


Mr. Stevens:: Stick around, Ian.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we have been in the process of consultation. I believe it was either the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) or a very good look-alike who sat in my office for two hours a day over the course of the last few days discussing the business of the House. He will fully understand the fact that, once we have a chance to carry on these discussions in the full spirit of co-operation for which we are all so famous, I will try to give him, at the earliest possible date, an indication of business, not only for Friday but into next week. All I can say to the Hon. Member is that I am consulting with my colleagues, and we are looking at the list of legislation. I hope to discuss the business for the next week in answer to the Business of the House question tomorrow.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We will not sleep until we find out.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the third report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration concerning immigrant entrepreneurs.

In accordance with Standing Order 69(13) I request the Government make a comprehensive response to our third report.


HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in both official languages.


PETITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from three places in Saskatchewan, North Battleford, Saskatoon East, and Moose Jaw in which the people from those ridings indicate they would like the PC Government to index the old age pensions to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis as promised in the 1984 election campaign.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a series of people in various Saskatchewan ridings, most of which are PC ridings.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How would you know; you have never been to Saskatchewan?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Quoting people from the City of Saskatoon, the riding of the Government House Leader, these people are calling upon the Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to drop this crazy and cold-hearted idea of deindexing the Old Age Security pension. They want their pensions to remain indexed, i am very pleased to present a petition on their behalf.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 80 senior citizen residents in my riding of Ottawa Centre who protest the Government's decision to deindex after it made a promise not
June 5, 1985

to interfere with Old Age Security. They petition the Government of Canada to reinstate the full indexation. In view of the concern about this issue, my telephone number is: 995-951 1-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows better.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third day in a row that we in the New Democratic Party have been presenting petitions from residents of our own constituencies and indeed from constituencies all across Canada. I have another dozen today from constituents of mine, and indeed from all parts of British Columbia, protesting the cut-back in the Old Age Security caused by partial deindexation and asking for full indexation of the Old Age Security benefits.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 335.


Mr. Althouse: 1.	Are penalties imposed at the border to those persons who attempt to import unlicensed wheat illegally into Canada and, if so, what are they?
2.	How many such charges have been made by border officials in the past four years and what is a list of such charges?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The
imposition of penalties for attempted importations of unlicensed wheat into Canada is determined by the circumstances involved. Where there is a clear attempt to smuggle, misdescribe or undervalue, the goods are subject to seizure and forfeiture under the Customs Act, as well as the imposition of monetary penalties. Where there is merely an attempt to import wheat without the benefit of an import licence, the goods are subject to the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and regulations and the imposition of any penalties for infractions thereof comes under the purview of the Canadian Wheat Board. In these circumstances, customs detains the goods under Section 22(2) of the Customs Act and refers the matter to the Canadian Wheat Board. Section 22(2) of the Customs Act provides the authority for customs to detain goods of which the export or import is prohibited, controlled or regulated by or under any Act of Parliament and further stipulates that the goods will be dealt with as provided for by the controlling legislation. Generally, the goods are refused entry and subsequently re-exported from Canada or destroyed.
2. The Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise has no record of any seizure actions being effected for attempts to smuggle, misdescribe or undervalue importations
Supply
of wheat. While, on a daily basis, customs detains controlled goods on behalf of numerous other government departments and agencies, it does not maintain statistics in this regard.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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 be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just sent out for the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), in whose name the motion stands. He will be here momentarily. He is discussing matters that were raised during Question Period just outside the door and is finding some difficulty getting through a rather large crowd. I know, however, that he is making his way in and will be in his seat almost immediately, if he is not already there.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain was rising on a point of order about the need to check the microphones in this place, since clearly some Hon. Members in the House believe that they are not working. That explains the volume at which they make presentations, occasionally.
5442

June 5, 1985
Supply


Neil Young: Budget which ignores jobs and intensifies unfairness. Nothing more startling illustrates this unfairness than the shabby and mean-spirited way in which the Tories treat Canada's pensioners. Every senior citizen in Canada will be adversely affected by the Budget. The old age pension will decline by 3 per cent each year due to deindexation.
As I have said before, deindexation may sound mild enough. However, the impact of deindexation will devastate the living standards of Canada's elderly-our parents and grandparents. The annual cut to each and every Old Age Security cheque to each and every pensioner in Canada will be $100 in 1986; $205 in 1987; $315 in 1988; $431 in 1989; $553 in 1990; and $680 in 1991.
By the year 1991, the Conservative Government will be saving $2 billion on the backs of Canada's elderly. The Government is taking money out of Canada's inadequate pension system-a system which already fails to provide the elderly men and women of this country with retirement in dignity. The Government is taking money out of the pockets of Canada's pensioners while some 1.8 million seniors live in poverty. The Government is condemning the poorest seniors to ever deepening poverty.
The deindexation of pensions means that the incomes of Canada's senior citizens will be subject to the ravages of inflation. It destroys the hopes and dreams of senior citizens for a decent retirement income. It is a shameful attack on the children of the depression-today's seniors who grew up in tough economic times, who came of age in the war years and who have contributed so much to Canadian society. Surely they have the right to retire in dignity.
I say to the Prime Minister that Canada's seniors have paid, and paid handsomely. He says that the Budget rewards those who get up half an hour earlier. That is a cruel joke to play on Canadians who have worked hard all their lives. Show some compassion, Mr. Prime Minister, and remove this contemptible deindexation measure from your Budget.
The Prime Minister has a double standard of fairness. He keeps his election promises for more money to the big oil companies and breaks his promises to Canada's seniors. During last summer's election campaign, when the Government was looking for votes, the Prime Minister promised full indexation of pensions. He promised full indexation would be restored on January 1, 1985. It is patently unfair for the Prime Minister to promise to restore the indexation of pensions for Canada's seniors during the election and then actually slash their benefits in the Budget.
1 ask Hon. Members to consider the following. While this Government slashes old age pensions, it is giving $2.4 billion to big oil companies. It is giving $600 million to the rich through the capital gains giveaway. It is giving $235 million to the richest Canadians by increasing and fully indexing the contribution limits for RRSPs. It is giving a further $2.2 billion to corporations through reduced taxes.
I repeat, the Conservatives have two standards of fairness- one for the privileged few, the wealthy and large corporations,
Supply
and another for Canada's elderly. The Minister of Finance is distressed that there are far too few rich people in Canada. In making that type of statement, I wish he would take a look at what he is doing to the seniors in the country and consider the plight they happen to be living in. It is out there. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) knows and understands that completely. I just wish the rest of the Cabinet would fully understand it. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare takes up the suggestion I made to him earlier today in Question Period. 1 hope he does come with me to visit senior citizens. If he does that, it will give him increased ammunition to fight within Cabinet to make the Government reverse what it is doing to old age pensioners in the country.
When the Liberal Government planned to deindex pensions in 1982, the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) called it the meanest move in the Budget. The present Minister of Finance, who was at that time the Opposition's finance critic, and now is the Minister of unfairness, said that the Liberals' plan to deindex pensions "put the boots to those who are hardest hit in the economy today, the low income people and pensioners".
In fact, at that time, the Conservative Party spent $30,000 to take out full-page newspaper ads across the country in which it condemned the Liberals' plan to deindex pensions. It said it would be harmful to Canada's elderly. In that ad, it urged Canadians to send a mesage to the Government. I make the same appeal today. I urge anyone out there who is listening to this debate and who has listened to Question Period and what has been going on in this place since the Budget came down, to do exactly what the Conservative Party was asking him or her to do back in 1982, that is to say, to deluge this place with letters, petitions and telegrams so that the Government will clearly understand that what it is doing does not have the support of elderly Canadians, or even of those Canadians who are contemplating retirement.
I wish to make an additional point. I say this anticipating hoots of derision from Members on the government side. In this country, pensions are a non-partisan issue. Pensions affect everyone in the country. I do not care how you lean, whether it is in partial support of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, or even the Rhinoceros Party. What the Government is doing through its Budget will affect every senior citizen in the country, everyone who is contemplating retirement and anyone who looks forward to retirement in the few short years ahead.
The Government is just not listening to the message being sent to it by senior citizens across the country. As I said before, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance should take their own advice by responding to the message sent to them by social policy groups and senior citizens' organizations from coast to coast.
Deindexing old age pensions has been condemned by Canadian Pensioners Concerned, United Senior Citizens of

June 5, 1985
Supply
Ontario, Action Now in Saskatchewan, the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, the Association of Jewish Seniors, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the National Council of Welfare, the Government's own National Advisory Council on Aging and numerous other groups. My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party are going to make sure that the Prime Minister and the Government get the message. This unfairness to Canada's seniors must be stopped.
I say again that the New Democrats have launched a cross-country campaign for the reindexation of pensions. Our Party has fought tirelessly to ensure that Canadians could and would retire in dignity. That is our commitment. The Prime Minister and Conservative Members have broken faith with Canadians, and in the coming days and weeks, the New Democrats will continue to fight to have full indexation of old age pensions restored.
I know that the constituents of Conservative Party Members have begun to call Conservative Party Members to place their objections before them. I ask Members of all Parties to consider that. In the Tory caucus, there is an excellent opportunity for Conservative Members to go nose to nose with the Ministers who are doing this to the constituents whom Tory Members are supposed to represent. Conservative Members have an opportunity to join with the New Democratic Party to say to the Government that enough is enough and we ain't going to take it any more.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question to ask the Hon. Member. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has been saying that he has spoken with a number of different individuals and groups about the deindexing of pensions. I know that my friend, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), has also been travelling around the country meeting with certain groups. I was wondering if he would be prepared to share with us the observations that he has made as he has come into contact with seniors' groups and particularly with a number of seniors' groups in western Canada.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do so. First,
I should say that last weekend, in response to what the government Members were saying, which was that they believed that the seniors of the country supported what the Government was doing, just out of curiosity I visited two senior citizens' apartment buildings in my constituency. I knocked on every door and told those who answered that I was there to talk about Old Age Security and what the Government was doing. I did not have to say anything more. I had a petition with me, and every single pensioner signed that petition. Members of my caucus went back to my constituency the same weekend and got exactly the same response.
Yesterday I went to Regina and Moose Jaw to attend a convention of the Action Now group, the seniors' unbrella group in Saskatchewan. Senior citizen after senior citizen had no hesitation in saying to me that what the Government was doing was wrong, that it was obvious that the Government is in
the pocket of big business and that it was not listening to the senior citizens of the country. They said that the only groups the Government is interested in listening to are the big corporations, the Bay Street boys and the oil companies. If senior citizens are saying that to me, they are most certainly saying the same thing to Conservative Members who were elected to represent the interests of the people of their constituencies. By not speaking up and opposing this action, they are in violation of their duties.


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) with great interest. I would like to tell a little story that goes back to August of last year when I visited a senior citizens' home, St. Anne's, in Saskatoon. One lady there asked me if the Government could bring about economic recovery so that people could get back to work and start paying their taxes again so that the Government could afford to pay seniors their pensions. It seems to me that she put the whole issue in a nutshell. She understood that her pension cannot come from a printing press but that it had to come from an economy with some substance and foundation.
I am not very happy about sharing the burden of this debt. Senior citizens are not happy, corporations are not happy and people who earn over $40,000 per year who are being surtaxed are not happy. However, when we took office last fall, it was made very clear to us that the debt was about to wreck the country. As someone said not too long ago, let us try to make some decisions in this Parliament while we can still make decisions. If we do not make them now, the decision-making power will be taken away from us and put in the head offices of banks and lending institutions outside this country.
Has the Hon. Member for Beaches really given this issue a broad view or is he just zeroing in on one particular item? 1 agree with the Hon. Member that everyone has a burden to share. I would like to think that those senior citizens who are able to help us share the burden will do so. We look forward to their assistance. I would be very happy to hear from any senior citizen in my constituency who cannot afford to pay 27 cents per day, because I would like to talk to that senior citizen.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to reply to the Hon. Member. Members who have been Members as long as I have know that I always take the broad view of things.


Mr. Andre:: Yeah?


Neil Young: I am totally unbiased and I take an objective point of view.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: From a socialist point of view, you are right.


Neil Young: The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows that. Usually I do not find myself in disagreement with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Harvie Andre: At least you're smiling.
June 5, 1985


Neil Young: I'm smiling at the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
1 personally find this part of the Budget to be deeply offensive. I find it deeply offensive to the senior citizens who were told time and time again that the Government would not touch the pensions and would in fact restore full indexation on pensions. Government Members made that promise at the time of the six and five program.
Whether one takes a broad view of the Budget or a narrow view, a commitment was clearly made to every senior citizen during the election campaign, following the election campaign and during the discussions on the benefits paper. That is what I find so offensive. I think the question of deindexation of pensions must be addressed, regardless of what else is in the Budget.
I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) that a number of senior citizens who were at that convention I attended yesterday signed the petition that was presented today by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). Those senior citizens were extremely angry about what the Government was doing to them. I would like the Hon. Member to take that into account.
As I indicated earlier, any Budget must be seen in the light of how it addresses human concerns. It cannot treat people as a bunch of statistics. Last summer, when they were looking for votes, government Members promised us heaven and earth in the way of pension improvements, but they have reversed their position today and say that things have now changed.
Conservative Members can use a host of arguments to try to justify their position, but I do not think they will be able to convince senior citizens. 1 do not think that this will wash one little bit. People see this particular item of the Budget as being a betrayal of what the Government promised them, and they ain't going to accept it. I think the Hon. Member should understand that. He is in for the fight of his life over this one issue. If he thinks that the business community has power, he should just wait until he sees "grey power". Those people will knock him flat on his keister.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) who spoke of Saskatchewan. On Monday, I went to the Assiniboia Gravelbourg nomination convention in the riding of Assiniboia at which 1,000 Conservatives were gathered. It was interesting to note that the Budget was the subject of discussion. I had senior farmer after senior farmer tell me that, due to the Budget, they had been saved from a lifetime of work. The farmers told me that under the former Government, they would have lost the only pension program which they had. Senior farmer after senior farmer complimented us on the Budget.
I say to the Hon. Member who has just spoken that the Budget has brought a very positive response from Saskatchewan. It has been well received that we have kept intact the
Supply
principle of universality. The people of Saskatchewan are very pleased with the Budget.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let that go without some comment. He was talking to Conservatives. I am talking to Canadians.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What is the difference?


Neil Young: I thought that the Government was elected to represent Canadians generally, not only Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I could go out and talk with a bunch of NDPers and they would firmly condemn the Government, in principle, because it has given them a Budget which will hang them. I am not only speaking with NDPers, I am talking to Conservatives as well. Conservatives were on the hot line show yesterday and they did not agree with the Government. I have spoken with Liberals and they do not agree with the Government. I am still waiting for the day when government Members will come into the House and tell me that Cabinet Ministers have spoken with seniors and that they are prepared to identify the people with whom they have spoken. I have not seen any evidence of that. Government Members were asked time and again today with whom they have spoken. We asked them to give us names or the names of groups. But we did not receive an answer. Once government Members can come into the House and tell us that, I will listen to them a bit more closely than I have in the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired. We will now resume debate with the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate and to put forward various points of view. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), and I, despite our political differences, are very good friends. I would like to tell him, when he speaks to the Conservatives of Canada, that they are Canadians as well. While it might have been a slip of the tongue-


Neil Young: The heat of debate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is fine. He can be selective with whom he chooses to speak and I can be selective with whom I choose to speak. That debate could take up a lot of time in the House. I do not think that would be very useful. 1 think we must return to the point of the debate.
He has a position-and I say this to him from an objective point of view, though he may question my objectivity-which the NDP has generally held. That position is to spend more money, spend ourselves out of debt and out of a burgeoning increase in the debt load and the servicing of the debt. Members of the NDP believe that if we keep on spending, we can turn around the economy. I happen to disagree with that philosophy. However, I do not disagree with him that his Party has been consistent in putting forward that philosophy. While

June 5, 1985
Supply
I fundamentally disagree with it, I would say to him that in that sense he has been very consistent. I will have further words about the Liberals, because they have other viewpoints on deindexation which have been expressed before. We could spend a long period of time debating that.
However, I know that the Hon. Member is a precise man. I think he should take a look at the motion which is before the House. I hope he has read it. In fact, I went to the Table to ensure that there was not a printing mistake in the Order Paper. The Table gave me a signed copy, which bears the signature of the Hon. Member, so I know that the motion is exactly the same in the Order Paper as the motion which he put forward last night for debate today. I do not know if he has read it, but I will. It states:
A Progressive Conservative Government intends to re-establish the full-indexing of old age pensions to the cost of living beginning January 1, 1985.
If he took a look at the Budget, he would see that the plan is to come into effect on January 1, 1986. So what he is asking the Government to do is exactly what the Government is doing. I hope he will vote for the very thing which the Government is now doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will try to help the Hon. Member out of his dilemma. I really think that what he wanted to talk about was January 1, 1986.


Neil Young: You are right.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you. That is between friends. I am sure that he and other Members would want to commend the Government for having done exactly what they have asked the Government to do.
The only other point, which is more critical, that I would like to make on the motion, is that it is exactly that kind of imprecision that creates fear among senior citizens. It is from that point of view that I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he should be very careful when he puts forward a position or a point of view to make sure that it is the entire story.
When he asks for petitions, he should give senior citizens, in respect to them, the full details of the issue which is facing not only senior citizens but the entire Canadian society. If he does that and if he still receives the same response, I will respect that response. But I would ask him, please, not simply to put forward to a group of people, who need the explanation, a petition which is against the Government and its proposals and ask them to sign it. I do not think that is of any great benefit to those who sign it and whose names are then used in the House. It will not change the situation as far as clarity and understanding are concerned.
I know the Hon. Member will say that the motion was taken directly from the Conservative election manual. That is correct. I am pleased that he quoted the manual correctly. However, it does not do anything for clarity in this debate.
Let us look at the situation as Canadians, not as New Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives. Here is the situation. In
February of 1984 when the Lalonde Budget was brought down, it was projected that the annual increase in the deficit which Canada had been experiencing would turn the corner and start to decrease. In addition, it was projected that the trend would continue into the 1990s. But when we became the Government, elected by the Canadian people, those projections and what was in the public domain in terms of public information had no relationship to the reality of September 4, 1984. In fact, the reality was that the deficit, which had been announced and projected even during the election campaign, was up to $5 billion more. But even that possibly could be controlled. What was even more worrisome was that the projections for the annual deficit were so large that the very ability to maintain the programs for which the Hon. Member works and fights as do I and other Members of the House, was being seriously jeopardized by the cost of servicing the debt. For example, next year the debt was to go to $38 billion on an annual basis. By the end of this decade it was going to be $40 billion on an annual basis. By the early 1990s it was to be $50 billion. So before many years hence we, as a Canadian society, were going to have a debt of $400 billion.
Let me put that into perspective, if I might, Mr. Speaker. At the present time, most of the cost of servicing the debt leaves our shores and goes into bankers' hands. I am sure the Hon. Member is not comfortable when I say that his proposal gives more to the bankers. I am sure he never thought he would ever have to defend that position. But if the Hon. Member looks at the situation clearly, he will see that we the Canadian society, are spending today from the federal share of health care, approximately $11 billion on an annual basis. He will see, for example, that on old age pensions and on the Guaranteed Income Supplement we spend another $11 billion. Therefore, the Canadian society spends approximately $22 billion on those two absolutely essential programs. But we are spending more on the servicing of the debt right now than on either of those programs. It is now up to $25 billion.
If we project just four or five years down the road, Mr. Speaker, and we look at the debt load which we are going to have not only as the Government but as the Canadian society, and if we annualize that at a 10 per cent interest rate-which I think most Hon. Members in the House would say is a reasonable number to project in view of the present circumstances-then the cost of that debt on an annual basis will have jumped to $40 billion.
The very relationship to the programs we want to maintain as Canadians, if it is not jeopardized today, it surely will be jeopardized in four or five years down the road. I cannot change that fact in any way I want. The debt is not a benign giant but rather something which the people of Canada asked this Government and this House to deal with. I have said as openly as I know how, in Question Period and in other locations, that had I been in other circumstances, I would obviously have opted for other options. But I say to Hon. Members that today more than 50 per cent or thereabouts-let us use that as a base figure-of our expenditures at the
June 5, 1985

national level are in my Department of National Health and Welfare and in servicing the debt. I say this to members of the New Democratic Party in as straightforward a manner as I know how. They say, "Don't bring in any cuts. Don't bring in any reductions. Bring in taxes on the rich". But keep in mind that this change will come into effect at the same time as the minimum tax, which was pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), that is, on January 1, 1986, if I have the date right. But those Hon. Members do not tell the people about that side of the equation. So I am saying to them very directly; they know and I know that there is no money tree out there from which, if one shakes a certain branch, one will get more money without pain and will be able to sustain these programs without turning around that ship of state, that deficit and that load.


Mr. Waddell:: You didn't have any problems with the oil companies, did you?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Surely they can understand that. Creating jobs was mentioned in the Budget. Surely, the best job that we can give Canadians is a permanent job. And if deficit financing is as successful as the socialists put forward, why is it that we have this large debt?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Because you gave away too much money to the oil companies. You gave them $2 billion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And why do we have 1.4 million unemployed-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Because you have monetarism.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -of which 500,000 are under the age of 24. So I say to the Hon. Member, if his system works so well, why hasn't it worked?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Because we have not been in government. You are in government. The Liberals were in government. We have been in the Opposition, remember?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And you will stay there. I will change my opinion about the Liberals and the New Democrats after I see what happens in Ontario. I do not know how you are going to defend that, but that is for you to worry about and not for me. I say to the Hon. Member very directly, please put that forward.
The other point the Hon. Member likes to make is that we have not maintained universality. That is also not the case. We have maintained universality. Every Canadian who is eligible for old age pension at age 65 still receives it, as they received it before the Budget, as they received it after the Budget, and as they will receive it as well on January 1, 1986.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: While I might have my philosophical differences with the New Democratic Party, I must mention the Liberals. Here they are rising in their places and telling us that this is a dastardly act. Let me read what my
Supply
immediate predecessor, the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Hon. Monique Begin, said. I do not believe she was ever accused in this House of being very concerned about the deficit. At the time she was speaking, the annualized deficit was $19.6 billion. Let me quote the following from Hansard of November 18, 1982, at page 20801:
I emphasize this last point because, in spite of the position taken recently by the New Democratic Party, there are people in this House and throughout Canada who believe that we can simply increase the deficit by a few hundred million dollars to achieve our pressing objectives. However, beyond a certain point, the interest payable on the deficit becomes intolerable because, from the point of view of a Minister of social affairs, it is a waste of money.
We must be realistic and avoid seemingly easy answers which would only prolong the economic crisis and exert even more pressure on all future social budgets.
That is the point, Mr. Speaker, and I say to my Liberal and New Democrat friends, that is the point. Have they looked at the demographic figures ten years from now? Have they looked at demographic figures 15 years from now? That is why, for instance, there were changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party knows full well will help people to plan for their pension futures. But do they say anything to the old age pensioners about that? No, they leave that out. They will not say anything like that. And, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that if people will rely throughout our history only on the OAS and the GIS, they will be at or near the poverty line. Surely it is better for us today to start planning for the future so that these programs that we all want to maintain can be preserved. I say to the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party, don't ask us to give the international bankers more. Don't defend the bankers. Defend the old age pensioners for a change.
I could go through speeches by the finance critic or the health critic for the Liberal Party, as well as others, but I say to all of them: Yes, we have maintained the principle of universality, and what we are also trying to maintain, through Bill C-26, for example, through the spouse's allowance, and through changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, is the ability of Canadians to invest and create jobs for the future.
Yes, I am sure the Hon. Member has many small businesses in his riding, people who do not consider themselves rich and who had to pay capital gains tax when they sold the business. I say to him, start believing in your neighbours, the people up and down your street. They can do more for the economy than this or any Government can do. Surely people can look after themselves better than either you or 1 can with rhetoric. Look at the StatsCan figures which came out yesterday, and keep this in mind: if we are going to continue down the road we have been on, the cost of servicing our debt will become so great that the programs and pensions we have for those who reach 65 a few years from now will be unsustainable. Let us not get into that trap. Let us make the decisions today which will turn that around and give not only our senior citizens some hope, but also those who are in the workforce today and those who want to start their own businesses. Let us give them

June 5, 1985
Supply
the hope that they will not be crushed by a tax burden which they cannot maintain.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have just one question I want to put to the Minister. He had a great deal to say about the need to reduce the debt being the reason for a reduction in increases to the pensions Canada's senior citizens will receive. But he omitted reference to the billions of dollars which he knows are given to corporations each year. By these corporations' own admission, these breaks produce no gain whatsoever. The President of the Bank of Montreal spoke to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Toronto and said that the corporate sector is awash in corporate tax expenditures. That tells us that there is a lot of money which could be saved if there were some rationalization of the corporate tax expenditure side of the Budget.
Rather than take nearly $1,500 over the next five years out of the purses and pockets of senior citizens, why did he not look at that corporate tax expenditure side of the account and use that to reduce the deficit?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, as well as others, have said that the size of the debt is such that all of us have to share in its reduction. The Minister of Finance has said to the Hon. Member, as well as others in this House on numerous occasions, that what the Hon. Member calls loopholes and others call incentives, that is, the matter of corporate taxation, is something he is looking at very carefully to see if there can be some changes to meet some of the points the Hon. Member has made. But I say that no matter how we rejig it, let us not leave the impression with the Canadian people that there is a magic money tree and that shaking it will have no effect on our trade, our competitiveness, or the ability of corporations to continue to create jobs. Let us look at these issues but not in isolation or in the belief that there is a painless way of reversing a situation where we have no control over 25 cents out of every dollar we spend. If there is one section of the Budget which operates by itself without any decision being taken by this House or the Government, it is the payment of interest on our national debt.
I say to the Hon. Member that he should take the Minister of Finance at face value when he says he will bring in changes regarding a minimum tax as well as the corporate tax structure. 1 have my dates right and I hope the Hon. Member has his right. The Minister has said that the minimum tax will come into effect on January 1, 1986. I am sure that the Hon. Member, being an honourable person, will go back to Kamloops and put all those positions forward to the seniors in his riding before he asks them to sign any petition.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). I have had the privilege of spending some time with him in the House and in its committees and elsewhere, and I respect his opinion. However, notwithstanding that, I was somewhat concerned about the tone of his comments. He sounded more like the Minister of Finance than like the Minister of National
Health and Welfare. I say that knowing that the deficit is a matter of concern to all of us here in this House. The Minister confirmed that when he quoted statements made by the previous Minister of National Health and Welfare, Madam Begin, and by other members of our Party. However, he knows as well that in grappling with the deficit and trying to reduce it over a number of years, any Government has choices. There are different ways to try to bring the deficit down. When the six and five policy was introduced by the previous Liberal Government, full indexation of the OAS and GIS was assured for those living at the poverty line, those who received the full GIS. Perhaps I am not expressing myself entirely correctly, but the effect is the same: those who received the full GIS also received an extra payment to compensate for the amount they did not get by reason of capping the OAS.
This is the kind of sensitivity to the poorest elderly Canadians that we are asking of this Government. We are not asking the Government to throw out its whole budgetary policy- well, perhaps we are, but not on this particular point. We are simply asking the Minister to provide full cost of living increases for those living at the bottom of our income scale.
1 would also point out to the Minister that his Government has just increased the maximum for RRSP contributions. Whom will that benefit? This was the recommendation of a number of task forces, yes, but perhaps because of the urgent situation we are in that should have been postponed for a period of time. The people who can afford to make those contributions could perhaps postpone those contributions for several years in order to help the elderly poor in our country. That is the kind of choice which this Government appears not to have made in this Budget.
So I appeal to the good judgment of the Minister. He is not going to win this argument by just talking about the deficit; he also has to address the question of choices which any Government has to make in dealing with that deficit. Our opinion is that some of the choices made by this Government in presenting this Budget were not judicious ones and do not do justice to all of the elderly in our country.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member puts forward some very lucid points. He is absolutely correct when he says that we must remain sensitive.
However, let me point out what is in the Budget. His Party and the New Democratic Party plan to tell senior citizens throughout the country that their income will be cut immediately, and they project that to 1990-91. They can do so for political reasons, if they wish, but in doing so I have not heard them say that the Minister of Finance has made a provision in the Budget to monitor the situation when this plan comes into effect on January 1, 1986.
The Hon. Member's suggestion of increasing the GIS was one option. He accuses me of sounding like the Minister of Finance. I have the responsibility in Cabinet and to the country for those client groups that specifically receive services from my Department. I suggest that this includes almost every
June 5, 1985

Canadian because our computer bank at the Department of National Health and Welfare contains a list of almost 18 million Canadians. My Department deals with almost every Canadian.
The Hon. Member may think that I sound like the Minister of Finance, but I say to him that 1 want more programs, just as the former Minister of National Health wanted more programs. I want more for spouses. I am pleased that the Government is introducing Bill C-26. I am pleased that the disability change was made in the Budget and that another
120,000	Canadian families who are looking after disabled members will get an extra benefit. I am pleased that we have been able to maintain the indexing on the basis of the Budget.
However, I suggest to the Hon. Member that Canadians must make choices, and that the difficult decisions that this Minister, the Government and Members of the House must make is whether our society can continue to increase the 25 per cent of our expenditures which now go to service the debt. Can we increase that amount ad infinitum, or must we make the decision to turn that deficit around and to allow future generations of Canadians the opportunity to have jobs and the ability to pay for services? While there is no social contract in a social welfare state, there is the concept of intergenerational responsibility.
The Hon. Member, myself and all Canadians who are in the workforce have a resopnsibility to pay our taxes for those who are over the age of 65 and who had worked when salaries and incomes were generally lower. I gladly accept that responsibility as a Canadian and I believe all Canadians accept that responsibility.
However, I suggest to the Hon. Member that there must be a balance. If this process continued, in years to come I would not sound like a Minister of Finance but, rather, like a Minister of National Health and Welfare who would be pleading for revenues which I know would not be available to maintain the programs which existed. That is what I and my successors would be pleading for, but there would not be that revenue. That was the option I had to consider and that is why F made this choice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period of questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, frankly, I listened with some astonishment to the plea by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for Canadians to restrain themselves. He called particularly upon senior Canadians and those currently living below the poverty line to tighten their belts in order to pay for intergenerational transfers.
His Government has had a litany of bloated spending that would cause any taxpayer to shudder. The Government sanctimoniously pleads with Canadian taxpayers to tighten their belts. However, let us consider what the Government has done in its first eight months in office. One of the first actions taken by the chiefs of staff was to double ministerial staffs. The total cost to taxpayers of Canada for this was $15 million. There
Supply
were 54 VIP flights in the first 45 days in office, which cost $345,000.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is telling senior citizens who are currently living below the poverty line to give more. Meanwhile, his Party shells out money for designer Christmas trees. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spent $24,000 to fly the November economic statement to the Premiers. Presumably he has not learned of the value of Canada Post, and so had to spend $24,000 to send the economic statement to the Premiers.
The First Ministers' Conference in Regina cost the Canadian taxpayers $500,000 under the flag of the Government and the presidential seal of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's budget alone, which increased by 57 per cent, cost Canadian taxpayers a further $2.6 million. Presumably, Conservatives had to make sure that all their carpets were blue because renovations to Tory offices amounted to $131,158. The total price tag for those few changes, excluding the Marcel Masse trip from Ottawa to Vancouver for $19,000; the Harvey Andre $12,600 flight from Ottawa to Saskatoon; the Pat Carney Ottawa to Calgary to Vancouver trip for $17,456; and the Marcel Masse trip from Ottawa to Algeria to Greece for $57,000.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I ask the Hon. Member to refer to Ministers by their portfolios.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The trip of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) from Ottawa to Algeria to Greece and back cost the Canadian taxpayer $57,000. The total cost to Canadian taxpayers for renovations and bloated office staffs was some $54,921,508.


Harvie Andre: A fraction of what Lloyd Axworthy spent on his office.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I realize that it is painful for the Government to hear the facts. The Minister of National Health and Welfare stands in his place and not only breaks his word but the word of the Prime Minister to the Canadian people. He pleads with senior citizens to bear the brunt of deficit reduction. He is calling upon senior citizens who are currently living below the poverty level in this country to allow their budgets to be reduced by $30 on a monthly basis and to make payments so that his Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), can pay a further $2 billion in tax dollars to the multinational oil companies.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare is truly serious about calling upon all Canadians to share in the sacrifice, he would not have joined with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in an absolute tax giveaway to the multinational oil companies, which is being paid directly from the pockets of our poorest in the country. It is hypocritical of the Government to call upon seniors to make those sacrifices when that Party promised during the election campaign that no matter what cuts or changes were made, they

June 5, 1985
Supply
would not be made on the backs of those who can least afford to pay-our senior citizens. That promise was spouted by the Prime Minister in his own tome Where I Stand, the New Tory Leader Speaks Out. The book was printed some two years ago, and presumably he has not had a conversion on the road to Damascus. Let us hear what the Prime Minister had to say some two years ago, about indexing benefits for senior citizens. He said: "Beginning with politicians and senior public servants it should become a priority to reduce and eventually eliminate and outlaw indexed contracts and benefits, including indexed pensions in line with inflation.
Clear and justified exceptions should be made for mothers' allowance and all other social programs designed to protect the ordinary and disadvantaged Canadians from the ravages of inflation for which they are not responsible".
Those were the words of the Prime Minister two years ago when he told the Canadian people where he stood. Where does he stand now, Mr. Speaker? Where does he sit? We cannot even find him in the House of Commons.
We see that he made those same promises again during the election campaign. The Tories said quite clearly, and it is alluded to in the motion before the House today, that the Tories are committed to reinstating complete indexing of old age pensions to the actual cost of living as of January 1, 1985.
What did the Minister of National Health and Welfare have to say in this House less than six months ago on the issue of indexing? Let me quote from the House of Commons debates dated December 21, 1984, when the Minister said:
I can confirm that the regular indexing of the Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the family allowance will be increased as of January 1, 1985-
I realize that the Minister of National Health and Welfare may not have won his battle in Cabinet. I realize that the hawks in deficit reduction have prevailed upon the Conservative Party to ensure that the deficit is reduced on the backs of those who can least afford to pay. I would have thought that, at the very least, the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have had the courage to stand up and explain, on the one hand, why this Government is calling upon senior citizens to make this sacrifice and, on the other hand, why the Government is prepared to give away a half a million dollar capital gains write-off to the top 4 per cent in our society who can afford to take advantage of it.
The facts are clear. This Budget is not a fair Budget. This is a Budget which gives to the rich. It will ensure that a family of four earning $200,000 a year over the life of this Budget will actually, if that family takes into account the capital gains write-off, pay $2,352 less in taxes as a direct result of the Budget measures which punish senior citizens. At the same time, a family of four earning $15,000 a year, not exactly living in the lap of luxury in Hamilton, St. John's, Newfoundland, or in Vancouver, will pay $413 more in taxes as a direct result of these Budget measures.
I congratulate those Members on the government side of the House who had the courage to tell the people what they think about the measures of the Wilson-Mulroney Budget and what they think about this Government's complete turnaround in its promises to senior citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has referred to promises. He referred to promises made by the Liberals, but what he did not tell Canadians and what he did not make clear today in the House is, that while he is asking the elderly who are most in need to shell out $30 a month for this Budget, he is giving more than $2 billion to the oild multinationals, because this Government has rejected the energy policy option proposed by the former Government party, the Liberal Party.
The Conservative Party has shown Canada its true blue colours in the Budget, that cold blue blood that gives a cold shoulder to Canadians who are most in need.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed of the fact that Conservative Members are not rising in their seats to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who made so many promises and who promised several times here in the House and outside the House that the Government would not make any changes whatsoever in the pensions paid to the neediest in Canadian society, our senior citizens. [English]
I do not know whether a promise from a Tory means the same thing it means to other Canadians. I think what we have at issue here is not only the financial hardship and devastation which will be faced by hundreds of thousands of senior citizens, apolitical and of all political stripes, but also the credibility of this Government and this Prime Minister who promised the Canadian people that universality was a sacred trust, that they would not touch indexing at the expense of senior citizens, and that they would not reduce the deficit at the expense of those who can least afford to pay.
We see that the very words of the Prime Minister have shown themselves to be simply a blarney sham, simply a fraud to encourage the Canadian people to cast a ballot for a Party which pretended to be something it was not.
This Budget, this measure, this attack on senior citizens is the true colour of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives tried to adopt neo-Liberalism during the campaign. They tried to tell the Canadian people that they were going to protect our older people and create jobs for our young unemployed Canadians. But we see, Mr. Speaker, that the moment the Tories get their clutches on investment power in Canada, they give to the multinationals. They give to pension funds which are going to invest outside of Canada.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), today in the House raised a very important point about the philosophy of the Conservative Party. She pointed out that as a direct result of budget changes this Government has now
June 5, 1985

permitted private pension funds to invest some $30 billion outside the country. When the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) was asked why she would permit this $30 billion outflow of capital which will mean hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs, she said that the companies asked her to do so because they wanted to go where they could get the best rate of return.
That sounds to me strangely like the kind of mentality and the kind of position expressed by the Prime Minister when he told Fortune magazine that Canadians cannot compete, that Canadians cannot offer the best rate of return, so let us send our billions and billions of dollars of pension funds out of the country to the United States and to Europe; let us send our capital gains write-offs of half a billion to purchase diamonds in South Africa or condominiums in Florida.
If this Government had an ounce of conviction about Canadian job creation and if it had an ounce of conviction about reducing the deficit, not on the backs of those who can least afford to pay, at the very least it would have made provision in this Budget for tax measures which would have ensured jobs in Canada for Canadians. But we see quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker.
With a single flick of the pen, the Minister of Finance has said to people in charge of pension funds across Canada, "Take your money elsewhere. Do not invest in Canada. Do not invest in Canadians. Go to Switzerland, go to England, go to the United States. Go where you can get the best rate of return". Any economist will know that this $30 billion potential outflow of capital from Canada will not only result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, jobs which allegedly the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance are here to protect, but it will also result in a further depression of the dollar, which has been driven to new lows as a result of Tory policies.
The purchasing power of those senior citizens, who are already being grabbed for $30 a month as a direct result of tax measurs, will see their purchasing power further decreased by a dollar that will have less and less value on the international market.
Those same economists will tell us that this particular measure in the pension fund will result in an unprecedented level of inflation for Canadians. It shows quite clearly that the Government does not have faith in Canada. The Government does not believe in investment by Canadians in Canadian jobs for Canadians. The Government does not believe in indigenous industries which are not based upon a multinational influx of capital that will leave as soon as times get tough. The Government is only interested in lining the pockets of the rich, the pockets of the wealthy, and the pockets of those Canadians who financed the campaigns which led to its election.
For the first time Canadians can finally see the face of the Prime Minister and the face of the Government. When times get tough, they look to our senior citizens, to people who are now living below the poverty line, to pay the price for the gifts
Supply
they are giving to their cronies and friends. Again I am speaking about the $500,000 capital gains tax write-off. Most senior citizens could not think of earning and putting together $500,000 in their lifetime, never mind setting it aside for a capital gains write-off. Most senior citizens are scraping so that perhaps they can have one meal of meat in a week. This did not stop the Minister of Finance from giving another little loophole to all people who travel abroad. The Minister of National Health and Welfare did not mention that in his cut-back discussions. He did not tell Canadians about this other little goody, that the Minister of Finance had decided that anyone who left the country for more than 48 hours would be allowed to bring in $100 of goods tax-free. Presumably most senior citizens who are earning the base OAS and the GIS are not in a position to make trips very often outside the country.
Who will be the beneficiary of this particular tax write-off? Presumably it will be business people who travel for a couple of days of meetings in New York or in Washington. Presumably it will be politicians who travel outside the country. It certainly will not be the ordinary steelworker or ordinary senior citizen who will have the chance to take advantage of this other giveaway by a Minister of Finance who seems intent on propping up his friends in high finance at the expense of ordinary Canadians.
I think there is unrest in the Tory ranks. For the first time we have seen Conservatives who have the courage to stand either inside or outside the House and dissociate themselves from the policies of the Government. I know they are receiving telephone calls. I know they are receiving responses from angry, hurt, betrayed and distrustful senior citizens who are saying to them: "I voted for you. I cast my ballot for the Conservative Party because I believed the Prime Minister when he said that universality was a sacred trust". They cast their ballot for the Conservative Party because they believed it when the Minister of National Health and Welfare promised that he would not touch the indexation of the OAS and the GIS. Those people believed the Conservative Party but, in one fell swoop, in one budget measure, a message has gone out loud and clear to Canadians, especially senior Canadians, that the Government and its Prime Minister cannot be trusted to keep their word.
[ Translation)
Mr. Speaker, I was glad to see that a number of Conservative Members had the courage to speak out, either in the House or outside the House, and tell Canadians that they did not agree with the Wilson-Mulroney measures. I want to urge all Members who have a conscience and who want to meet the needs of the neediest in Canada to rise and speak out. If we work together, we could take the advice of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-

He said in his book that to compromise was not a sin, that he believed he could back off when he had made a mistake. The Government has made a mistake. Let us all get together

June 5, 1985
Supply
and unanimously endorse a policy to reindex the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. It would be work well done by all parliamentarians.


Mr. Gormley:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and a few comments, perhaps by way of a preamble. First I should like to compliment her on the reading material which she has brought to the House. It is improving somewhat, and I hope it continues to improve.
It would not come as a surprise to most of us from Saskatchewan farms that this Member, I suppose from the heart of industrial central Canada and of course speaking officially on behalf of the Liberal Party, would be so opposed to the exemption on capital gains tax. I want the record to show what I have to say, as I bring copies of the House of Commons Hansard back home to thousands of farmers who eke out a living on six, seven or eight quarters of land. Capital gains tax is their life savings. This is their pension in the ground on which they toil. The Hon. Member referred to neo-Liberalism. Good Lord, old Liberalism was bad enough! The Liberal Party of Canada does not want the capital gains tax exemption for my farmers, for all Canadian farmers. I think that should be on the record for people to see the Liberal Party and its true colour.
I should like to direct my specific question to the Hon. Member and to draw her attention to a recent Statistics Canada report which indicates that by the beginning of the 21st century one in four Canadians shall be 65 years of age or older. The present 12 per cent of senior citizens, 12 per cent now and ever growing, will be 25 per cent by the year 2000. I should like to ask this Hon. Member, this distinguished representative of the Liberal Party of Canada which bequeathed to all Canadians a $35 billion per year deficit, an accumulated deficit of $200 billion: Who will pay in the year 2000 for the valuable programs which are now universal to all Canadians 65 years of age and over and shall continue to be universal to these Canadians? Who will pay? That is what I should like to ask the Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) for his question. It is unfortunate that he has not been participating in the budget debate. If he had, he would have known that this Hon. Member for Hamilton East has already spoken on the capital gains issue with respect to farmers. Having a little background in agriculture myself, I am certainly aware of the fact that an all-Party committee in the last House of Commons recommended that the capital gains exemption be lifted completely for farmers, so that there would be no ceiling on capital gains exemption for the farming community.
Unfortunately, in this particular Budget, the Minister of Finance has chosen not to offer what he promised to farmers. That promise was a complete exemption from capital gains. Instead he has chosen to offer a wholesale sell-out to the so-called 4 per cent of the investment community which can purchase condominiums in Florida and to offer them the
capital gains write-off. If the Minister of Finance had been listening to the Hon. Member, he would have followed up on his suggestion to assist farmers. There is no direct assistance for farmers in the Budget. The only assistance they receive is the capital gains write-off if and when they sell their properties. It is great if one wants to close up shop but, if one wants to survive or to continue to eke out a living, there is nothing in the Budget.
If the Hon. Member were sincere about a capital gains write-off, he would move an amendment. 1 encourage him to move the amendment-and I will support him on it-which will allow a capital gains exemption for the farming community alone and will in fact retire the rest of that $125,000 cash bonanza for the rich and put it into a pool for senior citizens who are paying not for past Liberal sins but in particular for the cash bonanza which the Government has given to the very wealthy.
This capital gains write-off is a sham. It offers a write-off for investment of Canadian dollars outside the country. In the same way, the pension fund changes mean a potential outflow of $30 billion of Canadian investment funds to other countries where they can obtain better rates of return. We in the Liberal Party believe in Canada. We do not believe that we have to go to the United States, to Europe or to other countries to obtain better rates of return on our investment. We are prepared to put our money where our mouth is. Unfortunately the Government, by permitting a $500,000 capital gains write-off with no conditions attached-no conditions for farmers, no conditions for Canadian investment, no conditions for Canadian job creation-has created a bonanza for the rich which is being paid directly by our senior citizens.
Do not try to pass that scam off on the Canadian people. Do not try to tell them that it is as a result of past Liberal woes that this deindexation measure is being introduced. It is being introduced to make your pay-offs to the multinational oil companies, as well as your payola to that 4 per cent of the Canadian population who can take advantage of a $500,000 capital gains write-off. That is what the seniors of Canada are paying for. They deserve to know the truth.
(Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey) for a question or comment.


André Harvey: I want to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, because if the Official Opposition keeps this up the elderly will have the impression that their pension payments will be cut in half. But the facts are different and, keeping in mind the election promises and the need for the Government to get a handle on the deficit, I think it is important to follow up on our election promises in a moderate way. As to the elderly, their pensions will indeed continue to increase regularly.
Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that the Budget provides for full indexation of the guaranteed income supplement and
June 5, 1985

this, of course, will be reflected in higher old age security pensions. Still, the Government is committed to honour general agreements of $1.6 billion with the Province of Quebec, and that is bound to have an impact on the life of Quebecers.
Among other things, Mr. Speaker, over two years the Government will pay out $550 million in spouse's allowances to senior citizens. But that is not enough for the Opposition. It is never enough, Mr. Speaker, but who else but them so mismanaged everything in the past 20 years that, after such waste by the Liberals, we now pay $3 million an hour in interest alone? All I can say is that our Government must curb the rising deficit while moderately fulfilling its election promises. We will certainly honour our commitments before the end of our mandate. I have a question for my colleague. In the newspaper La Presse, definitely not a gossip tabloid, economic affairs columnist Frederic Wagniere wrote this before the Budget was tabled:
Economic growth is stymied by a lack of investments, true enough, but investments are in turn discouraged by high interest rates and the deficit's voracity on capital markets. A higher deficit just might create temporary jobs but, unless something changes in the pattern of public outlays, additional expenditures would not produce permanent investments. To remedy the situation, the Federal Government must reduce the deficit, to encourage companies to invest and take advantage of the drop in interest rates.
Mr. Speaker, in eight months the situation in this country has proved that controlling Government spending is the most promising factor in creating jobs-200,000 new jobs.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member what she thinks of the journalist who was urging the Government before the Budget was brought down to control its spending. That is what we are doing with the Budget. We are reducing the deficit by 80 per cent through cutbacks in Crown corporations, Members' pensions, and through a freeze on regular departmental budgets. I would like to ask her whether the Government's policy, which has the support of financial journalists . .. whether it is not in line with the new economic reality in Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the new reality is that the modified promises referred to by the Hon. Member are so many burnt out candles, according to me and according to all Canadians. When the Hon. Member talks about modifying the pensions of the elderly, to me it is like an amputation where instead of taking off the whole arm, they only amputate the hand. Mr. Speaker, if we cut off the hands of the neediest in our society, they cannot fight for their rights in this country. [English]
When the Hon. Member speaks of a modified promise, in Conservative language that translates into a lie. There was a statement made in the House by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that indexation of Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement would not be touched. It is being touched by this 3 per cent a year measure. It does not take an economist to figure out that over the lifetime of this Budget, it will mean $30 less for each senior citizen. I am prepared to say that it is not an amputa-
Supply
tion of the whole arm; it is an amputation of the hand. When you leave senior citizens without hands, it is a disgraceful act for all Members of Parliament.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise this afternoon to say a few words on this most important topic before us. The reason we are here today is because the New Democratic Party, after seeing what was happening in terms of Old Age Security in Canada, thought it appropriate to set aside an entire day of debate in the House of Commons to allow Members to express their views as to just how they perceive this particular course of action flowing from the Budget brought in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) a few weeks ago.
In a sense, the motion we are debating condemns the Government for failing to keep a promise. I distinctly remember back to the summer of 1984 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) visited my constituency during the election campaign. I believe he visited it twice. During both visits he clearly indicated to groups of supporters that the one item he felt extremely strongly about was the matter of indexation of pensions. He felt strongly that senior citizens should not be ravaged by the increases in inflation which the country was experiencing and continues to experience. He expressed the concern that their pensions, be they modest already, would at least be protected. He made a solemn promise to the people of Canada and, as I say, to the people of Kamloops-Shuswap, that full indexation of OAS would be one of the first priorities of the Government.
I do not see how one could be any more precise than that. That is just what he said. He said it time and time again during the election campaign. I am sure Members opposite sitting in the government benches today said the same thing during their campaigns. I am sure when they were saying it, they were doing so in an honest, positive and forthright way. After all, that is what their leader said. That is what the present Prime Minister said.
We have called for a special debate today in the House of Commons because that solemn commitment made to the seniors of Canada has been broken. This is a serious matter. Earlier in the day, the former Member for the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, was in the House. He fought for years and years to obtain a decent pension for those who retire at the age of 65. I admit we still have a way to go to achieve that end. It is an appalling situation when hundreds of thousands of senior citizens still live below the poverty line in terms of their incomes. I am referring to "incomes" and "poverty lines" as described by the Government through Statistics Canada.
What motivated Members of the New Democratic Party to call for a special debate was the fact that the Government decided to deindex OAS. Deindex is one of those neutral terms. For many Canadians, I suspect it has little meaning as they hear it day after day. They know it has something to do with pensions. However, what does the term mean to a senior citizen? It reminds me of other neutral terms which President Reagan has made famous. He refers to the deadly MX missile

June 5, 1985
Supply
as the "peacemaker" of all things. It is one of the most deadly weapons known to man. I am reminded of the war in Vietnam. At that time, the statistics referred to "hits". What the term really referred to was the bombing and burning of entire villages, inclusive of the innocent women, children and elderly inhabitants of those villages. At that time, the "daily body count" was referred to. What that really meant was the thousands of innocent people who were murdered in the rice paddies and jungles of Vietnam. Body count, hits, peacemakers and deindexation are neutral words. They belie what is really taking place.
I think it would be appropriate for us to take a moment or two to identify precisely what the deindexation of OAS will mean to senior citizens of Canada. In 1986, senior citizens will each lose $64 from their annual OAS income. That is not to say that OAS will not be in place, but that based on what senior citizens should expect to receive through indexation which protects them from inflation, they will receive $64 less in 1986. In 1987, they will receive $171 less than they should expect. By 1988, senior citizens will receive $284 less than they should expect. In 1989, it will be $402, in 1990 it will be $526 and in 1991 it will be $680. It goes on and on.
In the next five years, senior citizens who are collecting OAS will each lose a total of $1,447. This is a very serious matter. I do hope that government Members have a chance to respond to my comments during the question and answer period because in the next five years, every single senior citizen in Canada will lose through deindexation $1,447.
I will not even discuss what this loss will mean to the communities through a loss to each senior citizen over the next five years of nearly $1,500. I do not want to discuss what that will mean to the small business communities. I simply want to speak about what this means to senior citizens.
In 1991, we will have slashed from the purses and pocket-books of all the senior citizens across Canada $6.6 billion. If we add up what all the senior citizens of Canada will lose by 1991 as a result of this provision, it will total $6.6 billion. This is an extremely serious matter. It is taking place at a time when most senior citizens are simply struggling to survive.
My mother and father are two of those struggling senior citizens. They receive OAS and GIS benefits. The lifestyle that they are able to afford today is a very modest one. When I find that the Government is going to take from the pocket-books, rip from the hands and slash from the wallets of senior citizens $6.6 billion over the next five years, I say that something is very seriously wrong with the Government's approach to reducing the deficit or whatever else it wants to use to justify this unbelievable measure.
Needless to say, hardest hit will be senior women. Today, 60 per cent of senior women are living below the poverty line. This measure will simply make that situation worse. Today, in 1985, 1.8 million senior citizens live below the poverty line. They live in poverty, but the Government is now planning to take, over the next five years, nearly $1,500 from each of their
incomes. That is why we felt it was appropriate to have this debate today. That is why we are collecting petitions from every area of the country. To be fair about this, we are trying to bring some pressure to bear on the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who are responsible for this dastardly deed.
Over the last number of days as this problem has sunk into the minds of the people across the country, the airlines coming to Ottawa have been filled with delegations representing all kinds of organizations that have concern for seniors. The Association of Jewish Seniors from the metropolitan area of Toronto representing 5,000 seniors, the Ontario division of the Canadian Pensioners Concerned representing 10,000 seniors, the United Senior Citizens of Ontario representing 300,000 seniors, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Canadian Council for Social Development, the National Council of Welfare, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women are representing hundreds of thousands of senior citizens across this country. As these groups have visited the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare and Members, they have been unanimous in their condemnation of the deindexing of senior citizens' pensions.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that he has been talking to all kinds of senior citizens' groups and meeting with individuals. Today during Question Period, I asked him if he could, to enlighten the House, name a single one of whom he has spoken. We know of all kinds of groups that have approached the House of Commons saying that they condemn this measure because it will cause undue pain and suffering and will result in hundreds of thousands more senior citizens reaching poverty levels. I asked the Minister if he could name a single group which supports him. He could not do so. He mumbled and fumbled around and bafflegabbed a little bit, but he could not name a single group in Canada that supports this particular aspect of the Budget. I find that despicable.
The Minister of Finance has said that he cannot bring in a minimum tax at this time because he must consult with a variety of groups and with the provinces. Perhaps that is fair. He said that he could not now bring in changes to the corporate tax system because he must consult for months and months with the various corporations and corporate organizations. However, there was no consultation, no discussion, no visitation and no meetings before the Government imposed the deindexing of senior citizens' pensions.
Government Members spoke to no one. As a matter of fact, as I indicated at the outset of my talk, they misled the people of Canada. The Prime Minister and government Members said that they would not deindex pensions. They are honourable Members. I suppose the people felt that they had to trust the Prime Minister when he said that he would not do that. It came as a real surprise when that in fact was exactly what he did.
I would like to urge the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to
June 5, 1985

start listening not only to Parliamentarians from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party who, in their role as opposition Members, feel an obligation more than ever before to represent the voices of seniors as we hear them through petitions and the letters we are receiving, but to listen to government Members as well. After all, we have heard the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell), the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) and the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), though they are Conservative Members, condemn this particular aspect of the Budget and encourage the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who says that he fights for seniors, to do just that. They are urging him to meet with the Minister of Finance to say that this measure is unfair, unjust and must be stopped.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare explained to us earlier today that the reason he is supporting this grab from senior citizens is that we need to reduce the deficit. We all know that we must reduce the deficit. However, there is a more appropriate way to do that than on the backs of those people who built this country. Our parents, our grandparents and our friends fought during the wars and were here during the Depression years. They built this country. To ask them to shell out an extra $1,500 each over the next five years in order to assist us in reducing the debt is, 1 think, absolutely inappropriate. If we need money, and we do, to reduce the debt, let us go elsewhere for it.
Let us recognize that each year we as a Parliament approve in one form or another tax concessions to large corporations to the tune of billions of dollars. Many of those tax concessions or, as I call them, tax loopholes, are not required and are non-productive. Perhaps they have never been required. However, because of lobbying in the past, we have introduced this measure and that measure. There are dozens of them on the books. Anyone who is honest will say that many of these tax giveaways to corporations are non-productive and do not result in any gain to the country. As a matter of fact, they sometimes result in a net loss to the country. I am thinking of the tax deductions that exist for corporations that are able to deduct the cost of money used for mergers and take-overs. It results in job lay-offs. It results in corporate concentration which is not necessarily in Canada's best interest. Let us turn to some of those people.
We have heard of the capital gains provision in the Budget. The people who make their living from capital gains will not have to pay any tax on the first half million dollars which they accumulate over the next few years. That would be appropriate for farmers who are selling their land to provide for their pensions. It could also be appropriate for small-businessmen who use that money for the same purpose. However, if that provision is used by people to obtain capital gains from investments in the Caribbean, Hawaii, Florida or Palm Springs, is not right. We are asking senior citizens to pay an extra load, while at the same time the folks who speculate in international markets do not have to pay capital gains in Canada. It is not right. I would hope there would be one
Supply
Member in the House, particularly from the Conservative benches, who would stand up and say that the provision for capital gains which is derived from land speculation should not be condoned. I cannot believe it.
It is not only members of the New Democratic Party who have been saying that it is a problem. Newspapers have been filled with editorials about it. I would like to quote from an article which was written by Leonard Shifrin, who writes regularly on economic issues. He has written a number of articles about the Budget, and I would like to read into the record one paragraph of one of the many articles. The article reads:
Eliminating the first three per cent of inflation indexing means pushing the poorest pensioners $100 further into poverty next year, $200 further the following year, and so on-an appalling prospect under any circumstances. But giving that money to rich investors through effectively scrapping the capital gains tax is, as one social activist put it, "breathtakingly evil."
As parliamentarians, we are all aware that a number of tax breaks have been given to certain individuals. Mr. Shifrin's article continued:
According to the most recent figures from Revenue Canada, the half-of-one per cent of tax filers with incomes over $100,000 account for 43 per cent of all capital gains.
That means in 1990, when the new capital gains exemption is in full effect, those with incomes over $100,000 will get more than $600 million in tax benefits.
In that same year, the poorest senior citizens-supplement recipients-will lose $700 million in pension benefits.
Pensioners will not receive the pensions which are due to them, while at the same time certain individuals, particularly those in the upper income levels, will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in additional tax breaks.
A few days ago in Montreal, the Minister of Finance bemoaned the fact that there were far too few rich people in Canada. What we are hearing today from a number of individuals is that we have far too many poor pensioners in Canada. The capital gains provision will place more pensioners below the poverty line. I do not understand why people, of any political persuasion, would support this policy, which is taking money from the purses and wallets of senior citizens, and at the same time giving hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to upper income earners in Canada.
It has been a privilege to have had the opportunity to participate in this debate. I hope that my colleagues opposite will explain how capital gains which is derived from land sales in Florida will be a good thing for Canada, when the Government is asking the senior citizens to bear a very great burden.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that NDP members continue to talk about owning a condominium in Florida and making a capital gain on that property. Today, most Canadians who own properties in Florida place them in corporations. Otherwise, if anything should happen to the owner, the property would be subject to succession duty, which consists not only of the capital gain, but also of the base value of the property. Therefore, all Canadians have been advised to place the property in a corporation. That capital gains would not be of any benefit to the corporation, it would only be of benefit to

June 5, 1985
Supply
the individual. I cannot rationalize the Hon. Member's statement that the people who own property in Florida will realize a capital gain. It will not work. It is not there to be made.
The Hon. Member and I have been colleagues in the House for the last six years. He and I have talked about various investments. He has given to me some very sound recommendations. I am sure that, personally, he is in favour of the capital gains provision, because he knows that it is important to have investment by average Canadians in the economy. I would like to hear his personal feelings. I would like to have him forget that he is a member of the NDP for a minute.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, somehow I feel that if I am not standing here in a loincloth and living in a cave, then I am not a responsible New Democrat. I cannot believe the criticism which has been levelled at me. I happen to know a number of New Democrats who are in business. They run successful businesses. I find the line of discussion a little peculiar.
First, I do not think that I mentioned the matter of a condominium in Florida. I tried to explain, during my presentation, that the particular aspect of deindexation was asking a senior citizen, over the next five years, to forgo increases of almost $1,500. The Minister of National Health and Welfare explained that the money was required to reduce the debt and that senior citizens would not get what they were promised during the election campaign because of that. In my remarks, I said that there might be other ways to reduce the debt. I do not think that it should necessarily be done on the backs of senior citizens. I indicated that capital gains could be used and I quoted from a learned economist who frequently writes in various publications in Canada. One of his articles reads:
-the half-of-one per cent of tax filers with incomes over $100,000 account for 43 per cent of all capital gains.
In other words, we are talking about a very select few. While I support the capital gains provision as it pertains to farmers and small-businessmen, I do not support the fact that people can obtain capital gains from land speculation in Palm Springs, or by selling property in the swamps of Florida, and that they will not have to pay capital gains on their activities outside Canada. Surely, we should treat Canadians with some respect. We should recognize investment in Canada, not on a global scale. If the provision was restricted to Canadian farmers and small-businessmen, then I would feel much different about it. Why not collect the hundreds of millions of dollars which will be lost each year in forgone taxation, rather than collecting it from the senior citizens of the country?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did not respond to the point which I made. I would like to make another point. I would ask him not to use statistics such as those which he used. He talked about 43 per cent of capital gains going to people who earned over $100,000. The provision is limited to $500,000, which will be phased in over five years. It will only affect, in today's dollars, small businesses. There is a small smoke-shop in my riding which, when it started, was worth approximately $10,000. Now it is worth approximately $250,000. We are not talking about wealthy Canadians. Of
course, they will receive a benefit on the first $500,000. The provision is benefiting the small-businessmen. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) said that she would support unlimited capital gains for farmers. Farmers with $500,000 in investment have a fairly substantial operation, and $500,000 is a reasonable investment for a small business. That is what it is addressed to. It is not going to be even the amount of money which is shown in the Budget. I challenged that figure already, by the way. It is not even that amount of money in the first two years. It is a small amount of money. Keep in mind that Hon. Members opposite are interested in creating jobs and we are interested in creating jobs. This is going to create jobs because it is going to encourage people like us, if we were not in this place, to start businesses and create jobs and employ Canadians.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are using a tactic, which I think is a scare tactic, on the seniors of this country, and that goes against the grain. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) fell into the same trap today. I thought he was going to miss it when he started because he said, in connection with the lack of indexing on the old age security, that a pensioner would lose, I believe, $64 in 1986. That is bad enough. That is $5 a month and $5 is an awful lot to some of our senior citizens.
Then the Hon. Member goes on and goes on and tells us that by 1991 we are going to take $6.6 billion out of the pockets of the senior citizens. The Hon. Member knows that that is not correct. A Budget is made for one year. The national energy policy, which is one of the worst policies I have ever seen, did not last forever. The next Budget made some changes in it. Again, who knows, inflation may go down and there will be no loss whatsoever.
The Opposition is assuming the worst possible picture of the highest inflation, and then extending it for years, when those Hon. Members know very well that Budgets come down every year. They are assuming that that is the case. When one uses that type of tactic, in my view it is a scare tactic, and that is not being fair to the senior citizens of this country. There is no way that $6.6 billion is going to be taken out of the pockets of our senior citizens. Our senior citizens know that. What bothers me is when a little lady who has spent her life working and depends on her pension starts to fear that these large sums of money are going to be taken away from her. That is a scare tactic. It's not right. You can tell her that she may lose something if inflation goes up, or if inflation remains at the same point in 1986, but let us not go into 1987, 1988, 1989 or 1991. That is not being fair to the senior citizens of the country. I would bring to the attention of all Hon. Members in the Opposition, including both leaders, that when they use this type of argument, they are being unfair to the senior citizens of this country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to my hon. friend. The inflation rate in this country has been in
June 5, 1985

excess of 3 per cent for many years, as the Hon. Member knows. Every projection I have seen for the next decade indicates that we can expect something at least in that range, if not higher. When a Government brings in a Budget which says it is going to deindex OAS, we assume that that is what it is going to do. We do not assume it is going to do that for just the next three months or even 12 months. If the Government says it is going to do that, we can only assume that that is what is going to happen over the next number of years.
The point I want to make, just to clarify for the Hon. Member, if that is what he wishes, assuming that the rate of inflation does not go under 3 per cent, and assuming that the Government does not change its policy, which 1 hope it does- my colleagues and I are going to do everything possible to make sure that policy is changed-then it will cost every senior citizen over the next five years an extra $1,447. That is what it will do unless the Hon. Member and his colleagues change their minds. I hope they do change their minds.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are saying "if'.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Of course, I am saying "iP' they don't change their minds-


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


Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion before the House today. Further to comments made by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), I would like to talk about some of the positive aspects, since fear has been the watchword this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, the Budget measures proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) respect the universality of Old Age Security pensions. That is positive. Benefits to pensioners who are in need will continue to be fully indexed to the cost of living. That is positive. The Guaranteed Income Supplement, in addition to veterans' benefits, will be fully indexed to the rate of inflation. We must also remember that the universal Old Age Security pension will be partially indexed.
Let us be positive, Mr. Speaker, This afternoon, I had two reasons to be particularly pleased when I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) give the House the assurance that the Government would be studying closely the situation of elderly Canadians who are largely dependent on the government pension plan, to ensure that benefits paid to pensioners are adequate and will be increased if resources permit. That is positive. I think the Opposition could at least have noticed some of the positive aspects they heard about this afternoon. This decision will make it possible for the elderly to maintain a standard of living where they will have both quality of life and security, something they had yet to experience.
Supply
The Government is also to be congratulated on following up the recommendations of the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. That is positive and should be mentioned when we are talking to Canada's senior citizens. In fact, some 185,000 disabled will benefit from changes in the definition of disability for income tax purposes. A new definition has been developed in order to respond more satisfactorily to the special needs of all Canadians with serious handicaps.
Mr. Speaker, there is more. The Government is also to be congratulated on the proposals tabled by the Minister of Finance to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which are aimed at improving the minimum standards for private pension plans regulated by the Act.
The proposed changes will make it possible for a greater number of employees to join pension plans and will give them the right to participate in the administration of pension funds. From now on, employees will get pension entitlement after two years of participation in a pension plan and will retain their pension entitlements when they move to new jobs. That is something concrete. Moreover, the new standards will require that pension plans provide benefits to surviving spouses of pensioners and, in case of marriage breakdowns, the value of pension entitlements will be split equally. Finally, pensions plans will be required to provide equal pensions to women and men retiring under the same circumstances.
When we add to this reform the improved tax incentives for retirement savings through higher deduction limits, we can rightfully say that these changes will further encourage Canadians to provide for their retirement years and set up for themselves adequate pension funds.
The PC government has also confirmed its commitment to a reform of the Canada Pensions Plan, including provisions for homemakers' pensions.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). The motion speaks of commitments made during the election campaign, and I welcome the opportunity to describe exactly what we said then and what we have now done. We are committed to offering senior citizens the means to preserve their independence, their privacy and their freedom. These were the terms set out by our leader, the now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on July 26, 1984, in a Progressive Conservative Party program to reform public and private pension plans.
1 would like to draw to the attention of Members of this House the over-all objectives: independence, privacy and freedom. It is even more important to note that when we made policy initiatives and announced them this summer during the campaign, we emphasized that the new Government was going to take office at a time when interest rates were high and the recovery was fragile. In that context, policy commitments were

June 5, 1985
Supply
to be introduced over the course of our mandate, to complement and enhance our Party's national program for economic renewal.
I would like to suggest to Members of the House that it is in the context of a high deficit, high unemployment and a fragile recovery, that Government actions and Government choices have to be judged. With a deficit of about $35 billion, and debt charges of $22 billion, the debt has become a burden which cannot be ignored. Senior citizens have told us that they understand how difficult this Budget is on them, but they also understand what I have just said. Every responsible Canadian should be concerned when his or her Government spends more to service the debt than it spends on health care, pensions and transfers to the provinces for health and welfare.
When Canadians recognize that they currently spend more on servicing the debt than they do on health care and pensions, they know that someone has to take action. Surely such a situation, if left untended, cannot but further restrict individual decisions and government action in the future.
I heard the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) this afternoon use the analogy of an amputation, and she had no preference between amputating the hand or the arm. Let me tell you that Canadians understand it is always preferable to have an amputation than to have a slow and painful death. I believe that a Government acts in a fiscally and socially responsible manner when it proposes to get the deficit under control because it understands that not doing so will handicap our efforts to do things for senior citizens in the future. In trying to bring the deficit under control, we know that doing so provides the conditions necessary to retain social policies.
The worst thing we could do for people for people who depend on our social programs would be to ignore the problem until it was too late. Moreover, I further believe that every able Canadian should share in the burden of deficit reduction as they will also share in the recovery. There is no Canadian, young or old, fortunate or not, who wants the responsibility for sustaining unemployment. Equally, I know all Canadians are willing to contribute to the effort to increase employment and improve productivity.
Through its decision to modify indexation, it is important to note, of both revenues and expenditures, this Government will be successful in spreading the burden of deficit reduction as widely as possible while still retaining a degree of protection against unexpectedly high levels of inflation. Any increase in inflation above 3 per cent will be fully compensated.
There is one promise which this Government has kept above all, the promise we made to Canadians during the election campaign that we would allocate scarce resources to those most in need. A high degree of protection against inflation is maintained for pensioners in need. Full indexing has been maintained for those in receipt of the GIS and for payments to veterans. As well, as soon as the legislation can be passed, an additional 85,000 low income widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65 will become eligible for the spouse's allowance benefit. The vast majority of those who will benefit from this particular Bill are women who have been financially
dependent for most if not all of their lives. There is no denying that these widows are amongst the poorest members of our society.
In the briefs moments I have had, Mr. Speaker, I tried to talk about positive things. However, 1 have some concerns. Members of Parliament were elected in September to speak for their constituents and to bring to this House the legitimate comments made by their constituents. Canadians voted for a change in September, but I believe, because I knocked on a lot of doors this summer, as did a number of my colleagues, that Canadians also wanted in their representatives a measure of a change in attitude. I have heard examples this afternoon of an attitude amongst Members of Parliament which I deplore. I heard the Hon. Member for Beaches say this afternoon in this House to those of us on this side that we are in for the fight of our lives. It concerns me enormously that a Member of Parliament would stand in this House and tell us that he and others are going out on the streets of Canada to orchestrate fear, start a fight and bring it back here to the House of Commons.
Members opposite, by their performance today and because of some things I have read in newspapers this past week, have spread fear among senior citizens in the same way that confidence men bilk people of their savings. I heard some of those Members talking about asking for signatures on a petition. It is not the responsibility of a Member of Parliament to walk around the country and say to people: "This Government is hurting you; sign here and we will do something about it."


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Léo Duguay: On September 4 Canadians expressed confidence in this Government. We are acting in a way which responds to those things they said to us so clearly about putting the country's economy back in order. We are doing that. There are numerous examples of very positive things which have taken place. Since September we have created over
200,000	jobs, 89,000 in April alone. Today the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration brings down its third report. It talks about entrepreneurial immigration and suggests that would create 200,000 jobs and bring in over $7 billion of investment. We have done things to encourage in Canadians a confidence in their own ability, an ability we know they have.
What I have seen in this House today and what I have heard being said by Members opposite is that if we strike enough fear in the poor and aged, they will respond by signing petitions and we can get the Government to move back to the position of the former Government, that if you spend more money, somehow everything gets better. It must be made clear that when they say spend more money, they get that money from the same people they are now talking about trying to protect.
Canadians are prepared to share the good and the difficult in this Budget. I, too, have had calls from senior citizens, and let me tell what they expressed to me. They expressed a concern that their pensions will no longer be fully indexed.
June 5, 1985

Yes, every Canadian has expressed a concern in that the Budget effects them all, but every senior citizen who has had a conversation with me has ended up by saying that they understand this Budget is for the benefit of all Canadians and even though they are going to have a part in paying for the difficult financial situation the former Government gave us, they support it wholeheartedly and they are behind this Budget.


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


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Hon. Member concerns some of the measures in the Budget, particularly the indexation of pensions to senior citizens. There are approximately 6,000 senior citizens in my riding, each of whom will lose $100 a year as a result of the Government's disastrous Budget. That is an amount of some $60,000 that will be lost to senior citizens of my riding. Would the Hon. Member tell us if he believes it is fair that Lawrence Hanigan and Roy McMurtry, two Tory losers, will receive increases in salary of $38,000 a year and $22,000 a year for a total of $60,000 a year? Will he ask his Minister to cancel the salary increase of those two individuals and restore the indexation of the pensions of my constituents?


Léo Duguay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to that question. Let me tell the Hon. Member that I too have a large number of senior citizens in my constituency. Many of them understand the meaning of the word "lost". The Hon. Member just entered the House, so he may have missed some of my earlier comments about striking fear in the older people in this country. Let me tell him about the fear that he just tried to strike into people. When we talk about something being lost, it is the loss of something that we already had. He is talking about incremental increases which would have been added if full indexation had been continued. No senior citizen will be losing money that he or she is currently receiving. They will be receiving more money than they had before. They simply will not be getting the full indexation that would have applied.


Don Boudria: What school of economics did that come from?


Léo Duguay: Your projections are like what was said by the Club of Rome in the early 1970s when they used population graphs and studied food supplies to come to the conclusion that soon there would be nothing to eat on this planet. This is the kind of fear he is striking in senior citizens, and he ought to be more responsible as a Member of Parliament.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, is the Member denying that senior citizens of this country will be losing $100 a year in real, inflation adjusted dollars? If he is denying that, will he table the statistics to prove otherwise? Everyone else, including backbenchers of his own caucus, have admitted that. If he does not, perhaps he could show us just how he calculates that my constituents and his will not be losing $100 each, in real inflation adjusted dollars, because of that disastrous Budget?
Supply


Léo Duguay: Mr. Speaker, it should be very clear that when a Member of Parliament has to talk about the future of real, inflation adjusted dollars he cannot provide any real figures to support the future any better than I can.


Mr. Parry:: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay), I would ask him to consider some figures reflecting very real losses. It is easy for him as a Member of Parliament to say that these losses to Canadian pensioners are national. He will not collect his old age pension for some 25 or 30 years. Therefore, it is rather easy for him to talk about what is and what is not a loss than it is for pensioners who will be suffering that loss. The annual cut to each pensioner in Canada as a result of deindexation will be $100 in 1986 and 1987. It will be $205 in 1988.


An Hon. Member:: If they live.


John Edmund Parry: The Hon. Member says "if they live". I hope the Tory Party, as a mass, is taking it somewhat more seriously than that. It will represent $315 in 1988; $423 in 1989 and $553 in 1990 because just as interest compounds when it is added, so accumulative reduction in an increase that would otherwise take place also compounds when it is deducted.
The Hon. Member accuses members of my Party of spreading "fear and misery", I believe were his terms. Then he quotes a study of the Club of Rome, saying that there will not be enough food left for people to eat. While 1 know that he was not specifically referring to Canadian senior citizens, he knows how easy it is for things to be taken out of context in the House. Are senior citizens telling him that they are prepared to bear these cuts? Is he, unlike the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), able to name a single senior citizen organization that says that senior citizens in fact support these cuts and are prepared to see them go ahead as a result of the Budget?


Léo Duguay: Mr. Speaker, it is the third time that a member of his Party has read the same numbers into the record. We heard them the first time.


Don Boudria: You didn't understand them the first time.


Léo Duguay: Those figures imply future reductions that are based on their projections. They do not take into consideration the fact that Budgets are presented in the House annually, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). They do not take into consideration that on January 1, 1986, the minimum tax will be brought in at the same time as these changes.
The point I am making is that Canadians are better served by their Members of Parliament when these questions are put into a broader perspective than focusing on one or two details and scaring senior citizens into believing that they must pay for all of the deficit reduction. The truth is that senior citizens and all Canadians have been asked to pay a little bit for the preservation of those things which we, as Canadians, have come to take for granted. Give senior citizens the choice of this minor reduction in their pensions-

June 5, 1985
Supply


Don Boudria: I thought you said a minute ago there was no reduction.


Léo Duguay: Senior citizens have acquired a great deal of wisdom through their years. They know that the Government of Canada provides health and welfare benefits and transfer payments which go to other services which they use. Canadians know that this is a contribution that they are being asked to make for the benefit of their country, and I hope they will not be fooled by the fear tactics that I have seen in the House and before the press.
[ Translation]


André Harvey: How refreshing it is to listen to one of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, especially when it is the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) who has clearly perused the Budget Speech, or at least the part we are dealing with now. I find it most unfortunate and deplorable that members of both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party should seize this opportunity to revive this period of the election campaign when they spread a wave of panic among our senior citizens who came to fear that the coming to power of a Progressive Conservative government would mean major cuts to their Old Age pensions.


Don Boudria: How right they were!


André Harvey: Nothing of the sort has happened. What we should tell our senior citizens is that if the government does not get this country's deficit under control, all social programs will suffer, and that senior citizens will not be penalized in any way by the recent budget. Quite the contrary! The government will achieve deficit control by dealing with the 400 Crown Corporations which were created and poorly administered by the Liberals. That is where the Government wants to step in. 1 am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that what is going on at this time is very serious because all rationality is taken out of the Budget Speech. If it were possible, those people would make projections up to the year 2000. It is very serious! No one can predict what the inflation rate will be in 1988, 1989 and 1990. What we should tell the senior citizens is that their pensions will continue to increase gradually, unlike the sectors of Government spending most affected by the cut-backs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments are now over. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I am also happy to make a modest contribution to the debate during this allotted day, and I would like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) on having introduced this motion, since it allows us to pursue the discussion of this issue in the House. What our friends opposite do not seem to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that the debate on the deindexing of
old age security pensions has extended outside the House of Commons and that, whatever may be said in this place, it is impossible to open a newspaper, to listen to the radio or to watch television without reading or hearing comments by groups who are shocked at the way senior citizens are being treated by this Budget. The motion of the Hon. Member for Beaches therefore gives us an opportunity to do in this House what everyone else is now doing throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I find this Budget unfair and immoral in its treatment of senior citizens. A short while ago, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) told us that, in discussing this issue today, we were trying to scare people, but I must tell him that matters have reached another point because senior citizens are no longer afraid. Perhaps they were scared before the Budget was brought down. Now, it is too late to be afraid, the damage is done and senior citizens will suffer. The time for fear is past. It is now time for senior citizens to grieve and to fight. Do not accuse the Liberal Party of Canada of spreading fear! Senior citizens are well aware of what is happening to them. You can read it everywhere! Go to your constituencies! Some of you Conservatives have already been quoted this morning in the newspapers as reporting the message you received from senior citizens in your riding. Senior citizens realize that they will be losing money even though the previous speaker would have us believe they would not. it is quite simple. Indexing will be reduced by 3 per cent next year. Everyone knows that there will be some inflation. It is obvious that this will mean less purchasing power. It is quite clar.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said that, from what he could figure out, the cumulative loss in the purchasing power of a senior citizen would be $1,447 during the next few years. It is interesting to note that, by a strange coincidence, the Canadian Press, which made its own calculations, concludes that the loss in the purchasing power of senior citizens during the next five years will amount to $1,500. This does not come from the Liberal party or the New Democratic Party. These figures were arrived at by the Canadian Press. And if Hon. Members opposite would do their own calculations, they would come up with very similar figures.
The $1,500 amount figured out by the Canadian Press assumes a mere 4 per cent rate for inflation over the next few years. But we all know that inflation may, and unfortunately will probably exceed 4 per cent. What this boils down to is that senior citizens are being treated in an immoral, and again unfair way. What we find unfair is that this Government is asking those who are most in need, those who in our society have the least to contribute to reduce the deficit. When the Government says that the deficit must be reduced, I think that everybody agrees, not only in this House but all across Canada. But I would like to see how the Government would go about trying to convince senior citizens, who are in dire straits, that they must share in reducing the deficit. This is what we are opposing. This is what an increasing number of social
June 5, 1985

groups across Canada are opposing. They are not opposing the Government's fiscal responsibilities, but the improper way it is dealing with the deficit problem.

Fiscal responsibility is a virtue. We agree with that. It is not a vice. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) seems to have turned into a Minister of Finance this afternoon and told us that we have to control the deficit. Everyone agrees with that. Where people disagree, where we disagree in the Opposition and where many more people disagree, more than the 40 of us and the 30 New Democrats, the thousands upon thousands of people, with the policy of the Government is when the Government asked the people who are the neediest to contribute to the reduction of the deficit. That is wrong. It is not the objective, not the goal, but the way, the means to do it. It is particularly wrong at a time when the Government has just shelled out a bonanza of $2.5 billion to the multinational oil companies through the Western Accord. How can the Government do that on the one hand and then ask the people who can bearly make both ends meet to contribute to the riches and to reduce the deficit?

When the Government is giving a present to a small number of people in Canada-and statistics show that a mere 4 per cent of Canadians pocket approximately 75 per cent of capital gains realized each year in Canada-when the Government gives them a tax holiday on capital gains without any obligation whatsoever, without requiring that the tax thus saved be invested to create jobs, without ever asking them to show how such a tax holiday will serve the best interests of Canada, I say that we cannot in the same breath ask for a contribution from those who are the most in need.
And the Progressive Conservative Party knows that very well. During the last election-I have here a document issued by the Progressive Conservative party outlining ... it is a press release put out after a Conservative caucus meeting held in Sherbrooke on July 26, 1984. Not only there was the commitment to restore full indexation of Old Age Security as of January 1985, not only that, but on the first page, I will quote a paragraph which clearly shows that the Progressive Conservative Party understood those who are the most in need in our society. I am quoting three lines only: "These statistics show that more than 60 per cent of single women and 40 per cent of single men 65 and over have incomes falling below the poverty line".
With their eyes fully open, the Progressive Conservative Members have decided to launch an attach against those in our society who are the less in a position to defend themselves. And this in itself is cowardly and ill-advised.

One thing promised was that this Budget would be tough and fair. At least one promise has been kept, but it has been kept in reserve. It is tough on the poor and it is fair on the well off. That is something we cannot swallow on this side of the
Supply
House. We will not accept it and we will fight for a long time. The Government will come to realize that we are not alone in this fight. We are here on the floor of the House of Commons just like a drum resounding what is being said on the streets of our nation. This Government has failed to recognize the difficulties of our older people.
This Government is asking for a sacrifice that our seniors cannot meet. This is the problem the Tories have to face. I am thankful the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has started to show flexibility. I am happy to hear him say that he might do something if financial conditions improve. He would be well advised to do that because he has no clue at this time about the way this movement could snowball across the country.
We are not scaring the old people. We are simply here delivering the message they are giving us on their behalf. They are not giving their message just to us but to Conservative Members of Parliament. They are probably also giving their message to the one independent Member of Parliament we have in this House.
As a matter of fact, let me outline what is happening within the Tory ranks. In the press this morning was the headline "Tory Backbenchers Battle Cabinet on Pensions". Let me quote a very respected Member of the Conservative Party, the former Minister of National Defence, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). He is quoted as saying that senior citizens "don't like" partial deindexation and that he would like to meet the senior citizens who, according to the Minister of Finance, "like it or appear to be in favour of it". He continued by indicating that senior citizens "are not stupid . . . They know that if there's 4 per cent inflation, their old age pension benefits and Guaranteed Income Supplement for the most needy pensioners is not going to go up by 4 per cent". Also he indicated that the Government had not "proved to me that that's where they should save money", and added:
I'm biased about this, but I'm glad we have a couple of months to come to our senses.
I think he is right and, with the opening shown by the Minister of Finance, maybe the Government will come to its senses. The Hon. Member for Victoria is not the only one who has spoken out on this. Another Member in a completely different category, a new Member who does not have the experience of the Hon. Member for Victoria, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), said:
I have had more telephone calls to my constituency office on this particular issue from senior citizens than I have had on anything else . .. since I was elected to Parliament.
That is clear enough. I understand the position of Hon. Members on the government side. I have sat on that side for years. I know it is not easy to stand and openly criticize the Government. I realize that. However, for God's sake, would it not be possible for discussions to take place within the Conservative caucus? Within the confines of walls, issues can be aired; Members can say what they have on their minds. They can tell the Minister of Finance that he has to do something

June 5, 1985
Supply
about the pleas which they have received from pensioners in their ridings. However, I am grateful that a handful of Conservative Members had the courage to make these comments in public. Perhaps they are afraid that the discussions which have been going on behind closed doors are not sufficient. I am thankful on behalf of senior citizens that these Members have spoken out. If they had not done so, people would be left to believe that all Conservative Members felt that it was right to deindex the pensions. I would not like that because 1 would like some of them to be re-elected the next time; perhaps not as many as the last election but some of them.
[ Translation]
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the members are not the only ones to object to the ruthless measures against senior citizens, especially those most in need. Now, one thing should be clear. We are not worried if the pension of a bank president or the old age pension of Mr. Trudeau, the former Prime Minister, are deindexed, but we are concerned about recipients of the guaranteed income supplement. Those people have no other income and most of them are under the poverty line. This is what concerns us as well as an increasing number of people throughout Canada.
This morning, I read that some groups were protesting the provisions of the budget dealing with senior citizens including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, an organization highly considered in the country, the National Council of Welfare, the National Organization against Poverty, the Advisory Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Council on Social Development. All those organizations object to the measures included in the budget to reduce indexation for needy persons.
Those people have stated, and 1 quote: "The income of the poorer and most vulnerable among our senior citizens will be reduced over the years." They understand that the income of older persons will be reduced and I can only repeat very seriously what may seem presumptuous for a political party with only 40 members in this House, that we will continue to fight as long as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) does not alter his budget. I wish that warning to be perfectly clear and unequivocal.

We will not drop this fight until the Minister of Finance has decided to do something to correct this most blatant inequity, in our opinion and in the opinion of thousands of people across the country. We will not be alone, we 40 Liberals and 30 New Democrats in this House of Commons. Thousands of people agree with what we are saying. We are simply repeating what they are telling us. 1 see the Parliamentary Secretary is starting to nod his head.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: I will tell you what I am hearing.


Jacques Guilbault: Maybe, maybe. I should like to refer to another aspect of the Budget. It has been
indicated in the press and in various studies that 750,000 people will be pushed below the poverty line because of that deindexation. This is something that we cannot accept. This is something which we will fight. I repeat that we will fight to the end. Members on the government side of the House will probably be surprised to see the energy we will put into it. [Translation]
What surprised me this afternoon as I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was, probably owing to Cabinet solidarity, the unexpected change in his attitude. Ministers of National Health and Welfare have generally been the defenders of the most underprivileged in our society, the elderly who get the guaranteed income supplement, but this afternoon he spoke as a Minister of Finance whose job is to control the deficit. That is the kind of speech he made. Surprisingly enough, he told us that benefits will not be guaranteed to the elderly 15 or 20 years down the road unless we immediately reduce the pensions now paid to the poorest Canadians. Strange indeed.


Don Boudria: Shame!


Jacques Guilbault: Yes, shame is the word to describe the situation.
All Ministers of National Health and Welfare have been that way, and even before the Budget the present Minister was hailed as the defender and champion of the poor. I am sure that Cabinet solidarity makes it harder for him to say clearly what he thinks in public, and I can appreciate that, but I dare hope he has already been in touch with the Minister of Finance to straighten out the situation.
We would not go back to the old system when old age security pensions were raised now and then by the Party in office. It was almost blackmail since the elderly never knew whether pensions would go up or not. Since 1976, indexation has been a regular process on which senior citizens can rely and which had become a must in our society. That is why the Party I represent-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 was wondering whether the Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition wanted to carry on the debate on this matter, considering that the Party which proposed it does not have a Member in the House.


Mr. Mazankowski:: That is the NDP.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is the New Democratic Party. It does not have a soul in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: That point of order is out of order.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I will just answer that point briefly. We are not here to support the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party. We are here to
June 5, 1985

support the aged and poor people who cannot look after themselves. That is all we are trying to do. I do not care who is present in the House. I know for what I am fighting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
Supply
62(11), proceedings on the motion have expired. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, June 6, 1985