1985-02-08

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) announced that Panarctic will be allowed to ship crude oil through the Northwest Passage.
This is in total disregard of the 1983 Lancaster Sound Green Paper, the 1981 Land Use Planning Policy for the North, and the Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel report which recommended that tanker traffic through the Northwest Passage not be allowed until government research, the preparation stage, and experimental program were concluded.
The Panarctic project does not contribute toward oil selfsufficiency. It represents the first step by the Government in allowing tanker transportation in the North and will probably be perceived by them as a further step in obtaining access to the Sisco well site. If this were to happen, it would result in a giant leap in Arctic tanker shipments. This move is unprecedented and will open the door to other companies.
There is already an application before the Minister by a consortium to drill a wildcat well in Lancaster Sound. The Minister should place an immediate moratorium on drilling in Lancaster Sound as required by the Government of the Northwest Territories, and he should reconsider his decision to allow Panarctic tankers access to the northwest.
The Inuit expressed several concerns. Damage done by an oil spill could destroy breeding grounds and natural resources on which the people rely for survival; insufficient-


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


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that Premier Bill Bennett was taking a step in the right direction with his program of cut-backs and lay-offs. These same policies have devastated the British Columbia economy over the past two years. Since coming to power in September, the Conservative Government has moved in the same negative direction. All across Canada people are beginning to feel the effects of government cut-backs as the unemployment rolls mount. Instead of a renewal of confidence, there is a growing climate of fear and uncertainty as people worry about their own futures, and the future of their children.
British Columbia has been placed under the double jeopardy of two cut-back Governments, and its unemployment rolls now contain 228,000 people. Last month the Government boasted it had created 100,000 jobs across Canada. The reality is that today in British Columbia there are 58,000 fewer people employed than there were in September when the Conservative Government took office. The Conservative Government must now recognize that cut-backs did not work for British Columbia and they are not working for Canada.
It is time to change direction. The Government was elected on a promise of creating jobs. It said it would put jobs ahead of the deficit. Now is the time to begin keeping that promise-


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my riding in southwestern Ontario is literally being beseiged by an imbalance of nature, caused by an increase in the population of ring-billed gulls, causing enormous numbers of these birds to leave their natural environment, adjacent to the Great Lakes. They have now become scavengers of garbage in urban areas simply because they are starving.
More important to the economy, they are swarming into the fields of my riding in Kent County, an area well-known as the most unique in heat units and fertile fields in Canada producing field tomatoes and other vegetable crops. In Kent County the gulls are costing thousands of dollars annually, as well as costs incurred in urban areas just cleaning up after them.

February 8, 1985
I understand from the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), that there have been meetings with Agriculture Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board, to discuss this problem.
I commend the Minister for this action and on behalf of those who want to enjoy ring-billed gulls, not fight them, I ask the Minister of the Environment to take steps immediately to control the number of these birds so they will return to their natural habitat, which is not garbage cans and farmers' fields.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, employment and production in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry in Canada continue to slide downward, and the viability of the industry remains clouded and in doubt. Employment has dropped from a maximum of 14,000 to 7,267. It is obvious that demand for vessels must pick up before recovery can come to the industry, including the allied industries which have the potential of creating some 30,000 related jobs.
As a Government I believe we must do our part. We must give the industry encouragement and pass the right kind of legislation to bring this about so that our industry is able to compete in a more viable way with offshore shipbuilding countries which generously subsidize their shipbuilding industries. We can do this by adopting some of the recommendations which the Government has received from the industry, such as providing concessionary financing to domestic shipowners, doubling the temporary entry duty rate from one-one hundred and twentieth to one-sixtieth per month, placing a duty on imported fishing vessels 100 feet in length and longer, providing financial assistance for petroleum exploration activity only to companies that source in Canada or maximize Canadian content and, last, extending the government grant of 9 per cent for another two years to June, 1987.
These requests are certainly most reasonable and, if adopted by the Government, would go a long way to bring some stability and create many more jobs in the industry and related industries, which would give our economy a much needed boost.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Members from Calgary to listen closely. The Tory Government seems to think that it can take the City of Calgary for granted. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has developed discriminatory practices which apply only to Calgary and are harsher then exist elsewhere in Canada.
Calgary home applicants are required to sign a declaration swearing they have not had business dealings with a bankrupt company in the past three years. CMHC is also no longer insuring mortgages on new homes in Calgary worth less than $80,000.
The Mayor of Calgary has sent two letters to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) which, to date, have gone unanswered, with the exception of a mere acknowledgement. I sent the Prime Minister a letter last week encouraging him to respond to the Mayor's concerns. The five Members from Calgary, including a Cabinet Minister, have all failed to respond on this important matter.
I feel that these practices are discriminatory and are likely to contravene Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which comes into effect very soon. The Government should put an immediate end to these practices which discriminate against the people of Calgary.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: With two of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I just came back from Quebec, which is part of the tour of the NDP action group on the labour force. We travelled to Quebec City and the Lac-Saint-Jean region and our visit has highlighted in human terms the misery and the unemployment woes which beset our country and the Province of Quebec. Even in Quebec City, which ought to be rather prosperous as an administration centre, more than
40,000	people are now out of work. We therefore urge the Government to put an end to its cutbacks and to take constructive measures to solve the unemployment problem in the Province of Quebec.
In the Lac-Saint-Jean-Saguenay region, Mr. Speaker, more than half of the young workers under 19 are looking for jobs. Roughly 30 per cent of the work force between the ages of 20 and 24 is idle. The unemployed have to make do with a $156 monthly social welfare allowance, and nothing else. It is outright misery for them, outright misery for everybody, outright misery for the entire province and Canada as a whole. We were told that hard economic times account for the suicide rate among young Quebecers, now the second highest in the world.
Mr. Speaker, we in this party believe that now is the time to begin creating lasting jobs, not to launch temporary make-work projects and hand out social welfare benefits-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his allotted time has expired.
February 8, 1985


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, before last summer's election becomes just a fleeting but heartwarming memory, I urge Members of the House to give serious consideration to the reform of our electoral process.
Under the current system, voters are enumerated prior to a federal election. This past summer we witnessed the frustration of many voters who were denied the opportunity to vote because they had not been enumerated. For example, some long-term residents of my constituency were away on holidays, were in the midst of harvesting, or for other reasons were not at home when the enumerators called. While some were able to have their names added to the voters' list during the period of revision, others were unable to meet the strict deadlines imposed by our current procedures.
I would ask why a resident of a city such as Brandon, Manitoba, cannot be accompanied by a neighbour to his or her polling place and enumerated on election day. Rural voters have long enjoyed this privilege.
Or perhaps the time has come for Canada to establish a permanent voters' list as is done in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. It has long been argued that such a list would be expensive to maintain. However, I would point out that unanticipated expenses made the most recent enumeration a costly undertaking.
Given the increasing problems, injustices, and costs of our current system of enumeration, I urge all Members of the House to give serious consideration to the implementation of one of the above electoral reforms.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, one week ago the sports fishermen on Canada's West Coast were in an uproar about the stringent Chinook allocations allowed under the new Pacific salmon treaty. With considerable fortitude, the Fisheries Minister (Mr. Fraser) travelled to B.C. and entered the valley of discontent. It was the first time in many years that West Coast fishermen had actually seen a federal Minister of Fisheries, and the first time in decades that one had actually listened to them.
A week ago today the Minister announced an accommodation within the treaty that calmed the fears of the B.C. sports fishing community. That is the way this Government works. It welcomes positive input, and then acts.
It should be noted that the treaty can still be improved. Accommodations can still be found. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry should be travelling to the West
Coast to receive constructive suggestions on the treaty and on other issues. We should be welcoming witnesses to travel to Ottawa to express their concerns.
However, it is important to note that after some 20 years of negotiating, we have a Pacific salmon treaty. Fishermen can plan for the years to come. Our depleted resource can be enhanced. Although we cannot please all of the people all of the time, we can replace inaction with action. Those were our instructions from the Canadian people on September 4, and that is how we will continue to govern.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, lending ceiling allowed under legislation providing for guaranteed loans for business development was reached by mid-January. Since then, no new loans have been authorized. If the small business sector in our economy is to survive, it is absolutely essential that the funds required to continue implementation of the Small Businesses Loans Act be approved. The latest statistics have shown a further increase in the unemployment rate, so that it is clearly urgent to help small businesses create jobs.
If the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bisson-nette) is truly concerned about encouraging small business, the most important sector of our economy, he will split Bill C-23 and table forthwith in the House a Bill to authorize the funds required to continue this program. The Liberal Opposition will fully support this amendment, and the remaining amendments to the Small Business Loans Act would then be submitted separately to the House for consideration and free debate.
The Government is trying to piggyback controversial changes on an important and urgent amendment. Small business is where the most jobs can be created the fastest. If the Government is serious about job creation, which it claims is its first priority, then it will split the Bill amending the SBLA and ask the House to provide money for small business loans to be issued again.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, those who question whether Canadians can see beyond their own national goals and boundaries will find the answer in the response to the tragic famine in Ethiopia.

February 8, 1985
Oral Questions
Individuals and community groups across the land have organized to provide many kinds of relief. The wide expression of concern indicates clearly that Canadians are prepared to share in the burden carried by those in other parts of the world.
What is now important is that we should not allow this outpouring of conscientious concern to dissipate with the solving of just one of the world's many problems. Our Canadian Government, through Parliament, should act to establish a national body to represent all Canadians and community groups willing to help those in other lands to resolve their problems, and mandate that national body to provide a vehicle for individuals and community groups to assist on a continuing basis.
Let's have national recognition of the fact that Canadians accept their international responsibilities.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In blatant contradiction to what the Minister stated yesterday, when he said that interest rates were falling and that unemployment rates were falling, we learned today that the prime lending rate has increased by 0.6 per cent and that the unemployment rate has increased by 0.4 per cent. It means that there are 167,000 more Canadians out of work now than there were last month.
In view of the staggering unemployment rate, is the Minister prepared to come forward with the Budget now? What the Minister said yesterday is not true. Canadians need a Budget, and they need it in March.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday, and I will say it again today, is that we cannot judge the performance of the Government's economic policy on a short-term basis-whether that be two weeks or one month. I would suggest that the Hon. Member should wait for the Budget. The Budget will come after we have had the opportunity to discuss with the First Ministers, next week in Regina, the ideas which they have on economic policy and which they feel should be reflected in our Budget; and also after the national economic conference. As soon as I can return to the House with a Budget, after the economic conference, I will present that Budget.


CHALLENGE '85-WAGE SUBSIDY COMPONENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, that is an obvious about-face by the Minister of Finance. I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the youth unemployment rate is a staggering 17 per cent, can the Minister explain to the House why she has made wage subsidies the centre-piece of the employment strategy, when in fact she has evaluations within her own Department which suggest that they will not assist any of the depressed areas of Canada and that 60 per cent of the jobs would have been created anyway? Why is the Minister making wage subsidies the centre-piece of the employment strategy?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, wage subsidies are a major part of the summer employment program, because that is the way we will produce jobs for young people this summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT IN EASTERN CANADA
David Charles Dingwall: Again, Mr. Speaker, the record will show very clearly an about-face by the Minister of Employment and Immigration from what she said in May of 1984.
Will the Minister kindly tell the House what she will do in terms of remedial measures for the high unemployment areas in Canada? Unemployment in eastern Canada has reached 23.2 per cent in Newfoundland, 15.6 per cent in New Brunswick, 13.9 per cent in Nova Scotia, and 14.2 per cent in P.E.I. What remedial measures will the Minister recommend to her Cabinet colleagues forthwith?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Government and no Member of Parliament can take any comfort from the figures which were released this morning. We said from the outset that it would be a long, hard road. We said that last month when the figures were better, and we reiterate it now.
We have already put plans into place, Mr. Speaker. We have, for instance, introduced Investment Canada in order to bring investment to this country and to create more jobs.


Mr. Broadbent:: Where is it?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We have put into place economic development measures. My colleague, the Minister for DRIE, has reached agreements with provinces, particularly those which are hard pressed. This week I introduced a $205 million program for students for the summer, and there are other programs. I would say that what we are particularly looking forward to is the First Ministers' conference and the measures which will be announced there.
February 8, 1985


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising the Prime Minister is not in the House today, considering the figures we have seen. If you want to bark, go bark outside!
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.
I am not going to talk about the many promises made by the Minister during the election campaign. I just want to remind him it has now been about 100 days since the Government announced its commitments in the Throne Speech on November 5. As part of these commitments, the Minister announced a three-pronged strategy for creating employment for all Canadians. A few days later, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board announced cutbacks totalling $4 billion in job creation programs announced by the previous Government, although in his economic statement, the Minister said that this Government was going to create jobs. My question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Today, considering the statistics showing that 167,000 more Canadians are unemployed, with increases in unemployment occurring in all provinces, is the Minister prepared to admit before the House today that his policy has failed and that his sole achievement has been to produce an average of 1670 unemployed Canadians per day?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I can tell the Hon. Member is that the policy of the previous Government was a complete failure and that is why the people voted for the Conservative Party last September 4-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -to see a change in Government and a change in policy. I believe that the Hon. Member is displaying a lack of understanding of economic policy if he expects that something done in November is going to have an immediate impact in January or February. We are working in the right direction. We are convinced that the broad direction which we sent out, and the specific areas of policy which were set out in the economic statement in November, are the right way. We never promised a quick fix. We never promised that it was going to happen overnight. But it is going in the right direction, and it is very clear from the economic statistics which we have seen over a period of time that we are moving in the right direction.
I caution the Hon. Member not simply to take one month's figures and say that that is a sign of failure, because Canadians are too smart for that.
Oral Questions


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says I do not understand economic policy. Be that as it may, I do understand the human factor involved. I am speaking on behalf of
1,500,000	unemployed Canadians.
My supplementary is as follows: Since the Minister answered my colleague that he did not want to bring down a budget, is he prepared to follow my example and tear up this document and release $4 billion worth of job creation programs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that Canadians are impressed with the histrionics that the Hon. Member has demonstrated today. What people are looking for is a stable series of policies that will address clearly the economic problems that we inherited as a Government. People saw that in the November 8 statement. They saw that we are on the right track and know that over time this is going to have a clear set-


Jean-Claude Malépart: People are interested in jobs, not speeches! [English]


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think if the Hon. Member would close his mouth and listen, he might be able to learn something.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member is not going to listen, it does not make much sense to answer the question.


THE ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the figures released today are truly alarming. An increase in unemployment of 167,000 people in one month is the largest one month increase in five years. The situation in truly alarming. It is the direct consequence of the Conservative cut-backs announced in the fall. Instead of increasing confidence and assurance as promised to the people of Canada, we are getting feelings of increasing economic deprivation. That is what the Government has delivered.
Now that the Minister has seen the consequences of his massive cut-back approach which we have previously seen in British Columbia, which the people of England have seen as well, when will he reverse the policy and produce the jobs the Conservatives promised?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite plain to the Hon. Member that I am not
2146

February 8, 1985
Oral Questions
happy when I see the unemployment rate go up; no more than is the Hon. Member. But we have set out a comprehensive approach to getting the level of unemployment down. That is the clear direction and clear objective of what was set out in the economic statement last November.
Before the Hon. Member gets carried away with his own rhetoric about the impact of the spending cuts, let me remind him that those spending cuts are to take effect after April 1. They have not had any impact on the economy yet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister has said that they are going to take effect after April 1.


Mr. Andre:: You just said they have already taken effect.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the fellow with the large month just behind the Minister be quiet for a second?


Harvie Andre: If the fellow with the finger in the air would ask his question.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister has said the effects of the cut-backs will be left after April 1. That will mean one thing and one thing only, unemployment will get worse after April 1. He promised in these measures brought in before Christmas that there would be new confidence which would be felt right away.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: You are more confused than ususal.


REQUEST THAT POLICY BE REVERSED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, consider what the Minister's Prime Minister said in August, and 1 quote, "Massive cuts now would guarantee a recession". So said Brian Mulroney in August. What Mr. Mulroney said in August-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: -is true now. Will the Minister of Finance recognize the truth of what the Prime Minister said in August, and reverse this disastrous economic policy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the general response to the economic statement, particularly the expenditure cuts announced on November 8, was that they were a measured, moderate approach to a most serious problem, that is, the level of the federal government's deficit, a deficit which is causing problems in capital markets because it forces up interest rates. We are trying to demonstrate to Canadians that we want to get control of that deficit so that interest rates will come down, not overnight, but we have made some very good progress since September 4, and we will make greater progress as time goes by.


John Edward Broadbent: The reality, of course, is quite different from what the Minister says. Interest rates are going up, not down.


DELIVERY OF JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's Government produced figures two days ago, not the Opposition but his own Government, and the composite index said the situation for the next few months is going to get worse, not better. They are not talking about one day, or one week, or one month. They are saying the months ahead are going to get worse. In the last 24 hours we have seen the dollar reach a record low, and interest rates go up a full half percentage point. Most alarming of all, we have seen today an increase in unemployment of 167,000.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions are becoming very long again. I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member would ask his supplementary question.


John Edward Broadbent: I will come to the point, then. Considering these figures in the last 24 hours, as well as the negative projections, will the Government change its policies and deliver what it promised, namely, jobs?


Some Hon. Members:: Jobs!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the question is no, we are not going to change the economic policy, because that economic policy is clearly accepted in a positive way by Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The reality is that interest rates have been coming down every week since September 4. There have been two weeks in which interest rates reversed. I think that is a very good performance.
I should draw to the Hon. Member's attention one thing that the Statistics Canada commentary said about the leading indicators. It said that they demonstrated somewhat of a slow-down, as I indicated in the economic statement. There is no surprise there.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I will direct my question to the Solicitor General who, I believe, is the Acting Minister of Justice. The country remembers that in the Morgentaler case in the Province of Ontario the Attorney General of Ontario,
February 8, 1985

Roy McMurtry, waited until his officials had fully briefed him about possible grounds of appeal before he decided to appeal that decision.
With regard to the Hatfield case I would like to know, through the Solicitor General, whether the Minister of Justice was fully briefed about that case before he decided that there would be no appeal. In particular, was he advised that the court had rejected fingerprint evidence which might have been accepted in many other jurisdictions?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member opposite would recognize that those questions, while very pertinent, can only be answered by the Minister of Justice. I can only repeat the assurances that the Minister of Justice has given previously. To the best of my knowledge all proper procedures were used with regard to the handling of the case to which the Hon. Member refers.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Does the Solicitor General believe that the Minister of Justice could apply an independent mind to a decision about an appeal involving a judgment about which the Minister of Justice said he was happy because it acquitted a friend of his?


Charles Joseph Clark: Order. Order. Who is this rookie?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recognize the fallacies implicit in those questions and the hypothetical nature of the point made. As the Hon. Member opposite, who is a former Minister, said previously, the Attorney General of Canada has a very special discretionary power and answers to no one except himself in exercising it. Under the circumstances I am sure he will agree-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He answers to the Canadian people.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am under the impression that the former Minister would agree that the only person who can give an answer under these particular circumstances is the Hon. Minister of Justice.


FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. During the election his Party announced that there was going to be a five year rescue plan for the forest sector and the creation of a full Ministry of Forests. Neither of those promises has been fulfilled to date.
Will the Minister of Finance stop the crazy policy of cut-backs and of returning less than one cent on the dollar to the forest sector, keep his commitment to the one million forest
Oral Questions
sector workers in Canada, and now allocate the $1 billion which is required to get forest sector workers from Newfoundland to British Columbia back to work?
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should be congratulating the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, for recognizing the importance of the forestry industry by appointing a Minister responsible for Forestry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: That's only one job.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member would meet with the Minister of State for Forestry he would understand more clearly that a number of initiatives have been taken by the Minister, and a number of plans have been put in place to address the serious problem of the forestry industry. That industry had been allowed to suffer over a long period of time without any attention whatsoever by the Government which was in power up until September 4 last.


NEED FOR REFORESTATION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I will put a very specific question to the Minister of Finance. The Canadian Forest Service has determined the urgent need to replant over
600,000	hectares in British Columbia. This would cost $200 million and would create 200,000 person years of employment. It would create a 10 per cent return on investment per annum, which is not a bad rate of return on an investment.
Will the Minister of Finance move on this for British Columbia, which represents 50 per cent of the largest industry in Canada? If he does not he is condemning the forest sector in Canada to becoming a sunset industry within his term of office.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer the Hon. Member's question. He will be pleased to know that active discussions are ongoing with the Province of British Columbia at the present time in anticipation of the signing of a forestry sub-agreement which will be one of the largest forestry agreements ever signed with a province in the history of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It also concerns the Richard Hatfield marijuana case. I would like the Solicitor General to advise the House of the exact date that he was

February 8, 1985
Oral Questions
made aware that marijuana was found in Premier Hatfield's luggage. I would like him to advise the House who made him aware of those facts. What instructions did he give to the RCMP with respect to the finding of the marijuana? When did he first advise the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Member has asked three questions.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond to my hon. friend. As I recall, the information was conveyed to me by the Commissioner of the RCMP. I believe that would have been some time around September 26. I listened carefully, and the RCMP Commissioner and I had a brief discussion about the events.


MINISTER'S ROLE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, could the Solicitor General indicate what instructions, if any, he gave to the RCMP? When did he advise the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice of the fact that the marijuana was found in Premier Hatfield's luggage? Could he also indicate whether he or any officials in his Department advised Premier Hatfield of the finding of the marijuana during the investigation?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the RCMP Commissioner and I had a session in which he acquainted me with the facts. I gave the RCMP Commissioner no specific directions other than to proceed in the usual way which, as the Hon. Member knows, he is very competent to do. As I recall, there was no communication to anyone by me of any of the information that the Commissioner gave me, as far as I am aware, at least for some period of time. Of course the Minister of Justice and his officials had jurisdiction over much of this affair. As far as I am concerned, my role was simply to keep myself advised about the progress that the RCMP were making in carrying out their duties.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Returning to the subject of unemployment, I am sure you would find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that at the time when the Government was cutting back Katimavik by $30 million, it spent $36 million on uniforms for the armed services.
[ Translation]
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister and the Hon. Member for Roberval, who now sits in Cabinet, promised
to resolve quickly the problems of the pulp and paper mill employees at Desbiens-a small town in the Lac-Saint-Jean area-which ceased operations three years ago. What I want to know this morning, Mr. Speaker, is whether the Minister of Finance will honour this commitment made by his Prime Minister during the election campaign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give a specific response to the question of the Hon. Member. I will take it as notice and get back to him as soon as I can.


CLOSURE OF PULP AND PAPER MILL AT DESBIENS-NECESSITY FOR GOVERNMENT TO TAKE IMMEDIATE MEASURES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
We have here a Minister of Finance who does not know anything at all about election promises.
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a pulp and paper mill, and the Hon. Member for Roberval, who happens to be a Minister, is in the House this morning. Some 125 people have been out of work for three years, and all I want to know is whether the Minister or the Government will keep those elections promises. It was a serious promise, Mr. Speaker, and I want action now!


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the Hon. Member that the mill at Desbiens has been closed for four years and that we have hardly been in office for six months. Second, I am sure he recalls that the Saint-Raymond company submitted a project to the Governments of Quebec and Canada last December 19. Answers will be given in due time, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Government cutbacks.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Let me add my compliments and kudos to the many she has already received on the Challenge '85 program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ted William Schellenberg: But where is the challenge for those who are 30, 40 or 50 years of age, who are unemployed and not students? There are many middle aged people in my riding, with an unemployment rate in excess of 30 per cent, who are looking for that kind of challenge.


February 8, 1985


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that my Department and other Ministers of the Government have been working toward a human resources development plan, a new labour market strategy. That labour market strategy and many of its components will be discussed at the First Minister's conference next week.
One of the issues that we are particularly addressing is the increasing number of older Canadians who have been dislocated from their jobs and have had to face disruption because of new technologies. That is a growing concern in the country and one which we think must be tackled, in any new labour market strategy, in a way that it was not tackled in the past.


EAST COAST ENERGY LIMITED
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Government backbenchers may be offering kudos to the Government, but the women of Canada are rating it zero because they are the worst losers in this unemployment fiasco that we have seen announced by Statistics Canada today.
My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in the absence of the Prime Minister. In light of the non responses we have had from the Government on other issues, I hope we can get some answers on this one. East Coast Energy Limited of Halifax-which I am sure is a subject of great importance to a number of Members on the government side-has exceeded its $10 million credit line with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and is being forced to sell off its only major asset, a one per cent interest in the Venture gas field. What is the Government prepared to do to protect the hundreds of small investors across Nova Scotia who stand to lose their life savings?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that that question should more properly be directed to the Minister of Finance, since it falls within his jurisdiction.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am looking for guidance from the Chair. Is that a redirect?


Mr. Speaker:: A question, if you have one.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry that the Minister of Energy knows nothing about this particular venture.


USE OF PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM GRANTS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, this particular company, East Coast Energy Limited-in case the Minister is not familiar with it-


Pat Carney: I'm familiar with it.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: -has received over $1 million in Petroleum Incentives Program grants. Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister to order a public inquiry into the use of those PIP grants, to assure the people of Canada that their money has been properly spent and accounted for?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, again my question relates to unemployment, more particularly unemployment among young people which has soared from 16.7 per cent to 19.3 per cent within a single month, between December and January.
Mr. Speaker, is the Government now prepared to shelve its destructive cutback policy and create lasting jobs for the 20 per cent of Canadians-one out of five of our workers is a youth-who are without jobs as a result of the policies of the previous Government, policies which this new Government continues to follow?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is no. We are not about to abandon any economic policy that was announced on November 8. I believe that policy has been well received by a wide range of Canadians. It has been the right way to deal with both the unemployment problem and the structural problems that are facing the country. There is no question in the minds of the Government as well as of many Canadians that there will be a very clear, positive effect on unemployment over time and there will be many less people unemployed once the impact of that policy is felt.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I have just returned from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area where the government's policies are not very popular, mostly among the young. In view of the fact that some of them have to make do with $156 a month and that fewer than 30 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: I must make the point at some time today that preambles and questions are getting longer. Will the Hon. Member please put a question immediately?

February 8, 1985
Oral Questions


Michael Morris Cassidy: What concrete action is the Minister of Finance considering for the great many unemployed young people in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area of the province of Quebec?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member has not been in the House this week because the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration has set forth a very clear and positive innovative policy in the amount of S205 million that is clearly directed to the younger people of this country, particularly students.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Just students.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: She has indicated on many occasions that there are other aspects of this policy which she will be announcing soon. I suggest that the Hon. Member exercise a degree of patience. The answers will be coming.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary. The Department is well aware that small businesses directly involved in oil and gas activity, particularly seismic lines and well site preparation, have been denied investment tax credits on the equipment used by them in these particular operations. This is of great concern to a riding like Peace River, because it can literally mean hundreds of jobs.
Will the Department address the situation and reactivate the use of these investment tax credits for these people, so we can ensure that we can protect these jobs for the people in Peace River and other parts of the oil and gas industry?


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question as well as his interest in this issue. The point he is making is well known to the Department. The situation results from a judicial decision rendered in 1983, and I can assure the Hon. Member that the Department, following its review of the tax credit scheme offered to small businesses, will announce in the near future that the type of operation he is interested in will be entitled to the tax credit, just as was formerly the case.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. ARTHUR DONAHOE, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Speaker:: May I advise the House of the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Arthur Donahoe, Speaker of the House of Assembly, of Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. RICHARD GUAY, SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF QUEBEC
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to advise the House of the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Richard Guay, Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board or to his Parliamentary Secretary but I do not see him either. I will therefore direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Earlier this week, I put a question to the President of the Treasury Board about job classifications in the Public Service. In his answer, the Minister said in an offhand manner, and I refer to page 1964 in Hansard:
I am happy to report to the Hon. Member that we are making some very interesting progress on all six issues that we are discussing at the moment.
I should like to ask the Minister if these six issues to which he referred in the House on Monday were the master contract, political rights, a dental plan, adjustment procedures, amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and public service pensions. Are those the issues to which he was referring in the House?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter briefly with the President of the Treasury Board, and he says that the discussions he is having with the unions have been very, very productive, and that they are moving along nicely in reaching some resolution to the problems which are under discussion right now. His very great hope and expectation are that the result of these discussions will be a great improvement in labour-management relations.
February 8, 1985


AGREEMENT INQUIRY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that staff associations as late as yesterday said on radio-and I quote Mr. Donegani, President of the PIPS group-"since we have yet to have hard input from him", the Minister, "it must mean that he has agreed with our positions, and we are happy to hear that", could the Minister confirm that the President of the Treasury Board, on the matters which I mentioned in my previous question, has agreed with the staff associations? Will he announce today when we can expect a signed agreement on these six issues?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to underline the very good tone which these discussions are taking between the President of the Treasury Board and the various unions. The President is hopeful that these discussions will be resolved shortly and that there will be a positive response. However, I do not think it is helpful for me or for the Hon. Member to try to draw these discussions on to the floor of the House of Commons at a point when they are at a sensitive stage and are clearly resulting in an improvement in the tone of labour-management relations.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS CREATION OF JOBS IN MANITOBA
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the only issue which really matters today, that is, the unemployment rate that exists in the country, and is directed to the Minister of Finance. The one province which is showing that Governments can make a difference in creating jobs is the Province of Manitoba. When will the Minister of Finance keep the election promise of the Government and provide a change in the equalization formula so that Manitoba gets the money it needs to provide more jobs for Manitobans?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, I have had a number of discussions with the Minister of Finance from the Province of Manitoba. He was in Ottawa, I believe a week ago, with other representatives from various organizations in Manitoba, discussing the issue. I set out some of the considerations which had to be taken into account there. I indicated that it wasn't just a one-province issue, that a number of provinces are affected by the issue. It isn't an easy one to resolve because of the large amount of moneys which are involved and the fact that we have a very high deficit with which we have to deal on an ongoing basis. I indicated to him-and I will indicate it to the House-that we are close to reaching a decision on this. I will be communicating this both to the House and to that Minister of Finance in due course.
Oral Questions FUNDING FOR QUEBEC


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure we are all awaiting that announcement. Because jobs are so important and we must have action by Governments now, could the Minister tell us that they will be acting on the promise of the Prime Minister in Quebec during the election campaign, and that they will increase the money going to provinces like Quebec through the equalization formula? That was an election promise. It will create jobs. Are they going to act on it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have set out very clearly the broad program we are following to create employment opportunities. As I have said on many occasions, that has been very well received by people right across the country, including people in the Province of Quebec and in the Province of Manitoba.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Province of Manitoba-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would suggest to the Hon. Member, first of all, that he listen to the answer before he asks another question. I also suggest that he exercise a degree of restraint in his criticism and watch for the results. I can assure him that the results of the program which we have set out will be far in excess of anything he has seen before.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is what scares us.


TRANSPORT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Right Hon. Prime Minister I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Transport. It has to do with the upcoming scheduled meeting between the Prime Minister and President Reagan in March, when the issue of acid rain will be tackled and where the Prime Minister will need every bit of help he can get from his two Ministers of Transport, having given away Canada's bargaining position in a manner whereby, even if Canada were to close down its emissions tomorrow, it would still suffer considerably from the 26 million tonnes of S02 emissions coming from the United States. Now-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The next sentence.


Mr. Caccia:: -the Minister of State for Transport is aware that there is a squabble going on right now in Ottawa between his Department, on the one hand, and the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare, on the other hand, over the date of the introduction of these controls.
I am asking the Minister of State for Transport whether he could assure the House that he will make an announcement for

February 8, 1985
Oral Questions
his Prime Minister, whereby cars sold in Canada will have emission controls installed in the 1987 models.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not intend to answer on behalf of the Prime Minister. I think that the question should be directed to the Minister of Environment. However, I should say that the Department of Transport will co-operate with the Department of Environment and we will provide an answer.


Charles L. Caccia: Obviously, the Minister is not familiar with the issue.


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


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.


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


Charles L. Caccia: I am asking for my right-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles L. Caccia: I am asking for my right to ask a supplementary question, and I demand it.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Charles Joseph Clark: Order. Take your seat.


Charles L. Caccia: I am asking for my right to ask a supplementary.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Charles L. Caccia: On a point of order-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You can't have a point of order.


Charles L. Caccia: I have a right to ask a supplementary.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Charles L. Caccia: I will not sit down.


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


Charles L. Caccia: I have a right-


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


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to take his seat.


Charles L. Caccia: I ask Your Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to take his seat.


Charles L. Caccia: I ask Your Honour to grant me the right to ask a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask-


Charles L. Caccia: Your Honour is here to serve us.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: I	am	asking	for the	right	to	ask a
supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member took one minute and fifteen seconds to ask his first question.


Charles L. Caccia: This is not the first time, Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: He knows-


Charles L. Caccia: I	am	asking	for my	right	to	ask a
supplementary.


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


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a point of order-


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance.


Charles L. Caccia: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister a question-


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Just ignore him, Simon.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I can't be heard.


Mr. Speaker:: I can hear the Hon. Member ask his question, and so can the government side. Please ask your question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you.


TRUST COMPANIES
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday I asked her questions on the Pioneer Trust Company of Regina, to which she responded as follows:
-! am aware of the situation about which the Hon. Member has asked .. . My officials have been monitoring this situation-
How long was the Minister or her officials aware of the serious financial situation of Pioneer Trust? How many other western-based trust companies are on the brink of collapse?
February 8, 1985


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, Pioneer Trust was one of the first trust companies which was brought to my attention. We had been working very closely with provincial officials-my officials-and with the company for some time. As far as I am informed, there are no other western trust companies on the verge of collapse. Our concern is always for the depositors first.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the Minister or her officials aware of any activities undertaken on behalf of Pioneer Trust by the senior management of that company which in any way violated the charter of incorporation or the Trust Company Act? Will she consent to an open and full public inquiry?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is premature to discuss a public inquiry at this point. As I indicated in my first answer, our first concern is for the depositors. My officials, and those of the CDIC, will be working actively to see that the insured depositors are the priority. We will then be examining the company and will take very appropriate step.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to raise with her again the case of the 350 Canadians who are required by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to repay benefits received in the honest belief that they were employees within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act. A board of referees constituted under the Act has ruled that repayments cannot be required to be made. Will the Minister review the situation and determine what legal advice she is getting? It seem to make common and legal sense that the Unemployment Insurance Commission desist from making this claim.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have asked officials and the legal advisers in my Department to look at this very serious matter. I have already indicated that those people who are being asked to make repayments and who are in a position of being only in receipt of unemployment insurance or welfare will certainly not be pressed for repayment at this time. However, with regard to the over-all question, that is being reviewed to see what discretion I may have as Minister, or the Government may have.
Privilege-Mr. Caccia CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) on Thursday, February 7, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At approximately 11:17 today you in your discretion allowed a Conservative Member to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21. That was clearly in breach of the rules which require that oral questions commence at 11:15. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was entitled to a supplmentary and was denied that supplementary. I would ask the Speaker whether there is-


An Hon. Member:: Give him the boot.


Mr. Speaker:: No. The Hon. Member is obviously concerned. I will simply say that is not a question of privilege.


DENIAL OF SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I feel that I have a question of privilege in having been denied a supplementary following an answer that was a non-answer by a Minister who does not know his file, who denied that he had any responsibility for it and shifted the responsibility to another Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member raising a question of privilege with regard to the denial of a supplementary?


Charles L. Caccia: If you would permit me to complete, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask that he quickly come to his basis of how he finds this to be a question of privilege under Beau-chesne or the rules of this House.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my privilege has been violated because, as the environment critic for the Official Opposition, I speak on these matters on behalf of Canadians who are concerned. By denying me the right to put a supplementary, you have denied my pursuit of a matter that is in the public interest, is urgent and is the responsibility of that particular Minister of State to deal with.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is fully aware of the citation in Beauchesne, and I need not read it, which indicates that the Speaker sees whom the Speaker sees, and, second, that supplementaries are entirely at the discretion of the Speaker.

February 8, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Caccia
The Member knows that. I presume he must know since he is raising the ultimate parliamentary-


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Member might also please keep his seat while the Speaker is addressing the House. Beauchesne is very clear on the granting of supplementaries. I take it the Hon. Member does not know the citation. I will quote it. Supplementary Questions, Beauchesne, Citation 371:
Although there may be no debate on an answer, further questions, as may be necessary for the elucidation of the answers that have been given ... may be addressed to a Minister. The extent to which supplementary questions may be asked is in the discretion of the Speaker.
The House well knows, and I think the Hon. Member well knows because I have said it many times, that Question Period is for the purpose of asking questions. Therefore, I have consistently done my best to show Members, in whatever ways I can, that long preambles to questions are not going to be tolerated by the Speaker. By now the House must know that is the Speaker's view.
The Member will also know, since he was addressing his question to the Chair, as he must, that I waved and signaled to him three times to tell him that his preamble was going on too long. I held the stop-watch up that I use to indicate that he at that point was going well beyond what was appropriate. Nevertheless, he chose to continue with his preamble. He chose, with respect, to take practically a minute before he got to the beginning of his question.
Therefore, in the exercise of my discretion, without embarrassing the Member by rising to cut him off, which is my ultimate sanction, I indicated as best I could to the Member that he should come to the question immediately. Because he did not, I chose to exercise my discretion not to grant a supplementary. I do not find, with due respect, that a breach of privilege or order has resulted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a separate point of order?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege to bring to your attention the following facts. My question was not unduly lengthy compared to other questions. Second, and more important, Sir, if the granting of a supplementary is fully the prerogative of the Speaker and it is granted to all other colleagues of mine, it is not fair to deny it to this Member when he is asking for a supplementary. That is definitely a discriminatory decision which has affected my ability to ask a supplementary. I do not believe my question was unduly long compared to other questions asked in this House. I still feel that I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the Member is upset because he was not granted a supplementary. I understand he feels that way. Therefore, I will take no offence and make no comment on the fact that a comment has been made about a ruling. I think that is fair. The Member is upset.
The point I am trying to make to the Member and to all Members is that I will not tolerate long preambles. The Member's question today was by some length the longest question today. I have for the last three or four days-the Hon. Member thinks his question was not. I had a stop-watch on his question and can guarantee him that he was 30 per cent longer than any other questioner today. I can guarantee him that.
At some point I do not have any option but to try and signal Members to come to the question. If Members do not do that, then there must be some penalty. The only penalty I have to invoke is to do what I did. I will continue to do it in a non-discriminatory way against any Members who put questions at too great a length in my view, as I will continue to come back at Ministers who in my view make too long an answer to a question when they can use the procedure of Statements by Ministers if they want to make a statement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You didn't cut off the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), I have cut off the Prime Minister a total number of times once more than I have cut off the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think we have a point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Government House Leader tells the Prime Minister that, I will do nothing for him in the future!
I am trying as best I can and will continue to try to apply this policy equally. If some Hon. Members think it is not applied equally, then I suggest they get a stop-watch and we can debate the time. What in fact is happening is that the Ministers answered their questions today, with one exception, in less than 60 seconds.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They didn't answer them at all. They passed them off.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, it is very difficult for the Speaker to find that Members really care about the questions of privilege and points of order they put to the Speaker when they do not listen.
My point is that I have risen to try to help the Hon. Member for Davenport and others understand what happened today. Because the Hon. Member's question was excessively long today, I chose not to grant him a supplementary question. That is my right. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East may not think so but it is. That right will be exercised against all Members in those circumstances and it will be exercised against all Ministers who speak too long. Hon. Members should know that it is my view that Question Period is in the
February 8, 1985

interests of the House and works best when it is shorter, quicker and more spontaneous and is therefore fair to all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take it that you have just given some kind of directive to the Members of the House in that you have stated that any question lasting longer than one minute and 15 seconds will not be accepted by Your Honour. I am asking you the question because if I heard you correctly-


Mr. Speaker:: No, with respect, I said that I gave the Hon. Member for Davenport several indications as best I could. Of course, the Hon. Member was paying attention to the Chair because that is where his question was directed. With respect,
I indicated to him several times that his preamble was too long. He chose to continue with his preamble rather than to come to the question. That is the point I am trying to make to the Hon. Member for Davenport. Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) have a further point of order?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you supply us with stop-watches. I will need one from now on because the answers cannot be any longer than the questions. I will buy one.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier knows full well the point I am trying to make. The point of Question Period is for one group to ask questions and for another group to answer. I think Hon. Members also know that the Ministry answers as the Ministry sees fit. If Hon. Members are upset with the answers, as was the Hon. Member for Davenport, they have a remedy under the rules and that is the late show. I presume the Hon. Member chooses to use that remedy given that he is unhappy. I will take his complaint today as an automatic notice to the Chair of a request for a late show question. Perhaps that will help.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I noticed the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni rising on a question of privilege and I must give him precedence.


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I am relatively new at this job but I thought my job here was to debate legislation and not to debate histrionics that could be better solved in chambers.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I ask quite sincerely for your indulgence because there are a great many concerns here with regard to Question Period and how Question Period is run.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that a point of order?
Privilege-Mr. Caccia


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, do not act prematurely, please. What I am asking-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have ruled on a question of privilege. 1 ruled that it was not a question of privilege. I responded as best I could to a particular Member's concern and anger. I think the Hon. Member knows that I cannot allow the House to get into a debate or conversation about a ruling. If that is what the Hon. Member intends, I am in some difficulty. If he has concerns about Question Period and how it is run, may I suggest that he come to see me or put his concerns through his House Leader or Whip, who do see me on formal matters, as is the normal procedure. May I suggest that we leave it at that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question to you, Your Honour, is with regard to referral. Is there such a thing as referral in Question Period? Why was the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) not cut off? He did not have a preamble. Why was he not cut off?
In view of the fact that issues are raised on the floor of the House of Commons which are important to all Members, would it not be better to wait until another time-perhaps three o'clock-to introduce guests in the gallery in order to accommodate all Members of Parliament? Would the Speaker kindly consider that?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that these are suggestions and I will take them that way. It is my habit, if I think an introduction has gone on longer than it normally would, to try to grant an extra question at the end of the hour, as I granted one today to the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). This is done in order to retrieve some of the time we lose during introductions of people for whom we have great respect. That is exactly what I do. If the Hon. Member has some other concern, I suggest he put it through the Whip or the House Leader.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Read your book. It says three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course. The book also says that the Speaker sees the clock and the Speaker sees Members. If the Hon. Member is raising the question of three o'clock, to which clock does he refer? They all read differently. Does he refer to this clock, that clock, the Hon. Member's watch or my watch?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What is the clock for? It shows.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member also knows that I am required to see Hon. Members in the order in which they rise. The Hon. Member also knows that that is not always the request I receive from the various Parties, that I recognize Members in the order in which they rise. There are things we do here which are a part of our traditions. The Speaker sees the clock and if the Speaker, in his judgment, feels that

February 8, 1985
because the introduction of two visitors has taken place another question might be appropriate in order to make sure that Question Period goes as long as it should go, he will allow for that. That is what the Speaker does. If the Hon. Member has a concern about Question Period, I would welcome hearing about it; but I would suggest that he make that concern known through the normal procedures. I assure Hon. Members that I appreciate the importance of Question Period and I am perfectly happy to discuss it at any time. I invite the Hon. Member to see me about the matter.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the Hon. Member that if it is the same point of order, I will not hear it.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware of the maxim that justice must not only be done but must appear to be done. I would ask Your Honour to indicate the reason that a Conservative Member was allowed to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21 when it was clearly beyond the hour of 11.15?


Mr. Speaker:: Because my clock showed 11.14 and a half.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have received an application from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) under Standing Order
30.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if I may briefly explain why I gave Your Honour notice about the intention to move a motion for an emergency debate, we have learned today that unemployment has increased in our country by over 167,000 in one month. That is the largest increase on a monthly basis in five years. Yesterday we saw a record drop in the Canadian dollar and a major increase in interest rates. In short, Your Honour, these various indicators, as well as the composite index which is forecasting continuing problems in the months ahead, show that we clearly have an economic crisis before us that should be debated in this House. If you so rule, Your Honour, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion under the appropriate Standing Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa gave me notice of his application for an emergency debate. Standing Order 30 provides a procedure for "discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration". As I pointed out when ruling on a similar application only the other day what is envisaged is a sudden emergency of such importance that the
national interest calls for its immediate consideration by the	9
House. One of the factors which must be taken into account is	I
"urgency of debate" as distinct from the importance of the	I
issue itself.	I
Standing Order 30(5) requires the Speaker to have regard to "the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means". Four Allotted Days remain during the current supply period and the subject could be chosen for debate on one of those days. In fact, I am given to understand that there is an Allotted Day available for that purpose next week.
I say that recognizing full well with the Hon. Member and other Members that unemployment is a terrible problem which is likely to be an ongoing issue of deep concern. The fact that we have the greatest monthly increase in unemployment in more than four years is sincerely regretable and must be a source of worry to all. An aggravation of this problem is always a serious matter. While the single increase in the unemployment rate would not justify the Chair in allowing an application for an emergency debate, that is not to say that more than one such jump might not constitute the basis for such a debate.
In the circumstances, I must therefore find that the Hon. Member's application does not meet the requirements of Standing Order 30 at present.


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 127 and 185.


NEELON STEEL, SUDBURY, ONT.
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Has Neelon Steel's Sudbury plant received either a federal grant or forgivable loan to conduct its expansion work and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Since 1979, what was the total amount of grants or loans received by Neelon Steel?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1. No. 2. Nil.


CANADA'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNESCO
Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983, what was Canada's contributions to UNESCO?
2.	For the same years, what was this expenditure as a percentage of the total Canadian contribution to the United Nations?
[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
February 8, 1985
Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) $5,062,373*, (b) $7,724,628*, (c) $7,822,065*, (d) $7,956,928*.
* Assessed Contribution.
2. (a) 2.18 per cent**, (b) 3.11 per cent**, (c) 2.83 per cent**, (d) 2.66 per cent**.
** As a percentage of Canada's total assessed and voluntary contributions to the United Nations system.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted at six o'clock two days ago, I had indicated my general support for this Bill, which provides pension help for a small group of senior citizens. I had also indicated my regret that the Government was not taking the opportunity to bring in a comprehensive pension reform package which would be somewhat in line with the Opposition Day last May when the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) condemned the Liberal Government for its failure to move on this question.
It is obvious in the Bill that the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, are moving ahead by inches while the problem is moving ahead by country miles. We might think that the gradual reduction of pension age over the past few years is a sign that we are becoming a more humane and generous society, but that is far from the case. Our pensions are not keeping up with the basic changes in our society and in our economy. For example, in 1964 old age security provided seniors with 20 per cent of the average industrial wage. In 1983 that same old age security provided seniors with only 14 per cent of the average industrial wage. Today we have reached the situation in which over 50 per cent of our senior
Old Age Security Act
citizens must depend upon the guaranteed income supplement to maintain an adequate income for their retirement years.
If we looked at the situation in an historical context, we would realize that it was not unusual for many people to work until the age of 70, or until they dropped, whichever came first. The retirement age has gradually dropped to the age of 65. The pension age followed that, rather than preceded it. Today the economic and job situation is radically different from what it was in the 1960s. That can only be highlighted by the unemployment statistics, about which our Party is concerned, that Statistics Canada released today.
Over the past two or three years the closure of several mills in my riding has displaced many workers who are in their late fifties or early sixties. The tragedy is not just that they are unemployed today and that they have very little hope of getting work in the future, but that they have no pension provisions which will tide them over until the time when old age security will be made available to them.
Last month a constituent wrote to me. His letter bothered me because the kind of questions which he asked are questions for which there are no answers in the present situation. The man was laid off last July and sees little hope for ever again obtaining work. He pointed out that over the last 20 years he has worked in a number of different industries in western Canada and that he was involved in different pension arrangements in which he either made contributions or had contributions made on his behalf. However, he was never in any of those jobs long enough for his contributions to be vested. That is a pattern which is typical of many workers in the construction, logging and similar industries. His last job was in the woodworking industry, but the woodworking pension requires eight years of service before a worker's contributions can be vested. That constituent had worked in the industry for approximately seven years. He now finds himself completely out of luck and is understandably bitter. His letter reads:
Some fat cat who has been fortunate enough to work steady will now reap the benefit of the hours I have contributed into the fund, while myself and the many others in similar positions can look forward to nothing but a penurious old age embittered by the knowledge that others are reaping the benefits of our labour.
Apart from the fact that he looks upon some of his fellow workers as "fat cats" simply because they will be able to qualify for the pension, I am in complete agreement with what he has written. There is an element of unfairness in which workers pay into pension plans for a number of years and then, through no fault of their own, are laid off and their contributions are returned to them but they do not receive the benefit of the employer's contribution. Of course, that is by no means unique to woodworkers or others in my riding.
Cases such as this led the former Member for Nanaimo-Alberni, Mr. Ted Miller, to issue a minority report of the Task Force on Pension Reform. In that report he listed some of the shortcomings of occupational pension plans. His report indicated that only half of the men and fewer than one-third of the women in the paid workforce were covered by such plans, and that when people changed jobs it was difficult to maintain coverage because of the long vesting periods and the general

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act
lack of portability of the plans. The benefits are rarely protected against inflation and survivor benefits are most commonly available only on the condition that the plan member accepts a reduced level of retirement benefits.
In contrast to the shortcomings of occupational pension plans, he stressed the advantages of the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. Those plans are fully portable, have immediate vesting and are fully indexed. One of the shortcomings of the CPP/QPP which we might note is that Indian people who are working on reserves do not have the advantage of that program. I hope the Government will remedy that at an early date. The major drawback of the CPP/QPP is that they replace only 25 per cent of pre-retirement earnings. Mr. Miller suggested that the best way to deal with the pension situation was to raise CPP/QPP to 50 per cent of pre-retirement earnings so that workers across Canada would have a decent pension plan, whether or not they changed jobs frequently, and that their pension plans would be fully indexed and portable and would provide, along with old age security, a decent standard of income. Mr. Miller also called for a reduction in the eligibility age for the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to the age of 60. He indicated that there should be an immediate investigation of the needs of workers who were between the ages of 55 and 60.
That is the type of constituent I talked about earlier who has been laid off and has no opportunity or hope of ever having long-term, reasonably paid employment again in his working life. Those people suffer that long gap between when they are laid off from a job and when they qualify for old age security; ten years in many cases and even longer. Their only hope is to get on welfare. That is not good enough. The changing conditions in our society today, when so many older workers are being laid off, demand that we bring in some kind of comprehensive pension program which is going to deal with the needs of these people.
These are the kinds of measures which we would like to see in a comprehensive pension reform package, the same package which the Conservatives called for when they were in Opposition. The hallmarks of a pension plan should be adequacy to the situation. Enough should be provided and it should be fair. The present Bill adds to the patchwork quality of our pension arrangements. It continues to ignore the needs of people who were never married, people who are divorced, and couples neither of whom is over the age of 65 years.
We are not opposed to the Bill, but it only does something for one small group of senior citizens. The only regret is that the Conservatives are not prepared to do in government what they called for when they were in opposition.


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


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 now before the House is another example of clumsy manoeuvring on the part of the Progressive Conservative Party. After confusing the issue for months and after a host of strategic withdrawals from its position on universality of social programs, the Government has given us an incomplete Bill which is basically unfair to many Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, although we agree with the part of Bill C-26 that extends the spouse's allowance to all low-income widows or widowers between sixty and sixty-five, we think that the Bill in its present form is discriminatory and unfair to tens of thousands of Canadians whether they are single, legally separated or divorced. This Government, which has no consistent social policy, is once again improvising and giving too little.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that widows and widowers between sixty and sixty-five deserve to get the proposed allowance and should get it. But what is the Government doing for tens of thousands of Canadians who are single, separated or divorced, between sixty and sixty-five years' old and living on very low incomes and whose lives often come very close to personal tragedy? Instead of proposing a consistent social policy for the aged, the Government prefers to skimp on essentials. This does not surprise me, Mr. Speaker, because the essence of conservatism is surely to turn a blind eye to the neediest among us, and to give only enough to camouflage a given situation. I fail to understand how this Government, in 1985, can table a discriminatory piece of legislation in which the marital status of the individual rather than the individual's real needs is the criterion.
This Bill should be withdrawn for speedy revision to include all persons in need between the ages of sixty and sixty-five, irrespective of their marital status. In a country that has a charter of rights and freedoms that says that marital status must not be a discriminatory criterion, how can we justify in 1985 the tabling of a Bill such as Bill C-26? Mr. Speaker, let us take a closer look at what the Progressive Conservative Party is proposing.
Clause 1 of Bill C-26 states that the spouse is not only the legitimate spouse but also any other person of the opposite sex who is living with that person, having lived with that person for at least three years when there is a bar to their marriage or at least one year where there is no such bar, if the two persons have publicly represented themselves as man and wife.
Clause 5 of the same Bill provides for a spouse's allowance to be paid to a person aged sixty to sixty-five, regardless of the age of the deceased spouse at the time of death. Why does a single person not have the same rights under this Bill, Mr. Speaker? Does the single or divorced person not have the same minimum needs? Do they not have to eat and pay the rent and heat their homes in winter? Do they not have the right to live decently?
February 8, 1985

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is both immoral and discriminatory. I am happy to see that the Progressive Conservative Party realizes that widows and widowers in need must be helped. I am happy to see that 85,000 Canadians, most of them women, will be able to benefit from a measure that will give them some very real assistance. I find it unacceptable that this bill would make second-class citizens out of 80,000 needy Canadians who are single or divorced.
When I read the bill, I could not believe that such a thing could be possible in 1985 in a civilized country with laws forbidding discrimination. Should these 80,000 Canadians, most of whom are women, be punished because of their marital status? Personally, Mr. Speaker, I find this legislation even more offensive because I had the honour to succeed, as a Member of Parliament, the one person who did the most to establish the principle of equity and social justice in this House, the former Liberal Member of Parliament and Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Hon. Monique Begin, who fought for years to assert the rights of women, senior citizens, the poor and the handicapped, without any distinction based on marital status, race or religion. This Government is bringing us back tens and even hundreds of years, while the Hon. Monique Begin, through her tireless work, did everything to ensure that Canada would have a progressive social system adapted to the needs of its people. After dancing to the waltz of universality, the Conservative Government has introduced a bill based on discriminatory criteria.
I would be remiss in my duties and I would disregard the example left to us by the Hon. Monique Begin, if I did not denounce vigorously the bill before the House.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that all people, whether they are single, divorced or widowed, have the same rights. Living alone is often a hardship for senior citizens. Are we going to add to this a discrimination based on past marital status? Mr. Speaker, nothing can justify the discriminatory aspects of this bill. The Liberal Party of Canada will not allow the Conservative Government to ease its conscience while forgetting the real problems! The Liberal Party of Canada will always fight for equity, social justice and the respect of the individual! This bill must be amended as soon as possible.
In 1985, Canadian men and women cannot tolerate such obvious and unfair discrimination. All senior citizens between the ages of 60 and 65 who meet certain income requirements, must become eligible as soon as possible to the benefits provided by Bill C-26.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard).


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, I was listening very closely when the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) made his comments, and in my view he is genuinely concerned
Old Age Security Act
about a certain group of people, and definitely very familiar with the proposed legislation. There is one thing I would like to know, further to his comments. Since he also admits there are good things in this legislation, I would then like to know whether he is going to vote for, or against it.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, of course I acknowledged in my remarks that the Government was in fact helping widowers and widows. Where I disagree, Mr. Speaker, and I think 1 have said this, is on the discriminatory nature of the legislation, because at least 80,000 single or divorced Canadians would not be entitled to the allowance proposed in Bill C-26. We support the principle of Bill C-26. We are going to fight until we can manage to have it amended, so that those other people are included. But, of course, we could not vote against this kind of initiative.


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


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague the same question I asked following a letter I sent to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). And to fully understand what this is all about, when the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) claim that this legislation is aimed at the people most in need ... I see two ladies here, and I think they will surely appreciate the importance of the matter.
I would like to refer to three cases in my constituency, the same as in every other constituency in Canada. I have Mrs. Lebrun-


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Government Deputy Whip (Mrs. Mailly).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concerns of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), but his contribution looks like just another speech, and since this Bill is dear to us all, I would ask him this, with the best feelings of friendship in this House: Could we proceed with the debate, in order that the Bill may go to committee as soon as possible, and could we let our colleague deliver his speech now because he must leave for home?


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


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


Jean-Claude Malépart: My point of order is that I do not feel we have to rush this Bill through, because it is only due to come into force on September 1st, and today is February 8th. It is therefore my view that we have all the time we need to discuss the point of order, and it is a Member's right and privilege to express his views in the House of Commons.

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will remind both Hon. Members, the Government Deputy Whip and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mrs. Mailly and Mr. Malepart), that the period for questions and comments is allowed at the discretion of the Chair, and it is in order, occasionally, to ask a member to limit his speech whenever it is thought that he is exceeding his right to speak. But in the case of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part), I think you had just started speaking, and I see no reason whatsoever to step in at this point.


Jean-Claude Malépart: To continue, Mr. Speaker... That was a question I was directing to the previous speaker while giving him an example, so everybody could understand well.
There is in my riding a certain Mrs. Lebrun who is 62 years of age. She lives alone in her apartment. A widow for the past five years, she pays $250 per month in rent and gets $427 per month in social welfare. Her next door neighbour, a Mrs. Leblanc, is 62 also. She too lives alone in her apartment. She too pays $250 per month in rent and gets $427 per month in social welfare. She has been separated from her husband for the past five years. Her other next door neighbour, a Mrs. Legris, is also 62. She too lives alone in her apartment for which she too pays $250 per month in rent, while receiving also $427 per month in social welfare. She is single. Could my hon. colleague indicate to me on what criterion of justice the Prime Minister based his judgment that Mrs. Lebrun is faced with a more distressing situation than her two next door neighbours?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) has the floor.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, that was the very drift of my speech. I said that we support the introduction of Bill C-26, but that we feel it is discriminatory in that, as my hon. colleague clearly explained, two people of the same age and living in the same surroundings will be treated differently simply because one married and the other remained single. That is what I was saying in my remarks. That situation is discriminatory, unfair and should not be tolerated in 1985.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to add a few comments in support of Bill C-26, the amendments to the Old Age Security Act, and to support the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). As this is my first speech in this parliamentary session, I would like to thank the electors in Kitchener for their tremendous vote of confidence in me and their words of support and encouragement since September 4. 1 hope I am able to do justice to their confidence in me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Henry Reimer: Permit me to make a few comments about the riding of Kitchener, Mr. Speaker. The City of Kitchener is
well known as a clean city with excellent educational and support services for its citizens, including a very well known farmers' market. The people of the federal riding of Kitchener are an industrious, hard-working and skilled group of people. "Diversified" is a word which best describes the economic community in the Kitchener area. From food products to footwear, chemicals to computer systems, automotive parts to appliances, textiles to tools and motors to heavy machinery- all of these and many other products are manufactured in Kitchener. Indeed, the riding continues to attract excellent new investment because of the enterprise and commitment of its businessmen and, more importantly, the skill and dedication of its labour force.
Kitchener and the Waterloo region is also an area of deep religious roots and conviction as well as an area which has been greatly enriched by its cultural heritage. That is especially true of its German heritage. I know I speak with a pride in my constituency which is common to all Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and let me assure you that this pride is exceeded only by a desire to see the Kitchener riding continue to prosper.
I support this Bill, Mr. Speaker, because it is an important step towards greater social justice. The Bill provides for some financial assistance to approximately 72,000 widows and some
13,000	widowers, to a maximum allowance for widowed spouses of $536.26. Although no Bill of Parliament can help the person who has just lost a loved one, the Bill nevertheless does assist that widow or widower to at least cope financially, albeit not in luxury but not in poverty either. I would like also to make the point that this Bill fulfils another of our election promises, together with other actions on many of our other promises such as the announcement on metric measurement, the Canadian National passenger rail service, the Investment Canada Bill and the actions within our economic statement.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to make a brief historical review of this type of legislation. The idea was first proposed by the then Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, during the 1974 election campaign. He was going to bring in a spousal allowance which would provide a pension for the younger spouse where the older spouse was over 65 and had a pension. It was then subsequently introduced in the fall of 1975. It provided that where the spouse was between 60 and 65, married to and living with an older spouse who was on a Canada pension, then the younger spouse would receive the allowance to a maximum total of the equivalent amount of the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement at the married rate.
There was, however, one major weakness. That weakness was that if the elder spouse died, the younger spouse's allowance was immediately cut off. The legislation was later amended by the Liberals in the spring of 1979 so that if the elder spouse died the allowance would be extended to the younger spouse for a period of six months. Of course, the obvious question would be: "Why not extend it until age 65?"
February 8, 1985

On October 17, 1979 the Clark Conservative Government introduced Bill C-6 which was passed on November 22, 1979.
I was pleased to support that Bill at that time. The 1979 Bill changed the existing legislation in two very important ways. Widowed spouses would now receive the allowance from age 60 to age 65, rather than for only six months as was the case in the Liberal legislation. Second, it retroactively included those widows between the ages of 60 and 65 who had been cut off during the previous four to five years.
Nevertheless, even with that progressive legislation there were still weaknesses. If the widow's husband died the day before reaching age 65, although the widow may be between the ages of 60 and 65, she would not receive the benefit. The 1979 legislation also did not extend this allowance to widowers.
Bill C-26, which we are debating today, corrects those two omissions. Bill C-26 will extend the spouse's allowance to all widowed persons, male and female, aged 60 to 64, who meet the necessary income and residence requirements, regardless of the age of their spouse at death. This means that all widows and widowers reaching the age of 60 will be eligible to apply for the spouse's allowance on the basis of financial need.
Permit me to put this amendment into perspective, Mr. Speaker. In the 1979 Speech from the Throne the then Conservative Government indicated its intention to make pensions a priority consideration. The passage of Bill C-6 in 1979 confirmed that intention. While its critics claimed that the Bill did not go far enough, the Government indicated its desire to pursue the matter further when economic conditions permitted.
In the 1984 Speech from the Throne the need for pension reform was highlighted again. We now have the introduction of Bill C-26 which picks up where this Party left off with Bill C-6 in 1979. The actions of 1979 and those which are being carried out here today are evidence of the Government's sincere commitment to act quickly, consistently, and compassionately in the crucial area of social concern. Surely all Parties will be able to support this progressive legislation.
Let me respond to two criticisms that opposition Members have made. They say it does not go far enough. They ask about those in the 55 to 60 age group. Economic deprivation is the same whether one is 59 or 60. I admit that economic hardship is no respector of age. However, one might easily ask why not 55 instead of 60? How far back can we push the age of eligibility? Do we go to 55 or 50? People may have different answers to that question.
A reasonable and rational decision must be made, especially in view of the severe fiscal constraints imposed on the Government by the huge annual deficit and national debt left to us by the Liberals. The figure of 60 may be defended as a good and concerted attempt to give priority protection to those individuals, especially widows, who are financially vulnerable at this age and are least able at this point in their lives to re-enter the workforce.
Old Age Security Act
A second criticism made by some in the Opposition is to ask about those who have never been married. They correctly say that the single person aged 60 to 64 is left out on the basis of marital status. Again I admit that financial deprivation is no respecter of marital status. However, there is a much greater likelihood that a 60-year-old individual who has been single all his life will either be employed, and therefore ineligible, or will at least have some 40 years of employment experience and will be more able to continue in the workforce.
It would be nice to make this legislation more inclusive. However, such inclusivity is the privilege of a house with its economic books in order. In response to Liberal and NDP Members who say that this Bill is discriminatory, I would like to say that the irresponsible spending of Liberal Governments over the past 16 years, often supported by the NDP, is much more discriminatory to Canadians through the high interest rates, high unemployment, high inflation rate and weak dollar that it produced.
We must remain as positive as possible, Mr. Speaker. An estimated additional 85,000 low-income widowed persons will benefit from this proposed amendment. Some of the most difficult cases I must deal with as a Member of Parliament are those of widows and widowers in the age group which this Bill addresses. This Bill is trying to meet the very real need of people in this age group.
This Bill deals with persons who have just suffered a great personal loss and, particularly in the case of widows, face a second major setback as they find that there are very few options open to them to re-enter the workforce after many years as a wife and homemaker. This Bill will assist these persons through to age 65 in a compassionate, responsible manner. Even in a period of economic restraint we have an obligation to those who need help the most. The Government accepts the fact that we are our brother's keeper when these people are in need. However, the Government also recognizes that we can help only those in need. This group of people has made a very significant contribution to society. Society now owes them at least the assistance that this Act will provide. Therefore, I encourage all Members of the House to support this very progressive and responsible legislation.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member stated that he does not feel that this particular piece of legislation is discriminatory. He talked about the record of the previous Government and so on. Could he comment on why, among those in the 60 to 65-year age bracket who are generally among the poorest in our society, those who never married should be excluded from this particular provision while those who were married are included? Why should there be discrimination against those single people who too often, I regret to say, have had difficulty in the labour force? They may not have had a wholly satisfying life, and when they reach the age of 60 they find themselves condemned to another five years of living on totally inadequate incomes until they qualify for the old age pension.

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say in response to the question. There is a very good chance that persons who reach the age of 60 or 65, having been single all their lives by choice, have been contributing working members of our society since the age of 20. Over the past 40 years they will have built up experience in different areas of the workforce. There is a very good likelihood that those persons will continue to work and will be ineligible in any event.
The Hon. Member is perhaps getting at the case of a person who is unemployed and therefore, unfortunately, on welfare. That is the economic strategy that this Government was elected to correct. That is why I said in my comments that I thought the actions of the previous Government were very discriminatory toward older people in that they cannot find or hold jobs today. Some of the most difficult cases that come to my office are those of older ladies or gentlemen who cannot find work. We have excellent programs for youth but very little for the elderly. We must continue with the actions put forth in the economic statement, with investment Canada and other actions which will be forthcoming in the Budget to address the very serious problems of unemployment. That is how we will meet the needs of those people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When the House rose at one o'clock, we were having questions and comments on the speech by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer).


Jean-Claude Malépart: I would like to comment on the Hon. Member's speech. Unfortunately, he had to leave the House. I would have liked to-


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


Jean-Claude Malépart: -comment on the Hon. Member's speech before the House rose at one o'clock.
I noticed that according to the Hon. Member, widows or widowers were more in need of assistance than someone who is separated, because in the Hon. Member's mind, a widow had raised children while a woman who was separated had not.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first excuse given by Progressive Conservative Members to justify their position on this Bill, but I do not think there is any distinction in terms of financial
need that can be made between a widow and a single person who has worked all her life to serve the community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: As the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands said, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party supports Bill C-26 as it relates to the extension of old age security benefits to widowers and widows aged 60 to 65. The problem is not our support for this measure, it is the fact that, in my opinion and in the opinion of my Party, this Bill falls far short of the needs of the elderly and in terms of the necessary reform, it does not address the issues of retirement pensions and the treatment of older people in our society.
This week, or a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I spent two days in the Province of Quebec. I went to Quebec City and the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
I met with various groups and individuals who are directly affected by the current economic crisis, made still more urgent today with the release of unemployment figures which show an upward trend throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, practically all the individuals and groups that appeared before us during our two-day trip spoke about the impact of technological changes which are beginning to be felt by a great many Quebec workers in a province where youth unemployment is over 20 per cent. In the Chicoutimi-Lac-Saint-Jean area, no less than 50 per cent of young people aged 15 to 19 are looking for work.
We are wondering now whether the policies of this Government, which is so intent on convincing businessmen that growth and confidence will help spur investments and eventually create jobs, will really have any kind of impact on the residents of regions such as Lac-Saint-Jean or Quebec City where more than 40,000 people are now without work. Unmistakably, the answer we got from groups and people we met in Quebec City was no, they have lost hope. They are fully aware of the current unemployment crisis, they are seeking fresh solutions, and they are familiar with the consequences of technological change.
Here are some examples, Mr. Speaker. First, the Alcan aluminum production line in the city of Arvida, where Alcan is now busy replacing old machinery by new technological equipment, with the result that productivity will be four or five times higher.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that the Hon. Member is new to this Chamber and I am not sure of the rules in the Ontario Chamber, but there is an important rule of relevance in this Chamber. We are dealing with a Bill concerning spousal allowance and so far the
February 8, 1985

Member has not made a single comment which could be interpreted as relevant to the Bill.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, there are many workers over 40 or 50 years old in this region who will not benefit under Bill C-26 if they lose their jobs. People in Quebec say that we must begin to think about early retirement, which means that people could retire at 60 and even at 55 because, if they do not, there will be fewer jobs available for young people. One of the problems with Bill C-26 is that it concerns a very small group of people between the ages of 60 and 65, and it does not make a real contribution. By providing options to older workers to allow them to retire, we would create jobs for younger workers now affected by unemployment. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe that my comments deal strictly with Bill C-26.
Many other Members talked about the weaknesses of the bill as introduced. Because a man and a woman were not able to get along and decided to separate or divorce, if one of them dies, the surviving spouse, if over 60, would not receive any benefits under this bill, but someone in the same situation who stayed with his spouse, would benefit if he or she became widowed at the same age. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not find such discrimination justified, but it is inherent in Bill C-26 now under consideration. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in view of the promises made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the campaign, a measure such as this one is inadequate as it only represents a small part of the reform of social programs for senior citizens which our society needs.
As I was just saying in French, we on this side of the House believe that while this measure is acceptable and we will support it, it is inadequate because it does not go nearly to the extent necessary even to begin to respond to such problems as the impact of technological change and the desperate plight of older workers in their fifties who have worked faithfully for long hours in many jobs and then find themselves for one reason or another thrown out of work. I am referring to those workers who will be ineligible for any benefit from this measure unless a certain accident or mortality of the spouse makes them eligible.
I should like to give an example of this which is happening right here in the community on Parliament Hill. A number of workers with up to 20 years and 30 years of service in the Government of Canada have been given notice this week. They work for the Canadian Postal Museum in the Wellington Building, which is part of the parliamentary precinct. That postal museum is closing and those workers have been given notice. They have skills which will no longer be valuable on the market. Some of them aged 55, 60 or more will literally find themselves incapable of finding other employment. They face a very grave danger of that.
Old Age Security Act
If one of those employees happens to be over sixty and is a widow or a widower, he or she would at least benefit under the conditions of Bill C-26 commencing in September, 1985. However, that will not be the case for that same employee if he or she happens to be single, divorced or separated. The safety net, if that is what is being proposed, or the support for people aged 60 to 65 proposed in this Bill, has to be more adequate. As well, it has to be part of a more concerted plan to ensure that we have adequate provisions for older citizens rather than doing it on a bits and pieces basis.

When we were in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, we met workers who had worked hard in the building industry or the aluminum plants, who are now in their fifties and who would like to retire because they know quite well that keeping their jobs would kill them. It is a threat to their health and to their safety. They have an occupation where workers have a short life expectancy and the work has exhausted them. [English]
Unfortunately, this particular Bill does not respond to the very human tragedy of workers whose work has used them up. For example, I am referring to workers in construction or heavy industry in areas like Lac-Saint-Jean, Toronto and Ottawa who are ready to retire at age 55 or 60 but will not be helped in any way by this particular Bill, except in the event that they might happen to qualify because they have lost a loved one, a spouse.
It is time the House of Commons began to take seriously the report of the special committee on pensions of a couple of years ago. It made a number of recommendations which have been ignored. When we have an unemployment rate which has just risen to 11.2 per cent and bids fair to continue rising despite the promises and the bluster of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), we should start to look at whether we as a society can afford to offer workers the option of taking retirement at the age of 60 rather than 65. If they did retire, they would open up positions which could be taken by younger workers who otherwise would be facing unemployment for a very long time.
I recognize that this is a larger perspective than the one proposed when the project was brought forward by the Government a week or so ago. It seems to me that we have to look at it in that perspective, particularly in view of the very real danger that any commitment to social reform from the new Government will be transitory. It will last for a few months and thereafter the Government will say that the cupboard is bare and that it has done what it can. To the older people of Canada, many of whom are now forced to go on welfare, have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits or have had to take very substantial drops in pay in order to keep any kind of job, the Government will say that it is sorry but they will have to wait until next time.
Next time, three or four years down the line, is not good enough. Now is the time to have fundamental reform in terms of ensuring adequate incomes for older citizens when they

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act
reach retirement. That should include a much more flexible approach to retirement so that people can take retirement at an earlier age than they are now able to do. It includes reforming the pension system so that perhaps this piecemeal approach would not have been needed. If workers who were retiring or who suffered an early death had had decent pensions and benefit schemes in their jobs, we might not have been required to debate Bill C-26. It could have simply been a matter of course and accepted that survivors' benefits to the surviving spouse would have exceeded the $400 or so per month which will be made available under this particular scheme.
Unfortunately that is not the case. In particular, it is not the case for women because most women do not benefit from any other pension regime if they are in the workforce except the Canada Pension Plan. Canada Pension Plan benefits are unfairly reduced in a discriminatory way because women are systematically discriminated against in terms of what they earn in the workplace.
Most workers do not live to benefit from pensions for which they may have paid for much of their lifetime. Members of the House are in a different and favoured position. However, most workers find that they switch jobs before the vesting period takes place. Perhaps the firm goes bankrupt before they collect a pension. Perhaps they die before they reach the age of 65. There are various other ways by which people lose benefits to which they have contributed, in particular the benefit to spouses to which their other half may have contributed. These kinds of problems have to be addressed, rather than simply leaving them to one side and saying that we are sorry but we cannot afford to do anything about them now.

Poverty is an ongoing affair with our senior citizens. Bill C-26 will alleviate but some of this poverty, as it does not meet the needs of single people or divorced or separated people over 60. It does not meet the needs of those who have lost their jobs because of economic conditions, who were the victims of a plant closedown, who are no longer able to keep their jobs because of health problems and who, between the ages of 55 and 60, now find themselves probably still married, but without the necessary income to live decently. These people will continue to be poor because this Government still ignores their needs and the fact that they should live with dignity in their old age.

It is for those reasons that, while we support this particular Bill, we do so somewhat reluctantly and with the very strong and expressed hope that the Government will see fit to speed up pension reform, to speed up the option for workers to retire at the age of 55 or 60, and to use early retirement as a concrete means of reducing the economic crisis and the unemployment crisis by freeing up jobs for younger workers in favour of older workers who would prefer to retire now if they could possibly have the option.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am moved to make a couple of comments in response to the Hon. Member. He is new to the federal Chamber. I mentioned the issue of relevance particularly because I think it is important to get this Bill into law as quickly as possible. People need the benefits. If Hon. Members were to keep their speeches a little shorter and relevant, we could move the Bill through the House more quickly. People say they support it: there is a way to demonstrate that support.
I must comment somewhat upon the substance of the Hon. Member's remarks. It has been my experience in five and a half years in this Chamber that there is no piece of legislation that we can conceive of that does not advantage some people and disadvantage others by comparison. The nature of our responsibility in this Chamber is to do that fairly, justly and in accord with the true traditions of this country. It is also true that those who would lead people to believe that resources are infinite rather than finite are doing a service to no one.
Within that context of advantaging some and disadvantaging others with the certain knowledge that resources are finite, that they are limited, Members of this House should join together to pass this legislation because it does provide some of those limited resources to a group that is very special. These resources are intended to go to recently widowed people who do not have sufficient money to live in dignity. Are they a special class of persons? I suggest they are. When death occurs within a partnership, it is a moment of trauma. It is quite unlike most other experiences in life. When that moment of trauma is accompanied by financial hardship, you really have a situation that is unique, different and important. I am proud to belong to a Party that has a Cabinet which has made it a priority to deliver some sense of economic stability to people who are in that trauma. I hope we will not confuse it with other situations because it is unique, important, something we should all support. I urge all Members to keep their interventions as brief as possible so that we might move this Bill forward and put it in place. It would speak well of this Chamber if we were to act in this fashion.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the Hon. Member, I certainly appreciate his comments. Having had legislative experience in another chamber, I appreciate that no single project of law can respond to all of the needs that you might want to see responded to. If his Government is so impatient to see this problem resolved, it should propose bringing forward the effective date for these spouses' allowances from September, 1985 to an earlier date. Saving a few hours of debate in this Chamber is not going to put benefits into people's pockets any sooner unless the Government is prepared to change that effective date. If the effective date stays where it is, then we have all the time in the world to debate the matter in this House. It is not the Chamber which is the obstacle; it is the Hon. Member's Party.
The other point is that the Hon. Member was the chairman of the task force on technological change which reported over the course of the summer. I commend him for that report.
February 8, 1985

However, that report was quickly forgotten by his Party and swept under the rug. I indicated that, contrary to the promises being made at that time by his Leader and now by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the problem of reducing the level of unemployment in our country in the next 15 or 20 years was going to be well nigh insuperable and that we had to start looking, therefore, at other means of spreading the available work if we were not going to condemn large proportions of our population to a lifetime of continuous unemployment or risk of unemployment.
That is a very relevant issue. I probably agree with 80 or 90 per cent of the recommendations that were in the Hon. Member's report, which I found to be excellent. However, to raise that issue in the House and talk about early retirement as one of the constructive things we should be looking at through the leadership of the House of Commons in order to help our older people and also help provide opportunities for our young people is something that can only be seen as a positive contribution. I recognize that it will not be done through amendments to this law, that people like the Hon. Member and myself should hammer away to raise awareness in the House of Commons of the fact that that impact of technological change is among us. It is creating high unemployment. We have to find ways of bringing unemployment down.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his comments on the report but would point out something that seems to have escaped his Party. Challenge 85, the program for youth, is based on the concept of that report. Future employment programs which will be announced are also based on the thread of that report. I would hope we might hear a little more positive comment about the direction of employment policy in this country because it is in accord with the recommendations made in the report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I will leave it to the next Member, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak as often during this Parliament as there are so many new and excellent Members who should have an opportunity. However, after listening to the quality of the debate from the other side, which I found very discouraging, I want to make a few comments on Bill 26. The purpose of this Bill is to assist low-income married couples where only one spouse is an OAS/GIS pensioner.
It is interesting to look at the history of pensions and benefits for the elderly over the years. This first started in Canada in 1908. Further legislation was introduced in 1927, 1948, 1951, 1952, 1957, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1983 and now in 1985. There is further legislation that is to follow with benefits for veterans and their widows which I will cover in
Old Age Security Act
just a moment. We have not been backward in this country in the pension field.
In the last number of elections when I have been campaigning, I have found that not every senior citizen is destitute, hard up and broke. Many of them have provided for their own retirement. Not everyone totally relies on the Government to look after them. That is encouraging. Many senior citizens, including widows and widowers, live in their own homes or high-rise apartment buildings. They are not all in senior citizens' homes. The point seems to be continuously made that every senior citizen is destitute, but that is not true. Over the last number of years many Canadians have been providing for their retirement through RRSPs. More and more people are paying into RRSPs. They will retire with a handsome income from that. Therefore, not everyone is always looking for a government pension.
If this country was not bankrupt, if we did not have such a debt load because of the years of Liberal mismanagement, there would be a lot more money for widows and veterans. I will cover the debt and mismanagement in a minute when I explain to the Canadian people the problems that we have.
A veterans' Bill was tabled yesterday. This Government is allotting an additional $22 million this year to cover pensions of veterans and their widows. This will benefit 90,000 pensioners plus 51,000 spouses, children and orphans. Therefore, we are helping a group of individuals there. The third amendment in the veterans' legislation will extend the same rights to survivors of pensioners who have been receiving attendance and/or exceptional incapacity allowances.
A very serious problem regarding veterans' pensions is the length of time that veterans and widows of veterans have had to wait for their pensions to be processed. We are going to eliminate that excessive time. The Liberal Party has been very negligent in dealing with veterans' problems over the years.
There is another example of what we will be doing for pensions in that veterans' Bill. The second amendment will continue a disability pension at the married rate for 12 months following the death of a pensioner. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the reduction to a single rate now begins one month after the pensioner dies. We will be looking after widows immediately. They will not be left destitute.
This change is also important and is in line with the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act which has been in place for years. About 6,000 widows and a few widowers are expected to benefit from this change. With each Bill and with each passing day, we are looking after another group that absolutely needs to be looked after.
The Government has also announced that there will be increases in the Canada Pension Plan benefits in January and increases in the family allowances were announced. Over 3.6 million Canadian families that receive family allowance on behalf of 6.6 million children will get a raise in the new year. That is another group after whom we are looking with our limited resources.

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act
As well, old age security, guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance benefits will go up in January as stated by the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Epp). That is another group after whom we are looking, and the cost is running into billions of dollars.
One of the problems faced by the Government when trying to find money to hand out to everyone and everything including pensioners, provinces and the forestry industry is the tremendous debt that was left by the Liberal Government. I think it is important that we explain to the Canadian people just how we got into the mess in which we find ourselves. The architect of this mess and this huge debt that we have in the country today was the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), who was Minister of Finance between 1972 and 1974. That was one of the most disastrous periods of time in Canadian history. During his term as Finance Minister, the federal payroll, excluding Crown corporations, grew from $3.6 billion to $6 billion. During his term as Finance Minister public debt charges doubled from $2 billion to $4 billion. During his term as Finance Minister utilities, materials and supplies costs rose from $347 million to $537 million, a 55 per cent increase.
I would like to put this on the record, Mr. Speaker, so we can explain to the people why we do not have a bottomless pit of money right now. After the Leader of the Official Opposition had finished his term as Finance Minister, the Auditor General, in his report on that year, stated:
I am deeply concerned that Parliament-and indeed the Government-has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse.
That is what happened after this man had been the Finance Minister for a couple of years and that is why we are in this mess today.
The Leader of the Official Opposition inherited a $760 million surplus when he stepped in as Finance Minister and he turned that around into a $5 billion deficit within a couple of years. As the Auditor General highlighted, he introduced blank cheque government to Canada. There was absolutely no control over anything.
The late Senator Maurice Lamontagne, a former Minister in the Pearson Government, wrote a book which is highly critical of the economic policy of the Liberals from 1971 to 1976. This indicates another reason why we cannot look after more widows at this time. In his book Mr. Lamontagne pointed out:
Government short-term fiscal strategies were seriously mistaken throughout the period.
He went on to state:
However, the seeds of a serious disequilibrium in the government budgetary position had been planted. The Government had practically lost control over its budgetary position.
That is what we inherited. We are trying to bring it under control and we will bring it under control. According to a study done by the C.D. Howe Institute, three of the five Turner budgets actually widened the gap between the rich and the poor. That was a disastrous period of time for Canada and
explains why we do not have a bottomless pit of money right now to hand out to everyone across the country.
The cost of servicing the debt in the fiscal year 1983-84 is forecast to be $18.1 billion, rising to $24.7 billion in fiscal 1987-88. We, the Government, must find the money to pay that huge debt. I think the criticism on the part of Liberal Members who say we should pay more money out is very hypocritical.
By fiscal 1987-88 the cost of servicing the debt will be three times the cost it was in fiscal 1979-80 and 17 times the cost it was in fiscal 1968-69, the year before Trudeau first took office. One public accounts revenue dollar in three or one expenditure dollar in five is used to pay interest on the debt. That is why we are not able to look after everyone faster.


Mr. Benjamin:: Easy for you to say.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, I is easy for me to say, as an Hon. Member of the NDP has stated. I was here during the Twenty-ninth Parliament and I can recall the support that the NDP gave the Liberal Government at that time. Members of the NDP kept the Liberal Government in power for 20 months and they are just as responsible for this mess as the Liberal Party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Quit all your crying.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, it is easy for me to say, as an Hon. Benjamin) says that I should quit my crying. It is the Canadian people who are going to be crying when they have to pay for all of this, thanks to members of the NDP. NDP Members sitting in the back rows were not here then but the Hon. Member for Regina West was.
Another reason we cannot give out more pensions is that when the Leader of the Official Opposition took over the job of Finance Minister, real growth in the country amounted to 6.6 per cent; when he left it was at .3 per cent and on a per capita basis it was negative. There was no growth during this period and that also affected our Government's finances. In terms of real growth, we lost ground when the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra was Minister of Finance. He is very hypocritical today when he criticizes what is going on in the country under this Government. I have already described the record of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra who presided over the country's greatest spending spree since Confederation.
Another reason we can only increase pensions in stages is because of what has been going on in the Public Accounts Committee in regard to office space. Millions and millions of square feet of office space is not required and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money has gone to pay for this phoney rental scheme. We are going to put a stop to that type of government. That is the way the Liberals managed the country's affairs over the years. Anyone who wants to know why we do not have more money to hand out to provinces or pensioners needs only to look at the Auditor General's yearly reports. Those reports did not get better, they got worse under succes-
February 8, 1985

sive Liberal Governments. There was absolutely no control over anything in any Department. Liberal Members certainly have a lot of nerve to be able to complain about anything at all.
I simply wanted to put those points on the record to explain why we cannot phase in the pensions for these widows faster. However, we have made an excellent start. If we were not faced with that heavy debt load, there would certainly be a lot more money for pensioners, veterans and the like. I simply wanted to put those points on the record.


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


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I was intrigued by the line of reasoning developed for our benefit by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). If his logic were really so stringent and correct, then he and his own Party, for the sake of reducing the deficit and for the sake of increasing payments under the old age security Bill that is before us today, would have refrained from making promises during the election that amounted to the expenditure of billions of dollars. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine must make up his mind. He blames the Liberals for the deficit which he said does not enable the Government to make more generous and broader payments, but he announced promises during the last election campaign which would have increased the deficit. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot condemn and at the same time make extravagant promises and still be on the right track. That does not hold water.
1 also regret that he engaged in a character assassination of the Leader of the Liberal Party, who is not present, by harping on what happened 12 years ago. I suppose he was referring to the period between 1972 and 1974. In the 1974 election, the people of Canada must have seen something positive in the then Minister of Finance, otherwise they would not have re-elected the Liberal Party with a majority. Canadians supported what was done in those years.
Although the Hon. Member has been in the House for a number of years, he does not seem to be aware of the fact that there is a reason for having deficits. That is the role of the Government in difficult economic times. When a country goes through a recession the Government must have a deficit situation if it wants to help those who are hard hit by the recession. That can be done in a variety of ways. In 1982-83 the Party of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine insisted that the Government was not doing enough to alleviate unemployment and that it was not doing enough to meet the needs of the industrial communities in Quebec, Windsor and the Hon. Member's home town. That was exactly what the Liberal Government was trying to do. However, if the revenues are not coming in in order to do that, a deficit must be incurred. The deficit provided social shock absorbers and measures which allowed Canadian families to maintain an
Old Age Security Act
income in order to survive through the very difficult times and to put money back into the economy.
I am pleased the Government has taken this step. It would be very difficult to say something novel about what this Bill does not contain, but nevertheless there must be some input from those who participate in the debate to lay the foundation, or pave the ground, for the next Bill-which I hope will be introduced shortly-which will take into account the pension reform committee recommendations. That is what the debate is all about. A debate provides Members with an opportunity to express ideas on all sides of the House.
What strikes us on this side of the House is that, while the Bill would provide a benefit to people who are not covered and who would definitely welcome the measure, it leaves out those people whose marital status is not recognized in this measure. In other words, the measure seems to be guided by the marital status of the person rather than by the principle of helping those who are between the ages of 60 and 65 living below the poverty line. That is the principle which we ought to adopt in this and future Bills.
The people who find themselves in difficult economic circumstances are being left out of the legislation. There are a number of men and women who worked for many years in physical but low-paying jobs. Those people reached the point where they could no longer do physical work and were unable to find work because of a lack of formal training in other types of occupations. Those people did not have the opportunity nor the capacity to save money for early retirement. They are a special group of people.
I am sure Hon. Members opposite will agree that this Bill discriminates against those who choose to remain single. Of course, that discrimination may not have a legal substance, but certainly it is something which the Government should consider.
I would like to refer to a letter which was recently received by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) from an organization in London, Ontario, which is called Womanspirit. The letter reads:
Being aware of the discrimination against a great majority of people, especially women, of the Canadian Government's proposed spouse's allowance, we strongly support an appeal to the Government to extend the program to all single people in need between the ages of 60 and 64. This extension of the program will definitely be beneficial to Canadians in this age bracket who are single, separated or divorced.
Womanspirit joins other concerned groups and individuals in support of the proposed extension of the spouse's allowance program.
We would be glad to hear of any progress made in this appeal.
As I previously stated, the principle that guides this legislation is attached to marital status and not to the poverty line. It is an important concept on which the Government, in its term of office, will have to focus because that is the element of fairness and the principle to which the majority of Canadians would adhere. It is also the principle which has guided preceding Governments in introducing progressive steps in pension legislation, as previously stated by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine.

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act
In addition to this, inevitably a debate on amendments to the Old Age Security Act puts on the table expressions of will, recommendations, observations and suggestions which are made by Canadians at large. Many people in their late fifties would like to retire early. That message is particularly strong when it comes from those who engage in hard physical labour. They are asking why the Government does not reduce the retirement age to bring Canada in line with other jurisdictions where it is possible for a man to retire at the age of 60 and a woman at the age of 55. That message is also received from people who have had physical working lives and must retire because they cannot perform physical work any longer. Those people are the construction workers, miners, longshoremen, woodworkers and others who have had to use their muscles and backs all their lives. At a certain point those people feel that physically they cannot continue. They would like a social security system which would allow them to retire earlier than others. They want to be able to make the choice and retire when they are ready, rather than being required to wait for a uniform age which applies to everyone across the board.
Whether one is a blue collar worker or a white collar worker, whether or not one is engaged in heavy physical work-and physical conditions vary from person to person- the natural question which comes to mind is, should we not design a system in a fine democracy like ours which permits choices, which permits a variety of preferences according to the individual? People have different spans of life, of course, and there are different types of activities in the workplace, so these questions do come to mind. Should we not try to design a system which offers the opportunity to choose when we want to retire and when we want to go on a fixed income formula? This is a very crucial question for people whose incomes are modest and who have not had an opportunity during their lifetime to invest for their retirement.
I sumbit to you, Mr. Speaker, that is the record of the Liberal Party which has spoken for this kind of principle on behalf of the people who want to see it promoted. This is also, by and large, the basic principle which has guided us in this country with respect to social security and social progress. This is why Governments have introduced a host of other measures to protect everyone in society from difficult times, whether they are expected or not.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that as we make progress with our social security legislation we have to begin to look for ways to provide certain options for Canadians. We have to take into account the type of work people have been engaged in during their lifetimes and find ways which will permit an early retirement. In this respect, I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that some workers in certain industries in Canada can, if they qualify, retire at the age of 55 years. It applies to workers who have worked for, I believe, 30 years in four industries-clothing, textiles, tanning and shoes. That measure was actually introduced not so much as a social security measure but as an industrial protection measure
in case those industries were to be hit by competition and technological change.
Since a reference was made to the most excellent report prepared by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) on technological change, it is only appropriate to refer to the fact that we do have in Canada today a certain number of Canadians who can retire at the age of 55 years.
The question which then comes to mind is how we can build on that foundation and provide this type of opportunity to a larger number of people, if they wish to exercise that option. Obviously, it is an option which some people may not want to exercise because we all know that there are Canadians who enjoy working beyond the age of 65 years. However, there will be some who will want to exercise it.
The question then which comes to mind, of course, is how do we finance earlier retirement in a manner which is realistic and possible? Will it be done through taxation? Will it be done through redeployment of funds which are presently available to Governments? Will it be done through other means? This is something, of course, to which we have to put our minds, and I believe we will do that because I do not believe there is one Hon. Member in his House who would reject the notion of the desirability of permitting early retirement.
The question of early retirement has been raised both by the elderly and by the youth in times of high unemployment because of the deeply held belief that, by permitting early retirement, the system would then be able to create openings for youth to enter into employment. Therefore, when we debate the question of old age security, we are debating at the same time, to some degree at least, the question of providing employment. The two factors are obviously interrelated.
Of course, the big challenge which faces the Government these days will be that of finding the ways and means of financing a form of early retirement. As Bill C-26 applies to those who are between the ages of 60 and 65 years and who are in need, I would certainly urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is well known for his compassion and his keen understanding of social policies in this country, to consider very seriously the inclusion of those persons who are not covered under this Bill. I am sure that the Minister would be given full support by his own caucus and by both Opposition Parties, and I am sure it would be welcomed by those
80,000	or more Canadians who were referred to with great passion by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), during this particular debate. These are Canadians who need and require the attention of society as a whole through their Government. These are the people this Bill should also include and cover in its total scope.


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member who just mentioned the great passion shown by the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) in defending this issue. In fact, he said on November 30, 1982:

February 8, 1985
First of all, I have been wondering why Members of the Progressive Conservative Party were opposed to a Bill that placed restrictions on increases in old age security benefits.
He had both passion and compassion at the time, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member spoke earlier about discrimination. Obviously, whenever we set certain limits, there is bound to be some kind of discrimination.
I worked in the school system when the age of admission was set with November 30 as the cut-off date. However, because of pressure from all sides, we had to move the date up to October 1. That took time. First of all, because of all the parents who got involved, and by that time the children were old enough-they went to school eventually! But the measure was Finally adopted. Some people would have had me say it discriminated against children who were born on October 2. You have something against kids born on October 2!
In this particular case, the Government is to be congratulated, first of all because it is taking the kind of action it can afford instead of acting according to the philosophy of the Party in power under the previous Government, which was to act across the board. The pension plan started at seventy, then went down to sixty-nine and so forth. The eligible age is now sixty-five, and there was a commitment to lower it to sixty-four, with the guaranteed income.
The present Government has decided to act vertically in a major age group, according to need. This means that we can make considerable headway from top to bottom within the group. Of course, they can always say we are discriminating against those who are not in that group. It was not our intention to do so. However, we consider that the people in this particular group are those who are in greatest need at this time. We must not forget that.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) for his comments. I could not agree more that we must provide protection for those who need it and in my speech, I was speaking up for those who need protection but are not covered by this measure.
That is the substance of our message to the Hon. Member. I would suggest that he learn to be patient when his Government is criticized, because the House is not a place where compliments and words of praise are the order of the day. We must all learn to be critical and to accept criticism with good grace. I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments because he speaks my language. We are speaking about the same subject, which is to provide protection for those who need it, but unfortunately, Bill C-26 which is before the House today, while protecting those who need protection, neglects another group of Canadians who have the same need and are in the same age group but lack this protection. That is why I read, in the course of my
Old Age Security Act
speech, the letter from the organization "Womenspirit", which used the word discrimination.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon).


Mr. Plamondon:: Like my colleague before me, Mr. Speaker,
I am surprised as well by some of your remarks and those of the Hon. Member who was fiercely defending his views and who earlier today handed out to Hon. Members his famous document on the three ladies-Mrs. Brown, Mrs. Gray and Mrs. . . . well, the only one missing was Mrs. Black-anyway, he handed out those three documents and was surprised to see that our Government had not shown any concern.
I should like to point out that our Government made a promise during the election campaign, a promise with respect to that sector: this Bill was to be introduced, and here it is, less than six months later.
Besides, when it comes to promises, Members of the Official Opposition are not in a position to lecture us because, in 1980, they did make some promises which led to the defeat of the Government. It cost $105 million to defeat the Government in 1980-they campaigned against a proposed increase in the price of gasoline, yet less than six months later they raised the price by 65 cents. With respect to promises, Members of the Opposition are ill-advised indeed to lecture us. We keep our promises. We said that widows and widowers aged 60 to 65 would get the allowance, and get it they will. As to the Hon. Member who is concerned about women of 62, he should remember that if his Government had been elected, only women of 60 and men of 64 would have received the allowance, so his three ladies would have ended up with nothing, whereas now at least one of the three will get something. It is sheer demagoguery on your part to harass the Government this way and to make that kind of comments. Instead of sleeping in your seats when you were in office between 1980 and 1984, you should have been wide awake to apply the virtuous principles your are advocating today.


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


Jean-Claude Malépart: As a follow-up to the comments made by my colleague, and in reply to the last speaker. I think he has just shown his complete ignorance of this issue. If he had read the speech of his Minister, he would have noted ... I would like my colleague to tell me-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I believe that, according to our rules, a Member should not comment on what another Member has said about a speech. I think that the Hon.

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act
Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is simply supposed to comment on the speech made by the Member taking part in the debate.


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If I may explain briefly the point we have reached in this debate, the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) commented the speech made by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) was then recognized because the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) had not deemed it necessary to reply.
We are therefore still on questions and comments and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has the floor.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, I see that the Hon. Member is always beside the track. Could you give him a lesson once and for all? This is all I have to say on this point of order.
To go on with the question I was asking my colleague, following the comments made by the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), when I was suggesting he was not at all conversant with the issue, he should read it... I would like to know. This is the same question I was asking. The other comment is that he decided not to beat about the bush. But since a Progressive Conservative is unable to follow something up to the end, will my hon. colleague tell me, since they stopped only halfway, what the difference is between a widow in need, whatever her age, her income, or her housing cost, and another person who is separated and has the same age, income and housing cost? What is the difference? How can we determine that one is more in need than the other?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, clearly the question asked by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) gives us another chance to repeat that there is unfairness in this legislation. And I am truly amazed that the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) would have preferred to introduce another dimension into the debate, which has nothing to do with the issue now before the House. Indeed the subject of the discussion is quite clear. It is whether we should provide help, give pensions to all those who need them, between the aged 60 and 65, that group certainly being a part of that population. And, naturally, as this has already been mentioned, we agree to that protection for those in need in that age group.


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


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been long awaited, small as it is. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward. Some thousands of low income widowed
people who may benefit certainly need it, and if it were possible to speed it up, I am sure Members on this side of the House would be willing to do so. However, the Government, for whatever reason, has said that it will not come into effect until September of this year. Unless it accepts in committee some amendment to that starting date, then no matter what we do today or any other day, it will not bring the pensions any closer. I assume that it will receive examination on that point in committee and I hope that this is one of the points on which amendments might be considered favourably by the Minister and his Government.
We have had some comment as to why the Bill deals with such a small number of pensioners who are in need. The requests of the pension reform committee go far beyond this. The minority report of the dissenting member, Mr. Miller, goes still further beyond this. Mr. Miller pointed out that there are single people between the ages of 60 and 65 who should have this benefit but, according to this legislation, they still will not.
It was suggested by one of the government speakers that the country does not have sufficient money to pay pensions to more than this small number of people. Eighty-five thousand would be a big number in relation to the population of an apartment building, but in relation to the elderly population of Canada it is a small number. It has been suggested by government Members that there is not enough money to extend this benefit to people who may be equally in need and equally deserving but do not happen to have ever been married. One speaker suggested that the Government may have saved some money. In that case, whether they are widowed or not widowed, the legislation is not intended for them. That is not the point I am making. I am talking about people who are equally poor and equally needy but happen to have never been married. That situation is occurring more often in the country. There are more people now who are single, for whatever reason. Marriage is not as common as it used to be 10 or 15 years ago in Canada.
I think this omission is an unnecessary oversight. The excuse used by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) that the Government does not have the money would be laughable if it were not so sad. It is the same silly excuse that was used by the previous Government which he attacked so bitterly.
The Deputy Minister said that the Government has a big debt. He told us to look at the report of the Auditor General. In his report the Auditor General tells us where the greatest part of that debt arises. He tells us that if certain groups paid what the basic principle of income tax would require them to pay, there would be no debt at all. The Auditor General spoke about the $30 billion to $50 billion per year paid to large corporations in the form of taxes not collected. This was arranged under the previous Government when the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Minister of Finance. The bonanzas to the big corporations have devel-
February 8, 1985

oped tremendously in the last dozen years without any complaint from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine or any of the other members of the Tory caucus, they never once suggested that those companies should pay their fair share of the taxes. They never once suggested that those companies should pay the $23 billion of accumulated deferred taxation. They never even said that they should pay interest on that deferred taxation.
Members of the Conservative Government have no interest in collecting the money from the people who have it to pay off the debt. Instead, they said that they are sorry that they cannot pay bigger pensions to single men and women between the ages of 60 and 65. They cannot do it because of the debt which the Conservative Government refused to collect from the big corporations.
The Auditor General seemed to regret that he could not give us a precise figure. He said that it is somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion. Even $30 billion would be enough to wipe out the deficit. He does not know how big it is because there is no accounting of it. Neither Liberal nor Conservative Governments have undertaken to do any thorough accounting of the money that ought to be paid by the big corporations. The previous Government and the present Government have tried to hoodwink the people of the country by turning out their pockets and crying they are poor and telling the old people, who have given their working lives to this country, that they cannot receive pensions that will meet the prices of today.
Corporation presidents receive pensions of hundreds of thousands of dollars because the corporations received such generous tax gifts from the past Government. Many of the people who worked to produce the wealth of those corporations will have a pension which does not enable them to have a decent room and decent food, let along car fare. Many of them live in Spadina, and I know them. It is shameful that the Government should try to conceal the fact that it has the means to pay larger pensions. The present Government has now had half a year in office during which it could have begun a change in the tax structure which would have reduced that injustice. It could have made a start toward collecting some of the taxes that it should and could be collecting from these corporations.
During the election campaign the Conservatives promised to collect those taxes. However, once in office, they forgot the promise. When reminded of it, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stood in front of us and made a joke of it. He is not worried about his pension. He has forgotten about the pensions of the people he claims he used to work with as a young man and that his father worked with. He does not remember those people except when he wants to brag about his noble origins. He wants to forget them when it comes to paying pensions.
I worked for 18 years in a factory, Mr. Speaker. A few years ago it was shut down. It was bought by another company which decided that the factory was redundant. It want a boardroom decision. Some of the men I worked with are still walking the streets looking for work. Who wants a 55 or 60 years old unskilled or semi-skilled worker? They were good workers in the factory during the 18 years I knew them. They
Old Age Security Act
produced and would still be producing because the factory was producing. It would still be producing but for a boardroom decision by the corporations which receive these great tax gifts, supposedly to create more jobs. In fact, they used the tax gifts to destroy the jobs of 145 employees in that plant.
I know those people by name. Some of them are single. Those people should be eligible for this sort of benefit when they reach 60 years of age. They will not get it if the Government does not move. We are told that some day after the Government has paid off all its close friends, if there is any money left over, it will give it to those elderly workers.
This side of the House will support this legislation. We are not holding it back. It is the Government that is holding it back until next fall. We would be willing to speed it up. Our first speaker, the Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), made an offer. He said that we would put up only one speaker if the Minister would make the law effective as soon as possible. The Minister did not take him up on it. The Minister intends that no one will get that benefit until next fall. Furthermore, it will only benefit some of the people who really need it. The Government does not intend to give any of this benefit to people who have not been married, who have reached the age of 60 and who are poor. There are many of these people around the country. We see many of them sleeping in the TTC shelters on the streets of Toronto in the cold weather. We can see them sleeping on the stairways of Toronto Parking Authority garages, especially in front of City Hall. They are people who need this benefit, but the Government will not give it to them because it would rather give it to the oil companies, the banks and the others who contribute to its election campaign fund.
I regret very much the stinginess of the Government. I will support it in so far as it will give this benefit to a few of the people who need it. However, I wish it would give it sooner rather than wait until September, as provided in this legislation. I suggest that the Government reconsider this measure and give this benefit to single people as well as to widowed people.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the fact that an offer was made the effect of which would have held his Party's participation to one speaker. That offer was contingent upon our making the Bill effective immediately. To whom was that offer made, at what time and who refused it! This sounds like an interesting proposal that should have been brought to everyone's attention.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will find it on page 1947 of Hansard of February 4, 1985. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) said:
I am, perhaps, at the point of making the Minister an offer which he cannot refuse. One aspect of the Bill, obviously, with which we are disappointed is the length of time it will take to put this measure in place. 1 believe there will be a ten-month delay until September. If it will accommodate the Minister in terms of bringing such a measure in by the end of this month, my Party would agree that 1 would be the only speaker. We could then get it through all stages as

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act
quickly as possible, if that would accommodate the Minister. If the Minister would agree to that, all he has to do is to send me a note and we will look upon it as kindly as possible.
It is evident that the Minister did not respond.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I am too new to the Chamber, having only been elected on September 4, and I do not know if that is the proper procedure to make offers with respect to very important legislation. I would assume that the House Leaders or the Member responsible would make the offer through the proper channels, rather than making it inadvertently in a speech, as this one was made.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Spadina, I would simply point out that these matters are discussed across the floor frequently. That is what debate is about.
For example, at this moment the House Leaders for the three Parties are not here, but we still carry on the business. If there were some difficulty about the matter but the Minister or the Government House Leader was interested in taking up the offer, he was certainly free to begin any negotiations he wished. It is clear that he did not wish to do so. For some reason that I have not heard, the Minister wishes to delay the effect of the Bill until September.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to make a comment at this point. Let us place the emphasis where it properly belongs with respect to the statement made by the Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who is not empowered to speak on behalf of his Party in the first place.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is our spokesman.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Let us re-read what he said:
I am, perhaps, at the point of making the Minister an offer-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) is our critic on pensions and is empowered to speak on behalf of our Party and make any offers he wants. He has the support of our caucus for that purpose.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is clearly understood in the House that arrangements about unanimous consent are made by House Leaders. House Leaders are empowered to speak on behalf of the Party.
Let us go back to what the Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) said:
I am, perhaps, at the point of making the Minister an offer-
Then he concluded:
If the Minister would agree to that, all he has to do is to send me a note and we will look upon it as kindly as possible.
Who in his right mind would accept that type of invitation in which they want us to make a commitment while perhaps they will make a commitment? It does not come from the two opposition Parties or the independent Member, but simply from a political Party that is well known to be in bed with the other opposition Party on every conceivable occasion. It was
simply a trap for the Government, and I commend the Government for having had the wisdom not to step into that trap. Our Government understands the importance of co-operation and consultation. It understands the importance of reaching acceptable agreements with people.
If that Party is interested in reaching an agreement, the proper process to follow is for the House Leaders to negotiate. We hope that Party will use it and show how genuine they are in wanting the change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for "Spadeena", otherwise known as Spadina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, everybody in Spadina calls it Spadina.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: May I just point out to the Hon. Member for Spadina that in Sherbrooke we call it "Spadeena", but in the circumstances I will respectfully call it Spadina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now we have two names.
I can only suggest to the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) that a note could have been sent in which the terms were qualified. The Government could have responded to the suggestion from our spokesman on the matter, our spokesman in the House at the time.
If the Government was worried about 211 Members being trapped by 30 Members-I understand that it may consider us formidable-at least we could have been sent a note.
We are not talking about a question of unanimous consent. It was a question of whether Members would continue to speak. I chose to speak, notwithstanding the request from the government side essentially that we should shut up.
I remember when the Hon. Member was on this side of the House. He certainly thought that the job of the Opposition was to oppose, and he did so vigorously, at great length and very often. Now that he is on the government side he thinks that the job of the Opposition is to shut up. In fact, the job of the opposition is to criticize where necessary, and since our criticisms are not being heard by the Government, I hope they will be heard by the public, especially those who are being deprived by the limitation of this Bill.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). It seems that friendly Friday has been deteriorating since the end of Question Period today. I cannot listen to some of the cheap shots this afternoon without making a comment. If the Hon. Member is going to support the legislation, he should not criticize the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and make comments on what he says unless he is quoting directly from a credible source.
The fact is that the Prime Minister has not forgotten the people he used to work with. The House will recall that the settlement at Schefferville was the most generous in Canadian
February 8, 1985

history. When he was forced to close the mine in Schefferville it was a decision he had to make that was very regrettable, but he certainly did not forget the people he used to work with in Schefferville.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: What about Labrador City?


John Napier Turner: I recall the Prime Minister saying in the House a couple of weeks ago that if the NDP will not help us help the needy, we will do it ourselves.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Why doesn't he help the needy in Labrador City?


John Napier Turner: We simply cannot afford to be all things to all people. That is why we cannot be all things to all people with respect to this particular piece of legislation. Therefore, it has excluded people between the ages of 60 to 65.
I remind the Hon. Member for Spadina that our Prime Minister is sincerely concerned about the citizens of this country.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me indicate that I will try to concur with the wishes of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) who indicated that Hon. Members should speak briefly and to the point.
The legislation has some good parts. The market which it attempts to serve is a good one. There is no question about that. As my colleagues said at the beginning of the debate, as Members of Parliament we should approach the issue of providing assistance to those in need very responsibly. In part I support the measures contained in this legislation.
I do not think I have heard Hon. Members on either side of the House suggest that what the Government is attempting to do is bad. In point of fact, there may be a great deal of loopholes.


Claudy Mailly: Name one.


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member rarely listens. I would hope she would at least attempt to be as sincere as I am trying to be with regard to the substance of the legislation.


Claudy Mailly: I am.


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member is known for her dealings with the press. She is grasping at straws for the sake of publicity. Surely she has the courtesy at least to listen. I am not a member of her Party. Perhaps I share a different philosophy or ideology, but courtesy ought to be part of the demeanour of the Hon. Member.
I point out for the record that it was a Liberal Government that introduced spousal allowances. The Conservative Government has now decided to extend the spousal allowance, part of the Old Age Security Program, to any person between the ages of 60 and 64 in need and living alone. That is very commendable, but, as I said earlier, there are some loopholes. There are
Old Age Security Act
thousands of single Canadians who would like to be included in this particular package. It is not good enough for government Members to join in a chorus of catcalls and to say, "We can't afford it" when during the election campaign there was no mention of any restraint. In fact, there was a proliferation of promises during that campaign, in excess of 330. They cannot have it both ways. Were they irresponsible during the campaign or were they responsible? I know they will try very hard and very diligently to have it both ways, but I suggest that they cannot have it both ways.
I want to go on record as supporting that part of the legislation which will affect an additional 85,000 Canadians. If the amendments my Party is seeking are accepted, an additional 80,000 Canadians would benefit. We must remember that a large number of Canadians do not enjoy the perks or the lifestyle which we in the Chamber enjoy, or indeed that of other professions.
It is discriminatory, intentionally or negligently, for the Government to exclude this group of Canadians. Hon. Members of my Party who have spoken before me, and those who will speak following my remarks, will repeatedly reiterate that concern. We hope that the Government will take cognizance of what we are suggesting and implement those changes.
Again I commend the piece of legislation before us from the perspective that it contains a recommendation of the parliamentary task force on pension reform. It is in the best interests of Parliament to bring forward legislation containing a recommendation of the parliamentary task force, upon which there was unanimous agreement, as quickly as possible so that it can be put into effect for the benefit of Canadians.
There has been some suggestion today that perhaps we ought to expedite the implementation date. I am in favour of that, whether it is a matter of fiscal responsibility on the part of the Government of the day or a matter of lining up an agenda item for a budget, which was to come down in April, May or even later, depending upon what happens in the Province of Ontario.
There have been some sincere suggestions by New Democratic Party Members in an attempt to expedite this piece of legislation. It serves no useful purpose for the Hon. Member for Calgary West to rise in the House of Commons to admonish the New Democratic Party and its members for attempting to put into effect a piece of legislation affecting low-income Canadians. That was not the spirit in which this particular measure was discussed by the parliamentary task force.
I want the record to show clearly that I support the measure which provides assistance to the individuals I have already mentioned, but I repeat that the Government should extend those benefits to the group which is being excluded. Perhaps the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) would use his influence when speaking to his Cabinet colleagues and his back-benchers to extend those benefits to those other Canadians who are in need. I believe that is fundamental. I have received letters from Canadians in British Columbia, Ontario and other parts of the country who are very upset that we in Parliament would support in principle such an idea but

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act
in fact discriminate against a certain class of individuals. Surely we do not want to do that as parliamentarians. Surely we do not want to inflict further difficulties on individuals who are facing difficult economic times at present.
We could advocate that in this Bill there ought to be a homemaker's pension or a whole host of reforms. However, the Government has refused to do that; perhaps we will have an opportunity to debate them at another time. This piece of legislation is earmarked to be implemented in September, 1985. If that is the Government's wish, with its mandate it is virtually impossible for us to change it. However, I do not see any great need for the majority on the opposite side and the book-ends on this side to say that Members of Parliament are dragging their feet or slowing down the process of Parliament. We are attempting to debate this piece of legislation in an intelligent way. We are attempting to have the Government recognize that, notwithstanding the good parts of this legislation, many parts of it ought to be changed to include the amendments we are suggesting.
Finally, I will conclude by saying that I am happy the Government has brought this Bill forward, although I do not agree with it entirely. Second, I am happy that it is accepting the recommendations of a parliamentary task force which worked for a considerable period of time to put this legislation on the floor of the House of Commons.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a comment on the Hon. Member's speech. I also wanted to reassure him by saying that when I suggested that this legislation should be referred to committee, it was not because I was not listening to his speech, but rather because I was actually listening. He was telling me that in his view perhaps the Bill was not perfect, that it could be improved upon. I know the Hon. Member sits on the Committee for Regional Development and I know that he is well acquainted with his subjects. I was therefore simply suggesting that there was the place where we could improve, so he said, on this legislation he is so concerned with. Therefore, referring the Bill to committee is not brushing the matter under the carpet, it is simply referring it to another forum where detailed examination may take place.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her comments. I am aware and fully appreciate the process with which Parliament has to deal. However, I would hope that Members on all sides, of all Parties, whether it be the independent Member or Members who are not in this House, would fully avail themselves of the opportunity to debate this legislation now on the floor of the House of Commons. We could elicit suggestions here to improve the Bill. I am sure we could improve upon it even more so in committee. Members of Parliament would like to have this opportunity. Since the legislation is not earmarked for implementation until September, 1985, I cannot understand the rationale for having it referred to committee. Surely the Hon. Member is not suggesting that Members of Parliament are only able to make suggestions to improve legislations in committee and not on the floor of the House of Commons. This is the Chamber where suggestions for improving legislation ought to come forward. If the Hon. Member wishes to receive suggestions, I can itemize a number of them for her at the present time.


Mr. Jepson:: Mr. Speaker, having heard the Hon. Member's comments in his very sanctimonious speech, feeling as he does the obligation to bring before the people his criticisms on the Bill, I want to say that the Government and the Minister have been very honest in bringing forward this Bill. They have stated that there are some shortcomings in that there are still people with legitimate needs who will not have those needs met. They told the people that very clearly when they brought this Bill forward.
This delaying tactic betrays the fact that there have to be ulterior motives in delaying this Bill from being brought to a fruitful conclusion. It merely delays the opportunity of the Government to bring forward other Bills that we are prepared and ready to bring before the House so that other legitimate needs of Canadians can be met. It is nice to hear his pious platitudes, but the truth is in the pudding. We have declared the shortcomings. We say we would like to do more. At the same time, we are not going to display the irresponsibility and poor stewardship of the previous administration and spend first and look for the money after.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting and perhaps a little bit refreshing to receive lectures from new Members of Parliament on what we should do or should not do, or indeed on the substance of what a speech is or is intended to be. I am always happy when this Hon. Member stands in his place and, not in a sanctimonious way but in a patronizing type of way, suggests what other Members of Parliament ought to do.
Let me say something to the Hon. Member for his own edification and information. He made a very telling statement to the effect that he does not want to spend money without knowing the intent of it. I would ask him about the borrowing Bill. The Government is asking the Opposition in this Parliament to approve expenditures which we do not know anything about. It wants us to approve a sum of money for next year for Government expenditures. That was just a small contradiction by the new Member. I thought I would bring that to his attention so that he would read the "blues". He may wish to make changes. Indeed, he may really wish to show some courage and stand in his place on the next sitting day to correct the record on his irresponsible comment.


Mr. Hockin:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) needs no help from the Member for London West, but I am struck by the comments just made by the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party. When we as the Government are asked for borrowing authority, we asked for much less of a reserve than the Liberal Government asked for last year. It
February 8, 1985

asked for a much greater sum of money sight unseen than we did on the reserve portion of that borrowing authority Bill. The tradition of our Party is not to ask for money for projects that are not yet committed to. We were trying to trim the borrowing Bill, which we did, compared to the previous administration. Therefore, his point with regard to the comments made by the Hon. Member for London East are, I feel, without validity.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is always nice that we have opportunities in this Chamber to see back-benchers, Members of the book-ends, get up and speak. It is very rewarding indeed that they would avail themselves of an opportunity to stand up and say something. Whether it is relevant or not is another issue. I am happy that the Hon. Member stood in his place and made a comment. If he wishes the Opposition, particularly the Liberal Opposition, to give approval to expenditures for next year with regard to the borrowing authority, he had better put in place very clearly what the expenditure plan is going to be for this Government. We are not going to be hoodwinked, beaten or pushed around by 212 Tory Members of Parliament.


An Hon. Member:: Who is the extra one?


David Charles Dingwall: I said 212 and there are 212. The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is in bed with those guys. He supports them. What other member of the New Democractic Party received a limousine? Who gave Eddie the limousine? It was the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney). They are in bed together.
I am happy that the book-ends of the Conservative Party are finally recognizing that they have to get up and speak on behalf of their constituents and stop taking the directives of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), who is really the Minister of Finance because the Prime Minister has completely muzzled and cut away any credibility that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) may have. I appreciate the Member standing in his place. Notwithstanding that, I find his comments to be totally invalid.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, London is very close to Stratford, but I say, having been to the Shakespearean theatre, I have never seen any greater theatrics from the Hon. Member behind me. However, just as the people were not fooled by the political rhetoric on September 4, neither are the people here in the House today. I can assure the Hon. Member that the Conservative Government is the one Government that will be accountable for its spending programs. It will be accountable not only to the Members of the House but to all Canadians.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the Hon. Member is suggesting that the Government will be accountable. I would ask him, however, where is the legislation to back up the promise that the situation will be changed regarding moneys from workers' compensation payments being included for the purposes of calculating this GIS? Conservative Members promised to change that during the election campaign but
Old Age Security Act
to date nothing has been forthcoming. Where are the homemakers' pensions that they promised? Totally irresponsible-


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


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate, albeit briefly, in this debate. What is at issue today is not whether or not one is in favour of this Bill. I would presume that all Hon. Members must be in favour of giving needy people more money. But what is at issue is the fact that this Government is forgetting something. It is forgetting a large group of people. Large numbers of people are being forgotten by the Conservative Party. I still have some difficulty in figuring out who will be in and who will be out of this program.


Claudy Mailly: You don't know how to analyse it.


Don Boudria: I am told that this is because we cannot analyse these things properly. Perhaps those who have such a keen understanding of those issues can answer the following questions. We understand that widows will now be receiving the pension. That is fairly straightforward. They will receive the pension providing, of course, that they are between the ages of 60 and 65 and are in need.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: And widowers.


Don Boudria: And widowers too although there are fewer widowers than widows. However, that is the case as well.
Let us look at the following situations. What happens in the case of people who are not married? Of course, these people will not receive benefits. It could be that people were living common-law and became widowed. They will not receive benefits. They could have as many financial obligations and children to support as other widows but they will not be eligible. What happens in the case of a widow who has remarried? Of course, we are told that a widow who has remarried is no longer a widow. That is fine. However, what happens in the case of a widow who has remarried and subsequently divorces? When a person divorces, does she not revert to the marital status she had prior to that last wedding? That would mean that that person would become a widow again. Does that person qualify for these benefits or does she not?
This legislation is so full of holes that I venture to say that the Government will never be able to administer it in its present form. We cannot even understand how it works. It is a virtual impossibility. We are told that other people cannot be included under the program in the name of economic restraint. We are told that single people, separated people and divorced people between the ages of 60 and 65 who in many cases are in as dire need as widows and widowers, will not be eligible. Why is this so? It is so in the name of restraint.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) gave us a lecture on how he claims the Liberal Party

February 8, 1985
Old Age Security Act
created a situation in which the Government cannot afford to give money to others who need it.


Claudy Mailly: He did it well, too.


Don Boudria: We are told that he did it well. That is matter of opinion.
We hear from Conservative Members that the Government is in financial difficulty and that it cannot be all things to all people. It is unusual to hear that from a Conservative Member. After all, it is not that long ago that Conservative Members made certain election promises. As I have mentioned before, they made 338 election promises. Now they cannot afford those important social programs.
A Member has said in this House that we cannot afford to make any more expenditures because, as he claims, the country is not in a position to do so. Why is it that during the election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party could make 113 promises to spend more money and make five promises to spend less money? Would you believe that that was during the same election campaign, Mr. Speaker? The Conservative Party made two promises to increase revenues and 26 promises to reduce revenues. What kind of accounting is that? If that is the logic of the Conservative Government, small wonder that it cannot make this program workable.
We are being told about the deficit. According to Conservative Members, the deficit is too high, and it very much concerns them. The Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) appears to be very concerned about this, as do several other Members. The Progressive Conservative Party's program as outlined during the election campaign would have resulted in 139 different actions that would have increased the deficit. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would have resulted in seven actions to reduce the deficit? All that happened in the same election campaign. Small wonder that the Government cannot figure out what to do.
We are told that there is no money for the single people between the ages of 60 and 65. We heard this at the same time as I was reading a communique prepared for us by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates). This communique contains very nice, glossy pictures of the new military uniforms.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a moment ago about the situation of Mrs. Lebrun, Mrs. Legris and Mrs. Leblanc, but I have here three pictures of Mr. Legris, Mr. Lebleu and Mr. Leblanc in their new Armed forces uniforms. There seems to have been money available for these three gentlemen; $50 million to purchase colorful outfits for them-


An Hon. Member:: $36 million.


Don Boudria: I am told $36 million. A number of people have not benefited from these $36 million. Whether it is $36 million or $50 million, the money would have been better spent helping our senior citizens.
Government Members say they are in favour of budget restraint and will not spend money needlessly.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what they tell us, but at the same time they spent $24,000 delivering the mail on November 8 in order to make sure that the provincial Premiers would have copies of speeches made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). They spent $173,472 on cars in the last four months. Those are the vehicles that they bought for the extra Cabinet Ministers so that they could drive around the Parliament Buildings with their political commissars. That is $173,472 on top of what the previous Government already had. That does not even include the automobiles that have been rented. They will not respond to the Order Paper questions which ask how much money has been wasted on that particular program. That is coming from the same Government that has no money for our senior citizens.
We recognize that this measure will help some people. That is not what we are here to discuss today. We are here to discuss the people who have been forgotten. The Government is forgetting a large segment of needy people. This is unfair. It is about time the people spoke up. It is about time that Members of Parliament heard from their constituents-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.
Order, please! It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please. The hour allotted for consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.\nIt being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned.", 'Monday, February 11, 1985']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 162?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Leslie Gordon Benjamin: that Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights), be now
February 8, 1985

read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill was debated in 1982, again in 1984, and it is now being debated for the third time. On the previous occasions, members of the Conservative Party supported the legislation, and in particular the former Member for Nepean-Carleton, Mr. Baker. Now the Conservatives are in power and the Liberals are part of the Opposition. I hope that members of the Government will continue supporting this legislation as they did in 1982 and 1984.
All 1 am asking in this Bill, with a few exceptions, is for federal public servants-be it with the Government or with a Crown corporation-to have the same political rights which are enjoyed by those people who are not federal Government or Crown corporation employees. On Five occasions I have had to apply to my employer for a leave of absence without pay to be an organizer or a candidate. The leave was granted, albeit not willingly. When the election was over, I was able to return to my job without loss of seniority, at the same position which I held previously or at a better position. Surely that right should be enjoyed by those who are employed in the federal Public Service.
I suspect it will be mentioned by a few Hon. Members opposite that there are negotiations presently going on between the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and members of the Public Service unions. The parties are negotiating what is called "the six-pack"-six items which are not necessarily contained in the collective agreements. In a statement before the press in Quebec City, the President of the Treasury Board indicated that an agreement had been reached on those six items. One of those items was the issue of political rights. I want to state categorically that an agreement was not reached. The only agreement which was reached was that the Government's proposals would be discussed further by the people in the unions and that they would then meet again further to discuss these matters.
It was claimed in yesterday's news reports that the meetings were held a day or two ago. In fact, on investigation it turns out that there have not been any recent meetings and that the meeting which was scheduled two weeks ago had been cancelled. The meeting was cancelled because the President of the Treasury Board was speaking at a school. Be that as it may, that would indicate that there is some degree of willingness on the part of the Government to make changes in those six areas, especially the area of political rights.
I would be happy if the subject matter of this Bill could be sent to the standing committee so that we could hear from the representatives of the Public Service who are affected.
I am very proud of my Party's record because the first legislation which was introduced anywhere in Canada-and, for that matter, probably anywhere in North America-which gave full political rights to public servants, was introduced by the CCF Government of Saskatchewan in 1946 under the leadership of Tommy Douglas. Since then there have been numerous occasions when employees of a Crown corporation or a provincial government Department in Saskatchewan
Public Service
obtained leaves of absence to take part in an election campaign for the Parties which operated in the Province. When the legislation was introduced, there were four Parties. All of them, without exception, were granted their leaves of absence and were able to return to their duties. To my knowledge, all of those employees performed their duties in a most conscientious manner, even though in some cases their private political views differed substantially from those which were held by the Government of the day. There is no reason to think for one moment that the same attitudes could not be held by federal public servants as those which have been held by public servants in the Province of Saskatchewan since 1946.
I submit that unless and until the Government makes a move to grant these rights-not privileges but rights-sooner or later someone will take the Government to court and the Government will lose. We should not wait for that to happen, because no matter what Government it will be, it will be an embarrassment.
I hope that Members on all sides of the House will agree that the legislation is long overdue and that we should pass it very quickly to ensure that the political rights of federal public servants are the same as those enjoyed by other citizens of the country. For many years, Members of Parliament from all Parties, as well as my own, have put similar legislation before the House. I hope that we will finally agree that it is time to do something about this matter. It is time that the rights which belong to all Canadians, including federal public servants, should be put in place.
This legislation will in no way infringe upon negotiations which are going on between the federal Public Service unions and the Government of Canada. In a number of cases the collective agreements are up for renewal. The legislating of political rights will not infringe upon those negotiations. I hope no one will attempt to use that argument to talk out this Bill.
It is somewhat embarrassing that this legislation is so long overdue and that a Private Member of the House is required to introduce it. There is the whole question of how political rights can be and should be exercised by members of the federal Public Service or employees of federal Crown corporations. It is implicit in the Bill that those political rights may only be exercised in a public manner, outside working hours. The same was applied to myself. When I was an employee of the private sector, I conscientiously carried out my duties during working hours and at no time did I practise partisan politics. When I was off duty, Sir, I did carry out political activities, even though my employer did not agree with my political views, but my employer always knew that at no time did I transgress upon his requirements of me when I was on duty.
I am confident, Sir, that all federal employees would act in just as conscientious a manner, if not more so. I am sure that none of these employees in the course of exercising their political rights, in their own minds and hearts, and in their time off duty, would ever allow that to infringe upon their duty when they were at work for the federal employer. I believe that
2178

February 8, 1985
Public Service
they would carry out their duties conscientiously and would not allow their own political views and activities to interfere with their work on behalf of their employer.
I believe it is a red herring when anyone tries to raise the argument that employees who work for a political Party and organize openly and publicly for a political Party which happens to be of the opposite view from that of the government of the day, would somehow or other not do their work properly when they were on duty. That is a specious argument, Mr. Speaker, and it is totally unfair to the federal employees of this country.
I hope, Sir, that Hon. Members on all sides will agree that it is time to make the appropriate amendments to the legislation as put forward in my Bill so that we will once and for all get rid of the stigma which has been attached to the statutes of this country for too many decades, a stigma on the democratic process and the democratic rights of all citizens of this country. I hope, Sir, that I will have the support of all Hon. Members in my endeavour to have this Bill passed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House so early in the session. Usually this matter comes up during election time only. We have four years ahead of us, at least some of us think we have four years, and I believe it is appropriate that this subject matter be studied by the House.
It is a difficult question which has begged to be resolved over the last many years, and I hope that at least we will be able to come to grips with it. Hon. Members will recall that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, for example, every time he comes before a committee of this House-at least in the last four or five years that I have had the pleasure of chairing some of these estimates committees-repeatedly asks Members of Parliament to clarify Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. His duty in interpreting Section 32 has created some difficulties, for example, during the last election campaign, not only for the Commission but also for public servants. The Commission is charged with the interpretation and the application of the Public Service Employment Act, which does, in my view, have some very grey areas of interpretation.

Bill C-216, to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, has some explanatory notes which are quite clear.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide public servants-
-with some exceptions, obviously-
-with the right to engage in political activity as may any other Canadian who is not a public servant, and to be a candidate at federal, provincial and territorial elections.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill contains one exception, as far as I can see, that would prevent deputy heads of departments, in Clause 6(2) which reads ... other than-
(6) Nothing in this section permits a deputy head to engage in the activities described in this Bill.
To my mind, the Bill does not go quite far enough in excluding only deputy heads, and I shall try to explain within the short time available to me why I think we should perhaps consider the arguments set forth by wellknown commissions such as the D'Avignon Commission on the merit principle, which, as the House will recall, submitted recommendations on the important issue of political activity.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the Bill has been considered in the House. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) mentioned as many as three times. To me, considering this Bill or a similar one and proposing amendments has always been a worthwhile cause, but because of problems occasionally arising in connection with election activities, the House has preferred to refrain from acting on these proposals. I hope we shall proceed as the Hon. Member suggested and refer the subject to committee for study and consideration, so that the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates responsible for examining this Bill will be able to reach certain conclusions that will eliminate any doubts as to the interpretation of Section 32 of the Act.
Mr. Speaker, in 1982 we adopted a charter of rights, which contains, in Sections 2 and 3, a number of specific rights and fundamental freedoms. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for instance, reads as follows, and I quote:
2.	Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of
the press and other media of communication;
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.
Section 3 may be more important in this context, and I quote:
Democratic Rights
3.	Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
That is the Charter, that is the Canadian Constitution which gives Canadians the right to be candidates, to come forward and be active in an election, and I think that the Hon. Member for Regina West was right when he said earlier that the day will come when somebody will test Section 32 of the Act before the courts, and it could then prove to be an embarrassment for a Government to be told that it is violating the Canadian Charter of Rights.
Mr. Speaker, using the British system as a model, the D'Avignon Report suggested very clear and very specific provisions for dealing with and solving the problem of political participation. I urge Hon. Members to read the four short but very explicit pages of the report of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Principle of
February 8, 1985

Merit and carefully read the remarks made by the Commissioners.
I will not take the time of the House to read all that, but I see in that report 12 or 13 very specific recommendations as to how to implement that recommendation.
It was simply a matter of allowing federal public servants, those who are not employed in an advisory or counselling capacity, or who have no responsibility for developing specific Government policies, all those who are at the administrative services or support level, those in the professional groups, of allowing those people to fully participate in the election process. This is only fair in my view. Of course, and here I may disagree with the Hon. Member for Regina West, senior executives, people who directly advise the Government, should be excluded in my view, from all levels of the political process.
Let us not be mistaken about that. One cannot, on one hand, give professional political advice to a Government and, on the other, divorce oneself from that context and criticize, even when one is at home, at work or among relatives. In my opinion, it is imperative to restructure that right or those arrangements so that public servants who are not expected to give political advice to the Government be free to participate and enjoy full freedom. However, if they have a political role to play in the full meaning of the word-give advice, make assessments and draft policies-I think they should not be allowed to voice criticism and be politically active because there might be a conflict of interests, obviously.
The recommendation of the D'Avignon committee or commission was echoed by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada which, in a brief entitled "Parliamentary Dialogue 1984", made recommendations of its own. Only three of those relate to this issue, and I think it might be a good idea to put them on the record of this House. I quote from this "Parliamentary Dialogue 1984":
We recommend that a special parliamentary committee be struck to draft legislation with the following objectives:
1.	Grant full political rights to public servants (in line with the D'Avignon committee recommendations).
2.	Indicate to all public servants, in clear and specific terms, to what extent they are allowed to be politically active, regardless of the category to which they belong, according to the D'Avignon report.
And I think that the third recommendation is just as important, Mr. Speaker:
3.	Extend full freedom of expression to public servants so that they may speak openly on public issues, whether or not such issues directly concern the Government.
I have some reservations about this one, but I quite agree with the first two recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, the scope of the Bill under consideration is clear enough and, as I said earlier, it might be referred to a parliamentary committee for further study. At the end of my remarks, I may have a suggestion to that effect to help Hon.
Public Service
Members, or to expedite the process and make it possible to refer this Bill to a committee.
Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) about another matter of vital importance to public servants. It was, of course, the very serious problem of classification standards. In his answer, the Minister touched on the six issues he was negotiating with the public service staff associations. Among those issues was indeed political participation. He did not say that in the House but outside the House, and it was reported by the media, the radio in particular, yesterday morning on CBO Morning. Although I asked the question today, the Minister was not in the House, unfortunately, and I got an answer from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). But I am not satisfied with the answers I was getting to my inquiries, which were very clear. Evidently the Minister of Finance is not able to give me much specific information as to what exactly is being negotiated. Nevertheless, 1 find it gratifying and somewhat-


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: It might be a problem of understanding.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What was that remark?
Nevertheless, I find it gratifying that the President of the Treasury Board is negotiating the subject matter with the staff associations and, in his own words, is making very interesting progress on all six issues. I guess that means we have an agreement forthcoming on the important question of political participation, as well as that of the dental plan, classification standards and other issues.
To my amazement the staff associations had not heard of these encouraging statements or of the progress because they believed the negotiations were taking place in camera. Since the Minister was so forthcoming to me on Monday in telling me that he was very enthusiastic and encouraged by these developments with the unions, I say quite candidly that they were quite pleased with this progress, and they said so publicly on radio yesterday morning. Indeed, they think now that the Minister has agreed to their requirements and that shortly he will make public the agreement on these six difficult and, I think, important issues. No details have been given of the nature of what has been agreed to, but even the staff associations, as I am sure all Members in the House, will appreciate the Minister's coming to the House and making a statement clarifying his Government's position.
Surprised? Yes, many of those issues are complex. Classification is a very complex issue, as are political rights in their solution. I only hope that the Minister will see fit to bring the Parliament of Canada into the process of studying whatever proposal he has elaborated which he will be offering to the staff associations for negotiation. I say that advisedly because I think we would like to know about the dental plan and the cost of these things. We would like to know exactly what is in the offing for our public servants.

February 8, 1985
Public Service
1 said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill being proposed this afternoon by my good friend from Regina West has, in my opinion, one glaring flaw.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I knew you guys were together.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Did you want to speak, Paul?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I said I knew you guys were together.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well, he proposed the Bill, not you. So I am talking to-


Paul Wyatt Dick: You said, "Your good friend".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, he is my good friend. Like you, I think.


Paul Wyatt Dick: What time is that?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: From time to time. I won't go to Calabogie anymore.
1 think, Mr. Speaker, justice would be done as well as seen to be done if we were to agree here this afternoon, and I include my good friend from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) in this, that we would like to see this matter studied further by a committee of the House. With the agreement of the Hon. Member for Regina West, I would like to propose this motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the
Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights) be not now read a second
time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject
matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous
Estimates.
I see that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) seconds this motion, and with that I will sit down, hoping that we have the agreement of all Members of this House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House has not even had an opportunity of speaking to this Bill. I think it would be premature to move a motion such as that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is open for debate.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I can only indicate that at this time, and only because it is at this time, the Government does not feel the matter should go to committee. We think it is premature only because it is now being discussed in another forum and we do not think it should be discussed in two forums at the same time. They are in the midst of difficult negotiations, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) indicated. These are very dicey topics. It is only for that reason. However, I think other people in this Party would like to participate in this debate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much the comments just made by the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). I would ask Members of the Government to reconsider very seriously the statement he made suggesting that it is premature to have the subject matter of this Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I say that very seriously. I respect what he said and what my friend from the riding of Ottawa-Carleton has been telling me as well. He indicated that there is some fear that an early consideration of this subject matter by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates may jeopardize negotiations now under way, which is essentially what the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton said as well.
I have taken this issue very much to heart since I became a member of the Ontario legislature. When I was a member of another Parliament I put forward Bills on this subject. I said I would fight on this issue here in the House if I was elected. I think that there would be no objection by my Party if, once the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, it was held back for a month or two in the hope that concrete results would ensue. I would like to make that suggestion and I ask members of the government Party not to talk the Bill out and thus prevent the motion for referral of the subject matter from coming to a favourable vote.
I had the opportunity of speaking directly with one of the leaders of the public service unions involved about this matter several weeks ago after the initial discussions between The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the public service unions. I was updated on this subject less than 24 hours ago. My information is that while the subject matter has been raised, by no means does it indicate that a specific proposal had been put forward which is the subject of negotiation. Only the most preliminary indication has been given that the Treasury Board is prepared to consider the possibility of having discussions with representatives of the public service unions. There is nothing more than that, Mr. Speaker. That would indicate to me that at this point negotiations are not actually being engaged in.
From time to time I battle in caucus for the opportunity to question the President of the Treasury Board on this subject. Unfortunately I have not been able to. In the fall, when I had the opportunity to do so, he was travelling and I could not raise the issue with him at that time.
I appeal to members of the Government not to block this motion at this time. This Bill came forward with relatively little notice due to the parliamentary calendar. However, through our House Leader we have been in touch with the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) since this morning seeking to give advance notice to the government Party that this was coming forward. We indicated that we would certainly be willing to have the matter referred.
February 8, 1985

I welcome the motion of the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I regret the fact that my predecessor, the Liberal Member for Ottawa Centre, who sat in the House for five years, never supported this particular measure. In fact, the last time this Bill was before the House of Commons he was instrumental in talking the Bill out, despite promises made by the Liberal Party prior to the 1980 campaign that it favoured political rights for public servants. I respect the position of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. I hope he will be successful in ensuring that that is the position of the whole of his Party. It is certainly the position of my Party.
I could talk about this issue at length, Mr. Speaker. It was a major issue in my campaign. I argued for it very strongly, and I think the people in my riding responded. They believed that the vast bulk of public servants could and should have political rights like any other citizen. That is what was called for in the passage in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a few weeks a court case which I launched during the election campaign in conjunction with four members of the Public Service to test the constitutionality of these restrictions will in fact come before the Federal Court of Canada.
I would like to conclude by appealing once again to Hon. Members in the government Party. I would like to remind them of the pledges which were made by the Progressive Conservative Party in the responses that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sent to the public service unions when they asked for his Party's position on political rights. The Progressive Conservative Party's response to the Public Service Alliance was quite unequivocal. It reads:
The PC Party favours a general removal of the restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants covered by collective agreements. These restrictions are unnecessary and may not be justifiable under the terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are some senior public servants whose job responsibilities are very political in nature, and whose rights should be somewhat restricted to prevent conflict of interest, but we are confident that these people could be covered separately, without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process.
I am essentially in agreement with that position. I believe that position is in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By referring the subject matter of this Bill to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates we could in fact seek to put flesh and bones on that particular issue. If negotiations with the public service unions come to conclusions, the parliamentary committee could consider what was achieved in those negotiations and provide input and advice.
In its response to the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the Progressive Conservative position was even more explicit. In the summer, the Prime Minister said:
We believe that this matter should be addressed by an all-party parliamentary committee in consultation with public service organizations, and we believe the situation can be quickly resolved. Much of the work, after all, has already been done as part of the D'Avignon Report, but the current Government has not demonstrated the political will necessary to implement the long-overdue changes.
The present Government has been in power for close to five months now. I believe that there is sincerity on its side in seeking to resolve this issue in a positive way in accordance with the promises which were made. I remind Hon. Members
Public Service
opposite of the very explicit promise that this matter should be addressed by an all-Party parliamentary committee in consultation with public service organizations. I have had that kind of consultation already and have been encouraged to have the matter sent to a committee.
I would ask Hon. Members to carry through on the promise that their Party made in the course of the election campaign. They should bear in mind that the timing of the consideration before the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates can be varied relative to any negotiations which would take place. They should bear in mind that because of the Private Member's calendar it may not be possible for one of our Members to bring this matter before the House again for some time. I do not think the matter should be bottled up when there is an opportunity to carry through on a promise made during the election campaign by my Party and also by the Party of the majority of Members in the House.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for his confirmation of the sincerity of the Government in wanting to improve the political rights of public servants. I raised the matter myself during my own election campaign, and this is why I want to support the comments made by my colleague for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). The problem is that the discussion of this issue with the unions is now underway. It is therefore a sensitive issue. We do not want to jeopardize the negotiations. In addition, this subject will certainly come back on the floor of the House because of the limited number of Private Members' Bills on the Order Paper at the moment. Moreover, other Members have introduced Bills on the same issue and they will certainly be debated soon. It will act as a safety valve thus serving the same purpose as was proposed by the Hon. Member when he suggested that the subject matter be referred to a committee in case the negotiations with the unions are not successful.
However, as this subject will be discussed during the debate on other Bills on the Order Paper and as this Bill might even come back to us in a short time, which has already happened in the case of other Bills as the list of Private Members' Bills is not that long for the moment, I simply want to ask the Hon. Member to be patient and let these tricky discussions between the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the unions run their course.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-216. The Bill raises a very important subject. The purpose of this Bill, which is to give political rights to civil servants, is also an important part of this Government's agenda. However, such rights will have a tremendous impact on the way our Public Service is perceived and the way it is in fact run.

February 8, 1985
Public Service
1 see the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is shaking his head. I do not know how long he has lived in Regina but if he was there in the late forties, as I was, he will recall that the CCF Government at that time introduced political rights for civil servants in that province. While I commend that move, it was done in a rather heavy-handed way. There was much discussion throughout the province about the viability of the method of granting political rights, and I recall that there was a large movement to join the socialist Party because the bureaucracy and the Civil Service were frightened for their jobs. The implementation of political rights for civil servants was not done properly, and I would not want to see that happen with our federal bureaucracy. That is why I would ask that the House use caution and prudence in dealing with this subject-matter.
Certainly we should not forget the history of our Civil Service and its relation to political activity. More than 75 years ago, Parliament, through the adoption of a system of recruitment and selection based on the merit principle, eliminated political patronage in the then Civil Service. I do not believe that should be jeopardized by Bill C-216.
I am sure that Conservative Members of Parliament who have many civil servants in their ridings will fight vigorously to obtain political rights for their constituents. The Conservative Party has gone on record that it will do so. However, I believe there is much work to be done before such a measure can be implemented.
It is my understanding that the Government is currently negotiating with the unions. I believe it is very important that the view of the Public Service unions be taken into account. I would encourage the House to give this Bill careful consideration before accepting all the contents of the Bill.
I refer particularly to Clause 3. While I can accept the legislation up to Clause 3, I have grave concerns about the profound effects of the removal of Subsection 39(2) of the present Act. That subsection reads:
(2) The Board shall not certify as bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, any employee organization that
(a)	receives from any of its members who are employees,
(b)	handles or pays in its own name on behalf of members who are employees,
or
(c)	requires as a condition of membership therein the payment by any of its
members of
any money for activities carried on by or on behalf of any political party.
I suggest that the ultimate effect of removing that subsection would be staggering. I believe there needs to be much more discussion before anyone would agree to exempt public service unions from demanding money from their members that otherwise might be paid to a political Party. In other words, the union could well become a political Party and an employee may have to join that Party to be in the Public Service. I find it rather disturbing for that to be in Bill C-216.
The Progressive Conservative Party also believes that some relaxation of the current restrictions on public servants' political rights should take place, particularly for those covered by collective agreements. Indeed, it will be very important that
the views of the public service unions be taken into account, as well as those of the Canadian public before the Government finalizes its own views in this important matter. Any proposal will need to take into account the long-standing traditions of our Public Service and reflect the particular needs and desires of our present-day Canadian society and its concerns. We are all aware of the deep implications of the Charter of Rights in this respect.
In our society it is important that all citizens have a voice in the affairs of state and that as many as possible play an active part in public life. At the same time, public interest demands the maintenance of impartiality and professionalism in the Public Service, and of confidence in that impartiality is essential.
Members who have spoken before me have pointed out how important it is that policy advisers in the bureaucracy not criticize that advice outside of their working hours. It only makes common sense that not all members of the Civil Service could be politically active. I am sure that many civil servants throughout the country would agree with that.
I believe that by striking an appropriate balance in all of these important issues-which I believe this Bill does not-we can move on to ensure the political rights of our Public Service so that its members can take their full part in the democratic process in this great country.
Finally, I urge the House to use a great deal of caution and wisdom in supporting this Bill without a great deal of change.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been here nearly 17 years. I want to draw to the attention of the House that for the first time in my experience a Prime Minister has come in and paid some attention to Private Members' Business and to hear the debate among Private Members. I want the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to know that we appreciate it very much and we hope that it becomes a common practice on his part and serves as an example for any succeeding Prime Ministers, no matter whether he is here for four years or for 24 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We would all be grateful if the Prime Minister would now rise in his place and take part in the debate. It would be a precedent and something which I do not think has happened since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. Perhaps he could take part in the debate and tell his colleagues, as well as the rest of the House, that he agrees the subject matter of the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to second the remarks of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and indicate to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that I appreciate the fact that he did not rise in his place, thus giving me the opportunity to speak on this Bill. That was truly gracious and I much appreciate it.
February 8, 1985

I am also proud to stand in this corner of the House and be able to look at my Prime Minister because I know, with a sense of conviction, that one thing which motivates him is his concern for the working man. His entire career is an example of that.
I was also proud this summer to be part of a political Party which had in its political platform a genuine commitment the extension of the political rights of public servants. That will be done by this Government during this term of office. 1 thank the Prime Minister for that political platform. It was a pleasure to run on it, and it will be a pleasure to see that happen.
Also, as I stand here today, I am puzzled because one fundamental thing that makes the country one of the best in the world, if not the best, is the fact that we have workers' rights, a history and tradition which is free and democratic and which includes the right to collective bargaining. The collective bargaining process is essentially one which involves the views of management and labour. They come together to argue so that an agreement can be reached which is acceptable to both parties. When it comes to the issue of political rights for public servants, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, that process is taking place. We have a process in place where representatives of public servants through their union are at the bargaining table with the Government in an atmosphere where issues can be resolved.
I was surprised the New Democratic Party came forward today and tried to indicate to the House that the judgment of Members of the House of Commons should supersede the collective bargaining process. It really invited us, by asking for the subject matter of this Bill to be passed on to committee today, to abrogate the rights of workers to participate in the collective bargaining process. It was much like asking us to legislate workers back to work. I find that very surprising, I really do.
We on this side of the House have a sincere and genuine conviction about the rights of workers. If a matter turns out to be unresolvable in the collective bargaining process and there is need for action on the part of the Parliament of Canada, it would be appropriate for the Government to bring forward a reference establishing a committee to look at that issue and that issue alone.
There are many new Members in the House of Commons, but I urge all Hon. Members to consider whether or not it is appropriate to pass this kind of subject matter on to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Essentially that committee is comprised of a group carefully selected by the nominating committee to look at budgetary matters such as budgetary consequences. Is it really the most appropriate group to look at issues relating to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and at political issues in terms of the image of the Public Service of Canada?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Read the Bill.
Public Service


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I hear the Hon. Member for Regina West. I have read it. What the Bill fails to do speaks eloquently about what was on the Hon. Member's mind. In his Bill he says that we should open up the rights all the time to virtually everyone in every circumstance.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, it doesn't say that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It really does. It does not deal with this issue as the British Parliament has dealt with it. The British Parliament has dealt with it in a manner satisfactory to those who work in its Public Service by establishing categories of public servants. Some categories, such as people who have jobs as file clerks and so on, have all the political rights and freedoms which the rest of us enjoy. However, people in very sensitive positions are classified somewhat differently because of the belief that if they were to exercise those rights, the rights of others would be affected. I bring to the attention of the Hon. Member the fact that there are three-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the importance of this debate, I would not like the Hon. member to overlook the reference to Section 32(6) in the Hon. Member's Bill, which in fact excludes deputy heads from the activities described and therefore makes the exceptions he is seeking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) knows very well that that is not a point of order but is, rather, a question of debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It excludes 70 people out of a quarter of a million. If that is not virtually everyone, I do not know what is.
I bring to the attention of that Hon. Member and others that many public servants are, on behalf of all of us, in positions which require very sensitive decision-making. Let me use as an example a position which may appear simple on the surface, such as that of an immigration officer who basically has to make a decision whether or not someone is an acceptable or desirable immigrant to Canada. If he or she were to be viewed by applicants as favouring people of a particular political persuasion, would that be in the best interests of the applicants or of the country? What about those who make regulatory decisions?


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about them? Your Party favours the principle of the Bill. It said so in the campaign.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This Party favours the principle of the Bill that political freedoms and rights for Canadian public servants be extended as broadly and as securely as possible forever, so that a wrong which has existed for over a hundred years can be corrected. However, today, in February of 1985, this Party says to the House that representatives of public servants are at the bargaining table with the Treasury Board. The best and most knowledgeable representatives in terms of the sensitivities of their jobs are public servants. On this day this House should

February 8, 1985
Public Service
not interfere with that process. We either believe in it, we either believe in the rights granted those workers, or we do not. The Progressive Conservative Party, the Government of Canada, in February, 1985 believes in that process and believes in those workers. We think the matter will come to its proper resolution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The hour allotted for consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, February 11, 1985