1985-06-18

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 17, consideration in committee of Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority-Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of State (Finance))-Mr. Danis in the chair.
The Chairman:: Is the Hon. President of the Privy Council and Government House Leader seeking the floor on a point of order?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No, Mr. Chairman. I just want to carry on with the debate.


Marcel Danis: House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority. When the committee was interrupted at nine o'clock p.m. on Monday, June 17, Clause 2 of the Bill was under consideration and the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate had the floor.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Chairman, it is unacceptable for the Government of Canada to be cutting 3 per cent from the pensions of our senior citizens. Furthermore, what the Government has been saying over the last couple of weeks and what the Prime Minister has been saying over the last couple of days is also unacceptable. The Official Opposition has put forward its position very firmly. We are saying that if senior citizens have to suffer by losing 3 per cent of their pensions, then so be it, let the Government of Canada suffer by losing 3 per cent of its borrowing authority.
Therefore, I move:
That Clause 2 of Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the words "eighteen billion, two hundred million dollars" and substituting therefor the words "seventeen billion, six hundred and fifty-four million dollars".


Marcel Danis: The committee has heard the terms of the amendment. The Chair finds the amendment in order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise to respond very briefly to this amendment and to indicate, unfortunately, what has happened with respect to it. When we look through all the political rhetoric which has gone into the presentation of this
particular amendment, we discover that the Opposition is now suggesting that there be a limit with respect to very clearly laid down, unprecedented borrowing authority legislation which has come before the House in an appropriate manner, as we brought down the Estimates with respect to the spending requirements of the Government of Canada. A proposition with respect to the borrowing requirements of the country was brought in within two days of the Budget in order to ensure that essential services can be provided by the Government of Canada through a borrowing authority. This particular borrowing authority is justified on the basis of the statistics provided within the Budget and the Estimates which have been laid before the House.
On occasion, the Opposition attempts to make political points. As we in the House of Commons say, this is a political forum, but let us consider the effect of this particular amendment. By virtue of this particular amendment, the Official Opposition is saying that every person who relies on expenditures through the federal Government will be cut by 3 per cent more than is now required by the Government of Canada to carry on under the terms of its Budget. It is saying to the people of Canada that they will be cut more. It is saying to Canadians who rely on payments, subsidies, grants and a variety of things, that they now have to take a reduction. These are the same Members who are complaining about a process under which the Government will modify indexing in the future and which, we say to the people of Canada, we are monitoring on an ongoing basis. The Opposition says: "No, cut the poor right now". This goes right to the people in society least able to defend themselves. The Opposition is now saying: "Cut the amount of money you are now spending on the poor of the country". This is the effect of its amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ms. Copps:: Cut the Prime Minister's budget.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When we get down to it, this is exactly what the Opposition is saying. It is saying to the people of Canada, who can least afford it-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Cut the expense accounts.


Marcel Danis: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The poor of the country-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Cut the $19,000 trip to Vancouver.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will call for order.

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act


Marcel Danis: Order, please. I ask Hon. Members to listen to the Hon. President of the Privy Council.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The people of Canada are concerned-and I have received many complaints about it-about how the Liberal Opposition is so rowdy, its lack of decorum, and the way it disrupts proceedings in the House of Commons. This is something on which Canadians across the country have written to me. We in the Government have sat and listened to the representations on the part of the Opposition. We have tried to listen in silence while opposition Members made their points. We believe in free and democratic debate. However, when the Opposition resorts to barracking and to shouting down speakers on the government side who have a right to participate-
[DOT] (mo)


Sheila Maureen Copps: Tell the truth to the Canadian people.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is the worst offender. The barracking that goes on by that Hon. Member is unacceptable.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Tell the truth to the Canadian people.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I say to the people of Canada that this is the kind of representation they have in the Liberal Party. Liberal Members do not believe in free and unfettered debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We believe in the truth.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They believe in shouting down anyone who tries to put forward a position with which they do not agree. Their response is not to debate the issue but to try to shout down the speaker. That kind of attitude does a disservice to the democratic institution of the House of Commons, an institution which we all respect. I would hope that Hon. Members of the Liberal Party would simply allow the freedom of speech which we in this country hold so dearly to our hearts.
If I can carry on without Liberal Members trying to shout me down-


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Surely it is noted by all of those who are present today that the Government will not even listen to, let alone meet with, senior citizens. The bombast of the President of the Privy Council is exceeded only by the hypocrisy of his comments.


Marcel Danis: That is not a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member has been around the House for a couple of years. He will understand that not only is that not a point of order but it is a complete misstatement of the facts. I will not even comment on the statement he made because I must be touching a sensitive nerve. The only nerve that I know the Hon. Member has is the nerve that goes to his mouth. I must be affecting that nerve because he is responding in a rather curious and unparliamentary manner.
What I have said about the effect of this particular motion is, I think, quite clear and would make sense to anyone who understands basic arithmetic. Opposition Members have simply indicated to the poorest people of this country that they are not going to be allowed to have the services that will be provided for by this borrowing Bill.
What is a borrowing Bill? It is like running a household-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You're stalling while your Members come in.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, again Liberal Members refuse to listen. Could I have some order, Mr. Chairman? They refuse to let people speak on the floor of the House of Commons. They refuse to listen to reason.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We haven't heard any.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to reason with Members of the Liberal Party because I think that there are Members of that Party who can listen to reason and who will be silent enough to allow free and unfettered debate to take place on the floor of the House of Commons. I know there are some who will not try to disrupt the proceedings of the House of Commons by constantly shouting, something which is so repugnant to the people of Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're repeating yourself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply want to appeal to the reason of Hon. Members and say that we-


Mr. Gauthier:: You said just about enough.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We on the government side have tried to bring reasonable management into the affairs of this Government. I think this is a situation which has been acknowledged by the people of Canada. With the proper sense of responsibility for the taxpayers' money, we have attempted to bring forward a full and complete accounting with respect to the affairs of the country.
We have in fact dealt with the question of a borrowing Bill after bringing in a full, complete and massive Budget. Now the Official Opposition is moving a motion which has the effect of slashing the amount of money that the Government is able to borrow in order to bring essential services to the poor of this country. I appeal to the sense of compassion of Hon. Members.
What has happened to the Liberal Party? I know that Liberal Members suffered an enormous electoral defeat, but I look back to the proud tradition of the Liberal Party over the years-


Mr. Boudria:: Frank Miller knows what that feels like.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In the Liberal Party, there was compassion for the poor and there was no preoccupation with politics, with cheap shots and with the rat pack mentality. I appeal to the real soul of the Liberal Party, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who I think is an honourable man, to show some leadership. I know this is a difficult time within the life of the Liberal Party, but what is the Leader of the Opposition
June 18, 1985

allowing his back-benchers to do? There is no way that this motion should be allowed to carry, but if it were carried, they would be punishing the minorities of the country because there would not be the necessary funds to ensure that employment opportunities are available for women in programs of the federal Government. Through this very unfortunate amendment they are attacking the people who are least able to defend themselves.
I am the first to acknowledge that the Liberal Party has had some success in social policies in the country. To see what remains of that Party moving a motion which will have the effect of adversely impacting on-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What hypocrisy! How can you speak this way?


Marcel Danis: Order, please. I ask hon. Members to listen please to the President of the Privy Council.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1 appreciate the fact that you are so often required to bring the Liberal Party to order. We in the House must look seriously at decorum and the impression that people of Canada have of this institution. That impression is negatively impacted by the Liberal Party which knows nothing of debating on a serious matter, but rather spends its time trying to shout down people who are appealing to common sense, such as myself.


Mr. Rossi:: You can't even say that with a straight face.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Official Opposition should be ashamed of itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have been around the House for a little while and have been in the Opposition for an unfortunate period of time. However, it is this kind of tactic, irresponsibility, and attack on the poor of the country, that will ensure that the Liberal Party remains in opposition for the next 25 or 30 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the intervention of the Hon. Government House Leader. In his attempt to lecture us he has overlooked a very important point, which is not unusual in his myopic approach to politics. He has inadvertently, or perhaps inaccurately, accused us of slashing borrowing authority. He does not seem to realize that the Liberal Opposition is putting pressure on the Government at the first opportunity available for us to do our job and to speak up. Contrary to what the Government House Leader said, we have listened to the signals that we have received from pensioners across the nation.
As the weeks pass, it becomes quite clear that this is an important issue of national dimension. On May 23, the Minister of Finance said that there would be deindexation. He did not say that there may be deindexation; he said that there
Borrowing Authority Act
would be deindexation. He also said that there would be deindexation of family allowances. He did not say that there may be deindexation of family allowances; he said that there would be such deindexation. Now all of a sudden, the Prime Minister is saying that that was just a proposal and that we should not be upset. He says we should not interpret "will" as meaning "will", that it may mean "may". For the first time in recent history the Budget is no longer a Budget. It is something which ressembles a White Paper. The pensioners of Canada and those who are approaching that time of life are thinking that perhaps they should not take seriously what the Minister of Finance is saying. Perhaps they should wait for potential statements from the Prime Minister. As every day goes by, the distance between those two gentlemen is growing.
If I were a Tory back-bencher, God forbid, I would have to ask myself what I would say to my constituents during July and August. Are they going to tell their constituents what the Minister of Finance said on May 23, or what the Prime Minister has been saying in the last few weeks? What is the true theology? That is the question facing 180 inexperienced back-benchers who will face the music when they go home. I feel sympathy for them because it is the first time in a long time that they will have to defend government policies. The people of their constituencies are wondering what on earth is going on.
An issue of national importance has emerged. The Official Opposition has seized the issue because it is its duty. If Conservative Members were in opposition they would be doing the same thing. We are asking the Government to diminish the amount of money which is requested in the borrowing authority Bill by the amount of the proposed deindexing. We are on our toes in the Official Opposition and we are putting pressure on the Government, at the first opportunity, with this amendment. That is what we are doing.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the other side of the House and it is interesting to see that there are only two members of the New Democratic Party here today-


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is the tradition of the House that Members do not draw attention to other Members who are at the time occupied in committee or elsewhere and are not in the House. I believe it is desperate behaviour on the part of the Hon. Member. If that is the best comment he can make in this debate, it is a sad state for the Progressive Conservative Party.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap is correct. The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River has the floor.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Chairman, 1 apologize. If the Hon. Member had heard me out, he would have realized that 1 simply wanted to be polite to him. I wanted to point out how infinitely logical are members of his Party and how illogical are members of the Official Opposition. What members of the

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
Official Opposition should have done, in pursuit of their objectives-namely to reindex seniors' pensions-was to have suggested that we increase the borrowing authority by 3 per cent, not decrease it-


Brian Vincent Tobin: It cannot be done.


Frank Oberle: I feel obliged to point out the logic. Borrowing authority provides the Government with the opportunity to meet its obligations. These obligations are not just to senior citizens, they are, in the main, to bankers because of the spendthrift activities of the previous Government during the last 20 years. What those Hon. Members opposite are doing by asking us to decrease the borrowing authority of the Government-and the bankers, of course, will want their pound of flesh-is to decrease the Government's ability to meet its obligation to the poor, because we will be paying the bankers and our other statutory obligations to the provinces.
What those Hon. Members should have done, if they had wanted to be responsible and if anything else but their selfish political motives had motivated them, would have been to increase the borrowing authority with the view to the Government's proceeding with the reindexation of pensions. We could have debated that logically. But what they have done now, if in fact their motion carries, is to make it necesssary to renege on other social programs, because that is the only thing we can renege on. We cannot renege on our obligations to the foreign bankers. There is no money tree out in the backyard. These thousands of people who come from all across Canada and the United States are walking around these buildings thinking there are money trees out in the back. There are no money trees. The Government cannot give anything away that it has not first taken from somewhere else. Had it not been for the strange and irresponsible policies of the Liberal Government over the last 20 years, we would not be in this fix.
So I appeal to the Opposition's sense of fairness and logic. What it is doing makes absolutely no sense at all. What it should be doing is to increase the spending authority. Mind you, we would fight this. I speak to senior citizens as well. They built this country. They put us where we are. And something else they did throughout their lives is to have paid their bills, something which the Liberal Government did not do. Had it done that, we would not be in the fix we are in. The senior citizens who write to me say, "For God's sake, pay your bills because we don't want to pass our debts on to our grandchildren".
I appeal to the Opposition's sense of logic and fairness, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to think that it would withdraw this motion.
[ Translation]


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the debate on this amendment, I think it would be a good thing to explain clearly what the intentions are of the
Opposition and our reason for moving an amendment that seems to have taken our friends opposite by surprise.
Mr. Chairman, the reason is quite simple. Ever since a Budget we consider unfair and inequitable was brought down, we have tried in every possible way to make Government Members understand that in an enlightened society like ours, we cannot tolerate any attempt to reduce the deficit by making the rich richer and putting a greater burden on the neediest in our society, and I am referring to those people who only have their Old Age Security pension and especially those who have to live on that pension plus the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
We know that Canadians who are receiving the Old Age Security pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement are those who are living below the poverty line across this country. We cannot accept this, and we have said it a hundred times over. However, our efforts together with those of thousands of Canadians across the country do not seem to have moved the Government away from its determination to make people pay who cannot afford to pay.
That is why we are moving this motion this morning, in an attempt to make the Government take its own medicine so it will understand that a 3 per cent cut in income is not something to be taken lightly.
We realize the Government must meet its commitments. That is why it has tabled a Bill to seek borrowing authority, which means that the Government can then go to the financial markets and borrow the funds it needs for its operations. We think that if the Government does not realize what a three per cent cut in income means to the neediest in Canada, perhaps it will understand-although I am not so sure-when it has to take a 3 per cent cut in its borrowing authority, that a three per cent cut can hurt. And that is why we are taking this action.

We are just trying to impress on this Government that a 3 per cent cut when one is below the poverty line is unacceptable. And after repeating this hundreds of times it is obvious that we have not so far been able to push our message across. So we are trying, by a practical amendment, to let the Government feel the pinch of a 3 per cent cut, and that is the reason we are doing it.
When the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River, who is hurling invective at me, said earlier that there was no logic in what we are doing because if we had wanted to reindex pensions we should have moved an increase in the borrowing authority not a decrease, he proved that he does not understand the way this Budget and the borrowing authority work.


Frank Oberle: I understand how you work.


Jacques Guilbault: If you did, you would not have said that because the borrowing authority relates only to
June 18, 1985

this fiscal year and the pension cuts will be in the next fiscal year. So it is absolutely irrelevant whether or not the borrowing authority is reduced. It will have no bearing on the seniors this year. Open your eyes, wake up and read the Budget.
What we have been doing over the years under Liberal and Tory Governments is gradually and increasingly to build a sound pension system which could benefit and has benefited the citizens of this country, a system which has been the pride of Canada the world over. Even under Tory Governments the pension benefits were increased, but what is happening now? We see an attack on one of the basic cornerstones of the social network which protects the people of this country. We are not going to allow that to happen, as few in number as we may appear to be to those on the government benches.
Remember one thing: we are not alone on this side of the House. The NDP and the Liberal Opposition, along with thousands upon thousands of people across the country, are against this proposal. We have not raised this blockade, it was the people of Canada who have done it. We are not the ones who suggested to the three Atlantic provincial Premiers that they should speak against this measure; they did it by themselves. They certainly would not listen to Liberal advice because they are Tory Premiers. They thought themselves that it would not be acceptable to the people in their provinces. The Manitoba Legislature passed a unanimous resolution, including the Tory back-benchers, condemning this measure. [Translation]
The Quebec National Assembly has also adopted a unanimous resolution condemning this measure and asking the Government to reverse what it too believes is a case of flagrant injustice being prepetrated on the neediest in our society. Thousands of Canadians are opposed to this Scheme. And if that is not convincing enough, I would invite the Members opposite to stand in front of the Parliament Buildings tomorrow and watch thousands of people who will be demonstrating in favour of a reversal of the Government's decision.

Let me get back to the Budget and the reason we are opposing this borrowing authority. We ask ourselves: Where is the fairness in this Budget when you start cutting the benefits of those who need it most? When the time comes to cater to the rich of this country there is no barrier. The Government is offering them a lifetime deduction of $500,000 on their capital gains. Don't shake your head; read the Budget. It will benefit a very small segment of our society.


Mr. McDermid:: Nonsense.


Jacques Guilbault: Probably between 4 per cent and 6 per cent of our society.


John Horton McDermid: That is not true.


Jacques Guilbault: Why should these people get away with a bonanza when the poorest in our society are asked to bear the brunt of this Budget? We say that the
Borrowing Authority Act
Budget is not fair. It was said to be fair, but we found out it is not.


John Horton McDermid: Tell the truth for a change.


Jacques Guilbault: The Government promised to bring in a minimum tax on the rich.


Mr. Gass:: It is coming.


Jacques Guilbault: It is coming. That is my point. It was not in the Budget.


John Horton McDermid: It was so.


Jacques Guilbault: The Government is talking about it, promising it, but why would we on this side of the House believe the Government when it promises a minimum tax on the rich? It promised earlier not to touch pensions and to bring in full indexation. I wish the Minister of Finance, when he spoke of bringing in a minimum tax for the rich, had his hand on the Bible. Then maybe we would start believing him. Why should we believe him?


John Horton McDermid: Why should we believe you, a Liberal?


Jacques Guilbault: In Sherbrooke last summer, the Prime Minister was promising to reinstate full indexation, while in January, in the consultation paper on social services, the Minister of National Health and Welfare plainly stated that pensions will not be touched. That was in writing, but his hand was not on the Bible. This is what we will have to ask the Government Members each time they promise something, either to put their hand on the Bible if they are believers, or to make some sort of official declaration if they are not. How can we be certain the Government is going to follow through on its promises after we have seen what it has delivered over the past few weeks and months?
I say that the Budget is unfair because it is asking the poor to pay. The Budget brought in a surtax but not a minimum tax. What will happen to those hundreds of people who do not pay a cent of tax even though they have large incomes? A surtax on zero is still zero. It will bring in taxes from the middle-income people again, the poor and the middle-income earners, the two favourite targets of this Government.


Mr. Dick:: Those are the rules you broke as a Liberal Government.


Jacques Guilbault: What you are doing is taking more from those who need it most. More than that, now that the Government realizes that this thing may not wash, Members opposite are going across the country saying they are monitoring the situation. They are going to think about it and maybe they are going to do something. Well, I say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance that if they had in mind to monitor the situation until the end of the year and then maybe cut the indexing or maybe not, because that is the story we are getting now that this situation is getting hotter, then why write the proposal in the first place? It has been
5890

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
termed a proposal, not a measure anymore. Why write it in the budget documents in the first place? Why do the seniors spend sleepless nights in anxiety thinking that maybe their purchasing power is going to be reduced by $1,500 over five years? If the whole purpose of the exercise was to monitor the economy, then why do that? The Government could have left that out of the Budget completely. It could have monitored the economic situation, and if it thought at the end of the year there was reason to cut the pension indexation, it could have done so without having the seniors worry for months over what it was going to do.
What the people are asking themselves at this time is whether they are going to be cut or not. So why do it? 1 am going to tell Members opposite why it was done. I know why. Government Members thought they would get away with it. They thought that a powerful 211-Member Government on a honeymoon could steamroller just about anything they wanted on the backs of the poor of this nation. It so happens that it does not wash, so now they are toying with the idea that maybe they will back off and maybe not. We are just saying that while the Government is toying with this, we are going to give it a ride on the borrowing authority. We are going to make the Government feel the pinch of 3 per cent too. Maybe that will bring it back to its senses and make it do something sensible for the people who need it most.

Mr. Chairman, that is what we are trying to do by presenting this amendment. We are trying to make the Government understand that when people are strapped for cash and have to borrow-which is the position the Government is in-they are in exactly the same position as an elderly person who is strapped for cash and has to borrow to pay the rent.


An Hon. Member:: That is the truth!


Jacques Guilbault: It certainly is! And an elderly person in a situation like that certainly does not like to see his or her purchasing power cut by 3 per cent!
I think that when not a person but a Government is strapped for cash and has to borrow to pay for its daily expenditures, that Government is not particularly keen either to have its borrowing power cut by 3 per cent.
That is why we are trying it this way, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure it will work, but it might put a new light on the Budget and it might make the Government think a little today. Today, because tomorrow there will be thousands of people on the Hill in front of the Parliament Buildings. Those people will be bringing an entirely new dimension to this question, and in their own way they will be trying to make the Government review and reverse its decision on a measure that must be the most unfair proposal the Parliament of Canada has ever been asked to consider, at least in the last seventeen years I have been sitting in the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments as a result of the unexpected turn of events here today. Yesterday, in one of the comments that I was making about Clause 2 of this borrowing Bill, 1 suggested to the Minister of State for Finance that obviously the Government had come to the conclusion that it could live with reducing the purchasing power of senior citizens by 3 per cent. A number of Conservative spokesmen have said that they are concerned and did not like to do this but it is something that had to be done. They were confident that senior citizens would support this act of cutting 3 per cent from their disposable income in the years ahead.
When we put this into dollar and cent terms, assuming that inflation remains at the stable level at which it has been for the last number of years, which all projections indicate, a typical senior citizen in our country would lose approximately $ 1,500 of purchasing power over the next five years. It also means, as the finance officials have indicated, that 220,000 senior citizens will drop below the poverty line, as defined by the Government, in the years ahead.
The Government is saying that it supports the decision to reduce senior citizens' purchasing power by 3 per cent. It believes that seniors could live with this reduction, and it is prepared to impose that upon the people who built this country.
I appreciate the symbolism of the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Newfoundland in which he suggests that if the Government is going to ask senior citizens, as a special group, to take a 3 per cent cut, then it is not unreasonable to expect the Government itself to take a 3 per cent cut in this particular borrowing authority, which amounts to a little over half a billion dollars. Perhaps the Government itself should adjust its priorities as it has asked seniors to adjust their eating, travelling and day-to-day priorities. This motion asks the Government to adjust its expectations downward, just as it is asking senior citizens to do. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable expectation when one uses the same logic that is used by Members opposite.
Quite frankly, I have not been able to understand why there has not been outrage from Members opposite, particularly from the Hon. Member for Mississauga South who used to sit on this side of the House beside the NDP. I recall the time when he would become extremely animated in his outrage because of the discriminatory activities of the Government of the day against the oil companies. I admire the colour the Hon. Member brings to his speeches, as only he can. He went on for days and days during Question Period and in debates fighting for the oil companies because the Government, through Petro-Canada, was acting unfairly. The Hon. Member, along with some of his colleagues, convinced the Official Opposition at that time to shut down the House of Commons during the infamous bell ringing period incident because the oil companies were being punished. The Opposition at that time stayed out in the lounge and drank coffee,
June 18, 1985

talking about the importance of that act of symbolism. They believed it was important to close down Canada's Parliament in the best interest of the multinational oil companies.
While I understood their action at that time, for many reasons I did not believe it was appropriate. I did not think the priority of closing down the House of Commons to prevent free debate from taking place was appropriate. I did not appreciate the tactics because I thought they were rather dictatorial.
However, the Opposition at that time felt strongly about that issue. I cannot believe that Hon. Members opposite do not feel as strongly now about what the Government is doing to senior citizens in this Country. They are not like oil companies with headquarters in Houston and Dallas, Texas. These are hundreds of thousands of grandparents, mothers and fathers and relatives and friends who will have their disposable incomes cut.
The Minister of Finance termed these cuts within his Budget fair. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that this Budget is not fair. The Budget is punitive toward the poor of Canada because it raises taxes to the poor and middle-income Canadians while being a bonanza for the wealthy. I realize that some Members opposite smile at that remark, implying that I am wrong in that analysis. However, it is not my analysis but that of every financial analyst, business and academic economist in the country. The simple fact is that the wealthy benefit while the low and middle-income earners pay.
This country is in desperate need of leadership, as was shown when the people of Canada cried out for strong, decisive leadership in the last election.


Mr. Nickerson:: They have it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic says they have it. Let me point out to him that on budget night the Minister of Finance stated that starting on January 1, 1986, the Government will deindex pensions. That is what the Budget statement indicated, what the Minister stated, and I think Canadians believed him, coming as it did from the Minister of Finance who indentifies government policy. While many people, including myself, did not like this policy, it was a clear signal to the people of Canada. However, the Prime Minister stood up recently to say that the Government did not really mean it was going to do that but, rather, intended it as a proposal, an idea or a concept. In other words, it was a concept to which the Government was not committed.
What kind of leadership signal does that convey? On the one hand the Minister of Finance says that the Government will take certain action while, on the other hand, the Prime Minister says that the Government will monitor public opinion and the economy because this measure is only a concept.
That is not the decisive leadership demanded by the people of Canada at this time. It is not the kind of decisive and direct, strong leadership that Canadians said was needed. It is mum-bo-jumbo. Even if one makes a bad decision, I suppose people appreciate the fact that one believes it is correct. We have
Borrowing Authority Act
hung the poor Minister of Finance so far out on the limb that it does not matter what he does, he will fall off. If he does not, he surely should. Obviously the Prime Minister has no confidence in him. Obviously the Government of Canada has no confidence in him. I have not heard Hon. Members opposite leaping up in their places and saying: "Listen, if he does not fight for senior citizens, I am prepared to". They have been mute over there. I do not know where they stand on this particular issue.
When a Budget is brought in which cuts the expected increases to the OAS so that the purchasing power of senior citizens will be reduced next year, the year after and the year after, that, what happens to all those folk who are not senior citizens today? If a person is 50 years of age today, and if the Government proceeds with this policy, it means that he will not collect $37,000 in OAS over the term of his pension. It means that he will not be receiving $37,000 to purchase goods and services and so on.


Mr. Lewis:: If there is inflation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, if there is inflation. Considering that some countries are facing 1,000 per cent inflation, and considering that we have always had inflation in the last number of years, I suspect that this is a reasonable expectation.
I ask Hon. Members opposite to think about what they are doing today. They are saying to 50-year old people that they will introduce a policy on January 1 which will take $37,000 out of their pockets over the term of their retirement. They sit there and they take this. I do not understand how they can say that the Budget is a fair one.


Mr. Brisco:: To what age, Nelson?


Nelson Andrew Riis: To age 85.


Philip Derek Lewis: If you keep making those speeches, Nelson, you will never live that long.


An Hon. Member:: Is that the average age?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I have opened up-


Marcel Danis: Order, please.


Philip Derek Lewis: Come on, Nelson.


Marcel Danis: Order, please.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Hon. Members opposite should rise in their places so that people across the country can hear what they have to say. It is easy to sit there and snipe and yell, but they should rise to their feet so that the people of Canada can hear what they have to say about cutting the pensions of senior citizens.


An Hon. Member:: Wait until you sit down.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will be resuming my seat in a couple of minutes, but I hope some Hon. Members on the government side will

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
have the courage of their convictions to rise and speak. It is easy to snipe and yell across the aisle, and I do it myself, but I also rise to make my comments.
Before resuming my seat, I want to make one suggestion. If this particular amendment passes, it will cut a number of dollars from the borrowing authority. Yesterday we asked the officials of the Minister of State for Finance what the deferred corporate taxes were for last year. The answer we received is that they were somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30 billion, just under $30 billion, back in 1982. Something to consider, in terms of deficit reduction or obtaining more funds for social programs, is that the Government could levy a 10 per cent interest rate on deferred taxes so that corporations, instead of putting off their taxes year after year, pay just 10 per cent for that privilege. This would net us $3 billion this year. Then we would not have to worry about the 3 per cent cut to the increases in the OAS. It would even allow the Government to decrease the deficit somewhat. It would allow the Government other money, so that it would not have to impose user-fees in a number of federal areas. I step down, having made that modest proposal-impose a 10 per cent levy on deferred corporate taxes, which would result in a flow into the national Treasury of about $3 billion.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of this day an amendment was presented to reduce the borrowing authority by 3 per cent as a symbol to remind the Government of the onerous punishment which it has put upon the backs of senior citizens by cutting at a rate of 3 per cent of the increase in their inflation protection. This Party was trying to make one point. If the Government wants to talk about reducing deficits, then perhaps, through the symbol of cutting its spending, it would be induced, if it had 3 per cent less, to cut out some of the fat with which it has started to bloat since it became the Government in terms of patronage and of the salaries to people who were its back-bench supporters in the past. Perhaps it could cut away some of the people in the PMO which were added on, this huge number of extra employees. Perhaps it could cut back on some of the political commissars which have been placed in the offices of every Minister of the Crown in order to ensure that its particular interests are carried out for political purposes rather than in the interests of the Public Service, that is, to serve the people. It could cut in many places and be cut back to some kind of integrity. That 3 per cent might make government Members more honest.
When the Hon. House Leader rose to reply to the proposal to cut back government borrowing by 3 per cent, it was amazing that the first thing he said to the Liberal side of the House was: "You want to do this to the poor". Honni soit qui mal y pensel It is interesting that the Hon. Government House Leader did not think, when 3 per cent was to come off the Government's budget, of cutting the extra people in the PMO or of cutting patronage. The first thing which crossed his mind was obviously that if there was to be a 3 per cent cut, it would be on the backs of the poor. They would first select the poor as the targets, not the rich. It is interesting, is it not? Honni soit qui mal y pense\ In pointing the finger at us, the first thing he
thought he would have to cut as a result of a 3 per cent cut in borrowing would be the poor. That is all the Tories can think of-to cut the poor. They are their first targets.
Also it was interesting that the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River suggested that we should have proposed an increase in the borrowing rather than a decrease. First, the rules do not allow it. Obviously this veteran Member of the House does not understand its rules. The borrowing authority could not be increased by a proposal or motion from this side because it is not permitted. He was not interested in why we were introducing this proposal. He was trying to say that we were being hypocrites, when in reality the opposite was the case.
Also it is interesting that the Budget hits the poor and protects, and in fact gives a windfall, to the rich. The Budget offers a $500,000 lifetime opportunity in respect of capital gains. In effect, it is a gift of $125,000 in due course to everyone in the top 4 per cent of the population who invests in stock and makes other kinds of investments about which the remaining 96 per cent or 97 per cent of the Canadian population knows nothing. Instead of thinking about how they might fulfil their election promise that the rich who are paying no taxes would start to pay, they broke that promise.
We waited for nine months for this Budget to be tabled, but there was still nothing in it to ensure that the rich who had not been paying any taxes would now pay them. This borrowing authority Bill does not indicate the amount to be used for expenditures. It simply indicates the amount of money the Government will get. The Government could cut down its expenditures or increase income revenues by adjusting the Budget. The Government could introduce a Bill which would ensure that those who are paying no taxes would have to pay them from now on.
There is reason for us to be bemused and annoyed with the righteous indignation of the Hon. House Leader, who stands up in pious and pretended self-righteous indignation saying that we should stop trying to take 3 per cent away from the poor, when it is the Government that first wanted to take it from the poor. The seniors are asked to take a 3 per cent cut in the inflation protection which was introduced by the Liberal Government. The Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition introduced this measure to ensure that seniors would be protected. In the Budget, the Tory Government guarantees that the first 3 per cent of inflation will come off the backs of senior citizens. If inflation continues through the decades, as the Minister of Finance predicts it will, the first 3 per cent of inflation will be taken off the backs of senior citizens, and that rate will be compounded. It is tragic that the purchasing power of senior citizens will be threatened.
The Prime Minister said that nothing has yet happened to the senior citizens. That is a tragic way to speak to senior citizens. Something has happened to them, they are scared. Those who are too proud to ask for welfare or the GIS will fall deeper and deeper into poverty. Even with the GIS, they are
June 18, 1985

only receiving $7,000. In communities with a population of over 500,000, the poverty line is around $10,000. These people are already living $3,000 below the poverty line. Imagine what it means to senior citizens to be told that they will lose 3 per cent a year. The Prime Minister can say that nothing has happened to them yet and that perhaps the Government will change its mind, but the cuts are in the Budget and in its thoughts. The first thought of the Tories is to take away from the weak and give to the rich, the corporations, and the oil companies.
There was money in the Budget for the rich, but it was taken away from the seniors. The Government is also planning to take away from mothers. Think especially of what 3 per cent per year means to a single mother. The Government wants to take from those who cannot fight back, from the unorganized. The business lobbies are well organized, well-heeled, and have good lines of communication. The Government thought the seniors would lie down and take it.
Even those who have hesitated to become politically active realize that there must be some kind of morality in Government. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised the seniors that he would not take anything away from them. Now, in the first Budget, they have been betrayed. They feel this is too much. I challenge the Tory back-benchers to demand that these people be relieved of their anxiety now rather than during the summer when it would be easy for the Government to give some small token to the seniors to make them feel a little better. They are feeling bad and are worrying now. They want to be relieved of their anxiety and terror now.
Every Member of the House has received phone calls and letters from senior citizens. They know that what I am saying is true. They know of the anguish of the seniors and of the children who are worried about their parents. This is a matter of national concern. For the Prime Minister to say that nothing has happened to them is wrong. A lot has happened to them. They have been shaken up and threatened. Their futures have been put in jeopardy. To suggest another 3 per cent cut to those who are already living in poverty is drastic, tragic, and cruel.
The Government has also made promises with regard to the give and take proposal. Before and during the election campaign the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State promised that the Government would bring forward the give and take program to give charities a 50 per cent tax credit. That promise was broken. The Government broke its promise to charities, but kept its promise to oil companies. The promise to the oil companies was a sacred trust because the first priority of the Tories is to look after the rich. However, the charity organizations which serve the churches and poor people were fobbed off without any reference in the Budget. The former Tory Budget of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs at least contained a footnote indicating that the give and take proposal would be studied. There is not even a reference to it in this Budget. The promise which the Prime Minister made to the charity organizations of the country was broken, but money was found for the oil companies. That
Borrowing Authority Act
shows the sense of values of this Government. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Premier Buchanan said that this was politically unsound. They were told by Premier Miller that this was politically unsound. Yet they have the amazing audacity to think that they could put this one over on the Canadian people and that the Canadian people would accept it. To think that they can give money to the oil companies and a windfall of $125,000 to 4 per cent of the population, while taking away from the poor is sheer arrogance. It is arrogant to think that the people of Canada would stand for it.
I am sorry that I have to rise to speak in this way about the Government. It sounds as though 1 were over-simplifying the matter. I thought that perhaps there might have been some amelioration in the situation. The more I study the Budget and see its repercussions, the more I am amazed at the Government for giving to the rich and taking from the poor.
The Government took away from the charities. As well, it broke promises in other areas. It broke its promises to senior citizens. The Prime Minister promised that this would never happen. It broke its promises in terms of universality. It broke its promises to the charities of the country and its promises to the disabled and women. Just today, the press is reporting on how women's organizations are protesting that they too have been betrayed.
Is there no shame on the part of the Government? Did government Members think that because the Budget would come out in the late spring, the summer would soon come and they could escape scot-free? I hope the Canadian people will keep this very much in mind all during the summer. We can guarantee to them that when the fall comes, they will still be facing the same problems.
The fundamental problem is this: the Government had better decide that it must keep its election promises. It had better decide that if it wants to survive, it should listen to the people and care as much for the poor as it does for the rich.


Dave Nickerson: Listen to the expert on political survival.


Mr.   de Corneille@: I was very sorry to hear the Hon. Member for Simcoe North and the Hon. Member for Kootenay West indicate, while the member for the NDP was speaking, that they disagreed with what the member of the NDP had to say. He was saying the same thing as I am saying here, and that is, that it is not fair to take from seniors.
Do those Hon. Members want to rise to explain their position? I think the people of Canada would like to know about it. In fact, the people of Canada would like to know about the positions of many of the other members of the Conservative Party, including the Hon. Member for Western Arctic. Are those Members quite pleased with themselves, or are they going to recommend to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet at the next caucus meeting that action must be taken before the House rises for the summer? Are they going to recommend that the Cabinet take action by announcing to the seniors of the country that their cry has reached the Cabinet

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
and that it intends to do something about their suffering? Will they ask the Government to reinstate the 3 per cent that it has deindexed from the pensions? I hope that at the same time the Government will also reconsider its position on family allowances for those who are poor. As well, I hope the Government will listen to the voices in Atlantic Canada that have expressed their horror at what is being proposed by this Budget.
In Atlantic Canada, there are certain regional disparities and the area requires and depends upon federal transfers and grants. The people in Atlantic Canada are saying that the Budget will hurt their communities and particularly the disadvantaged ones. This is again another case of the federal Government's Budget being one that attacks those who are poor and weak who live in the disadvantaged provinces while giving to those who live in the wealthy provinces.
The Government's record is an amazing one. As the people of Canada study it, they will better understand the philosophy of the Tory Party. I understand even more clearly now after the Budget why I became a member of the Liberal Party. 1 hope that the Government will take steps that will take into account this motion to cut back government borrowing by 3 per cent and look at the way it is spending money on things that are fat and unimportant. I hope that it will give back that 3 per cent which is causing such anguish to the poor seniors.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pay tribute to the speech that has been given by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence. He has, in a very articulate and obviously passionate way, restated the kind of appreciation that he has from a human point of view for the anxieties and worries felt by senior citizens who are struggling to meet their commitments resulting from the Government's 3 per cent reduction.
The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence has perhaps seen more clearly and understands more clearly than most the mentality of the Government. He made a very important point when he said that the Opposition has moved a 3 per cent reduction in the Government's borrowing authority as a very symbolic gesture of the kind of arbitrary manner in which the Government is treating senior citizens. Speaking on behalf of all government Members, what does the Government House Leader say to that?
This motion would reduce the Government's borrowing authority by less than $600 million. In fact, the Government could cancel or limit capital gains exemptions to save that much money. However, what does the Government House Leader say? Does he say that this motion may require the Government to reduce the capital gains give-away? Does he say that this may require the Government to reduce by one-third the amount of money it is giving back to the multinational oil companies? Does he say that this will require the Government to return to the old levels the salaries of chiefs of staffs, of commissars and of Ministers, or to reduce office furniture budgets? Does he ask Ministers not to trade in their cars every six months? No, he does not.
What does the Government House Leader say as an immediate response to the motion to reduce borrowing authority by about half a billion dollars? He says that we will have to cut back on the poor, and he is speaking on behalf of 211 Members of Parliament who wear the Conservative stripe. He says that when there is any discussion of cutting back on government expenditures, we should cut back on the poor.
This 3 per cent reduction represents about a half a billion dollars. Half a billion dollars represents about one-third of the cost of giving $125,000 in cash gifts to the rich of this country. The 3 per cent reduction could be absorbed without cutting any social programs. The 3 per cent reduction could be absorbed, the capital gains provision could be scrapped and there would be a billion dollars left over to give to senior citizens. This could be done if the minds, hearts and souls of government Members were concerned with how the poor people of this country live. This could be done if government Members had any basic respect for the people who built this country. This could be done if government Members were not beholden to the wealthy economic interests as represented by multinational oil companies and banks and the kinds of people who bankrolled their Party in the last federal election campaign.
We have proposed this kind of measures because for the last three weeks, as we debated and asked questions about the Government's deindexation plan and as we listened to senior citizens of the country speak about it, our caucus met-and I am not supposed to tell secrets out of caucus-but there we indicated that we believed that the back-benchers, the rank and file of the Conservative Party, would make their voices heard. We believed that they would make their presence felt. We believed that even if the Cabinet, in some kind of kamikaze mission, saved the so-called honour of the Minister of Finance by not backing away and even if the Cabinet insisted on committing hara-kiri on public television, those backbenchers who had gone to talk to their constituents and to their own mothers, fathers and grandparents would have made their presence felt. We believed that those back-benchers would have made their presence and influence felt. We thought that during the past weekend at the special emergency caucus meeting of the Conservative Party, which was called to keep the caucus from disintegrating over the issue, the voice of the people of Canada as represented by back-benchers would be heard, and that it would not be the voice of Cabinet as represented by the Prime Minister that would carry the day. We thought there would be an announcement on Saturday or Sunday that the Government would move away from deindexing. However, it was not the voice of the back-benchers which carried the day. It was not the voice of those who truly have the power in Parliament-the majority of Members who sit on the back-benches. They were stifled. They were beaten back by the bullies in the Cabinet. They were told, in the name of the honour and prestige of the Minister of Finance, to bite their tongues.
I know Tory back-benchers. I know they are not happy. 1 do not have to ask them if they are upset. I do not have to ask them whether they agree. I know there are a substantial
June 18, 1985

number of Tory back-benchers who do not agree with the policy. I know them well enough to know that their voices were heard lound and clear at the caucus meeting. I know them well enough to know that they rose and stated their points of view. I know that they urged the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to do the right thing. Perhaps they are as shocked as I am to realize that not only will Cabinet not listen to the Opposition, organized groups in the country, the Chamber of Commerce, business institutions, social councils, provincial Premiers and provincial Conservative Parties, but that it also will not listen to its own back-benchers.
Reform of the House cannot come quick enough. We have a Prime Minister who ignored the pleas from his back-benchers on Saturday. That is no secret. He cracks the whip and tells them to sit quietly in their seats. There is something wrong. The biggest worry which the people of Canada had on September 5 was that there was too big a majority and that too much power had been placed in the hands of one man and his Cabinet. We have an administration which is a collection of 39 men and women who will not be policed by the voice of their back-benchers. We have a Government which has assumed the arrogance of a dictatorship. We have a Government which is made up of Members who believe that it is more important that they never have to say they are sorry because they are Tories. They will not relieve the senior citizens of the country of the burden of anxiety and the weight of not knowing whether in one, two, three or five years they will have not only Old Age Security payments, but security in their old age.
I find it incredible that the Government is asking for borrowing authority in the amount of $18.2 billion. It would take 18 Canadians spending $1,000 a day for 3,000 years, to spend that amount of money. We have proposed that it should be cut by 3 per cent. The Government has told us that it cannot do that because it has commitments and bills which must be paid. The Government is saying that we cannot arbitrarily cut its spending program by 3 per cent because it has commitments. What a brilliant defence! It sounds familiar. That is what the senior citizens of the country have been saying to the Government. The Government did not consult with them nor did it assess what would be the impact. It arbitrarily cut the budgets of senior citizens by 3 per cent. The senior citizens have told the Government that it cannot do that because they have commitments to meet. The Government responded by saying no. The Government tells them that they are happy to participate. The Government tells us that it has spoken to one or two senior citizens and that they are happy to participate. If that is not hypocrisy, what is?
The Prime Minister visited his riding. His staff spent several weeks trying to orchestrate carefully a good reception. They went into a poll which he had won overwhelmingly in the last election-Le Pionnier. His staff thought that Le Pionnier would be safe turf. The overwhelming majority of people in Le Pionnier, in the Prime Minister's riding, and in senior citizens' complexes, voted for the Prime Minister. His staff thought that it would be a safe media event. They thought it was a safe place for the Prime Minister to bring his presidential podium
Borrowing Authority Act
and his travelling troup in order to show the people of Canada, by way of a media event, that there is no problem with the deindexing measure.
This morning in The Gazette and in the French press we read that those senior citizens used very strong language to describe the Prime Minister. In fact, I am upset. I think it is terrible for senior citizens in the Prime Minister's riding to gang up on him. They used language which I would never use. They called the Prime Minister a liar. I do not accept that. Those senior citizens could have found another word to describe what the Prime Minister did to them. When they use that kind of blunt, honest and simple language, we cannot repeat it in the House. An 82-year old man, who voted for the Prime Minister, said that the Prime Minister had lied to him. Is that an indicator? Could we call that putting the finger on the pulse and discovering that people are not happy? The Prime Minister does not. He said that he was pleased with the warm reception which he received.
Tory back-benchers have a rare opportunity to show their constituents that, as well as being members of the Conservative caucus and the Prime Minister's soldiers, they have their ears tuned to what their constituents are saying. Tory backbenchers have the opportunity to show their constituents that they have their fingers on the pulse of life's blood as it beats through their constituencies. They should show their constituents that they are prepared to stand up and be the Members of Parliament for their ridings. They should be prepared once in a while to be the spokesmen to Ottawa and in Ottawa from their districts, rather than just people who spend time apologizing to their constituents on behalf of Ottawa when the Government loses touch.
The Government had better consider that it is being served notice now if its intention is to keep the Prime Minister busy and out of Ottawa, and to send the Minister of Finance on a two or three-week exotic travel excursion in Europe, and not have anyone in the House to answer questions. The Government is trying to bamboozle members of the Opposition. It is treating, with total disregard and disrespect, the senior citizens of the country who are asking for an answer. The Government had better assume that it has been served notice.
We in the Opposition have no intention of allowing this kind of charade and farce to continue. We will not allow this House, the people's House, to be turned into a charade while the Prime Minister totes around his presidential podium doing media events. There are 71 Members of the Opposition and a massive majority of 211 Members of Government. I warn those Members of the Government now that the eyes of the people of this country are upon all of us. They are weighing our actions and measuring our words. We are prepared to see that this place does not work at all before its works as a charade or merely as some kind of propaganda tool for a Government who sadly, after nine months in power, is so out of touch with the realities in this country.

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
While the senior citizens of this country organize, prepare their position and make their way to Ottawa to come face to face with Members of Parliament and this Government, what is the Government obsessed with? Is it obsessed with doing the right thing? Is it going to dig down deep and screw up its courage and backbone and say "We made a mistake and we'll correct it right away"? No, Mr. Chairman, it is obsessed with having the Solicitor General appoint his fine buddy in the RCMP to a patronage position. It is obsessed with having Mr. Byron, who has been apppointed to the advertising committee, name the firm of which he was vice-president until a few months ago, so it can give it four or five untendered contracts. The Government is behaving like a child too long denied access to the cookie jar and it is using the taxpayers' money in a gluttonous display of greed and petty villainy while it turns a deaf ear to the 2.5 million senior citizens of this country who are demanding not special treatment, but only that the system which gave them some measure of security in their old age be restored.
Members of the Opposition rose in their places last week and told Members of the Government that we would not demand the resignation of the Minister of Finance, that we would not ask for the head of the Prime Minister and we would go quietly into a summer recess if they would but admit what they are doing is wrong and move to immediately correct the situation. There was an unpartisan mood last week. There was a time in this House when no blood was being asked for and no one was measuring the Gallup poll. We were asking for simple justice and for a display of dignity, courage and concern for justice, but that was not forthcoming. This Government is stonewalling. It is determined to make a mockery of this institution until June 30, and then to adjourn this House. Those Members will go away for the summer, leaving seniors with the anxiety of not knowing what their fate will be.
I say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Government House Leader, who thinks if we have to cut $500 million, we have got to cut it from the poor rather than from Tory friends who are going to benefit from no capital gains tax, that the Government can easily take a few dollars back from the multinational oil companies. The Government can easily police itself and cut its extravagant spending on Ministers' offices, chauffeur-driven cars and high salaried politically appointed staff. It can make cuts to the Government jet aircraft which trounce all across the land carrying Members of the Government who are trying to sell something which is not saleable because it is not just. I warn the Government that if it continues to perpetrate this farce upon this institution, this institution will not be party to it.
It is the first responsibility of any Opposition to be the defender and scrutineer of the public purse when the public purse is being raided to provide $1.4 billion in windfall money to multinational oil companies, and when the public purse is being raided to give $125,000 to every wealthy Canadian, which is a gift from the taxpayers of Canada to those who can afford take advantage of no capital gains tax. That program is going to cost as much as the Government is taking away from
senior citizens, and the Opposition cannot sit quietly as Government reaches out and tries to pay for that giveaway by taking it from the group which is the most defenceless and which cannot speak for themselves, the senior citizens. If the Government believes it can roll this group like a mugger in a park and there will no outcry, then the Opposition cannot be silent. This institution will not function as a farce.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased to rise in my place and address the motion which was tabled earlier this morning by a Member of our Opposition Party. It is again unfortunate that the Government of the day has missed the opportunity to understand and take with a certain degree of seriousness and sensitivity the message, because it is a clear message. It is a message which is not necessarily coming from this side of the House. It is a message from the millions upon millions of senior citizens across this country who have been trying to communicate by phone, petition, rally, or whatever means they can. It is a message which the senior citizens are trying to articulate with some degree of sensitivity and compassion in order to make this Government understand that what it has done through its Budget measure in taking away three percentage points from the pensions is not only wrong fiscally but wrong morally.
We in the Opposition are trying to be a vehicle for the senior citizens. We are trying to bring to this Government the understanding that its decision is absolutely dead wrong and that it has an opportunity to correct that wrong by admitting
it.
Members of this Party have been told by senior citizens, and I was told specifically at a community meeting at my constituency office last Saturday, that the senior citizens are asking "How does the Government feel when it arbitrarily and immediately cuts our pensions and how would it feel if the money which it needs to operate the business of the day was cut just as immediately and arbitrarily". The message is clear. They are saying, "Why can the Government do it so easily to senior citizens?" I suppose they were thought to be a group which was unorganized and it would be easy to make the move. It was a move which was certainly not contemplated, perhaps, against the more elitist and organized groups of this country because as soon as we touch the bankers or the corporate community, they are there the next day, organized, financed and articulate, and the Government responds.
The Government thought, perhaps, that pensions was an area in which it could afford to save some money because our senior citizens are not organized, they are not articulate, and do not have the resources nor the energy to come to Ottawa and tell this Government it is wrong. However, the senior citizens are organized, they are articulate and they do have the moral compassion to stand up and be heard. It is that Government and Party that is wrong. It is that Party that does not have the courage to stand up and say they were wrong. It is a lesson the Government ought to learn.
June 18, 1985

This motion is another way of informing the Government that it ought to rethink this proposal. Government Members say we are practising the politics of fear. We are not. That fear came from page 17 of the federal Budget which says that we are reducing the indexation of their pensions. That is where the fear started and we are trying to dispel that fear. We are trying to tell the Government to admit it is wrong, do so quickly, and remove the fear so that the senior citizens can go back to living their lives without having to worry about whether the money they rely on will remain intact.
As my colleague indicated earlier, perhaps the Prime Minister and the Government do not see the other side of the tracks. Perhaps the Prime Minister prefers to view this country as a shining city on a hill. Well, that is true; we are a privileged society. We have a good country. But there is another side of the tracks.
There is another city, and perhaps this is A Tale of Two Cities which the Prime Minister cannot understand. From where he is standing perhaps he cannot see that other city, he cannot answer the calls we are getting and meet with the groups we are meeting with. He will not take the time to visit the senior citizens who might have $100 of discretionary income. He does not have a sense of what it means to be a senior citizen on a fixed income, an income now endangered by what the Government announced in this Budget. He does not see that other city, yet it is there. You can see it in the long line-ups at food kitchens and food banks. You can see it in the increasing number of shelters.


Mr. Blenkarn:: What absolute drivel.


Sergio Marchi: You can see it in the increasing number of people being added to the poverty roll. You can see that other city and it is useless to pretend it does not exist. It is useless to pretend that only the shining city on the hill exists. That city might exist here in Ottawa, but the country is larger than Ottawa. He should visit the senior citizen who is striving to live in some degree of comfort in Sault Ste. Marie. He should come to Toronto and visit the Humber Summit seniors in my constituency whose only luxury is to play cards on a daily basis. They cannot afford much else, but they are asking themselves and this Government: Why do it to us? Why take away $1,500 from us when you can get the money in other ways? What have we done to deserve this? We have worked for 30, 35 or 40 years in the expectation that our pensions would be intact. With the announcement of this federal Budget, we are changing the rules of the game after the game has started.
The message has fallen on the deaf ears of the Government. The first or second Member on that side to get up and respond to this motion talked about fairness, honesty and how the opposition was failing in both areas. I challenge that Member to show me the fairness and honesty of this Budget, specifically the proposal advocating partial deindexation of Old Age Security pensions.
Borrowing Authority Act
Where is the fairness, honesty and integrity of that proposal? Members opposite have a short memory. They fail to remember that several months ago they all fanned out across this country and said they would not touch the pensions of our senior citizens. They would not ask those people to bear the burden of the economic price we have to pay. A sacred trust, is what the Prime Minister said. After a few months in power, one of the first things in the Budget, one of the first Tory documents to be presented in this House, reneges on that very fundamental and clearly articulated promise to senior citizens. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, in answer to a question I posed, said we have no option, no alternative, but he did and he knows it.
Where is the fairness in a Budget proposal which means that a household with two children earning $15,000 to $20,000 a year will have to pay 36 per cent more in taxes by 1990, but a family earning $200,000 is looking at a 2 per cent increase? Where is the fairness and integrity there? There is none. Where is the fairness in the capital gains tax bonanza? The Government says it will affect everyone, small businesses all across the country, but one only has to look at the 1983 statistics concerning capital gains taxes to see that almost 70 per cent of those claiming capital gains represent only 4 per cent of the Canadian population.
We on this side of the House and seniors of this country ask ourselves: What about the other 96 per cent? The Hon. Member across the way said we have to pay our bills. We have to pay the bankers because they will not wait. That, Mr. Chairman, is the mentality we are attempting to fight, a mentality which suggests we have to pay our bills and let other people suffer. The senior citizens have bills to pay, too. We are trying to send a message to the Government that if it can easily, arbitrarily and regressively undermine the seniors' pensions, then it ought to be prepared to swallow the same pill on the same day, and that day is today, but the Government is not prepared to do so. It is not prepared to make that sacrifice or accept the same punishment it has inflicted on the senior citizens.
The first reaction of the Government was that this motion would further hurt the poor and disadvantaged of this country because it assumes that if the Government was to reduce its spending by 3 per cent, that is the constituency it would cut the 3 per cent of spending from. Well, that perhaps says more than does our motion. That message to senior citizens is perhaps even stronger than our message to the Government. We understand the message we are getting from the Government, we understand the mind-set of Members opposite. We understand their philosophical bent and it is unfortunate, but it clearly delineates their side from this side.
We are having a rally next Tuesday in Toronto at 12 noon in Nathan Phillips Square. Once again we are getting a magnificent response from senior citizens' organizations. We have invited members of the Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to attend because it is important to speak to those seniors who will be affected by this clause. This rally is not being organized on a

Borrowing Authority Act
political partisan basis because no one in the House has a monopoly on concerns facing senior citizens or concerns facing the poor and disabled. We have the responsibility to speak for those groups and bring their concerns to the attention of the Government.
We want the Prime Minister to come to that rally because he will see something very different than what he saw in Quebec yesterday. This event will be much more spontaneous and real than what happened in Quebec because he will see the look of desperation on the faces of those individuals who come to him. It will be difficult for him to defend the indefensible in front of those individuals. If he takes the time to listen to those concerns and anxieties facing those senior citizens, he will not hesitate to reverse this regressive move he instigated several weeks ago in the Budget.
We are trying to speak for the aspirations of those people. Another Member opposite talked about democracy and how we were somehow undemocratic. He suggested that we are being obstructionist and overreacting to this concern. He ought not to teach us about democracy and profess to be democratic.
The senior citizens of this country have rallied daily for the last two weeks in an attempt to send the message to Government that it is wrong. The business community and business organizations of this country have also rallied and tried to send that message to the Government. The municipal Governments throughout the country are passing resolutions in their council chambers, regardless of the fact that this is a federal issue, in order to send a message to the Government that its measure is wrong. The provincial Governments are doing the same thing. We have witnessed Tory premiers and Tory Governments, and provincial governments in Manitoba and Quebec sending that message, despite the fact that it is a federal issue.
The Official Opposition and the NDP are raising this matter daily in Question Period and in debate, as we are this morning. If the Hon. Member wants to talk about democracy, he should not ignore the message that has been coming from the legislative groups in the last two weeks.
Members opposite cannot spend the summer in the belief that this issue will have disappeared by September 15. This issue will not die, not because the Opposition Parties will not let it die, but because Canadians from one coast to the other will not let it die. Canadians, particularly elderly Canadians, are saying that this issue is fundamental to their existence-to the social contract that they have with this state. As Canadians, they are entitled to Old Age Security pensions and to the full indexation of those pensions. This social contract is part of being Canadian. It is not acceptable to change the rules after someone has paid into that pension in order to plan their future after the age of 65 and collect a certain amount of money.
The Government argues that this measure will help future generations and provide money for future pensioners. What about those people who are 65, 75 and 85 today? Who is speaking for those individuals? Who is speaking for today's
pensioners who want the obligations of that social contract to be respected and honoured? We on this side are fighting for that obligation and we are not afraid to speak for those individuals because they need representation.
We are sending a message, through this simple motion, that the Government has not listened and has not reacted well. Once again, we call upon its sense of compassion, fair play and morality to come clean and admit that this regressive policy to deindex is wrong and unfair. We call upon the Government to show leadership by saying it is prepared to restore full indexing as a commitment to our senior citizens.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Chairman, I join this debate because of the importance I associate with its substance and that I believe the effects of these regressive measures that were contained in the Budget will have a long lasting effect on many Canadians.
It should be noted that the debate was touched off by the Honourable-I use the word with great care-House leader for the Government. He made some very uncomplimentary remarks with regard to Opposition Members. I do not believe that he was questioning their motive, however it could be argued that perhaps he was. I believe that the House Leader said some very unfair and uncomplimentary things about Members of the Opposition relating to this particular debate.
What that Hon. Member has failed to recognize is that the Liberal Party of Canada is standing behind this issue in an attempt to have full indexation restored to our senior citizens. However, along with the Liberal Party of Canada are other individuals, groups and organizations who believe that our cause is just, fair and equitable on behalf of senior citizens in Canada.
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to share with the House what some of those other individuals have said and who they are. There is no secret that the Premier of the Province of Prince Edward Island is against the deindexation of Old Age Security. Is the House Leader of the Conservative Party suggesting to Members of the House and Canadians that because some object so vigorously that somehow they are undemocratic, appalling, unfair and not carrying out their tasks as elected representatives?
The Premier of Newfoundland is also on the record publicly and within his own province as being opposed to this very regressive measure. Of course, the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia has said very clearly in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada that he and his Party are against the deindexation of Old Age Security.
However, the list does not stop with political leaders. It includes the business community. The list includes senior citizens' organizations and non-profit organizations which have issued news releases and held press conferences to cast shame upon the Government of Canada for introducing such regressive measures. We all know that the government caucus meeting held on Saturday-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What do you know about it?
June 18, 1985


David Charles Dingwall: I know exactly what went on, and I know exactly what will take place. We know that the Government will change this measure and restore full indexation. However, the question becomes: "When will the Government do it?" The issue which senior citizens find so distasteful is that the Prime Minister has not lived up to his clear and unequivocal commitment in the Province of Quebec in July, 1984. That commitment has been replayed time and time again and showed very clearly that the Prime Minister would restore, according to his own words, full indexation.
However, several months later, we found that the Minister of Finance went against his Prime Minister and introduced a budget measure which flew in the face of that commitment. Senior citizens find that to be particularly distasteful. They believed their Prime Minister, rightly or wrongly, depending upon one's political persuasion. They believed that their Prime Minister would restore full indexation, only to discover, as was suggested by one of his own constituents-and I use the words of that constituent-that they have been "lied" to. It is unparliamentary for me to use that word, and I will not use it, but that is what was said by a Canadian residing in the riding of the Right Hon. Prime Minister. That comment ought to be taken seriously, not only for the tone in which the constituent said it, but for the substance of what he was saying.
It is fine and dandy for Members of Parliament, regardless of their political association, who earn in excess of $70,000- and some earn substantially more-to say that that may not be so devastating. However, senior citizens on a fixed income have to make plans, have to budget for their expenditures and revenues. When they are faced, out of the clear blue sky, with cut-backs in the money anticipated to meet their expenditures, that is devastating. Perhaps it is not so for Members of Parliament, but to senior citizens, after working hard for 35 years or 40 years raising their families, it can be a devastating and appalling feature of their economic viability as citizens. The principle is rooted deeply. I appeal to the sense of fairness of Hon. Members opposite. It may mean that a senior citizen will be overdue in paying the telephone bill. It may mean that a taxi cannot be taken to go to the hospital to visit a loved one. It may be that extra little bit which a senior citizen gives to a neighbourhood boy to go to the store to buy a few groceries during inclement weather. Surely those of us who sit in this awesome Chamber, the distinction that it is, realize that the Minister of Finance cannot stand in his place and say to Canadians: "Bravo, I have done the right thing".
What toughness is there in taking money from senior citizens? I say to the Hon. Member from Halifax and to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the Minister should have been tough on those who could afford it, and I refer to the capital gains provisions in the Budget. In my view, that would have been cause for Hon. Members on all sides of the House to stand in their places and say: "Yes, the Minister of Finance is standing up to those who can most afford to sacrifice". However, what has happened has been the complete opposite. The Minister of Finance and the Prime
Borrowing Authority Act
Minister have broken their commitments to the elderly of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, you know, as a distinguished Member of the House, that 1.7 million Canadian senior citizens live below the poverty line. I ask Hon. Members on all sides: Where is the toughness in saying to senior citizens living below the poverty line that they will receive less? In my view, the Minister of Finance has committed a major political blunder. Of course that happens, but it is important what one does to recover from a political blunder. I suggest to the Minister of Finance and Hon. Members who support him and believe in his sincerity and his policies, that they have to stand and be counted to have this regressive measure changed, changed to honour the commitment of the Prime Minister in July 1984.
In terms of the capital gains provisions, is it tough to say to the wealthy of the country that they will be given $300 million this year and $600 million in the next fiscal year? Is it tough to say to them that Canadian taxpayers will give them $1.2 billion by 1990? Is that toughness or, as some senior citizens have said, is that copping out?
This measure calls upon the most vulnerable segment of Canadian society. It calls upon them, after years of sacrifice, whether it was during the First World War or the Second World War. It calls upon them after years of productive life, trying to build their communities, to strengthen the educational system and to build churches so that Canadians would have an opportunity to worship the God of their choice. Now, in their years of retirement and reflection, this regressive measure is calling upon them to make a financial contribution. That is not fair in anyone's eyes.
Members of Parliament, particularly Members of the Government, must accept that this was a political blunder. They have an obligation today to end the uncertainty with which senior citizens have been confronted since the announcement of the Budget on May 23, 1985. For the edification of all Canadians, I must emphasize that uncertainty of Canadians on a Fixed income is a major reason for frustration and worry.
The fairness of this Budget does not lie with the senior citizens of Canada. They have been treated unfairly. When will this unfairness stop? The Government will have an opportunity today or tomorrow to end the unfairness of this regressive tax measure. Some political commentators would say that it would not show toughness if the Government backed down and that it should stick to its guns. However, that is not what Governments are elected to do. Governments are not elected to appease those who sit in the press gallery. Governments are elected to serve the best interests of the people. Government Members can take satisfaction in changing this regressive tax measure in that they will be doing the right thing on behalf of all Canadians. So what if there are a few editorials in the newspapers condemning the Government for backtracking? In my view it must.
I sincerely ask Government Members to stand in their places and right this wrong. If the wrong continues to affect

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
senior citizens in any province of Canada, the issue will become so great that it will become virtually impossible for the Government of Canada to back down. To continue with this unfair measure will cause strife and worry for a population which deserves much better. This ought not to be a political issue and it ought not be debated on the floor of the House of Commons because it is a wrong. Each of us should stand in our place and vote today to right this wrong for the benefit of the senior citizens of our country. Every Member of Parliament has an obligation to put aside this political blunder by speaking of fairness, equity, and dignity for the senior citizens of Canada.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Chairman, in participating in the debate on this amendment, I would like to give the most visible message possible. This pile of paper contains over 2,000 names of senior citizens from the City of Winnipeg. That is only a small percentage of the number of people in that city who are deeply protesting the action of the Government.
Over the weekend I read the statements of the Hon. Member for St. Boniface who said he did not think this was much of an issue because he had only had four or five phone calls on it. I looked at the addresses on these petitions and saw Provencher Boulevard, Dumoulin Street, Goulet Street and Marion Street. Hundreds of people from that Member's riding have signed these petitions. I bring that to the attention of the House because it highlights what is very much at stake in this debate. What is important is not only the substance of the action taken by the Government, but the way it has handled this matter and broken its trust with the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister has more gyrations than a run-away corkscrew. We do not know from one day to the next what turn, twist, zig, or zag he will be taking. Let us look at the record on old age pensions and support. During the election campaign we heard the famous declaration of the sacred trust with strong hints that support to senior citizens would be improved. That was good during the election campaign, but after the election we began to hear some murmurings from the Minister of Finance that the Government was going to reexamine the universality of the pension scheme. It was no longer sacred, they were beginning to review the matter.
When questions were raised in the House of Commons and elsewhere in the country, the Prime Minister jumped back on the bandwagon saying that the incomes of senior citizens would not be touched because they were essential. In the dark of the night, the Minister of National Health and Welfare redrafted his Green Paper or White Paper in order to change the matter. That paper said that in the re-examination of social programs there would be no reduction in the income support for senior citizens. That was another turn in the road.
Then it was Budget time and we saw a whole series of actions that have substantially undermined the income position of older people in the country. We have heard the argument for deindexation many times. In the next four years, individual senior citizens will have a decreased buying power of $1,500 in today's dollars. Furthermore, the problem is compounded by the substantial increase in sales taxes on basic commodities, a
regressive form of taxation which is to be applied to detergent supplies, candy and pet food. An old saying by W. C. Fields goes that anyone who hates children and dogs can't be all bad. The Conservative Government is making that particular axiom real. I suppose W. C. Fields helped to write the Budget. There must have been some source for that.
The fact of the matter is that the Government has substantially reduced in a regressive way the purchasing power of senior citizens. Not only has their direct income support been taken away, but their purchasing power has been taken away. As if that were not enough, a third whammy is added through reductions in transfer payments to the provinces by $2 billion between now and 1990. This can only mean that there will be either a substantial reduction in health services or increased taxation or user-fees at the provincial level. Compounding that, the municipalities that also supply specialized services for senior citizens like day care centres and transportation will also have to raise taxes or cut back on programs. The Budget is clearly a multifaceted attack on the income base of senior citizens.
When the Budget was first brought down, we rose in the House to ask the Government why it was doing this. Let us think of the interesting sequence of arguments that have been used since that time. First, government Members said that senior citizens wanted them to do that and were all supporting them. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said that he talked to all kinds of senior citizens who wanted the Government to reduce the deficit and take away their incomes. However, when challenged, he could not name one individual or group that had said that to him. That argument did not fly very well.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We've got two right here.


Lloyd Axworthy: Sure, they are sitting in the Commons where they have their own benches.
Government Members felt that that argument was not going too well, so they moved to the next defence. Then government Members began saying that this really was not a Budget but a set of proposals and speculations. The Prime Minister who rewrote the textbook on public finances inside of a week said that the Budget is not a Budget but is a series of proposals that they may consider and change. He has totally ripped apart and cast asunder the financial projections of the Minister of Finance. He has completely eviscerated any sense of fiscal security or stability.
Then that argument did not seem to fly too well. We are now dealing with the argument which consists of the Prime Minister saying that he is going to change his mind, take a new look at the situation and revise it when economic conditions get somewhat better. What does "when economic conditions get somewhat better" mean in terms of indexation?
We want to know for what government Members are waiting. What is the stall about? Why has the Conservative caucus, in all its multiple numbers, not been able to convey to
June 18, 1985

the Ministry the serious mistake it has made? Are we once again being treated to another form of the Prime Minister's manipulations and machinations? Is he telling us to wait until Parliament has adjourned for the summer so that they can finagle and manipulate the mechanisms of Government while the Opposition is not around?
What was it that the Prime Minister said the other week after he had been leader of the Party for two years? Oh, yes, he said that the press has been hurtful to him. The poor, delicate, sensitive psyche of the Prime Minister does not take well to opposition. Therefore, he is going to wait until Parliament adjourns for the summer. Then he is going to jack up the payments on the Guaranteed Income Supplement but leave the OAS alone. That seems to be the indication, but it still does not solve the problem and that is that this Budget says that senior citizens must bear the brunt of the fiscal reordering of the country.
If members of the Tory caucus think that the Prime Minister can get away with his little bag of tricks by simply playing around with the GIS while leaving alone the OAS, they have another thing coming. This Parliament will be back in session on September 15 and we will take the fight up from that point on. Government Members will then change their minds whether they want to or not. Conservative Members had better have another special emergency caucus meeting to tell the Prime Minister that his little bag of tricks will not get him by this time.
People are wising up to the Prime Minister. They know what he is about. They know that he cannot be trusted and this his word is not one that can be taken seriously. How many times can he go up and down, round about, left to right? He has no sense of direction and no sense of purpose. He is allowing himself to be dictated by what his Decima polls tell him as he waves them at caucus meetings as opposed to dealing with the rightness and goodness of the issue.


Paul Wyatt Dick: More honest than you.


Lloyd Axworthy: That remains to be seen.


Paul Wyatt Dick: How about the million dollars you spent on your own office?


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that that is far less than what the Prime Minister is spending on his office. This issue carries with it not only the serious and incredible damage being done to millions upon millions of Canadians, but also brings into clear focus the incredible and almost unbelieveable way in which the Conservative Government has acquired divine right in a matter of nine months. It does not have to listen to the people. All those protestations about consultations, building consensus and working with the public are being totally disregarded.
What is the purpose? What are government Members trying to achieve with this? It would be different if they said that this Budget would somehow achieve something worth while. We would not agree with them, but their argument now is that
Borrowing Authority Act
somehow this sacrifice that only the senior citizens and lower income families are going to have to make will result in some great economic millennium. However, the Government's own Budget denies that in its descriptions.
Government Members are talking about a growth rate that is less than 50 per cent of the growth rate over the past two years. The fallacy in their economic thinking is that somehow the Government can withdraw close to $40 billion worth of purchasing power from the economy over the next four years, yet they assume that the demand for consumer goods, housing and services will continue. Regardless of how many tax giveaways and breaks are given to the investor community and regardless of how happy the friends of the Minister of Finance on the Toronto Stock Exchange are, if there is not a basic economic demand, business will not expand to meet it. Businesses expand to meet consumer demand. However, if people do not have money because it has been taken away from them by enormous tax grabs, business will not expand.
The Wall Street Journal has said that this is economic suicide. The Government is not putting money back into the economy. It is not stimulating consumer demand. Instead, it is reducing and withdrawing money from circulation and there will, therefore, be far less stimulus and far less incentive.
Since this does not make economic sense, we have to ask what government Members are doing. It has become very clear that the close to $3.5 billion that is being taken away from senior citizens and the billions of dollars that are being taken away from low-income families have nothing to do with reducing the deficit. The sales taxes and deindexation can be matched up with the give-aways through the capital gains program, the cancellation of the PGRT and the other forms of tax offerings to a very select, privileged group in this country. Because of that, this is a Government that is prepared to have millions of Canadians pay for the benefits that will go to less than 4 per cent of the population.
The only economic sense which one could draw from that is that it is the Government's fundamental belief that economic growth and stimulus will come from the privileged elite. It will come from catering and servicing that particular restricted, hothouse group of Canadians. The Government believes that if there are a few crumbs which trickle off the table to ordinary Canadians, then that is fine. The old trickle-down theory was discounted back in the 1920s when we put social Darwinism to bed. It was the rule of the economic jungle, which had been the prevailing notions up to that period, which was placed in the storehouse of worn-out ideas forever. It took 1985 and the Prime Minister to bring back the time-worn idea that aid to the privileged would result in benefits to all.
I think Canadian people are wising up to what has taken place in the Budget. They are beginning to realize that the net impact will not be for the benefit of young families who want to buy homes, workers who want to be retrained, or older people who want to maintain their income security. The Government is helping a small circle of individuals. The rest is

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
based on some faith that those individuals will generate a massive wave of growth and that we will all rise the tide.
It is a very precarious and dangerous economic theory. It is no wonder the Minister of Finance is leaving the country today and not returning until Parliament recesses. It is no wonder he thinks that the best refuge is about 5,000 miles away. He is recognizing that the underlying foundations of the Budget are built on shifting sands which are being badly eroded day by day. The only way in which he can save face is to get out of the country. He is once again, as we have seen since the Government took office, evading responsibility for taking the tough and right decisions. He and the Prime Minister think they can get by with fancy tricks, public opinion polls and public relations gimmicks. Once again they are trying to replace solid and tough economic decisions with coloured lights and cosmetics.
This Government does not like to govern. It does not know how to govern and it does not want to govern. It does not want to make the kind of decisions which are necessary. The Government has now been abandoned by all of its friends and allies. The business community has said: "Don't do it". Provincial Premiers, many of whom are Tories, have said: "Don't do it". Many articulate and well-informed social organizations have said: "Don't do it". Can the Government name one organization, aside from the Riverdale Conservative Association, which thinks that the Government should do it? Is it able to provide any evidence that there is overwhelming support for the budget measures? It says that it has the Decima poll. I am sorry, I will correct my remarks. Allan Gregg says that the Government should do it. If that is the basis on which policy is being decided and consensus is being formed, I wish the Government would tell us that.
With seer wisdom and the prophet of forecasting, the Conservative Party has decreed that it is okay. All the protest of individual senior groups and the abandonment of the Government's business allies does not convince the Government and the caucus. We have brought forward the amendment for that very reason. We believe there are Conservative Members of Parliament who understand their constituencies and who are not prepared to buy the blarney of the Prime Minister. We believe they are willing to represent what they know is of deep, abiding and crucial concern to their constituents.
The amendment will give the Government time to convene and examine its actions. Obviously the weekend was a flop. However, it is not too late as there are still two weeks left in the session. We are asking the Government to take a look at what it is doing. It should honestly examine what kind of impact it will have on people. The Government should ask itself if this is really what it wants to achieve. Does it really want to tell seniors and young families that it is prepared to withdraw their incomes for the sake of a small boom on the Toronto Stock Exchange? Is that the trade-off which the Government is presenting to Canadians?
We hope that the wisdom and the judgment which exists in the caucus will ultimately prevail and that the Prime Minister,
in his last zig and zag, will make the right decision, which all Canadians want him to make.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments which were made by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry. His comments prompt me to raise a couple of issues which have come to mind during the last two or three days when I have listened to the exchanges which have taken place in the House over the deindexing issue.
Last Sunday morning I spent some time wandering around my constituency talking to people, as I do almost every Sunday morning. I went to the local doughnut shop and chatted with people who like to bring me up to date on the events, as they see them, in Parliament and in the area. The question which was raised most often was the question of the Government's action with respect to the deindexing of pensions. It struck me as passing strange, because many of those people were not on pensions.
The same morning I read in The Saturday Star or The Sunday Star about a number of Conservative back-benchers who had indicated that they had not received an overwhelming amount of representation on that particular issue. Many Conservative Members seemed to feel that it was not an issue of great importance in the minds of their constituents. They were not receiving large volumes of letters and they were not being stopped on the street. Their telephones in their offices were not being rung off the hook by those who were desirous of expressing their individual concerns. I was puzzled about that. I wondered why it was that everyone whom I met on the streets of Hamilton, on the Sparks Street Mall, or walking out of my apartment building in Ottawa asked me about the question of deindexing, or at least made reference to it. Why was it that 1 was receiving those kind of representations? Why were my colleagues in the New Democratic Party receiving those kind of representations? Why were Members of the Liberal Party receiving these representations? Yet apparently the Tory backbenchers were not.
I say this in all kindness, but for some Tory back-benchers it may be simply because of inexperience. They perhaps have not been involved in politics for very long and do not have a routine established for allowing people access to them. Those Members of the Conservative Party who are here at the moment and who have gone through a number of election campaigns could perhaps cast their minds back to election campaigns when they did not receive the kind of support they had anticipated. Perhaps they noticed that people did not talk to them in anger, that some people, particularly elderly people, did not talk to them at all. I find that as a rule when people are upset with their Member of Parliament during an election campaign-except for the few who know you reasonably well-they do not tell you how angry they are. They simply leave you alone. They talk to each other, but they do not confront you because they have decided they are not going to support what you are doing. So for those Members of the Government who perhaps wonder why they are not getting the
June 18, 1985

kind of response we in the Opposition are getting, that may well be part of the answer.
Perhaps in the past people would have raised an issue with their Member of Parliament in passing because they were not directly involved and, therefore, did not feel embarrassed about making their case. They may not feel comfortable making a case on their own behalf on an issue such as this. I would urge Members of the Government to not assume automatically that because they are not inundated with phone calls and correspondence, it is indicative of complacency. I suspect it could well be indicative of a sense of frustration and acute embarrassment that many old people feel over an issue which touches them directly, which affects their very day to day lives and which will undermine their income capacity.
I ask Members of the Liberal Party if they found during the last election campaign that people simply did not talk to them on the doorsteps because they were not voting for the Liberal Party this time? I found in past elections that they simply say, thank you very much, take the leaflet and walk away. They don't really want to confront you. I think that could well be the reason why Members of the Government are not receiving the kind of response which the rest of us in the House of Commons are receiving over this issue.
In addition to that, quite clearly those who are most affected align themselves with those who are raising these concerns. It is not unnatural that people who feel their future undermined by the proposal of the Government would, out of necessity, align themselves with Members of Parliament who are raising the issue. Given the fact that there is no indication as yet, other than a few individual instances, that any Members of the Government are about to stand up and be counted in opposition to this rather harsh measure, I would think that that would be a good reason why a large number of people are not yet making contact with them in an effort to try to get this matter reviewed by the Government.
Having said that, I want to now turn to what I consider to be the nub of the issue. It really goes to the heart of the beliefs of the present Minister of Finance. For years the Minister of Finance has believed that universality is a bad thing. He has for years believed that there could be some way devised to, as he puts it, get more money to the poor while not providing so much for the rich. He has spoken frequently about the need to reconsider universality as an integral part of social programs in Canada.
This is the first substantive assault on universality. The Minister of Finance raised the matter last November, perhaps foolishly, and the Prime Minister, after having suffered some abuse as a result of the Minister of Finance having raised the question of universality, beat him over the head and forced him to withdraw. That was the first step since the Government took office in September toward achieving what the Minister of Finance has been saying he believes in for many years. That was, of course, followed by this measure which the Government tells us is intended to reduce the deficit. It is the seniors' contribution to the deficit reduction program of the Government and it will raise some $250 million.
Borrowing Authority Act
Given that we know the income levels of the overwhelming majority of senior citizens in Canada are barely above the poverty line, it does not make much sense to ask those who have so little to make such a contribution. It makes even less sense when we view it in the context of all of the Government's expenditures and all of the other areas where Government might turn in order to find an alternative way of raising $250 million.
Rather than be simply critical, the NDP Party sat down and looked at the various ways in which Government might raise the $250 million it requires. We offered, as you will recall, Mr. Chairman, five ways. I am prepared to concede that they are not the only ways and it is entirely possible to come up with an additional 15 or 20 ways, and perhaps even more. These five ways may not, in the minds of the Conservative Party, be the most appropriate ways, but they are concrete ways which could be used by the Government to raise the $250 million which it proposes to raise from the partial deindexing of the pensions of our senior citizens.
When we think about senior citizens, without going any farther, we have to think that these are the very people who built the society we are now enjoying. These are the people who worked the long torturous hours, who worked under unsafe working conditions, who worked in plants which paid little in way of remuneration, who worked without adequate vacations and who had very little opportunity to save for their retirement. These people in many cases went through the Depression and may have lost everything they owned in the 1930s. They went to war on behalf of Canada and, in the final analysis, they put together for us this society we enjoy. We are now saying to them, "While you did make those sacrifices and they were important, and, by God, we are grateful, we are not grateful enough to index your pension to the cost of living". We are grateful enough to index it to anything over 3 per cent of the cost of living. We have to raise $250 million and notwithstanding our gratitude, that $250 million is more important than our sense of what we owe to our senior citizens for what they have done for us.
We said, let's take a look at the options. We offered a number, and I do not intend to go back over them again, but I want to suggest that there is one which appeals to me and I do not quite understand, even yet, why it does not make sense. 1 would love to hear someone on the Conservative front benches attempt to explain to me why we should go out and borrow money in order to offset the money we do not now collect from the corporate sector, money which they owe. Why should we ask seniors and others to increase their tax burden in order to say to a very lucrative corporate sector that they can defer paying their taxes indefinitely? Why do we not require from those who are allowed to defer their taxes that at the very least they pay to the Government of Canada the interest charges that the Government incurs in borrowing the money they would be required to pay if they were not allowed to defer it?

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
I say to my. hon. friend from Bow River: does that not make sense when you think about it? If I have to go out and borrow money in order to replenish the coffers because I do not collect from the corporate sector the money they owe, then the very least I could expect from them would be that they pay the interest on the money I borrowed. Do you agree with that? Surely you have to think that makes a little bit of sense.
Do you know that if we simply charge a rate of 10 per cent, which is below the rate they could borrow in the market-place, we could collect on an annual basis some $3 billion. Why should they not be prepared to make that kind of contribution rather than ask the senior citizens to do without the indexing provision for pensions which are already woefully inadequate? 1 look around and I ask if there is anyone on either side of the House, even you, Mr. Chairman, who will stand up and tell me why. I mean, is there something wrong with the logic I am offering? Can anyone tell me that there is something wrong with suggesting that it is better that the corporate sector pay interest on the money it owes rather than collect $250 million from the senior citizens? That is the question. Does the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development want to rise and answer? I would be pleased to sit and listen. No, I see him shrinking back into his seat again and I can understand why. He is a sensitive man. He is the kind of individual I anticipate would be fighting in caucus and Cabinet to advance the kind of suggestion we have put forward.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that with that one measure alone we would collect $3 billion and it would more than offset the $250 million we intend to take from the seniors. That would leave us with $2.75 billion to do with whatever we pleased. If you really only need the $250 million, instead of charging 10 per cent, charge 3 per cent or 2.5 per cent if that would make you happy. By doing that you will raise exactly what you need. I say to my colleague from Hamilton East, who is no doubt about to rise and support the position I am putting forward, that quite clearly any person sitting here or watching or reading or hearing about it later on will come to the inevitable conclusion that what we are asking for is eminently sensible. It is irrefutable in its logic. It will work absolutely no hardship on the corporate sector. It will relieve us of the necessity, if there is indeed a necessity, of turning to the seniors for that money. It will enable us to act responsibly toward the people on whose backs this country was built.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman. I could outline the other four proposals which, when added together, would make for many billions of dollars which could be used to offset the deficit and provide better programs. We could debate the later. However, quite clearly, the Government seems to have become deaf not only to the logic of my argument but also to the pleas of senior citizens and young people, as well as deaf to the pleas of the Premiers of the Provinces.
It seems the Government does not want to lose face. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if it were me, if I were the Minister of Finance or if I were the Prime Minister and I had inadvertently allowed a proposal like this to come forward in my name and had then the benefit of reviewing it and seeing
the consequences of my action, I would rise in my place and say I have made a mistake and I am going to change it. That is what we are asking the Prime Minister to do.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, indeed I would like to join my voice to that of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain who has spoken to the very heart of the issue we are discussing today. I happened to be here in the House this morning when the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate moved an amemd-nent which said that the Government was asking the Parliament of Canada to approve a motion which would allow it to borrow billions of dollars at the same time it is putting a 3 per cent squeeze on senior citizens' pensions, the very people in our society who can least afford to pay. Given that, we then say to the Government we want to reduce its borrowing authority by a corresponding 3 per cent. The Minister of Finance tells the senior citizens to cut back on their bus fare, food and hydro bills by 3 per cent. Well, we called upon the Government to cut back by 3 per cent, and what was the response of Government spokesmen? The Government House Leader, upon hearing the Liberal amendment, immediately rose in his place and said that means we are going to cut back further on the senior citizens. That means we are going to decrease senior citizens' pensions by another 3 per cent. That seems to me to be indicative of the kind of knee-jerk reaction of this Government. The Government House Leader, confronted with the amendment put by the Liberal opposition, stands in his place and says we will carry out those cuts on the backs of the seniors. That is the mentality of this Government.
I hope I will have a chance to carry on after Question Period on this very important issue, Mr. Chairman.


Marcel Danis: It being two o'clock p.m., it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the Bill again later this day.
Progress reported.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have heard the claim that the Governments goal is jobs because it attempts to justify its actions on that basis. For example, cuts in research and development will create jobs; family allowances deindexation will create jobs; pension deindexation will create jobs; heavy cuts to the Ministry of Environment will create jobs; taxes on insulation material will create jobs. The list is endless, and the claim is always the same.
June 18, 1985

In May, 1984, jobs created represented a 0.50 per cent increase in the total workforce. In May, 1985, jobs created represented a 0.55 per cent increases in the total workforce. There is no real difference between the two.
Having established this fact, why is it that the Government, in its drive to create jobs, insists on contributing to unemployment through the cuts affecting valuable people in places like the Canadian Wildlife Service? Furthermore, if the Government believes in the heritage values of the environment to ourselves and future generations of Canadians, why reduce the management of wildlife and habitat? Is the protection of our natural heritage not worth the investment of the 84 jobs cut last November?


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



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, last week South Africa's stormtroopers swooped into Botswana under cover of darkness, shooting 16 men, women, and children, and blowing up the houses of black refugees.
Sunday, the fury of reincarnated Nazism was again unleashed, this time upon 5,000 churchgoers in Soweto whose singular crime was to have gathered in commemoration of the victims of the Soweto massacre nine years ago.
In response to the Botswana raid, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said Canada deplores violence from any quarter, thus implying that the victims share an equivalent measure of guilt, while politely requesting South Africa to respect the sovereignty and independence of its neighbours.
Even the U.S. administration, which regards South Africa somewhat sympathetically as a bulwark against Communism, has recalled its ambassador to South Africa.
Will the Government again turn a blind eye even while a member of its own diplomatic corps is gassed in church, or will it immediately recall its ambassador as a sign of the revulsion of the Canadian people at this racist, outlaw regime, and act immediately to implement economic sanctions against South Africa?



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the 44,000 acres of tender fruit and grape lands left in Niagara is a resource under attack. They are unique. There is no other combination of quality soils and climate like them anywhere
else in Canada. There are few lands of this quality anywhere else in the world. Still, the growers must have a reasonable return in keeping with their investment and cost of operations.
Peach growing declined when the processing end of the industry was hit by offshore competition. The home market was flooded and subjected to a deliberate attack to put that industry out of business. Those peach orchards were converted to grape vineyards.
High quality grapes are being grown for quality wine. But, unhappily, those grape growers and wine producers are caught in the same type of squeeze that forced the peach growers out of business. Unless the problem of dumping of offshore import wines is resolved soon, the wine industry will be placed in jeopardy. We can make trade a two-way street, providing an export market for our wines, or we can protect the domestic market from dumping.
If those growers cannot make a reasonable return, cannot make a living from the sweat of their labour, then these acres will go the way of so many others-urban development. The fate of these lands is in the hands of the Government.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 14, a very significant event took place in the town of Kirkland Lake in my riding of Timiskaming. The federal Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) and the provincial Minister of Natural Resources jointly announced a five-year, $30 million federal-provincial mineral development agreement. The signing of this agreement is truly symbolic of the co-operation that now exists between the federal and provincial Governments.
Under this subagreement to the Canada-Ontario Economic and Regional Development Agreement, a road which was proposed for construction back in 1928 has finally come about, and I congratulate the pioneers-the prospectors and the developers-who fought so long and hard for this access road. Once again it shows that the Government that was elected last September 4 knows and understands Canadians.
The construction of this access road to mining areas in northern Ontario will bring great prosperity to my riding. Employment opportunities will flourish in the forestry, tourism, and mining sectors of Timiskaming.
The signing of this agreement demonstrates once again my Government's commitment to creating jobs for Canadians.

June 18, 1985



MULTICULTURALISM


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Chamber a storm that is brewing in Winnipeg over the awarding of a $29,900 grant by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) to the International Centre.
Members of the Centre and of the ethno cultural community are outraged over the circumstances surrounding the grant. First, Mr. Tom Denton, the sponsor of the application and a former PC candidate, signed as the treasurer of the Centre's multicultural committee. In truth, though, the committee was unaware of his application, and there is no position of treasurer. Second, four individuals listed as sponsors on the form did not know or approve of their names being used to obtain the federal moneys. Third, the grant application was for $28,400, but was approved in the amount of $29,900. Fourth, the application was not dated and, finally, while the public is being told it will support a one-year project, the grant indicated the period was only from January to May. Therefore, has the money been spent and, if not, will it be returned since the deadline has already come and gone?
Members of the Centre and the community have written to the Auditor General and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism asking for an immediate investigation into these improprieties and the appearance of a quick grab for some patronage dollars. I, too, call on the Minister to investigate these serious shortcomings and urge him to clear the air quickly.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Los Angeles and Sturgeon class submarines, which are being equipped with sea launched Cruise missiles known as Tomahawks, have visited Nanoose Bay and Esquimalt Harbour in the last few days.
Nuclear equipped Tomahawks have a range of 1,500 miles, and a 200 kilotonne warhead. The American Navy Director of Strategic and Theatre Nuclear Warfare said:
The increased strike range of a large number of surface platforms operating under carrier air cover and independent, covert, forward deployed submarines presents the Soviets a formidable threat.
Not only are the Soviets threatened by these Tomahawk missiles, our entire world is threatened.
Were the Los Angeles and Sturgeon submarines that came into Nanoose and Esquimalt nuclear armed? We do not know. The United States will neither confirm nor deny, and the Canadian Government is afraid to ask. In the absence of such information, New Zealand had enough gumption to refuse access to all American warships. Canada should take the same step.
The Canada-U.S. Agreement for the submarine base at Nanoose expires in April, 1986. This agreement has not contributed to world peace or to Canadian security. It should not be renewed.



THE BUDGET


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, following the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), there have been many words uttered in criticism.
None have been so vocal as those who oppose the plan to deindex partially Old Age Security and Family Allowances. The Opposition has, in its pursuit of criticism, often created and promoted fear in the hearts of the elderly.
Perhaps the Opposition would like to talk to Canadians about some measures that are being ignored by Liberals and New Democrats. How does the $500,000 capital gains exemption affect farmers? What does it do for the thousands of small neighbourhood businesses? The Opposition failed to mention changes to RRSPs, a more equitable tax system, assistance for disabled Canadians, and much desired tax changes for charities and artists.
Canadians wanted a new and better approach to the country's economic affairs. That is what they received on May 23.



RESEARCH


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to advise the House of a major development concerning environmental research in Canada. Since October I have worked with the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean), and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), to promote the much needed Toxicology Research Centre at the University of Saskatchewan. This university was identified by the National Research Council as one of three centres to undertake toxicological research in Canada.
I am also pleased to advise the House that, through a $2 million grant from the Centres of Specialization of the Secretary of State, Phase 1 of construction of the Toxicology Research Centre will commence this year. This Centre will be supported by the faculties of Health Sciences, Veterinary Medicine, Pharmacy, Chemistry, Biology, and Agriculture. In addition, the Wildlife Services Division of the Department of the Environment and the private sector will utilize the facility.
June 18, 1985

The Toxicology Research Centre will serve all of western Canada and conduct environmental research of critical importance to all of Canada. Adequate funding for the entire Centre is not in place. It is hoped that the remainder of the funding will be made available as resources from the federal and provincial Governments, the university, and the private sector, permit.
All Hon. Members of the House should applaud the federal Government and the University of Saskatchewan for recognizing the importance of toxicological research and making a strong commitment which will ensure a safer environment for our children and generations to come.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, since the Budget was brought down, the Canadian people have risen up to protest against the Progressive Conservative Government's plan to de-index Old Age Security pensions.


An Hon. Member:: And rightly so!


Fernand Robichaud: But Canadians, and especially the people from New Brunswick, are also very concerned and are protesting against another Government policy proposed on the same date.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government has decided to cut federal aid to regional development by $100 million this year and $150 million next year. These cuts represent a tremendous loss for New Brunswick's economy. They will be reflected in the loss of many jobs and a slowdown in regional development. The cuts also mean that the number of jobs New Brunswick's industry will be able to create will get smaller and smaller, and it will therefore become increasingly difficult to deal with the province's high rate of unemployment.
The Economic Council of New Brunswick, is a very important agency in the Atlantic Region, said that the philosophy according to which we should reward success rather than effort is paving the way to more difficult times for the disadvantaged regions of this country, regions which have not been successful despite their efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the cuts in regional development are a matter of grave concern and provide tangible proof for the people of New Brunswick that the Government ignored them completely when it brought down this Budget on May 23 of this year.



THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, one of the goals of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to enshrine equality between the sexes as a fundamental value of Canadian society. It will be many years before Canadians, through both Parliament and the courts, begin to have a rough idea of what their society will be like with the inception of the new Charter.
The adoption of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a move conceived with the hope of making our society more just through the clarification of the mutual obligations and entitlements connecting the individual and the state. Equality will eventually be defined in a way which reflects the values, beliefs, and convictions of individual Canadians.
Toward this goal the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) provides grants for women's organizations attemp ing to bring meaning, in different ways, to the concept of equality in the Canadian context.
In implementing the Charter, it is not for the Government to prejudge what the proper role of women in Canada should be. But, unfortunately, arbitrary program guidelines have not granted certain groups access to this support, specifically REAL Women of Canada. This group supports a definition of equality different from the views of other women's groups, but equally legitimate. It is a wholesale violation of the principles of the Charter if a specific feminist view is imposed and encouraged to the exclusion of alternatives from thousands of other Canadian women.
I appeal to the House to support the funding of REAL Women of Canada, representing over 20,000 Canadians. It is vital that the process of achieving equality through the Charter be legitimate-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Spadina.



REFUGEES


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Plaut has given a just, quick, and inexpensive proposal for 13,800 people in Canada who are claiming refugee status according to our laws. I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to use Rabbi Plaut's proposal which he gave yesterday in his report entitled: Refugee Determination in Canada. The Supreme Court said that none of the 13,800 people claiming refugee status in Canada should be deported without first having a chance to meet face to face, in an oral hearing, with those who decide their fate. However, Rabbi Plaut pointed out that there were many, in fact the

June 18, 1985
Oral Questions
majority, who deserve to be allowed to stay even without a hearing.
Many come from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, El Salvador or Sri Lanka, countries to which Canada does not force people to return. "These could all be issued Minister's Permits to stay", he said, "except those already under deportation order. They could be allowed to go briefly to the United States to be readmitted to Canada."
Many have come from countries torn by war, civil war, or racial violence, but have families here to help them settle. "It would be in Canada's humanitarian tradition", Rabbi Plaut said, "to let them stay, and the Minister has the power to do so."
Those concerned for refugees in Canada warmly welcome Rabbi Plaut's report as a whole. I particularly urge the Minister to follow his suggestion for wiping out the backlog of 13,800 claims-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his 90 seconds have expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
{English]

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week in Vancouver I met with groups of senior citizens in my riding of Vancouver Quadra, and indeed with representatives of senior citizens' organizations from all over the Province of British Columbia. They repeated, over and over again, that older Canadians felt betrayed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and that the Government had broken its word to them.
Why on earth would the Minister of Finance continue to hold to his commitment in the Budget to take money away from our older citizens, in approximately the same amount over the next five years as the money he has given to wealthy investors by way of the capital gains tax exemption? Why on earth does he not stop this absolute nonsense and restore now the full value of the old age pension, before the House rises?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been away for a while. He may forget-


Some Hon. Members:: So were you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the original thrust of the Budget, that we are trying to create jobs and, as the Hon. Member is very well aware, we are trying to get the enormous deficit under control. We are making some good headway on producing those jobs; 271,000 have been created since September 4. As we are able to create those jobs, as we are able to generate more government revenues from less people being unemployed, we will be able to look more positively at the reinstatement of some of the programs about which the Hon. Member has been talking. We have said in the Budget that we are monitoring this closely, and we will continue to monitor it.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WILL NOT RESTORE FULL INDEXATION IMMEDIATELY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who is the chief salesman of the Progressive Conservative Party, failed to sell the Minister's reply to his own constituents of Manicouagan at Sept-Iles yesterday. In the press we read this morning: "Mulroney is unable to convince the elderly in his own riding". They do not believe the Prime Minister in Manicouagan. They do not believe him anywhere else either.
I therefore repeat my question: Two and a half million elderly Canadians are fed up. In their opinion, the Government should reverse its decision and reassess and reinstate full indexation of Old Age Security pensions. Why does the Minister not act now before the House adjourns for the summer?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I watched the reports of the visit of the Right Hon. Prime Minister to his riding. I think he demonstrated a great degree of sensitivity at the meeting where he addressed senior citizens.
I think the people who were in attendance at that meeting responded quite positively, and appreciated the Prime Minister's attendance and also the comments which he made.
Let me indicate to the Hon. Member that what we are trying to do here, in a broad way, is to address the problem which has given rise to this decision, that is, the deficit. He knows-and I will remind him again, because he sometimes tends to forget it-that the debt of the country has been growing three times faster than the economy has been growing. In 1979 we were spending $8 billion on interest costs for that debt. Six years later we are spending $25.5 billion. We have reached the point where the federal Government is spending more on interest than it spends in total on medicare-
[DOT] (U20)


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, Order. Supplementary question.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister misses the point. We are not disputing his efforts to get the public debt of the country under control. However, we ask him not to do it on the backs of the elderly
June 18, 1985

who can no longer protect themselves because they have retired and have no more income.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Minister is saying that the Prime Minister was sensitive in Manicouagan. The Minister said earlier that he is monitoring the situation. How much more evidence does he need? What evidence will convince him? He knows that 2.5 million Canadian citizens over the age of 65 are outraged. They feel betrayed, and want an answer now. Do it now. Do not prolong the anguish and sleepless nights of many Canadians who are very disturbed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition told the senior citizens with whom he met that their cheques were going to go up the normal amount as of July 1. They will continue at that level on August 1 and September 1. They will go up again on October 1 according to the formula that is presently in place.
I would suggest that he not foster and encourage the anxiety that he is so concerned about. By fanning these flames he is causing the problems that he is trying to get changed. We are concerned about those elderly Canadians who are receiving both the GIS and the OAS. We will be monitoring very closely the impact of this and our ability to reinstate that amount.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF FULL INDEXATION
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In a speech in Sept-Iles yesterday the Prime Minister said that there is no panic amongst senior citizens with respect to deindexation. In fact he said that there is a degree of serenity and comprehension. The Prime Minister has not only lost touch with his constituents, he has lost touch with reality. Those statements fly in the face of all of the evidence that I gathered from senior citizens in Vancouver, Saskatoon, Toronto, and Sudbury last week. I know that those senior citizens are worried and apprehensive about their loss of purchasing power.
Will the Minister of Finance now admit that he and the Prime Minister are wrong? Will he restore full indexation before the summer break, and give some relief to the worries of senior citizens?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me ask that Hon. Member the same question. Did he tell the senior citizens that they should not be concerned, that their cheques will not be going down but in fact will be going up?


Sheila Maureen Copps: They're not that stupid.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Did he also say that the Guaranteed Income Supplement would be fully indexed and no changes will be made as a result of the Budget? Did he caution the senior citizens not to be concerned about that?
Oral Questions
Did he go on to say that, as this Budget produces the jobs that will provide the revenues to support these programs, the Government of Canada will continue to monitor them and as soon as possible reinstate the programs? Those are the sorts of things that he should be saying to senior citizens if he is truly concerned about their anxiety.


BUDGET STATISTICS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, on May 23 did the Minister of Finance tell the Canadian public the truth? Did he tell them that not only our senior citizens, but our working poor, were going to lose 20 per cent of their purchasing power? Did he tell the senior citizens of the country that a 55-year old, who is expecting his OAS to maintain 25 per cent of his retirement income, is going to lose 50 per cent of his purchasing power over the next 10 years?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: In a sneaky, back-door way the Government has attempted to fool the Canadian public which has awoken to the fact. Will the Minister of Finance do the only honourable and compassionate thing, and restore full indexation?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Never mind that-resign.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is playing with numbers as he normally does. I can play with numbers too.


John Napier Turner: They are your numbers.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition says they are my numbers. Is the budget deficit of $38 billion with which we were presented this year my numbers?


John Napier Turner: It was $32 billion, and you blew it up to $38 billion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Whose numbers point to the fact that the deficit is growing by 25 per cent per annum for three years running? That is the reason why we must make some changes to the programs. If we do not make some changes, at 25 per cent per annum the debt will swallow the whole country.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance had the same numbers in January when he promised all of Canada, including the pensioners, that they would not have to pay for the debt. That is when the government made the promise.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister met with groups representing five major sections of pensioners in Nova Scotia yesterday. As we sit in this assembly today a meeting in Courtenay, British Columbia, attended by representatives of all the pensioners of British Columbia, is

June 18, 1985
Oral Questions
debating a motion calling for the full restoration of indexation for all pensions.
Through his answer earlier in Question Period was the Minister implying that the Government does not intend to make a decision before we recess to re-establish indexation for Canadian pensioners?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 caution the Hon. Member not to draw conclusions. If there is a statement to be made, it will be made. He will have to be patient.


REQUEST FOR EARLY STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Finance will not be back in the House until next September since he is taking a trip elsewhere. 1 understand that he has other obligations. However, since the Government has an obligation to deal with the anxiety of Canadian pensioners now, will he not undertake to make a statement, either this week or next week, which will clear up the anxiety of Canada's pensioners on this matter?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, courtesy of the office of the Hon. Member I finally managed to find out who he and his colleague wanted me to meet with yesterday. It was a good meeting. We discussed a range of things. We talked about the problems of elderly Canadians on the GIS and OAS. We talked about the impact of inflation, and their concern about government policies that lead to inflation. We also talked of their concern about government waste which was prevalent in the years of Liberal Government, which we are trying to come to grips with, under the auspices of the Nielson task force report. I think elderly Canadians are pleased with the efforts that we are making to try to come to grips with the problems we are facing.


TIMING OF DECISION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister listened more closely to the group with whom he met yesterday than he listened to the question I asked, because he certainly did not answer it.
Will the Minister be fair to Canadian pensioners and make a statement before we recess for the summer, or at least tell Canadian pensioners when the Government will make a definitive decision on this? Surely Canada's pensioners have a right to know.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think 1 have responded to that question. I responded to it initially in the Budget itself. I said that we would be continuing to monitor the impact and the circumstances relating to the decision and, as resources permit, would be making some changes. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have responded to this question, as I did earlier in Question Period.
I tell the senior citizens of the country that their cheques will not be changed on July 1. They will increase by the normal indexation amount, and this will continue for the balance of the year.
There is no cause for the anxiety and concern that the Hon. Member and his colleagues are trying to fan. We will monitor the situation and will be making any announcement, if appropriate, in due course.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, with every day that passes this matter becomes more and more confusing. It seems that today the senior citizens are being told that they are paying the price of the vanity and ego of the Minister of Finance who will not agree, despite pressures from his own back-benchers, and despite a very heated debate in caucus last weekend, to do the right thing now because he personally does not want to be seen as being forced to back down. Is the Minister of Finance telling the senior citizens of Canada, Members of the House, and all Canadians, that there will be no remedial action taken on the proposed deindexation of OAS until another Budget is brought down, possibly in 1986?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am repeating what I said a minute ago. We are monitoring this matter on a regular basis, and are listening to the senior citizens to whom we are speaking on a regular basis. All my colleagues are advising me of what they are hearing. I should say to the Hon. Member that there are two messages that are coming to us. A lot of people say that they like the Budget and the way the Budget is going to create more jobs. A lot of people are saying that they can see that, as the Budget creates more jobs, we are going to be able to deal with the problem about which the Hon. Member expresses so much concern. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that, rather than fan the flames as he has been doing, he should be explaining to the senior citizens that 271,000 jobs have been created and that, as more are created, there will be good changes made.


VISIT TO PARLIAMENT HILL BY SENIOR CITIZENS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance reminds me of a wind-up toy soldier. One winds him up and gets the expected reaction each time. His answers do not change.
The Minister of Finance keeps on asking members of the Opposition to explain certain things to senior citizens. Let me ask the Minister a question. Tomorrow many of the country's senior citizens, particularly from the Province of Quebec, will congregate on the front lawns of Parliament Hill, in an open, public forum. Will you go outside tomorrow before those senior citizens to address them and listen to them? You take the time yourself to explain to them this policy that cannot be
June 18, 1985

explained because it is brutal, heartless, foolish, and the price of your vanity.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You won't back down. In the name of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's rhetoric does not fool anyone. I have talked to many senior citizens, and I talked to senior citizens yesterday while in Halifax. I am not backing away from the senior citizens. I am happy to talk to any group of senior citizens. I would just suggest that the Hon. Member cool the rhetoric. You're not impressing anyone.


ONTARIO SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has often referred in the House to the need to monitor the effect of the Budget on senior citizens. I am sure he noticed in the press this morning a report from Ontario which indicated that 42 per cent of the seniors of that province live in poverty, that is to say, 42 per cent of the seniors in the richest province in the country live in poverty. Since the Government already had access to this kind of information when it drafted the Budget, why in heaven's name did it decide to hammer senior citizens through partial deindexation of pensions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again I caution the Hon. Member against drawing the conclusion that he is trying to draw. This Budget attempts to get a degree of job creation and economic wealth established so that we can support the programs about which the Hon. Member speaks so strongly. As we are able to generate that wealth for the Government of Canada, we can make some changes if they are appropriate.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT RESTORING FULL INDEXATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting answer.

But the irony of it is that the Minister is leaving for China tomorrow, a country where respect for the elderly is traditional.
Here is my question, Mr. Speaker. Before leaving, can the Minister announce to the coalition of senior citizens who will be here in Ottawa tomorrow for a gathering on Parliament Hill that they can expect full indexation of old age security pensions, not just half measures? It is an important question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the same question three times. All I will do is
Oral Questions
suggest to the Hon. Member that he read Hansard later today to get the answer.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER WITHDRAW PROPOSAL
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. A five-year study of senior citizens in Ontario reveals that 42 per cent of seniors are already living in poverty. Obviously the Minister's plan to deindex pensions will make the situation much worse for many seniors, and not just those who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Will the Minister not now agree to withdraw the harsh proposal which should never have been put forward in the first place?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear to the Hon. Member that 1 am as concerned as she is about the plight of senior citizens, not just in Ontario but right across the country. However, we also know that when we have a Government that has been wallowing in waste for the past 15 years, we have to take leadership to try to come to grips with the problems. We are trying to come to grips with the problems, and if the Hon. Member, who is an active member on the finance and other committees, has some ideas on how we can make further savings in spending programs, I could welcome her suggestions. I will meet with her any time, any place, to hear from her.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, indeed one can think of many ways to reduce the deficit other than attacking senior citizens. In addition to the direct assault on the pocketbooks of senior citizens, the Budget proposals include a $2 billion reduction in transfer payments to the provinces. On May 27 the Minister of Finance said-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, this is becoming another preamble. Is there a question, please?


Aideen Nicholson: Yes, my question is about inconsistent statements, Mr. Speaker. On May 27 the Minister of Finance said that these payments will be increased-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but this is supposed to be a supplementary question. Preambles are not allowed. Is there a question?


Aideen Nicholson: Yes, I have asked the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Aideen Nicholson: Will the Minister of Finance tell senior citizens what to believe, his statement of May 27 indicating that transfer payments to the provinces are being increased, or

June 18, 1985
Oral Questions
the statement made by the Minister of State for Finance on June 12 indicating that they are being reduced?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not quite sure I understand the substance of the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member would ask a straightforward question, she might be able to get an answer. What I think I heard her say was that there have been some inconsistencies regarding what we are about to do with-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I suggest that there is a very major inconsistency between the Leader of the Opposition, who says that we should cut the deficit, and all of the members of the Liberal Party who say that we should jack up the spending.
Let me answer the question quite specifically. We have proposed an increase in the EPF over the next six years but it will not be quite as high as the formula stated originally. However, the result of that will be that the amount of postsecondary education and health spending by the federal Government will be the same per cent of program of expenditures now as was the case then.


PENSIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. The Minister is aware, I am sure, that studies have been done, both here and in the United States, indicating conclusively that the elimination of capital gains taxes produces few, if any, productive jobs. Keeping that in mind, and recognizing the need to exempt farms and homes from capital gains-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -will the Minister reconsider his proposal to eliminate capital gains taxes, and use the money that that would generate to offset what he now proposes to raise from deindexing pensions, so he can put back in place the indexation provisions for the old age pensioners?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Hon. Member should settle down and think a little about what he said. Why does he distinguish between a small business, into which a family puts its heart and soul over a lifetime, and a farm? There is a very clear inconsistency in the Member's thinking.
The other point which I would like to make is that he and his Party have never shown any confidence in the ability and the desire of individual Canadians to build something for
themselves, to create wealth, and something for their families which is important to them. As it is important to them, it is important to the whole country. That is what we are trying to generate with the capital gains exemption. It will create jobs in the country. It will create the wealth which will provide revenue for the Government so that we will be able to afford those programs. Surely the Hon. Member can recognize that.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the answer is too long.


REQUEST FOR BUDGET REVIEW
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not recognize, given that close to 40 per cent of seniors in the Province of Ontario live at or below the poverty line, that the deindexing of old age pensions will result in an even larger number of senior citizens-who built this country, who took chances and who put their lives on the line-who will have to live at levels far below what they ought to be able to live at? Will the Minister reconsider all the measures in the Budget to find within them ways of raising the $250 million which is necessary to allow seniors to have indexed pensions, as they deserve?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have yet to hear the Hon. Member compliment the Government on its economic policies. I would suggest that he look at the record. Before he jumps up and down and gets red in the face, he should look at the fact that 271,000 jobs have been created.


Ian Deans: Look at the 1.7 million people who are still unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He should look at the fact that mortgage rates have dropped by 3 per cent. In the first quarter of this year, economic growth was 50 per cent higher than people were forecasting. I know the Hon. Member does not like to hear that, because it undercuts his argument. It takes away from the force of the things which he is trying to say. Canadians are not fooled by that. Canadians are very pleased and confident. Individual confidence, consumer confidence, and business confidence are increasing. That is what will create jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Small Businesses I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The intergovernmental position paper on the principles and framework for regional economic development
June 18, 1985

which was signed by the Government of Canada, all ten provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, has just been released.
In the concluding pages of the document reference is made to the Government's pledge to develop more effective policies for small and medium-sized businesses. I would like to raise a question in connection with a statement which was made that both orders of Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question will come now, please.


Kenneth Albert James: My question to the Minister is: Who will be overseeing these policy changes, and if this joint effort-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.

[ Translation]


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, the kind of answers we are getting today from the Minister of Finance show that he is not faring well under pressure. Here is what I would like to ask him, keeping in mind the fact that he did ask the Opposition for suggestions concerning full old age pension indexation.
On several occasions I referred to the capital gains tax and the benefits given to people-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Raymond Garneau: Would the Minister of Finance agree to consider the possibility of reducing by half the benefits he is giving wealthier Canadians through the capital gains tax exemption? Would the Minister be prepared to entertain the suggestion that such benefits be cut by half and that the funds so recouped be used to restore full old age security pension indexation? There would be enough-$150 million the first year and $300 million the second year.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it tests the patience of a person to hear that sort of question coming from that particular Member. I can understand it coming from some other Members, but that particular Member has been against indexation and universality. Those things have not been attributed to him, but they are things about which he has written in the past. An Hon. Member from his side of the House talked about inconsistency. Maybe the Hon. Member should try to develop a little more consistency in the questions which he puts.
Oral Questions


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance can find one single document I wrote about deindexation of old age security pensions, I would ask him to table it in the House. The Minister of Finance is complaining about being broke yet he did find $8.5 billion for the oil multinationals and nothing at all for the elderly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member ought to ask his supplementary question.


UTILIZATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO ASSIST ELDERLY-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance is this: Is he prepared to consider-I will repeat my question since he did not answer the first-is he prepared to consider setting a limit on benefits related to capital gains made in Canada and using the money thus saved to maintain full indexation of old age security pensions for senior citizens?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 guess more articles will be retracted by the Hon. Member.
He cannot have it both ways. On the one hand he says that we have to create jobs. On the other hand he is telling me that he wants me to cut the deficit. He has made positive comments in that regard since he has become a Member of the House. If he wants to have jobs created, particularly in the oil and gas industry, then he has to recognize that the National Energy Program which was put in place by the previous Government, the Party of which he is a member, killed jobs in the oil and gas industry and that it spread right across Canada. He must recognize the disaster of that policy. If not, he is talking in another manner which is very inconsistent.


EMPLOYMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister wrote to me recently to say that the private sector would create thousands of summer jobs without wage subsidies because private enterprise has been "challenged by the new atmosphere of co-operation and harmony between Canada's economic partners". If that is the case, why does the Minister find it necessary to bribe her business friends with an opportunity to win ten cases of Coke if they hire a student? Do jobs go better with Coke?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been critical of the Challenge '85 Program since it was announced. I

June 18, 1985
Oral Questions
want to tell him that today the figures show that some 78,000 young people have jobs because of that program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is 78,000 jobs as against 50,000 jobs this time last year. In fact the progam is so good that the Hon. Member's colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, put out a press release to say just how good it really is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Perhaps he ought to get together with that Hon. Member.
I do want to tell the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville that last month alone 34,000 more jobs had been created for young people, in one single month, and that is because of a combination of the efforts of the private sector and the Government working together.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we had better lock the lavatories of the nation because an awful lot of coke has been drunk. Last week it was old coke. Next week, perhaps, it will be new coke. Maybe we will have the Pepsi Challenge '85 for the Pepsi generation.


PRIZES FOR JOBS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: If the Minister has so much confidence in her summer employment program and the private sector, why has she resorted to such bush league tactics as advertising prizes for jobs in newspapers, as she did in Hamilton?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, one thing the Hon. Member will never recognize is that there is such a thing as incentive in this society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I want to give the Hon. Member an example of the kind of program which he is downcrying. The program last year had a young student working at painting park benches. This year, under this program, that same engineering student is working in a biomedical engineering project in a research hospital. That is the difference between last-year and the kinds of jobs which are being created now.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. All Canadians have joined the rest of the world in concern over the turbulence in the Middle East. Our
concern is for the safety of Canadians. I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs could give us an estimate or update on the situation which Canadians face there?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the House knows the action the Government has taken with regard to our representatives in Lebanon and would share my concern that the consular, visitor visa, and immigration services of Canada remain available to people in Lebanon who would normally avail themselves of the services. We intend to make those services available through Damascus and Syria, and our ambassador accredited to Syria is now in the process of discussing the putting in place of those arrangements with the officials of Syria.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On September 4 last year, Canadians voted for the present Government. They voted for the Mulroney Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucie Pépin: They voted for the Mulroney Government because they felt they would have security.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucie Pépin: Since the Budget, their attitude has changed considerably, because they cannot understand the Government's shift in policy.
Recently, I visited a number of towns in Quebec, and the elderly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very long preamble. Is there a question?


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of Finance would inform the House what he intends to do to restore the climate of confidence and trust that existed between the elderly and the Government, so that elderly Canadians will no longer feel threatened and will no longer be afraid of this Government and of what the future holds.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first, I would thank the Hon. Member for her ringing endorsement of the events of September 4. I would also remind her that there has been a considerable improvement in confidence in a broad way right across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 18, 1985


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member is telling her colleagues to keep quiet and let me answer her question. I thank her for that also.
What I would say to the Hon. Member is that we are also concerned about the position of elderly Canadians, particularly those who are receiving both the GIS and the OAS. As I have said on a number of occasions in answer to questions today, we are monitoring this situation very closely. We are talking to people on a regular basis. 1 think that we should be able to respond to the concerns she has expressed.


THE BUDGET
Lucie Pépin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
1 simply want to add that Canadians voted for the present Government because they thought it was offering them security, something you are not giving them today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know on the basis of what principles of social justice the Minister of Finance is requiring the elderly to fight once again to have their pensions indexed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about the need for greater security. Surely she understands that if the debt of the country is growing 25 per cent per annum, no one, not a senior citizen, nor any person who is benefiting from any type of program of the Government of Canada, can feel secure that that program will be in existence in five years time.


Some Hon. Members:: We want Crosbie.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It astounds me, Mr. Speaker, when I hear the chirping over there, that those people do not understand that 25 per cent growth per annum means that the debt will double every three years. It will double in three years' time, it will double again in six years' time, and it will quadruple in nine years' time. That is the fundamental nature of the problem we are facing.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If we cannot get control of that, there will be no security for anyone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions HUMAN RIGHTS


CHILE-ABUSES PERPETRATED BY PINOCHET REGIME
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, in the foreword to the Government's Green Paper on Foreign Policy, makes the following statement:
We are determined to help eradicate human rights abuses that deny our fellow human beings the freedom and dignity to which they are all entitled.
Is the Minister prepared to join with Amnesty International and other groups, and express his revulsion over the murder, torture, and other human rights abuses perpetrated by the Pinochet regime in Chile?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada on several occasions has made known to authorities in Chile our revulsion at the practices of that regime. We intend to continue to do so.
I think it entirely helpful that Hon. Members of the House will, as the Hon. Member has, indicate that that is not simply an attitude of the Government but it is an attitude widely held by citizens across the country.


REPORTED EXPORT OF PARA MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Minister's response I would like to ask him why his Department granted an export permit to Med-Eng Systems Incorporated of Ottawa, on November 5 last year, to export para-military equipment to the Chilean National Police who, according to Amnesty International, participated in the murder and torture of hundreds of Chilean civilians last year? Does this not make a mockery of what the Minister just said?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question of detail as notice. I will look into the situation and reply to the Hon. Member, and to the House, as soon as I have information.


BASEBALL DECISION UNFAIR TO CANADIAN UMPIRES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. While we are all waiting for the day when the World Series will be held in Canada between the Expos and the Blue Jays, will the Minister ascertain why Canadians, who have graduated from recognized umpire schools in the United States, are not permitted to umpire in the minor or major leagues in the United States, while American umpires in baseball, and American referees in hockey, work in Canada? Should this not be a two-way street?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 18, 1985
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that very serious question. We are looking into it seriously. We have had discussions with officials of the United States. We are not completely satisfied as yet with the response-


Mr. Blaikie:: Give them a fast ball, Joe.
Mir. Clark (Yellowhead): -but it is the bottom of the seventh inning, and we expect that we will win that particular game before the end of the ninth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond for one question.


PENSIONS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. 1 want to read to him what the Nova Scotia Development Minister said regarding deindexation:
Our obligation to our elders is not to be taken lightly, nor rejected out of hand. To ask them to make this sacrifice ... is to go too far. The fear exists that such callous disregard for a pre-election commitment may be only the first step in reducing benefits to the elderly.
How much evidence does the Minister of Finance need to change this regressive, callous, ruthless, and vicious legislation? How much evidence does he need?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the hon. gentleman of answers I have given previously in the House. It is not a very original question that he poses. But I will say to him that the thrust of the Budget is to create jobs and generate the wealth which will give us the funds whereby we can get the deficit down and enable us to afford these programs. There is nothing fair about everyone watching our debt go up 25 per cent-the Hon. Member shakes his head and waves his hand. He is going to have to understand the basic rule of compound interest. When debt grows 25 per cent per annum, year in and year out-the Hon. Member from Newfoundland is indicating he does not understand it either. It is simple mathematics. Growth of 25 per cent will double the debt in three years from $200 billion to $400 billion. Three years later it will have gone from $400 billion to $800 billion, and so on. You cannot go on forever, and people better get used to that.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of four, presented by Hon. Members on Monday, June 17, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley), the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) and the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees. The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the rules will not even permit me to say thank you to the House.
1 have the honour to present the third report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, in both official languages, to which a comprehensive response is sought pursuant to Standing Order 69( 13).
May I add that copies are available to Hon. Members in the lobbies. May I further add, with your permission, that this report is presented on the seventy-seventh birthday of the Hon. Stanley Knowles, a great parliamentarian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The rules also do not allow me to say thank you to the Hon. Member and his committee on behalf of the House, but I am sure the House would want me to.


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Forestry in both official languages.
June 18, 1985

[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions. One is signed by some Canadians who are protesting the measures in the federal Budget which severely affect the economic situation of senior citizens and call upon Parliament not to deindex old age pensions.
I have another petition from another group of senior Canadian citizens complaining about the effect of Bill C-26 on widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. They ask that the benefits of the Bill be applied to all citizens in need between the ages of 60 and 64.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Halifax signed by over 1,000 people, many of whom met the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in Halifax. They simply ask that the Government change the deindexing provisions of the May 23 Budget, those provisions placing an undue and unfair hardship on pensioners.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of the municipality of Chartierville, I want to present a petition asking for an adjustment in the price of oil, which is too expensive, especially in view of the proximity of this municipality to the United States.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition asking the Government to reconsider its budgetary measure to deindex OAS pensions partially. The petition is presented by several constituents of mine who live in a senior citizens' home.

I also have a second petition, Mr. Speaker, from about 50 of my constituents of Ottawa-Vanier who ask the Government to reconsider its position and to keep its promise of indexing senior citizens' pensions.

I also have a petition from another area of my riding dealing with the Conservative Government's failure to keep its promise of January, 1985 when it declared that any savings which may result from programs changed will not be applied to deficit reduction. They ask the Government to change its position on its proposal and not deindex old age pensions in January, 1986.
Point of Order-Mr. McCurdy
[ Translation]
I also have a petition, Mr. Speaker, sent to me and signed by many residents of the Gatineau riding, who ask the Government to change its policy and to respect the promise made to senior citizens not to remove the full indexation of old age security pensions in January 1986.


[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT OF MISS MacDONALD DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Speaker:: I understand the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) has a point of order.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) indicated that a press release had been issued by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) praising Challenge '85. Reading the contents of the communique to which she referred one can only conclude that the Minister lied.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member resume his seat, please? Will the Hon. Member now please rise and withdraw the statement?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to withdraw the term "lie", but I know of no other way of indicating that the Minister did not tell the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is relatively new here so I will simply indicate to him our practice. The Hon. Member will please rise in his place and simply withdraw the statement.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to follow the directions of the Chair, but again I must say that the statement-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I withdraw the statement as I previously described it. Nevertheless, I have to say that the Minister did not accurately portray the contents of the press release issued by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that we now have a withdrawal. I am now in a position to indicate that the Hon. Member has not raised a point of order.

June 18, 1985
Petitions



Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition to the House today on behalf of several hundred people from the Province of Nova Scotia who protest the draconian move to deindex pensions of senior citizens. They say that the losers will be the poor people of Canada, the unemployed and women.
[ Translation]


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy and honoured to present a petition from senior citizens in the Bourassa riding, who ask the Prime Minister to respect the commitment he made last summer during the 1984 election campaign and to restore full indexation of old age security pensions.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from some 100 people of Halifax. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program in Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions containing many signatures of citizens from the metropolitan Toronto area who are asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to maintain full indexation of the old age pension.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from the communities of Dundurn, Viscount, Allan, Aberdeen Leroy, Spalding, Englefeld, Jansen, Semans and Leastock in my riding. They urge the Government to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program in Canada.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by all the senior residents of Skead, Ontario, in my riding. This petition calls upon the House of Commons to withdraw the partial deindexation of the old age pension which, as they point out in their covering letter, would make them pay again as they have paid all their lives in contributing to the growth of Canada.
I also have a petition signed by many residents of St. Vincent's Guest House in Halifax, in which they too call upon the Government and Parliament to withdraw the partial deindexation of the old age pension.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed mainly by the people from the communities of Amherst and Springhill, Nova Scotia, beseeching Parliament and the Government not to proceed with the deindexing of the Old Age Security Program.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several dozen constituents in Elliot Lake, Ontario, calling on the Government to reinstate the full indexation of old age pensions and deploring the fact that they are being unfairly penalized in order to benefit large multinational oil companies and high income groups.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a dozen constituents in Gore Bay, Manitoulin Islands, calling on the Government to reinstate full indexation of old age pension.
I also have a petition from some 25 constituents from Espanola, calling on the Government to reinstate the old age pension with full indexation starting next January.
I also have a petition from a dozen constituents in Whitefish Falls, Ontario, calling on the Government to reinstate old age pensions with full indexation.
I have a petition from the Town of Little Current, signed by several dozen constituents there, calling on the Government to reinstate the old age pension with full indexation rights and calling upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to keep his campaign commitment of the 1984 general election.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to this House a petition from residents of Saint-Louis-de-Kent, Richibucto and Kou-chibouguac, in my constituency, who are very concerned about certain Budget announcements and who recommend through this House to the Government that full indexing of old age security pensions be re-established.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition from Halifax calling upon the Government to fully index pensions and live up to its campaign promises.
I have a more extensive petition from my riding in Winnipeg calling on the Government to live up to its promise and fully index Old Age Security pensions.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people from Vernon, British Columbia, who are concerned about the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Test Range in Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. Among their concerns are the procedures for and results of radiation monitoring tests of waters that are adjacent to the area, that Section 1 of the agreement between Canada and the United States authorizing the test range is ambiguous, and that the naval policy of the United States, in neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons in the area, is unacceptable.
They urge the House to hold a full public inquiry before the present agreement is negotiated, with power to investigate the above concerns.
June 18, 1985


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour again to present petitions from pensioners who are protesting the intent of the Government to deindex the Old Age Security and demanding that the Government not proceed with that proposal.
As well, to the already considerable list of names submitted from the City of Windsor, I add a thousand on behalf of pensioners who petition the Government not to proceed with the deindexation.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from constituents in my riding protesting that the deindexing proposals of the Government represent a massive withdrawal from our collective commitment to public pensions and that the losers will be the poor, the unemployed and women. They pray that the House of Commons reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program in Canada.
These petitions come from the City of Thunder Bay, from Nipigon and Red Rock. I note that on one of these petitions is the signature of Mr. Edward Lauzon who recently had the honour of receiving the lifestyle award from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present petitions on behalf of my constituents who object to the decision by the Government of Canada to deindex Old Age Security. I have a petition from the residents of Vickers Heights, the residents of the community of Sheban-dowan, and 158 more from the city of Thunder Bay.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, organized by the Northwest Territories Seniors Society. It contains some 90 signatures, mainly of old age pensioners from the City of Yellowknife. The petition points out that living costs in the North are considerably higher than in the South and any lowering of benefits to the elderly in the North will cause undue hardship, and therefore urges the Government to reconsider its proposal partially to deindex old age pensions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that yesterday I alluded to the draft order that consultations had to be carried on with the Liberal Party. These consultations have now been concluded and I think you will find that there is disposition to receive, by unanimous consent, and to pass without debate, the following order:
Borrowing Authority Act
That the document entitled Refugee Determination in Canada laid upon the table on Monday, June 17, 1985, be permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority-Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of State (Finance))-Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: When the committee adjourned at two o'clock, Clause 2 of the Bill and the amendment of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) were under consideration.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a great week, not only for the City of Ottawa and for Parliament, but also for the whole of Canada in that two distinguished parliamentarians are celebrating their birthdays, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, who was honoured in the House today on his seventh-seventh birthday, and the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, who is eighty. In fact, both these gentlemen gave much to Canada in Parliament and outside. It seems to me that when we are discussing the punitive measures which have been put forward by the Government toward senior citizens, we should start looking at the work and the contribution of people like Stanley Knowles and Jack Pickersgill. Many people in Canada did not have the opportunity to sit in Parliament. Many people in Canada did not have the same opportunity as Members of Parliament who now sit in the House to accrue pension benefits. There are

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
many senior citizens in the Province of Ontario, and we know that 40 per cent of our senior citizens are living below the poverty line.
What has been the response of the Minister of Finance? Day after day, hour after hour, he talks about deficit reduction and job creation in the House of Commons. I do not think we are asking Stanley Knowles to get out on the job market again. I do not think that Jack Pickersgill should be forced into the employment sector to pay for his costs of living. In fact, for the Minister of Finance to suggest that somehow job creation will be the salvation of the pensions of senior citizens is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. In fact, it is an insult to seniors that he could stand in his place in Question Period today and say that the Government would not be cutting their pensions in August, September, October or November. Does the Minister of Finance really think that the senior citizens are so stupid as not to realize that the provisions of this Budget will be the New Year's gift of the Conservative Party to the people of Canada in 1986? The New Year's bonus will be a 3 per cent annual reduction in the pensions they would have received, if the Minister of Finance had not delivered this heinous document in the House.
I can understand why the Minister was somewhat riled today during Question Period. We have a tradition in this Parliament that as does the Budget so does the Minister. The Minister is on the run. In the first political act of this Government, we have seen the true colour of the Conservative Party and the true colour of the Minister of Finance. We saw it in the committee this morning when the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate moved an amendment which said to the Government: "If you want to cut the pensions of senior citizens by 3 per cent every year over the next five years, we will cut your budget".
What did the Government House Leader say, in a knee-jerk reaction which was so typical of the Government's approach to senior citizens? He said that if we cut their pensions, they would cut the pensions of the poor. He cannot look at any other solutions. Again the Minister of Finance asked us in the House today to introduce some creative solutions or some suggestions. We have introduced suggestion after suggestion after suggestion.

Today, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Gar-neau) proposed another solution which would be to have the capital gains tax exemption available to 4 per cent of the population, the wealthiest in Canada. The money saved could then be spent on the Old Age Security pensions.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is unable to understand our proposals because he does not understand the poverty of elderly Canadians. He only understands Bay Street politics. He only wants to give his Bay Street friends jobs and benefits. He knows he can give a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption, Mr. Chairman. Capital gains with no strings attached, a present for the 4 per cent of the Canadian people who can take advantage of the exemption.
Mr. Chairman, most elderly Canadians have never been able to earn $400,000 or $500,000. If he does not believe us, perhaps he will believe the letters coming in from across Canada. I have been getting letters from Newfoundland and Britsh Columbia, from elderly Canadians across the country who are asking us . . . There are not many of us in the Opposition. There are 40 in the Liberal Party and 30 in the New Democratic Party. However, we are fighting for the elderly because your so-called Conservative Members are saying nothing.
At least the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) had the courage today to table a petition concerning the problems of people in the North. But where are the other voices? Where are the voices of the Conservatives, the Members from Quebec who have remained silent, who have not said a word to protect our Canadian elderly? Where are they? We have a Conservative majority that made any number of promises to Canadians, but now, when the neediest in our society are being attacked, who is going to protect them? We are, the Liberal Party is. The Liberal Party fought to make the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) face up to the fact that he broke his word, that he did not keep the promise he made in Sherbrooke, that he actually lied or failed to tell Canadians the truth.
Mr. Chairman-

Perhaps I cannot say it as well as a constituent from Newfoundland who wrote to me. This particular constituent expressed well the message which would best go out, not only to Members and Ministers on the government side of the House, but to all those back-benchers over there who have not yet had the courage to rise in the House and speak out on this issue.
The letter reads:
Dear Prime Minister:
I write on behalf of myself and the other 22 old age pensioners of my small community who depend on our wee pensions as our sole income. Though I am 73 years of age now and disabled because of Parkinson's disease, 40 years ago I was like Mila; a young wife and mother, busily engaged in the war effort and raising a young family at the same time. We never had to go to Government for any hand-out... but believed we would enjoy our lives particularly those of us in an extended period of widowhood; drawing our earned pensions from a very grateful country's bounty and without fear of our meagre incomes being gnawed down in buying power every year through inflation. Now, we are below the poverty line. We have all done our share. Senior citizens should not be expected to pay off the deficit which has grown about 10 per cent-
I am sorry the Minister of Finance is not here to hear the facts which he should be laying on the Canadian table.
The letter continues:
-during the short period your administration has been in power-
The writer was referring to the Conservative administration.
-while the fat oil industry-personified to us by the television cameras shooting the soap opera, Dallas-are let off the hook in the blind hope that these rich mandarins and petromerchants... buy up more real estate in Florida and throughout the sunbelt states .. . The history of mankind and even true Conservative philosophy. .. corroborates that man is greedy and that the oil company billionaires whenever possible, will be takers rather than givers-
June 18, 1985

Please reconsider your decision to make us pay the piper... in the so-called sunset days of our lives? We did our share when our bodies were strong, our minds acute, our pockets almost empty but our spirits and optimism high.
We simply cannot be collectively nor individually expected to pay again and again. It is simply not fair, and if your Mr. Wilson is not brought to heel by you, fired or ordered to amend this ghastly Budget to offer us reasonable indexing relief we can never believe your word again. We, senior citizens, can only meet together and talk about the wrong you are seen by us to be intended to do commencing next January. Many of us may not even be around to vote against you when the next national election is called, but some of us shall be and others will have "aged" into our non-chosen slots in society. Please do not add insult to injury by having your Ministers and your back-bencher apologists state that senior citizens who need their pensions to exist, will ever truly support this dastardly act? I think we can write enough letters in the coming months to offset that claim and to place such statements in the same trash can as "your campaign one relating to "sacred trusts" ".
I have discussed this letter amongst my peers and all degree I should send it to you having supported my stand wholeheartedly.
This particular letter was written by Bridget Laurie from St. Thomas, Newfoundland. I have received letters from across Canada. This is another letter from Newfoundland from another senior citizen who believed the Conservative Government when the Prime Minister said that pensions would not be touched.
The back-bencher who does not have the courage to get up and speak against this Budget asks whether my interventions are in order. They are in order because the amendment moved by the Member for Gander-Twillingate is telling the Government quite clearly that if it wants to penalize the senior citizens of the country by 3 per cent, it will have to cut its spending by 3 per cent. We are prepared to support a borrowing Bill to give the Government billions and billions of dollars at the same time as that self-same hypocritical Conservative Government is telling the senior citizens of the country that they will be cut, cut and cut.
Is this the New Year's present for which the senior citizens voted when last September they joined with Canadians from coast to coast to give the Conservative Government an overwhelming mandate? No, they were tricked and hoodwinked. They were fooled by a Government and a Prime Minister who, day after day, made promises which he never intended to keep. They were fooled by a Finance Minister who has now shown the Canadian people quite clearly that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his rich friends than he is in helping those in society who can least afford to pay.
I believe there are a number of Members on the government side of the House who do not support this measure. I believe that the caucus meeting of the Conservative Party last week was a heated one. Young people from coast to coast have shown their courage and said that they will pay the deficit, that they do not want their grandparents to bear the burden of that deficit. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Government wants to reverse its position. It realizes that the power of senior citizens across the country is not to be tampered with and that the support which put this Government in office came, in large measure, from the very senior citizens whom the Government is now seeking to destroy and cut back.
Borrowing Authority Act

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that many Members-and not only in the Liberal Party-expect the Prime Minister to take action. Last night in Manicouagan they were expecting the Prime Minister to be true to his word, if that is possible. He even stated in his own book that if he were to make a mistake he would not be ashamed to change his mind. Judging from letters received from across the country, from Newfoundland, from British Columbia, from Ontario, from my own riding, from Hamilton with a petition bearing more than 1,000 signatures, and Friday there will be a gathering where 200, 300, 400, 500 elderly people will come from my constituency to tell this Government what they think of this measure against old age pensioners. We are waiting from some kind of response from the Prime Minister. Before the adjournment, Mr. Chairman, why can he not do something in the House this week by offering an anniversary present to all elderly Canadians who are impatiently waiting for an answer from the Government? There is political unrest throughout the country right now. Mr. Chairman, such unrest means that elderly people are speaking up in most cities to tell their Members, be they Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats: We do not want our pensions reduced. We do not want to have to pay again and again. We cannot afford to pay more because we already live below the poverty line.

While the Minister of Finance is seeking borrowing authority for these billions of dollars and telling the people of Canada that they are supposed to cut back and that seniors of the country will have to bear the burden, what can he say to Mr. Gabriele in my riding? Mr. Guiseppe Gabriele has to support a family. There are some seniors who have children who are still at home. He has to support a wife and a child on a combined monthly income of $904.68. His combined expenses are $953.67. Therefore, he is a net loser every month of approximately $49. He has reached the point where he is even seeking help to be able to afford to pay the taxes on his home.
Can the Minister of Finance tell Mr. Gabriele where he is going to get the extra $30 a month that he will lose as a result of these punitive measures in the old age pension and the family allowance? The deindexation of the family allowance is another insidious tax on families which can least afford to pay. That is another example of the distorted priorities of a Government which will give oil companies $1 billion or $2 billion. It will give people who can afford to have capital gains $.5 million. Yet, with regard to the senior citizens and families of the country, the Government says, "Let them eat cake".
I urge all Members on the government side of the House who feel the same as I do to prevail upon the Minister of Finance to retract and to prevail upon the Prime Minister to keep his word. People believed him. Government Members have a responsibility to force the Prime Minister to uphold his promise to the Canadian people because, by forgoing that promise, he has shown the Canadian people what the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government are really all
5922

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
about. It is a blue-blooded Party for the rich. We knew that before September 4, and now the Party is exposing itself in all its hideousness to the people of Canada.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in this debate on a motion which proposes a 3 per cent reduction in the borrowing authority sought by the Government. I would be overjoyed to be able to join in a debate on a motion for an increase in the amount of borrowing authority if it would ensure the capacity of the Government to cancel deindexation. However, since the rules of the House do not allow us to move in that direction, I shall take part in the present debate.
It is obvious that the actions of the Government have aroused the anger and outrage of many Canadians. That is certainly true in the City of Thunder Bay and in other parts of northwestern Ontario with which I am in touch. I find it astonishing that government Members do not have the same experience. I would like them to hear from some of my constituents regarding their feelings about the Government's actions. I received a copy of a letter which was addressed to the Minister of Finance and was sent by two senior citizens of my riding, Elsie and Wilfred Harrison. They write as follows:
My wife and I are recipients of O.A.S. Pensions, we are also in that category where we do not qualify to receive any portion of the G.I. Supplement, and to continue in this avenue may I say that as of the last return we made to "Internal Revenue" we did not qualify to pay any Income Tax. That, sir, will tell you what our financial level is.
During your Budget Speech, and on several occasions since, I have heard you say that if and when the indexing of O.A.S. Pensions is introduced-that is, when the increase will cover only the amount over 3 per cent-the recipient of the pension will not be hurt.
Sir, you have said it once too often for my liking, so I am writing this letter to tell you that if this miserly item is introduced in 1986, my wife and 1 will be poorer, and in subsequent years, we shall be yet poorer. We, my wife and I, together with our friends cannot understand in what circles you move where "many" people say that this item will not hurt them. Most emphatically will we be hurt, together with thousands of others.
Writing in a similar vein is another senior constituent of mine named Miss K. R. Escott, who writes as follows in a letter that was addressed to me personally:
I wish to add my name to the large number of voters who are unhappy with the 1985 budget as presented by Mr. Wilson and approved by Mr. Mulroney.
They definitely have taken from those who have not to benefit those who have.
I would suggest that both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Mulroney "tighten their belts" for the next five years to the degree where each of these men are compelled to live on the basic old age pension for the remainder of their elected term.
That suggestion would certainly drive the lesson home for Ministers of the Crown who think that this particular sacrifice can be borne with equanimity by our seniors.
Next I have a letter from another constituent, one who has the good fortune to be employed by the grain elevators of Thunder Bay. In another area, he experienced the cancellation of the home ownership savings plan to which he had been contributing for six years. He feels very strongly about that. In reference to the cancellation of the home ownership savings plan, he begins a paragraph by stating:
Also while I'm on the subject of cheating I would like to state that I do not like the way this Government has treated my Grandmother and the senior citizens of this country. You would think that in the 80's the government would stop picking on the people who made this country.
Is there no law against this dictatorship and to what depth will this new Government sink to? In the election the people have trusted the Conservative Party with the affairs of this country ... and it seems that the people will have to suffer because of the lies that we have been fed.
I hope that you, Ian Angus and Ed Broadbent, will keep reminding the Canadian people of the mistake that was made in 1984. Make sure that the people know that the Conservatives are for the rich. And that they don't forget it.
He concludes with the following observation:
-I feel that these fat cat Conservatives should be put on the budget and earnings of an "Ordinary Canadian" and then made to tighten their belts.
This letter was sent to me by Jim Fiorito, one of my constituents who is employed in the elevator industry. He was recently married and has a daughter. He is concerned about his grandmother and other seniors.
I have a fourth letter which was sent to me from another working man although he is closer to retirement age than the previous writer and has a wife who is already receiving a pension. Mr. Ewald Dombrowsky writes as follows:
-the Budget is very unfair not only for pensioners but also for ordinary Canadians. Where are the Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!!?? ... Our son is unemployed already 2x/i years, he has a family (3 boys) and nothing is coming up here. It is a hard situation.
We hope, you and the New Democratic Party will continue working to ensure fairness for all Canadians.
That last sentence, of course, relates very nicely to the question to which I referred in passing, which is, why is it that members of the Opposition receive letters of this sort and see constituents coming into their offices in large numbers signing petitions to protest the action of the Government while government Members claim not to be seeing that? They may of course be refusing to pass on that information.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare did not appreciate the suggestion that his riding office in southeastern Manitoba was putting constituents on hold when they called in to complain about the pensions, and I can well imagine that he did not appreciate that suggestion. I take it, though, that government Members are not encouraging their constituents in any way to protest the actions the Government has taken and are trying to enforce that regime of silence, which was surely the Government's hope when the Budget was brought down on May 23, a regime of silence in which people in the various quarters would swallow their medicine or run off with the gains that the Budget would give them, each mourning or rejoicing in solitude and silence that which the Budget did.
Surely if members of the Government were to seek the honest opinions of their constituents, there would not be much doubt about what those constituents think. I would suggest to people all across the country, and in fact to all those who are watching us this afternoon, enjoying what we are debating and hoping that it will have an effect on the Government, to make sure that the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for these things, hears from them.
June 18, 1985

The Minister of Finance does what the Prime Minister tells him to do. Quite clearly, he was on about a six-inch leash yesterday while the Prime Minister mulled over how to get out of the terrible hole he has got himself into regarding this monumental political mistake. I would like to be sure that the Prime Minister at least is aware of what Canadians think, so 1 urge people all across the country to write to the Prime Minister at Room 309-S here in the House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A2, and be very sure to get those letters in because the Prime Minister's Office certainly wants to know what Canadians think about the actions of Government, good and ill.
In this case, we have an ill action by the Government and constituents ought to let the Prime Minister know that they do not approve. They ought to urge him on this process of cogitation in which he is clearly involved these days as he determines how he can cancel this particular proposal of the Budget without at the same time cancelling the career of the Minister of Finance.
Canadians do want to keep putting on the pressure so that the Government keeps the promises it made during the election campaign of last summer and remains faithful to the expectations that were aroused in the minds of Canadians from coast to coast as more and more extravagant promises were made, even though the Conservative Leader and his Party were well aware of the financial position of the country and well aware of the need that existed for the Government to deal with all those challenges that will get us back toward the full employment that we all seek. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity this afternoon to put some of my constituents' comments on the record and to urge Canadians to put the pressure on this Government that it deserves regarding this very unfortunate feature of the Budget.


Carlo Rossi: From the outset of the debate on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that we want to establish clearly the intentions of the Official Opposition and the reason why we moved it. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, ever since the Budget was tabled we find it unfair and inequitable. We on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, have tried every means to make Government Members, more particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), understand that it is unacceptable in a modern society like ours in 1985 that the deficit be reduced by favouring the rich and attacking the poorest people in our society, Mr. Chairman. Those are poor people who have only their old age security pension, and more particularly others who get nothing more than the pension and the guaranteed income supplement. Mr. Chairman, all Canadians know very well that when we talk about the guaranteed income supplement we are referring to very old and very poor people.
I would invite the Prime Minister to visit my riding of Bourassa. I would also invite the Minister of Finance to visit my beautiful riding of Bourassa and face the elderly residents
Borrowing Authority Act
of Manoir Aimee-Leonard, face the elderly residents of Manoir Gouin, every one of them aged 65 or more, face the senior citizens of Angelica and Cascade homes for the aged, face the senior citizens of Tours Gouin, Sainte-Rita home for the aged, Manoir de Montreal, Manoir l'Escapade, Residence du Confort-it may be called Residence du Confort, but they are elderly people-Residence Manoir Tremblay, Montreal North, and the 15 Golden Age Clubs.
One thing for sure, Mr. Chairman, is that if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were to agree to meet with people in my riding and ask them whether they are prepared to accept the 3 per cent deindexation, they would be told: Mr. Prime Minister, what about your election promises, particularly your sacred promise to maintain full indexation? Mr. Prime Minister, you may rest assured that Canadians will remember, and let me tell you something I like to repeat often-you have fooled Canadians on September 4. As the saying goes in English:
"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, Mr. Prime Minister".

That bears repeating and as the saying goes, you can fool some Canadians some of the time, but you certainly cannot fool them all the time, Mr. Prime Minister. Once again to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman: Do you have enough heart, audacity and guts to meet with elderly people and tell them that deindextion will cost them $1,500 within five years? Do you have that kind of courage, Mr. Prime Minister? And now to Conservative Members, Members on the Government side, this is a humane not a partisan issue, we are not trying to defeat the Government and, as I said, we are not trying to score political points. We are simply asking for very humanitarian treatment. All we are asking is that you urge the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to reconsider their decision, urge them not to go ahead with deindexation of old age security pensions, and not think it over month after month and thus keep elderly people in a state of anxiety for six, seven or eight months. And 1 would ask the Hon. Members opposite to ensure this is done as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, thousands and thousands of people from coast to coast in this country are protesting against the unfairness and inadequacy of this measure. The Quebec National Assembly has also passed a unanimous resolution condemning the measure and urging the Government of Canada to reverse a decision it considers to be a demonstration of flagrant injustice towards senior citizens who are among the neediest in our society.

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
Mr. Chairman, 1 want to extend my sincere congratulations to the Conservative Member, the Member on the Government side who showed some realism and rose today in the House to present a petition-


Philip Derek Lewis: This was a first.


Carlo Rossi: -it is a first, but he had guts just the same, something you do not have. You will never have guts. Go and hide behind the curtains. You will never have the guts your colleague had when he rose-


Marcel Danis: Order, please! Order!


Carlo Rossi: You do not have the courage to be human. You do not have the courage to speak to the elderly. You do not have the courage because you are afraid to say what you think. The Members opposite know this. They are all hiding, and they do not have the guts to talk to the elderly in their senior citizens' homes. You all have senior citizens' homes. The Hon. Member from Chicoutimi ... I see the Minister thinks this is funny-


Mrs. Vezina:: Rimouski!


Carlo Rossi: Pardon? Rimouski. Even better. Rimouski. With due respect, I do not want to know about the Hon. Minister's political antecedents, and I certainly will not reveal them to the House.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Hon. Member's Conservative colleagues will do likewise, that is, become realists, and I would urge them to go to the senior citizens' homes, Mr. Chairman. The Members here from Quebec all have senior citizens' homes in their ridings. Go and visit them. Do not be partisan. Approach them with an open mind. Ask them what they think about this. I can assure you that when you come back to the House and you want to say what they were thinking, you too will rise in the House, like your colleague, and you too will present a petition, because petitions are being made across Quebec, and I know what I am talking about.
Mr. Chairman, 1 said that I hoped his Conservative colleagues would do likewise when faced with reality, that they would forget their political partisanship and would consult objectively and realistically with senior citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge Government Members on both sides of the House, especially the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and above all the Members from Quebec . .. Because tomorrow, the elderly from Quebec are going to march past the Parliament Buildings, and they will want to see you. 1 would urge all the Ministers from Quebec to go and see their senior citizens, and there will be no faked or pre-arranged interviews. They will speak openly.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding, I want to renew my request to Members on both sides of the House: be human. Once again, we are not out to make the Government fall. This is not a
matter of political partisanship. Tomorrow, we will see our senior citizens in front of the Parliament Buildings, on Parliament Hill, and we will be able to listen to their claims, their complaints and to what they have to say, and 1 would urge all Hon. Members to meet tomorrow and to take action.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, I have been here for some 17 or 18 Budgets speeches, Budget Bills and borrowing authority Bills, and this is the first time I can recall that neither the Minister of Finance, nor the Minister of State for Finance or their Parliamentary Secretaries are in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 have never seen it happen before. When the Government of Canada is borrowing $18 billion, one would think that this would have some kind of high priority. I hope we are not being left to the tender mercies of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I see he is sitting in front of the officials from the Department of Finance. If we are being left to his tender mercies, then we are doomed again.
There is a myth being circulated in this country, Mr. Chairman, about the amounts which Governments borrow and their fantastic deficits. In fact, this Government and its predecessors, both Liberal and Tory, have been hypnotized by the deficit. I would hope that there is an Hon. Member in the Cabinet who can answer some questions about the deficit.
Deficits are accrued because we borrow money to pay off previous borrowings and to pay current bills. We also borrow money to invest in the future of the country. What I do not understand as an innocent prairie boy, Mr. Chairman, is that the deficit in 1945 was much higher than it is now and if you put it in 1985 dollars, the deficit at the end of the Second World War was about two or three times as high as it is now. 1 recall, as an innocent prairie boy, hearing the experts, the financial columnists, the Tories and the Grits all screaming about the deficit. I would like to direct some questions if, as and when the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Finance or one of their Parliamentary Secretaries arrive.
In the first place, if we put this money for which borrowing authority is sought into housing, into cleaning up our air and water, into reforestation and a whole host of other projects, that would not be a deficit expenditure. It would be an investment.


John Horton McDermid: We are doing that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That would reduce unemployment. Is there anyone around on the government side who can tell me, Mr. Chairman, if it is not correct that if we reduce unemployment now from the 11 per cent to the 12 per cent range down to 7 per cent or 7.5 per cent, we will wipe out the deficit within three years?
There is another area I would like to touch on, and 1 hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will pay attention.
June 18, 1985

Last year the federal Government paid $21 billion in interest on the national debt. Of course, the financial experts emphasized the enormity of that amount. It was at least 5 per cent of the Gross National Product. It required one-third of the Government's revenue, which amounted to $2,500 per taxpayer, to pay the interest on the national debt. That is in 1984. There is a notable oversight there. Ninety per cent of that $21 billion in interest was paid to Canadians. That is the proportion of the federal government bonds held in Canada. The average Canadian taxpayer, if you averaged out the $21 billion, received almost $2,500 in interest. So that all that happened was that we were lending money out and paying ourselves back. In fact, the Government received almost the same amount back as it paid out in interest charges on this mythical deficit.
There is another angle, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will think about this as well. The Bank of Canada, our central bank, responsible for regulating the national money supply, held government bonds in 1984 to the tune of $17 billion. That is about 10 per cent of the total outstanding debt. The Bank of Canada is wholly owned by the federal Government and the people of Canada. At the end of each calendar year it turns over its net revenue to the Government of Canada. So in 1984, the Bank of Canada received $1,981 billion in interest on the federal bonds it held. It had an operating cost of $129 million. Therefore, the Bank of Canada returned to the Government of Canada $1,832,000,000. Thus the Government of Canada received back 93 per cent of the money it paid as bond interest to the Bank of Canada in 1984. So what is the reason for all this terror and hypnotism on the government side about the deficit?
In 1939, the federal Government paid out only $135 million on a $21 billion debt compared to the $21 billion it paid out in 1984. That is nearly 200 times more last year than in 1939. But the average Canadian lived pretty poorly in 1939. The unemployment level across the country was at 15 per cent. People were on welfare and some joined the Army in order to receive a dollar a day. If what applied then were to apply now, according to the financial exports and the Minister of Finance when he talks about his deficit, I suppose Canadians would be running around eating scraps and wearing rags. The whole mythology of the deficit is not how much the deficit is, but what the deficit is for. The fact is that in all its domestic borrowings, the Government takes back almost as much as it borrows. What it pays out in interest charges it takes back in taxes. That has always been the case and there is nothing new about it.
This might sound like sacrilege around here, but why not add about three billion bucks to this borrowing authority to be put into housing, reforestation and cleaning up our air and water? It will put people to work earning income, paying taxes, and reducing the deficit.


Paul Wyatt Dick: And increase inflation.
Borrowing Authority Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It has been done a number of times before by various and sundry Liberal and Tory Governments. They did not buy the Proposition 13 syndrome imported from California. How much of this borrowing is going to go into job creation and reducing the deficit? Not a nickel. It is all going to go off into the same vicious circle. You borrow the money from the taxpayers and collect it back in almost equal amounts. That is where the mythology is in this nonsense about deficits. One thing my friends opposite forget is that you cannot compare an individual living above his means and borrowing beyond his capacity to repay his debt with a Government which has done the same thing because the essential difference is that governments can tax people from whom they borrow the money.


Mr.   de Cotret@: That is what you want to do.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is exactly what you are doing. You tax them to pay for the money you borrowed from them. No little storekeeper, farmer or fisherman can do that. If he runs a deficit, he has to rake it up all by himself. But Governments are different, municipal, provincial and federal. They tax the people they borrow money from and that is how they pay off the borrowings. If I, an innocent prairie boy, am wrong, I hope someone will get up and correct me. I would like to know from someone over there or from the Department of Finance whether it was correct that 90 per cent of the $21 billion in interest payments last year on our debt was paid to Canadians, and that the average Canadian bond holder got about $2,500 from the Government. In turn, the Government taxed them for slightly over $2,400 on those interest earnings. If I am not correct, I hope someone will get up and tell me so and show me so.
We all appreciate the fact that the Government needs to have revenue, and much has been said by some of my colleagues about the options available to a Government of any party, and I want to return to a matter 1 have raised in every budget debate since 1968. At that time, deferred corporate taxes amounted to a little under $20 billion. They now amount to around $35 billion. No other citizen, individual farmer, fisherman, small storekeeper or anyone else, can defer his taxes. Just try it and you will have Revenue Canada on your neck. But there is in excess of $35 billion in deferred corporate taxes on the books of this country, and if the Government would care to charge the bank rate or 1 per cent over prime as interest on those deferred corporate taxes, you would have about $3.5 billion to put people to work and reduce the deficit. In fact, you would be surprised at how many corporations would be rushing forward to reduce their deferred corporate taxes. You would be amazed, because they would not want to face that interest bill every year. How about that? That is not some socialist dogma. If you lend someone money, you charge him interest, pure and simple. So let us give him a reasonable break; 9 per cent interest on the deferred corporate taxes.
Mr. Chairman, the tragedy is that every year we go through a borrowing authority exercise and we get the free enterprise Governments hypnotized by the size of the deficit, but they do

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
not tell us the whole story. They never have. They do not tell us that most of the borrowings are held by Canadians and it is Canadians who collect the interest. It is Canadians who pay back most of the interest in income taxes. They would pay back more if we had a fair tax system. Well, I would be inclined, if the Government were to come in with an amendment to the borrowing authority Bill, to put $1 billion into housing. Every city in this country has a waiting list as long as your arm for chronic care beds and rooms in senior citizens' homes. I would put $1 billion into cleaning up our air and water. You could put 200,000 young people to work there. Then another $1 billion should go into transportation and reforestation or whatever else. We did it during the war, and we ran a deficit that in 1985 dollars is three times a high as the one we have now. We only had a population of 10 million people then. So do not give me that nonsense about reducing the deficit at the expense of old age pensioners, farmers, fishermen and little storekeepers. It sure as heck is not going to bother Imperial Oil, not at all, not a nickel's worth. Who are we representing here? Make up your minds.
I think it is a travesty, Mr. Chairman, when we are talking about the financing of this country, that we do not have in attendance the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Finance. Neither are their Parliamentary Secretaries here.


Mr. Lanthier:: Right here.


Dave Nickerson: And only two NDP Members.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That has nothing to do with it. You are the guys who have the job, but when are you going to start doing it? When are you going to start showing up for debate on a Bill for $18 billion worth of borrowing? I do not think this House should sit any longer without the presence-


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman, I would not want the record to show any inaccuracy, nor I am sure would the Hon. Member who has just spoken. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is here beside me. I have been sitting here for an hour and 15 minutes listening, during the latter part, to the rather exotic views of the Hon. Member on economic questions. I would not want him to leave the impression that the Government was not represented here by senior Ministers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad the Hon. Member joined the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the last few minutes. This debate started an hour and 15 minutes ago.


Marcel Danis: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: Please, Mr. Chairman. I have been here since nine o'clock this morning and I heard the trifles of the Hon. Member on television as if I had been present. I give you my word that I have been here since this morning. So, nobody should suggest that I have come in.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, we have all been around somewhere since this morning. If you have a Bill for which you are responsible, you are here for it. That applies both to government and to opposition Members. If you are not going to be here, why should the House sit? Why should the Chairman remain in the chair?
I want answers from the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it not correct that the Government of Canada paid to Canadians $1.9 billion in interest charges on borrowings and received back roughly $1.8 billion in income tax? Earnings of the Bank of Canada amounted then to $1.9 billion, and $1.8 billion of it was returned to the Government of Canada, all on government borrowings through the Bank of Canada. Is that not correct?


Claude Lanthier: I am told that such a statement is correct in the broad sense, but not necessarily as far as the figures mentioned are concerned.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I said, give or take $100 million. When we are talking about $1.9 billion or $1.8 billion, is the Hon. Member agreeing that what I have just said is correct?
[ Translation]


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that it was correct. I said that generally, large sums are granted to Canadians under the terms and conditions outlined but the accuracy of the figures is questioned by my advisers.


Marcel Danis: Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Raymond Garneau: As you know, Bill C-51 would give borrowing authority to the Canadian Government and if it is adopted the Minister of Finance and the Progressive Conservative Government would be authorized to borrow $18.2 billion between now and the end of the current fiscal year. It is therefore an extremely important measure within a rather special context, namely the debate over deindexation of old age security pensions.
Mr. Chairman, I consider the debate quite inappropriate in the present context, when we read newspapers and particularly when we hear the Prime Minister answer questions put to him. For instance, I refer to The Globe and Mail of today, June 18, where I can read under the byline of Mr. Richard Cleroux a report from Sept-Iles whose first paragraph is rather significant:

"Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said last night that the part in Finance Minister Michael Wilson's Budget dealing with pensions for the elderly "deserves to be reviewed" ".
June 18, 1985



And further on, still in quotation marks, the article reports the Prime Minister as saying this:

"Mr. Mulroney described the section of the Budget that eliminates part of the protection against inflation for pensioners as troubling".

So said the Prime Minister of the country, Mr. Chairman, and his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has just tabled a Budget in which he proposes partial deindexation of old age security pensions beginning January 1, 1986. All Members who sit in this House must be rather embarrassed to read remarks such as those quoted in today's Globe and Mail.
Where the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated that the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) "deserves to be reviewed", and further on, where he used the word "troubling" in referring to the section of the Budget dealing with partial deindexation of Old Age Security pensions, Mr. Chairman, we are entitled to ask ourselves today whether this is not just a big public relations scenario to prepare the public for a political about-face. And if that is the case, I wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) would advise this House immediately so that we can stop talking about a question that could be settled without debate. But if that is not the Government's intention, and there is no indication from the Government benches that what the Prime Minister said yesterday in Sept-Iles is to be taken seriously, we will have to continue this debate, because there is no other way for the Official Opposition to bring to the attention of the Government benches and public opinion the fact that we are in total disagreement with this political decision. Mr. Chairman, a Budget is an expression of certain choices. When a Minister of Finance starts preparing his Budget, he has a series of options. And this afternoon when I heard the Minister of Finance informing the House, with dramatic emphasis, that he could not say right away whether the Government was going to maintain full indexation because the financial situation was so terrible, because they had to reduce the deficit, because of the terrible legacy they were left by the Liberals-
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance had a choice. He had options. He had the option of maintaining full indexation of Old Age Security pensions, and in 1985-86, according to the figures we were given, that would cost him $15 million more, which is not particularly earthshaking as the Parliamentary Secretary would agree, and in 1986-87 it would cost $250 million.
Mr. Chairman, so everyone will understand that the Minister of Finance had an alternative, and his officials here facing his Parliamentary Secretary know as well as I do that he had an
Borrowing Authority Act
option: the option of deciding where he was going to put his money. Take the capital gains tax exemption, for instance. This was an option the Minister of Finance had, and he decided to forego $300 million in tax revenue in 1985-86, by granting this exemption to the wealthy in our society.
If we take the $300 million and add to that another option the Minister had ad which he exercised, namely, to forego $240 million in 1985-86 by removing the Oil Export Charge, and if we add that amount to the previous amount, we get a total of $540 million.
It seems Old Age Security pensions cost the Government $8.5 billion, and 3 per cent of $8.5 billion for one-third of the year adds up to approximately the same figure. So the Minister of Finance-


An Hon. Member:: That is where the money went!


Raymond Garneau: The Minister of Finance had an option, and 1 remember what the Prime Minister said in that televised debate: "Sir, you had an option." That is what the present Prime Minister told the former Prime Minister. I say to the Prime Minister today: "Sir, you had an option, and you decided to give the money to the rich and take it away from some of the elderly of this country."
You had an option and you exercised that option. And do not tell the House today that by exercising that option, by giving more money in the form of tax exemptions to the oil multinationals, and tax exemptions on capital gains, do not tell the House that now that you have exercised that option, you have no money left for the elderly. There can be no double standard, and I say to the Minister of Finance: "Sir, you had an option. You had an option." Basically, Mr. Chairman, when we analyze the issue of deindexing pensions for senior citizens, we find that it is all a matter of budgetary options. What I want to do in the next few minutes is to analyse the economic philosophy and general orientation of the Budget.
I should immediately point out that, when I look at this Bill asking for a borrowing authority of $18 billion, which is directly related to the budgetary options, I am not concerned only with the deindexing, or partial deindexing of old age security pensions and family allowances. I disagree with the basic philosophy behind this Bill, with the choices made by this Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The figures which I made public and which have yet to be questioned show that, contrary to what the Prime Minister said before the Budget was brought down and contrary to what the Minister of Finance said during his speech, the Budget is not fair and equitable to the taxpayers. For my part, I would say, and I shall try to prove it, that this Budget is unfair and inequitable to the middle income group in our society which is the group most affected. In addition, the borrowings author-

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
ized by this Bill will affect this group by giving them a heavier tax burden.
In accordance with its philosophy, the Government talks a lot about the private sector. The Government wants the private sector to invest and to create jobs, and at the same time, by massive tax increases, it reduces the purchasing power of those who make up the market for Canadian businesses. These massive tax increases made Mr. Reynold of the Wall Street Journal say that the Government wanted to tax the economy to prosperity.

The Government wants to tax the economy to prosperity.
[ Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a few government budgets in my life time, I have read some others, I have had an opportunity as severale other Members in this House to monitor the economic situation in Canada and other provinces, but it is the first time I see any government maintain it has made the right choice when deciding to promote economic growth by way of massive tax increases. This is the first time this would be done.
Those additional taxes which the Government does not like to be told about, that shower of taxes, will take $12 billion worth of purchasing power away from middle-income Canadians in 1990-91 alone. By the end of this decade, with those tax increases imposed on middle-income groups, not to mention other sectors, but looking only at middle-income groups, those tax increases combined with the de-indexing of old age pensions and family allowances will result in the most significant part of our society which represents the market box, our businesses, being rabbed of $37 billion in purchasing power. In terms of dollars, this is twice as much as the Bill now before us.
The general thrust of the budget, the general thrust of the policy behind the budget is basically wrong is my view. Deindexing old age pensions is not the only thing that is unfair and unjust-the whole budget thrust is slashing so many billions of dollars, $37 billion in purchasing power from middle-income groups and senior citizens, this Government is reducing the ability of those consumers to buy goods and services from Canadian businesses.
On the one hand, the Government is reducing purchasing power, our businesses' market, and on the other hand it is asking those same businesses to create jobs. Moreover, the Government has taken a most dangerous road by putting all its eggs in two main baskets, the first being energy, especially oil energy, and the second being Canadian exports to the United States. From the first basket, oil corporations will be getting a tax break that will total $8.5 billion by the end of the decade.
And I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier): This is a clear-cut and specific example of a choice. The Minister of Finance had a choice, he had two or three options. He chose to give money to the oil
multinationals. Thereafter he should not be telling us he has no more money for senior citizens because the deficit must be reduced. He should tell us candidly, honestly that they had a choice to make and they chose one area rather than the other. So he had a choice, and his option means $8.5 billion in tax benefits to oil multinationals. Even considering that eventually certain grants will not be allowed, that is a net cost of between $4.5 and $5 billion in revenue lost to the multinationals by the end of the decade. They are hoping that those multinational corporations will invest, and that this will create jobs in Canada. So much for the first level, the second being exports.
Because the purchasing power of the Canadian people is being considerably eroded, we have to rely on our exports as a means to support our economy. If I am coming back to the subject of the oil companies, it is because their decision whether or not to invest will be determined by the extent of the market as well as the prices. Those, as it is well known, are dictated by OPEC, the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries. As to the market, it will be influenced by the value of the Canadian dollar and the over all growth of the Canadian economy. Well, these variables are quite uncertain, and insisting on putting all our eggs in the same basket would prove very risky indeed for the future of our economy and especially for our young people who are looking for jobs.
Mr. Chairman, recently I read in Business Week an analysis which had been prepared as the result of consultations with many experts and which indicated that the price of oil could go down as low as $20 a barrel. Norway has already lowered its price to $26 a barrel, and OPEC has decided to hold its July meeting in June to deal with this emergency situation and to take remedial action in an effort to prevent an excessive drop in price. When I see the Government of Canada investing so much money in one single industry and being forced to burden Canadian taxpayers with such a heavy tax load to pay for the tax breaks given to multinational companies, I very seriously question the crucial choice it has made in this area, because I am not sure at all that it will yield the dividends so often mentioned by hon. members on the Government side.
In another basket are our exports: 75 per cent of our exports are directed towards the United States. Already, Mr. Chairman, the American Congress takes a critical view at foreign exports. Figures for the first three or four months indicate a trade deficit of $11.5 billion. For April, and since the beginning of the year, the trade deficit has reached $45 billion.
Mr. Chairman, when we consider a number of products, we realie how unsound was the choice made by the Minister of Finance. As far as steel, timber, hogs, beef and sugar are concerned-we will certainly have a potato war later on this year-we can expect that as long as the value of the U.S. dollar remain high, very strong lobbies in the Congress will pressure the American administration into imposing quotas. That is why I say that pushing our exports so overwhelmingly is quite a risky proposition and I submit that making this choice so
June 18, 1985

aggressively that the government had to cut the Canadian people's purchasing power is a huge mistake in terms of economic direction.
You are aware that members on the Government side love to blame the Liberals for the deficit. However, the turning point of this deficit was the 1981-82 crisis, and it occurred not only in Canada, but also in the United States and in most Western countries. When 1 have discussions with Tory members not only on party matters but also on economic policy, I often ask them: What would you have done at the time to deal with the crisis? Would you have reduced unemployment insurance payments to avoid increasing the deficit? Would you have refused to implement job creation programs during the winter and to provide employment for students? Would you have been content to sit still while people lost their jobs without giving them any assistance? I think that to ask this question is also to answer it. I note that, with a real growth of 4.7 per cent in the Gross National Product, the Conservative Government has maintained the Winter Works program as well as the summer employment program for students. We are witnessing a growth in the Gross National Product. What would you have done during the depression? Would you have said: We have nothing to give; we have to reduce the deficit. I believe that this is unrealistic and this is the cause of our present problem.
As a matter of fact, with a Gross National Product of between $350 billion and $400 billion, 1 do not think that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) found a deficit of $7 billion or $8 billion completely unreasonable or disastrous. If that is what he thinks today, Mr. Chairman, if the President of the Treasury Board finds a deficit of $11 billion disastrous, I would like to ask him how come, after being in power since September 4 and saying all those things about it, his Government has come out with a Budget of $105 billion, which represents a larger increase than the increase in the consumer price index. This is all he could do for a Party which has based its whole political ideology on reducing the deficit. They do not even have the courage the limit the increase in expenditures to the increase in the cost of living.
Mr. Chairman, I can see that the time allotted to me has nearly expired, but I understand that our rules will allow me to come back to this matter later on and I shall continue my comments for the information of the President of the Treasury Board.


Marcel Danis: Pursuant to Standing Order 40(6) shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the Bill later this day in order to announce the late show?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
Borrowing Authority Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Patents- Request for details concerning closing of Patent Office; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Energy-Closure of Cape Breton heavy water plants- Creation of employment, (b) Request for government action; the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-Finance- Investment of pension funds-Budget proposal, (b) Minister's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority-Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of State (Finance))-Mr. Danis in the chair.
Mr. Tardif:: Mr. Chairman, I am also very pleased to take part in this debate. With your permission, I would like to tell this House that before getting into politics, I had the honour of serving as president of a community centre for about 10 years. Thanks to this experience, I have been able to learn about some of the concerns of our senior citizens and to understand them. I think that we would be burying our heads in the sand if we failed to recognize that most of our senior citizens, who are now retired, are from very large families or have many children themselves. Contrary to the present generation and young people today, they have unfortunately not enjoyed the same benefits from society as we have throughout the years. They are people who, in many cases, earned $10, $12, $15 a week and who, with such miserable and dreadful salaries, did not have the same opportunities as our young people today who are covered by all kinds of insurance. Fathers and mothers who then had the bad luck to have sick children, and as I said, families were much larger in those days, had to assume those responsibilities, pay those bills, and were often in debt for ten years or more because of the illness of a couple of children.

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
They are also people who have experienced something that, of course, we did not know, that is the 1929 depression. Those people have also gone through two major conflicts and have suffered numerous hardships and problems during their lifetime. I think that today, in 1985, those people have reached retirement age and God knows that it is a well-deserved retirement. If anyone ever deserved a happy retirement, it is our senior citizens of 65 and over. They are the ones who, after facing so many hardships and problems, have become apprehensive and suffer from some kind of trauma, and unfortunately those people are more often than not traumatized if their medicine is changed by a simple letter. In a word, they are easily traumatized. They have to plan and prepare their budget months in advance in order to buy not treats but the necessities of life. They realize that the economic situation in our country is difficult and painful. They understand that. But they are not ready to accept sole responsibility. Those people do not agree with the kind of policy often stated since the beginning of this debate, a policy stated by the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) when she said last week: "Our senior citizens can make a sacrifice! After all, they are only asked to give up as little as $1 per day. A dollar a day is not much when one earns $30,000, $35,000, $40,000 or $45,000 per year. It is a trifling sum. However, when $1 a day represents a purchase planned for three, four, five or six months, it is a huge sum. And I think that senior citizens are badly underrated when-


Marcel Danis: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I question the figure just mentioned. I would have liked the Hon. Member for Rich-mond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) to quote the Parliamentary Secretary verbatim instead of quoting a figure. I question the figure he quoted.


Marcel Danis: I think this is a point of debate but, unfortunately, not a point of order. The Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: For the Hon. Member's information, I suggest he read Hansard where the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) states, after talking to senior citizens, that most, if not all, had told her they were quite willing to give up what she estimated would be a dollar a day. I am sorry but that is not the right way to look at this problem, because a dollar a day means a lot more to a person who has to live on what he or she gets from the State than it does to someone who is still on the labour market.
Last week, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, that is, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), and I had the privilege of attending a meeting organized on the spur of the moment, where senior citizens were asked to come and express
their views and their reactions to what the Conservative Government was proposing to do. People came to see us from all over, from the ridings of Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, Brome-Missisquoi, Sherbrooke, from my own riding and from Shefford. In some cases, these people travelled 75 or 80 miles to come give us their comments, which they did quite spontaneously. In the circumstances, and I am sorry to have to say so, it is very significant, since the elderly are usually quite passive and more inclined to accept a situation. It really takes something very serious to make them react, and in this case over 200 people came to see us to talk about all sorts of things such as: The younger generation today can thank us for all the advantages and prosperity they have and they should remember that we helped to build the Canada they have today.
There were people who told us: Well, this is the month of June and I have already started to save enough to buy myself a dress for Christmas. Some senior citizens told us they had been saving for two months to buy themselves a radio. Others were saving to be able to pay for cablevision. Well, there was a whole series of statements like that in which people made the point that they had to save for months to pay for what we consider to be the basics of our daily lives. They have to save for months to pay for things that to me are absolutely essential, things we take for granted.
Senior citizens told us they would be very hard-pressed to meet the increasing number of obligations society imposes on them.
In spite of all that, Mr. Chairman, the elderly realize the Government has a deficit, that it has commitments and that it wants to create jobs. They realize all that. What they do not understand, however, and I think they have a perfect right not to understand, is when they are asked to make a small sacrifice after the Government decides to change the military's uniforms and increase our arm contingents in Europe, the oil companies get huge exemptions, and the capital gains tax is removed. Well, Mr. Chairman, you will agree that it does not take a Ph.D. or a seasoned politician to understand that there is a double standard here and that the injustice is absolutely flagrant. And the elderly are certainly not prepared to make a sacrifice and tighten their belts in that case, as the Government would have them do.
There is another aspect I think is important and which I think demonstrates the utter meanness of this proposal. Just imagine, someone who is let us say 75 years old and who is told: Listen, tighten your belt, in a few years everything will be o.k. and you will get full indexation. Just imagine, this person is 75. In a few years, that person may no longer be alive, after spending the last two or three or four years of his or her life in a terrible state of mind, paralyzed at the thought of not being able to pay for his or her very basic needs, not luxuries but
June 18, 1985

basics to which they are certainly entitled because these people certainly have deserved to have a decent life.
In concluding, I may say that the riding I have represented since 1979 has been plagued by many, many problems.
I represent the riding where the major city is Asbestos and no one can talk about Asbestos without thinking about a significant slowdown in mining, particularly asbestos mining. There was a time when the company had 3,000 people on the payroll, but barely 800 are still there now.
I also represent the riding which has been and still is the victim of problems inherent in today's footwear markets. I also represent the riding where many pork producers live. I also represent the riding which experienced a rather serious problem not so very long ago, as Members may recall, the possible shutdown of Domtar operations. As you may have noted there are quite a few problems in my riding but, over the past six years, notwithstanding all those problems, obstacles and economic woes, I have to say that never did a single issue raise such interest in my riding. Never did such a problem prompt so many people to come to my office and tell me: It is unacceptable, it does not make sense, do something about the terrible measure the Government wants to take.
All those problems no matter how crucial never generated as much energy and efforts as people are showing and making in connection with the old age security pensions deindexation.
In conclusion, it seems to me that if we were to stop and consider the issue for a moment, as my colleagues so eloquently suggested, we could identify, image or invent a mechanism which would enable the Government to look elsewhere for the money it wants to take away from the elderly, to get the money from wealthy and well-to-do people so as to protect senior citizens and give them the security they so richly deserve, senior citizens who are entitled to get what appears to me under the circumstances to be the vital minimum, something which is basic and quite essential.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly to this amendment to the borrowing Bill that was moved this morning. We are now discussing the Government's budgetary measures and its ability to administer the funds that it is asking the House to give it.
The people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are not at all satisfied with the way the Government is managing the funds given to Parliament. The western region of the riding that I represent lies near the National Capital of our country and, therefore, a large number of federal public servants live there. During the last election campaign, many promises were made by government Members. In this document to which I have referred on several occasions, I have outlined 338 promises which had been made to the people of Canada and many of them to the people of the National Capital area, the people who work for the Government.
Borrowing Authority Act
We saw in the recent Budget cut-backs in federal employment. I do not seem to recall during the last election campaign hearing Conservative Members stating, "Vote for us and you will be fired". I do not recall the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West and other Hon. Members who represent the National Capital Region ever having stood up to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Finance or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Finance to say that that is not right and that the people of the ridings that they represent did not vote for those measures. They voted for a specific group of promises which were made. However, the Government is not delivering. Why is it that Conservative Members who have ridings in the National Capital Region are not speaking on behalf of the people who voted for them in the last election?
As we move farther away toward the eastern end of the National Capital Region, in the constituency which 1 represent, the standard of living decreases considerably. There is higher unemployment, which is not uncommon in other constituencies, and the people have very little money to spare. Those people have to live with a Government which has increased the price of gasoline and decreased the purchasing power of senior citizens' pensions. At the same time, the Government is squandering money on all kinds of other things, for itself, its friends and its relatives.
There is a capital gains exemption which a parliamentary committee had requested for the farmers of the country. The Government has now extended that exemption to people who own yachts and condominiums in Florida. Why is it that the Government has enough money to give a break to the people who own a condominium in Florida, when it has no money to assist the senior citizens?
The priorities of the Government are wrong. The people of my riding do not agree with the measures which this Government has taken. I am sure the majority of people in every riding of the country feel the same way. If Conservative Members were not muzzled, they would want to speak on this issue. That is okay. Those Members cannot stand and speak on the issue, so opposition Members will have to repeat it more often. We will do it on their behalf. Perhaps we could call them proxy speeches.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition stated on Budget night:
It is a Budget of broken promises. It breaks the trust Mr. Mulroney said he was going to have with the Canadian people. It hits the average Canadian very hard.
It doesn't come right out and hit him, it does it in a sneaky and gutless way. The Budget lacks courage.
A Budget is not just a bunch of numbers. A Budget has to do with people and jobs, with human careers and with meaningful life.
When I look at the priorities of the Government, I can easily understand why Disraeli once said that a Tory Government was organized hypocrisy. The Government made many promises to the people of the country and it has failed to deliver on those promises.

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
I would like to quote the first promise which was made to senior citizens by the Conservative Party during the last election campaign. It reads:
Reinstate complete indexing of Old Age Pensions to the actual cost of living, as of January 1st, 1985.
That was a specific promise which was made by the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada last August. The Prime Minister is now breaking that solemn promise. He is breaking that promise along with hundreds of other promises. The Government has no money for senior citizens, yet it has money to squander on other measures.
The debate today is about fairness. That is the issue about which we are talking. The Government wants to reduce the pensions of our seniors by 3 per cent. Opposition Members are saying that if that is the case, the Government can cut its expenditures by 3 per cent. We know that the people of Canada who are receiving Old Age Security in the amount of $276.34 a month cannot afford to give up any part of that cheque.
The Government is telling us that it will create jobs. As interesting as that may be, what is the policy? Is it a policy which tells our senior citizens to go out and work? If not, why are we asking senior citizens to contribute toward job creation? Most grandparents whom I know are beyond age 65 or age 70. They are not looking for jobs. Most of them are unable to work. As a society, we accepted long ago that those people should receive their pension and that the pension should be universal. That universality should not be destroyed at the rate of 3 per cent a year by the Conservative Government.
Why does the Government want the money? Yesterday I spoke about some of the squandering which is going on, the abuses and the appointments of relatives and friends. Today we discovered, through the media, that the secretary of State for External Affairs has published a book. The book is entitled: The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Canada's eighteenth Prime Minister. It is rather unusual that the book was printed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for reasons which we all know. The book has many pictures of the Prime Minister. I am sure that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on it. In order to restore every senior citizen's pension in my riding, it would cost only $60,000 for one year. The Government should scrap the book, take the funds and give back the pensions to the senior citizens. I would like to quote from the book. It reads:
The work of raising living standards, creating opportunity and recognizing the equality of human beings is one to which we are committed-
The Prime Minister said that. What happened to the Prime Minister who was committed to equality? This book was written very recently. The ink is probably still wet. The same Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance, who were committed to equality and improving the standards of human beings, are now reducing the pensions of seniors. On page 2 of the book there is a lovely picture of the Prime Minister in his office. On the third page, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
There is no obligation more compelling, no duty more irresistible in Canada and around the world than to ensure that our minorities, linguistic and otherwise, live at all times in conditions of fairness and justice.
Of course, we know that that was seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, the whole view about linguistic minorities and otherwise.
This document talks about equality. It talks about protecting people. However, this Government acts in a completely opposite way. There are pages and pages in this document about money which was spent by the taxpayers of Canada to pay for the extravagance of this Government. The Government says we should give it some money. My constituents think otherwise, Mr. Chairman.
I tabled in this House yesterday a petition signed by many people from my riding. I have another petition here which I will be introducing in the House tomorrow. This petition was signed by the senior citizens of L'Orignal, Ontario. These people, like many other people across this country, object to the cut in the purchasing power of their Old Age Security cheque which the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister want to perpetrate on them. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said in this House that no one wants to cut anything.
What the Minister of National Health and Welfare is doing in this House and elsewhere is trying to convince the people that the Government is not cutting their cheque. He is saying that the cheque will not be less, it is just going to be increased less. In other words, if the cost of living increases by 5 per cent, the pension cheque will be increased by 2 per cent.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance sitting across from me and I know that he will want to set the record straight, so let me do it for him, Mr. Chairman. I am sure he will agree with me, being an economist, that if inflation increases by 5 per cent and the pension cheque is only increased by 2 per cent, no matter how you cut it, the purchasing power of that cheque is decreased. There is no other way of looking at it. For the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance to try to somehow get the senior citizens to believe that this is not so is not being perfectly honest. They know that our senior citizens know better. They know that if the cost of living increases by 5 per cent and their cheque is increased by 2 per cent, then a step backward of 3 per cent has been taken. That is easy for senior citizens to understand and just maybe this Government should give our senior citizens a little bit more credit. They have been around far longer than myself, the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary.
Of course, our senior citizens are quite aware of what is going on and that is why they are protesting this measure so vehemently. The Minister of Finance and others are saying that the Opposition Parties are prompting the senior citizens of this country to rebel agains this budgetary measure. I ask you again, Mr. Chairman, is the Government giving the credit due to our senior citizens when it thinks that anyone can stand anywhere and say anything and that the senior citizens will
June 18, 1985

believe it? Is that all the credit and respect the Government has for the seniors of this country? It seems so, Mr. Chairman.
This Government refuses to believe that if the senior citizens are asking for something, it is a legitimate request. The Government refuses to believe it. It thinks it is the fault of the Opposition, but it is not the Opposition who wrote that Budget. It was the Conservative Government and those Hon. Members opposite who right now are hiding their heads in shame over this Budget. I don't blame the Members of the Government I see seated in the back rows on the Government side, almost with tears in their eyes over this Budget. If I were a Tory right now, I would be embarrassed as well. Heaven forbid that would ever happen, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure it won't. It is said that happiness is never having to say you're Tory, and I intend to remain happy.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: You were born to be in Opposition.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member opposite says that I was born to be in Opposition. The Tories accused the previous Government of being arrogant when it was in power. Their Government, after nine months, has lost total respect for democracy and for this House when that Member makes statements like that. If that Member does not even know that one gets to be in Opposition by a situation which happens in other ridings other than one's own, then he has failed to understand how this Parliament works. I was not elected to be in Opposition. I was not elected to be in Government. I was elected to represent the people of my riding, and that is what I am doing in this House. I am speaking on their behalf and perhaps the Hon. Member opposite who just made that remark should take the same initiative. He should rise and put his money where his mouth is and say whether he thinks the people of his riding are in favour of that Budget or against it.
[ Translation]
Mr. Chairman, then and only then will the electors of his riding know and understand the position of the Hon. Member opposite.
Mr. Chairman, I am waiting impatiently to listen to the speeches and comments of all Conservative Members of the House. I am afraid however there will not be many because we know they are ashamed of their Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who produced such a terrible Budget.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I suggest all those speeches are very interesting, but I feel sad when I listen to them. What is basic to all those speeches is the will to stop the Government for a few moments, perhaps a few hours, while trying at the same time to make Government Members realize the seriousness of what they are doing about de-indexation.
This Government's intention to limit the indexing of Old Age Security pensions is irresponsible for all practical purposes. Admittedly, Mr. Chairman, a new government, an inexperienced government can make mistakes. But that kind of mistake is unforgivable. So much so that senior citizens across
Borrowing Authority Act
the land are launching campaigns against a Government that should be defending them, in order to have it back down.
In my own Province of New Brunswick, the movement is gathering speed. The New Brunswick Federation of Senior Citizens last week sent a very clear message to the Progressive Conservative Government. In a press release issued on behalf of its 30,000 members, the Chairperson of the Federation, Mrs. Edna Bourque, stated that recent changes announced by the Federal Minister of Finance are seriously disturbing the peaceful life and severely affecting the quality of life of senior citizens.
Mr. Chairman, the New Brunswick Federation of Senior Citizens is a very important association. As I said, it has a membership of 30,000, and speaks for 265 senior citizens' clubs who have joined the Federation to date. In other words, this Federation is representative of all senior citizens in the Province of New Brunswick.
There is no doubt that the members of the Federation feel that this Government's proposal is cruel, insensitive, and even immoral as it was said. If this Government would listen or had listened to what senior citizens in Canada had to say, certainly it would be ashamed of ever having proposed to de-index old age pensions. Senior citizens have come to me, saying the Government had no right to ask senior citizens to make sacrifices. I was told: "Who do they think they are to decide that senior citizens must make sacrifices?" Mr. Chairman, history tells us that the people being asked once again to make sacrifices are the very same people who have lived through the Great Depression of the late 20's and early 30's. They have also been through World War II. When I think of all the sacrifices which those people have had to make, I do not feel we should or can force them to live through more years of poverty, because a very large number of our senior citizens already live below the poverty line. In New Brunswick, to be more specific, more than 73 per cent of our senior citizens live below the poverty line. How can we, how can a Government dare reduce the income of people who already do not have enough? In terms of dollars, de-indexing old age pensions means that within five years, by 1990, a person living alone will lose something like 15 times $100, and of course married couples will lose twice as much. Now, Mr. Chairman, 1 do not think that our elders who worked stubbornly to build this country deserve to get so little consideration from their own Government, a Government they would have preferred to trust but in which they can have no confidence of any kind any more. Senior citizens now realize that they have been literally betrayed by the Progressive Conservative Government. That Government was committed to fully index old age pensions to the cost of living effective January 1st, 1985. The Government also made the commitment that no saving from program cuts would be used to reduce the deficit. That was the commitment this Government made to all Canadians. But with their plans to limit old age pension indexing, Canadians have realized that

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
this Government has taken them for a ride, that it did not tell the truth. They have realized that this Government has no concern for us Canadians, especially senior citizens.
Mr. Chairman, this simply cannot be allowed to go on unchallenged. We cannot accept that a government should make fun of us and of Canadians in such a way. Our elders are very much aware of this Government's scheme, they knew they were betrayed. In an interview with the Times-Transcript in Moncton, the Chairperson of the Federation of Senior Citizens has stated, and I quote:

The organization will start making waves from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean as it launches a campaign against a move which broke sacred trusts and sacred promises. We draw the line at sacred promises as internal peace and tranquility are very important at our age. We cannot understand how a political party could dare do such a thing.

What is worse, Mr. Chairman, how can the Minister of Finance and the government claim that our senior citizens are fully backing their proposal when in New Brunswick alone, 76,000 of them are against it. In fact, they object so strongly to the Government's proposal that they are ready to start a campaign against it.
Therefore it is wrong to claim that our senior citizens are in favour of such a change. Over the past weekend, Mr. Chairman, all hon. members representing New Brunswick ridings were invited to attend a meeting. I must say that all those who showed up were against the measures which the Government is contemplating. It goes without saying, therefore, that nobody in New Brunswick is in favour of this proposal.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must confess that 1 am somewhat perplexed when I see what is going on. To me no one can tamper with the indexing of Old Age Security Pensions. That is something Hon. Members opposite know as well as I do. Yet, I wonder why they took a chance with a proposal which they know would prove extremely unpopular with the Canadian people? Tell me why?
I could suggest a somewhat simple and obvious answer. One might be inclined to believe that the Government was setting a trap for us and the Canadian people in general. And we almost fell into that trap. On May 23rd, the Minister of Finance announced a series of unacceptable measures. One of the most unfair was of course the proposed desindexing of Old Age Security pensions. It was not long before people reacted, and rightly so. But while we are debating an issue on which the Government will have no choice but to back down, this session of Parliament is coming to an end, something for which the Government is delighted, because all the other pieces of legislation which are dangerous for us as Canadians and for our economy, will be quickly passed without any time left to discuss them.
In New Brunswick, beside the pension problem, there is a SI00 million cut in regional development, a $75 million cut at least in the transport sector which for us is of the utmost importance. Also a $25 million cut in the area of fisheries. Gas price increase will result in additional costs for all our small and medium sized businesses.
The reduction in provincial transfer payment, the freeze of unemployment insurance benefits, the imposition of a surtax, all these measures are just as important and just as unacceptable as the deindexing of pensions.
Mr. Chairman, judging from the breadth and scope of the debate on old age security pensions, it would seem that the Progressive Conservative Government will be busy this summer and will have to beg forgiveness from the Canadian public for having had the audacity to propose policies which go against the interests of Canadian citizens. The pension issue shows that the Canadian people know what they want, and what they want Mr. Chairman, is to have fair and equitable policies.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on the $18.2 billion borrowing authority requested by the Government. We have not received any satisfactory answers about what use will be made of this money.
At the same time that the Government is asking for $18.2 billion, it is coming forward with some very repressive measures. It is implementing cut-backs to senior citizens while it continues the pattern of Government waste. Cabinet Ministers are still using the private government jets to go to different parts of the country when they could use Air Canada.
It is reported in the newspaper that the Government will distribute a glossy External Affairs brochure featuring the Prime Minister in 18 pages of colour photography. The presidential style of the Prime Minister, the patronage appointments and this kind of Government waste contrasts rather sadly with the shabby way in which it is treating the senior citizens of this country. The mean spirited approach of the Government contrasts to some of the genuine improvements previous Parliaments have made to the living conditions of the seniors.
The Government's proposed 3 per cent cut-back in indexing of the Old Age Security program means that next year seniors will be receiving $100 less than they should have received if that indexing had continued. By 1990 they will have lost some $1,500 if deindexing continues.
A debate on this subject is taking place within the Conservative Party. Perhaps it is best typified by my friend, the Hon. Member for Victoria, who is a representative of many seniors in that community. He has had the. courage to speak up within his Party and say that he believes that what the Government is doing is wrong. I presume that he does this from a convergence
June 18, 1985

of two factors. First, he naturally is a man of compassion who can see what this measure will do to his constituents. Second, he is a man of reasonable intelligence who can read the political writing on the wall. The combination of these two factors, compassion and the ability to see what is happening politically, lead him to stand up and say that this is a proposal that is absolutely contrary to the wishes and best interests of his constituents and indeed all of Canada.
There is a saying in the scriptures that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Perhaps Members opposite should begin to realize that a healthy respect for the wishes and views of the electorate might be the beginning of political wisdom.
It has only recently become clear that Members such as the Member for Victoria have lost this debate. It seems that the Minister of Finance is taking a hardened position and will not rescind the unpopular and regressive proposal to partially deindex Old Age Security. There might be a possibility of double indexing the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Conservatives might try to pretend that this will solve the situation, but that is not the case. It may help those who are most adversely impacted at the very bottom of the scale-a great many Canadians are living in poverty-but it will not help those who are just above the poverty line and do not receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. They have planned for their retirement, perhaps put some money aside and have another pension income to keep them slightly above that Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Government is mistaken if it believes it can solve this problem and get out of its political dilemma while retaining the cut-backs to the Old Age Security. Those Canadians who are just above receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement will not be assisted and will be pushed further into poverty.
Our Party is making the case very strongly that the Government should not take a half step in retreat but should do the honourable thing, recognize that it has made a mistake and back right off. I am reminded of a song about Big Muddy. An American platoon sergeant who was leading his platoon down a path suddenly found himself in the middle of a swamp. Rather than having the intelligence to turn around, as the song depicts the historical example, "The big fool just kept right on marching". Similarly, rather than marching the Canadian people deeper into big muddy, the Conservative Government should have enough intelligence to recognize that it is taking us deeper into the swamp and it is time to turn around.
During last summer's campaign, the Prime Minister recognized and promised indexation of Old Age Security. The Minister of National Health and Welfare recognized that as a necessity last January. He said there was no need to make any alterations to our Old Age Security provision.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance have given different explanations for this measure. First, they came up with the rather preposterous suggestion that seniors themselves favoured this move. They said that seniors recognized that there was a need for some sacrifice in order to cut the deficit and the country moving again and they were rushing forward
Borrowing Authority Act
in support of this budgetary measure. Of course, when the Government was challenged to name one organization of senior citizens who supported this move, it was unable to do so.
The fact is that seniors from one end of Canada to the other are solidly opposed to this proposal, with good reason. It is doing them damage. It is undercutting their standard of living. When the Minister of Finance saw that this explanation would not be accepted, he made the statement that the Government had no option because it had to reduce the deficit and find funds to create jobs. He said that the only way they could do that was to cut back on the Old Age Security to senior citizens.


Mr. Malone:: Where would you cut?


James Douglas Manly: The New Democratic Party gave five options. We indicated that there was not only one area but other areas from which the Government could raise revenues and cut the deficit. We suggested, for example, that the Government could begin to charge interest on some of the deferred taxes.


Arnold John Malone: At what rate?


James Douglas Manly: We will be glad to hear from the Hon. Member later on if he wants to speak on Bill C-51. I have not heard too many Conservatives speaking on it. They seem to feel a need to heckle, but they have not been willing to rise and speak. They are all a little microphone shy when it comes to standing and defending the Minister of Finance and his proposals.
We also suggested that there could be a minimum tax levied on the rich. Instead of waiting until 1986, the Government could have brought it in now, as was promised last year. The Government could have eliminated the capital gains exemption, or at least tightened it up. This will allow some people to get away with $125,000 in taxes which they might have otherwise paid. In fact, the Government could have cancelled the windfalls to some of the oil companies.


Arnold John Malone: What windfalls?


James Douglas Manly: There are many areas in which the Government could have taken action to reduce the deficit. Instead, it is prepared to take 3 per cent from Old Age Security recipients next year. I do not think that is the way the Government should be operating if it is interested in justice, as it said it was before it was elected.
Today we heard the Hon. Minister of Finance say that the Government requires a growing percentage of its budget to make interest payments on the deficit. The Government emphasizes that it does not have any options, but we want to emphasize that it has options.
We seem to have returned to a situation which existed in some rather primitive economies-when there was trouble they looked for human sacrifices. For examples, people were buried under London Bridge, and our senior citizens will be buried under the fiscal policy of the Government. They will be sacrificed for the Government's fiscal needs, as it sees them.

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
Rather than taking a realistic look at the total economy, seeing what needs to be done and what action it could take that would result in justice for everyone, the Government singled out senior citizens as a group which it thought would quietly and passively accept cuts. Indeed, the Government has announced that seniors were in favour of it.
I should like to read a letter from one of my constituents which was directed to the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. We have heard Hon. Members refer to very similar letters today. This letter is not an untypical one. I am sure Hon. Members on all sides of the House have been receiving such letters, although I have not heard any Conservatives reading from such letters, or even reading from letters expressing the opposite point of view. They have been very quiet. The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
My wife and I watched and listened (CBC The Journal), June 5, 1985) to your response to the criticism being levelled at you and the PC Government for your inconsiderate, ill-conceived action regarding pension indexing for old age pensioners.
You are apparently assured that you have the support of the majority of the old age pensioners? Then, Sir, you are either naive or you have been grossly misled. Are we to sit back idly and watch our standard of living decline year by year? Do you really believe in the welfare of the elderly? Your actions clearly suggest otherwise!
Please allow me to quote some examples of how our standard of living is being steadily eroded. We will quote personally.
A number of areas were outlined in which senior citizens are facing very difficult situations because of increased costs. 1 should like to list them. Income tax in British Columbia is up 8 per cent in 1985 to raise funds to replace extra billing on medicare. The letter indicates:
Please note we are still being extra billed. We pay twice. This wiped out our supplementary allowance.
British Columbia medical premiums were $204 in 1981 and are up almost 100 per cent to $384 in 1985. The British Columbia hydro rate is up from $40 monthly in 1982 to $53 monthly in 1985. The British Columbia telephone rate is up 4 per cent, as of May, 1985, in addition to the 6 per cent raise in 1984. Property taxes are up $73 for 1985.


Arnold John Malone: Who increased those?


James Douglas Manly: The letter continues:
Then of course you can consider food costs which continue to rise.
I heard the Hon. Member ask who was responsible for raising property taxes. I presume they were raised by the municipalities. The point being made in this letter is that all costs are rising and senior citizens are having a difficult time making ends meet with the present pension system and with continuing inflation. A cut in the indexation of the OAS is cruel and will make it even more difficult for them. In conclusion the letter reads:
Your present indexing fails to keep abreast of costs. Should you remove it? You do not require us to describe the hardship you are prepared to inflict upon seniors.
We suggest, tactfully, that you and your colleagues stand by and honour your election promises. We trusted you. Are your promises nothing but political rhetoric? We sincerely hope not.
This letter typified the answer of seniors to whether or not they are willing to sacrifice their pensions. The point which needs to be understood by Hon. Members on all sides of the House and by all Canadians is that seniors have already sacrificed. They are the people who lived through the depression. They are the people who were active in the Second World War. They are the people who built and sustained our nation's wealth following the Second World War. They have already made their sacrifices. Now they should be able to live decent lives with decent incomes.
Before my father died he often remarked that his life was easier when he was on pension than at any previous time. That says two things about my father and about his generation generally. First, it says that they did not have an easy time of it. They had to struggle and put up with the depression. They had to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces. They had the responsibility of raising families in the difficult days following the war. Second, it says that at some point in the past Canada made a commitment to these people and kept it, that they should have a decent pension scheme.
We can always find ways in which to improve it. We owe a great debt of honour to the man who celebrated his seventy-seventh birthday today, the Hon. Stanley Knowles. He was always talking about the need for improvement in the pension plan. Mr. Knowles still sees a number of areas in which improvements are required, as do Hon. Members of my Party. However, right now we are fighting to maintain what has been built, up to this point. Instead of looking for ways in which to improve the system, the Government is undercutting, cutting back and eroding the basic standard of the Old Age Security. Canadians do not agree with that. They say that we should continue to provide a decent income for our seniors. They have been getting that message across to the people on the Treasury benches, yet there seems to be an unwillingness opposite to hear what is being said, or at least to act on it.
The Liberal amendment moved this morning indicated that we should show the Government what it means to be cut back by 3 per cent, by cutting back the borrowing authority for $18.2 billion by 3 per cent. I agree with that kind of symbolic action which might make the Government realize how serious a 3 per cent cut-back is for the seniors of the country.
In the 1960s when the Americans invaded Cambodia they said that they had only gone 20 miles into their territory, that it was only a symbolic thing. Then a bunch of yippies from around Vancouver decided to have a symbolic invasion of the United States south of Blaine. The Americans reacted quite differently in that circumstance. The Government reacts quite differently when it is proposed that its borrowing authority be cut back by 3 per cent as compared to how it acts in response to a proposal that the Old Age Security of seniors be cut by 3 per cent.
The Government has not given adequate reasons for the borrowing of $18.2 billion. I believe that the borrowing author-
June 18, 1985

ity should be cut back by 3 per cent, just as the Government is trying to cut back on seniors.


Mr. Isabelle:: Mr. Chairman, 1 am very happy to say a few words on Bill C-51 on the borrowing authority of the Government. I rise to speak today because I was quite surprised to realize that, if the Government now finds itself in such a situation, which represents an important political impasse in my opinion, it may be because it has forgotten the basic facts of politics. However, I do not want to make a political speech.
I simply want to point out to the Government that, in deciding to give a new direction to our economy, it might have wanted to operate like a private business. I know that many of my honourable colleagues on the other side come from the private sector and I give them credit for having tried to improve the economic situation in Canada. However, what I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, is that they would have used all kinds of tricks to suggest to all Canadian men and women that they were going to create another garden of Eden where everyone would be content, both the rich and the poor, where we would all be one happy family, the economy would prosper and everyone would be happy. This is why the Canadian voters placed their confidence in this Government and elected the party now in power with a large majority last September 4. I know that, on the hustings, people often say, without making formal promises, that they will implement programs with which the voters will be happy and which will make them feel better about living in this country, and this is often why the Canadian public votes as it does. The public made a choice, but unfortunately, as soon as this choice had been made, the Government brought down its first Budget and seemed to discredit itself in the eyes of the population and harmed its own credibility.
The present problem is a political impasse about the deindexing of old age security pensions. I think that the Government made a mistake. The reason is simple. During the campaign, the Members opposite said that everything would stay the same as before, but everything did not stay the same. This has eroded the confidence of people who have no other means to provide for themselves then the pension they have earned after many years and which has been adjusted to the cost of living as the consumer price index has increased.
1 would like to say that the indexation to cost of living is a choice that was made by the Canadian society. It was a choice because had it not been . . . And that may be the reason why we have such a huge deficit in Canada, because we have decided to compensate some members of the Canadian society who were retired, who could not earn any income any more and who were powerless in the face of inflation, we have decided to grant them this surplus in order for them to share the life enjoyed by all other Canadians.
So, in effect, Mr. Chairman, it is a choice that was made by the Canadian society as a whole. Obviously, the consumer price index has varied widely from one year to the other.
Borrowing Authority Act
Presently, it is perhaps 5, 6 or 4 per cent. It may climb to 5 per cent at the end of this year. In any event, what is important, the bottom line is that we wanted to give some measure of protection to those whose sole income is their retirement income, to add a little supplement so that they can have perhaps a certain measure of comfort in the final stage of their life.
We are dealing here with people who are absolutely powerless, and that probably explains why, the other day, when 1 went to the Maison du Citoyen in Hull, where 300 or 400 old age people were celebrating with a banquet the closing of their annual Old Age Week, there was such an outcry against the government's attitude and the measures that have been taken in the Budget concerning the deindexing of the Old Age Security Pensions.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we do not have any right to hit members of the society who cannot defend themselves, and yet this is a political mistake because these people represent '0 per cent of the population. They are a political force we could use.
I am sure these 20 per cent will remember for a long time to come the attitude of this government, whatever that attitude may be, toward older people. I believe they will not forget easily and they will pass along to the future generations the memory of that injustsice that was perpetrated to them in this Budget.
It is a matter of basic, fundamental principle for the Canadian society.
I would like to deal briefly with the Public Service, Mr. Chairman. I am familiar with this issue since I live in this area. I have always dealt with people working in the Public Service and you can rest assured . . . There are 102,000 public servants here in the Ottawa-Hull area, peple who work for the Federal Government, and it can be stated that the Federal Government is practically the engine of economic growth in the National Capital area, what with 102,000 direct jobs and all the spin-offs that are created in the whole economy of the region. If my memory serves me right, already in 1979, when the Progressive Conservative government was elected, it was stated that 60,000 jobs would be cut from the Public Service as a whole-and some are saying today: "We should never have said that, that is why we were beaten in 1980". They said then that it would be done by attrition, that nobody would be fired. However, public servants are human beings, they are very vulnerable, very sensitive persons and they are people who must be able to count on something sure when they want to start a family, to establish a home and to plan for their future. So they were told that 60,000 jobs would be cut-off. This 60,000 cut was never done for the simple reason that that government was not reelected at that time. But it seems the philosophy has not been forgotten. A lot of anxiety was created within the Public Service and it seems it is starting all over again. So they said it will be 15,000, but it actually works out

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
to 30,000, because in the normal course of events, 15,000 would have to be hired, but this number will be cut as well as the 15,000 that will be cut right away, so for all practical purposes, Mr. Chairman, this means that about 30,000 jobs are being cut in the Public Service. How they are going to do that? A number of approaches have been tried. They started by saying they were going to get rid of the Patent Office. That worked for a few weeks, but when there was a general protest, the Minister told everyone not to get upset, everything would go on as usual, only a few changes would be made and the planned cuts of 250 or 300 jobs would not be implemented.
Once again, the Government was forced to retreat as a result of general protest, in an area as important as the Canadian Patent Office. So now the Government has reversed its position on the Patent Office and on the universality of pensions. At one time they were strongly in favour of abandoning universality. But here again, they said: Since we are governing by consensus, well it seems Canadians do not want to de-universalize, so we are going to maintain universality.
Now they have another problem, and this afternoon in my riding I was told that at the Queen's Printer at the Department of Supply and Services, they were cutting 325 jobs. Another general upheaval, people crying, others getting angry and others again completely at a loss what to do. Some employees want to leave, others want to drop their careers entirely and are on the brink of a nervous breakdown. I remember when back in 1979, the Government at the time had decided-


An Hon. Member:: The Conservative-


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: -the Conservative Government, of course,. .. had decided to cut 60,000 jobs, I remember-


An Hon. Member:: Who suggested that?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: The Conservative Government, 60,000 jobs. And that reminds me of the years under R. B. Bennett, during the Depression, when people from as far away as Vancouver and Halifax and Newfoundland although Newfoundland was not in Confederation at the time people came from all over Canada to go on a hunger march-


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. The 20-minute period has now expired. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary ... The subject matter of the Bill before the House is Government borrowing, and obviously, the $18 billion is going to be used in many ways. We cannot really give a breakdown and say that the amount borrowed is going to be used for a given type of expenditures or a given type of financing. It is much broader than that.
I would like to ask him: Since the proposal to de-index Old Age Security pensions was included in the Budget and, unless the Government changes its mind, is to become effective on January 1, assuming that inflation rises above 3 per cent-and I think that is a very reasonable assumption, because the projections we were given by the Department of Finance indicate a rate of inflation of more than 3 per cent- what is, according to the Department of Finance, the projected savings to the Government for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87? In other words, if the Old Age Security pension is not indexed for the first 3 per cent, how much does the Government stand to save during the months of January, February and March 1986, which is the end of the current fiscal year and how much over fiscal 1986-87?


Claude Lanthier: From the outset, Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct immediately one aspect of this issue. Since the debate began this morning God knows how many times we heard the word deindexation, which is not mine.
What we in the Department of Finance came up with is indeed guaranteed indexation. It is a guarantee that anything over 3 per cent will be indexed. So please let the record show that what we are now advocating is a long-term measure which will guarantee that anything over 3 per cent will be compensated by the Government, and this is nothing like what happened in the past when people were worried about soaring inflation and had to stand the impact of an inflation increase of nearly 6 per cent in single year.
Secondly, in direct answer to the question: How much would the Government save in the fiscal year 1985-86? According to our advisers here it must be pointed out the savings would be for a three-month period only since the measure would be in force as of January 1. Once in force we would have to include the 3 per cent in absolute figures while keeping in mind as well this statement taken from the Budget speech: "The Government will review the adequancy of payments in light of future circumstances and will increase them as resources permit". So we are going to give the basic 3 per cent, but there is more than that because our policy will be to help those who need most rather than try to help everybody. In answer to the question then, savings during the fiscal year 1985-86 would not amount to much more than $15 million, but they would rise to some $245 million for the fiscal year 1986-87.


Raymond Garneau: Is the Parliamentary Secretary trying to tell me that we are shifting the whole parliamentary machinery into gear and that senior citizens throughout Canada are joining the debates, yet we will save only $15 million in 198586?


An Hon. Member:: A threat against their security!


Raymond Garneau: A threat against their security . . . Let me finish, I will get back to that.
June 18, 1985

Mr. Chairman, that is the figure I wanted to have from Department officials. We had our own figures but were unable to have them confirmed. Now they are confirmed. The Parliamentary Secretary may very well claim that the purpose of this measure announced in the Budget is to index anything over 3 per cent. What is at stake here, Mr. Chairman, is a lot more than the 3 per cent, for what it is in fact is an attack through the back door against the universality of social programs.
However, I do not want to go into that again today. The Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that a limited program was implemented because inflation had been rampant for three, four or five years. Under a rationalization program, workers were asked to restrict their salary increases to 6 and 5 per cent, while the indexation of tax tables were restricted to 6 and 5 per cent and a ceiling of 6 and 5 per cent was put on everything. Everyone was on the same footing for a specific number of years. It was two-year program. Another legislation would have had to be passed by another Parliament in order to extend it, whereas the deindexation bill now under consideration is introduced as a long-term measure-
It is all very well for the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to say that if conditions improve, old age security pensions will be increased and more money will be paid. But that is not what we are being told at present. We are told that the first 3 per cent of the OAS indexing will be lost. And if inflation exceeds 3 per cent, of course, only that part will be covered. I do not want to complicate matters and try to suggest that pensions are cut by 3 per cent, but future indexing will be restricted. Instead if things are left as they are, senior citizens will be protected and there is no problem.


An Hon. Member:: Those are only promises.


Raymond Garneau: This is not a mere promise, it is in the legislation. If nothing is done, they are protected. They are taking some action and then would have us believe that they will be better protected. But I am flabbergasted when I find, for example, tax measures, on pages 18 and 19 of the government's Fiscal Plan. When they were told that the deficit must be reduced in 1985-86, they removed the indexation which would cost $15 million, and then the Minister of Finance during the oral question period this afternoon was almost crying when he said that the deficit was substantial, that steps had to be taken to control the $15 million deficit in 1985-86. They have no money left for seniors. On page 19 of the government Fiscal Plan, with regard to the tax exemption on capital gains, do you know how much the government is losing by granting that exemption? Three hundred million dollars in 1985-86 and $600 million in 1986-87.
And that is precisely the point I tried to make during the question period. And then the Parliamentary Secretary gives us another opportunity to prove once again that if instead of
Borrowing Authority Act
granting exemptions to individuals who made capital gains .. . As far as I am concerned I don't want to fight tooth and nail over this, but if we were to plug . .. and mind you, we would not have to plug too many loopholes to find $15 million out of $300 million. If the government at least took a positive step stating its intention to limit the tax exemption on capital gains to those made in Canada. If the government wants to create jobs this way, it should create them in Canada and not the United States. If it could at least limit the benefits to capital gains made in Canada, the Parliamentary Secretary might consider other solutions. Let us suppose, just for argument's sake that the Parliamentary Secretary has a boat or a yacht riding at anchor on Lake Champlain which is registered in the United States. Having paid $100,000 for it, let us say he sells it for $150,000, something which is quite common with this kind of thing. If the government has its way, the tax exemption on capital gains would be $50,000. For the time being, it is only $10,000. There is not one single Progressive Conservative member who will make me believe that these $50,000 in capital gains made by a Canadian selling his boat at anchor South of the border in Lake Champlain, will create jobs in Canada!
That is why I am saying that if we could partially plug this capital gains tax loophole on productive activities, we could easily find the $15 million we need this year. Why create so much anxiety among our senior citizens because of these $15 million, when we have the money, $300 million in 1985-86 under the capital gains tax exemption, and $600 million next year?
If we look for other ways to do it... 1 can think of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax: $125 million. We are not asking the government not to abolish this tax, but to maintain part of it; this way, we would have the money to finance the full indexation of the Old Age Security pensions for 1985-86 and 1986-87. If, then, the government found itself again in a spot. Well then they could try again, saying; Listen, in 198586, $15 million, in 1986-87 it is $245 million, this is what they just gave us. Well, if that does not deal with the deficit, and there is not other means, I am not saying we are not going to tell them off again because it is not normal that they should cut old age pensions. But if they can find ... Listen, we are talking about $260 million, it is not even the total amount of the capital gains savings. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it does not make sense to create such anxiety among our senior citizens, to create such difficulty, to force our senior citizens to come here in Ottawa to demonstrate, to force senior citizens to phone, to write their MPs, to hold meetings, to live in fear of having their income affected and not being about to meet their needs. And for the sake of what, I ask you? For the sake of $15 million, when the Minister of Finance had $300 million to give away in capital gains breaks. And this of course does not include the $125 million for gas and handouts to oil multinationals, which will increase to $920 million next year. And it

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
does not include at all the fact that looking at page 19 of the Fiscal Plan submitted by the Government, personal income taxes in 1985-87 will go up $1 billion while corporate income taxes will go down $450 million, the exact opposite of what is being done in the United States. This is being said on Page 19 of your book, and I am not even including sales and excise taxes with which I will be dealing later. But solely on the issue of old age pensions, Mr. Chairman, I cannot get it into my head that the Prime Minister of my country is willing to disturb senior citizens to such a degree, claiming that this is to control the deficit, when the amount involved is $15 million, a third of the money used to change the Armed Forces' uniforms, $56 million; those $15 million are only about one fourth of that. And 1 find it simply unacceptable that they should take all the time of the House, forcing us to fight that battle because we are going to fight it to the end, whether they like it or not. We are going to use all the tricks, all the Standing Orders that will enable us to do it because this is the only means we have, in our position, to defend senior citizens. For the sake of $15 million, I do not understand that the Prime Minister of my country could go to all that trouble, to halfway imply that he may review the situation, that he may change his approach, and certainly as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I have serious questions concerning the appropriateness of that de-indexing measure, and the way the Minister of Finance has exercized his political judgement, his financial judgment. For the sake of saving $15 million on the backs of our senior citizens in 1985-86, $245 million in 198687, when they have $900 million available during those two years to give in capital gains breaks. Even if they cut that in half, there would still be money left over to reduce their deficit. I say to myself that this does not make sense, but if the Members opposite will not understand, we will have to go on fighting and opposing that. Obviously, 1 would not like to be a prophet of evil, but if on the Government side they go on making such political blunders, what has just happened in the Ontario Legislature-


An Hon. Member:: Two minutes ago!


Raymond Garneau: To minutes ago, another Conservative Government has gone down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether these comments were really a question, but I have a few things to add.
First, I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Progressive Conservative party or this Government were not the ones to create the whole debate over this issue. I therefore want to say to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) that, while we have our share of responsibility as the
Government, we were not the ones who tried to create this anxiety, and 1 did say "tried to create", because I am not sure that it has succeeded. The Opposition has invited me to visit the senior citizens in my constituency. I have seen senior citizens in homes for needy people and in homes for people who are well off, and I also visited senior citizens who are independent. I can assure you that this anxiety was created by a cliche, by a misused term which has been well publicized, namely the term "deindexing", rather than by the facts. If anyone is to be blamed today and criticized for making a political mistake in creating all this concern, you can be assured that only one Party is responsible.
Second, I wonder why the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides should be so surprised at what he is told, and 1 would like to refer him to the same report he quoted earlier. On page 12 in item B, which lists the measures taken since November 1984, in other words the budgetary measures, at the line "Transfers to persons", we find only a dash for the year 1985-86 to show that the impact in billions of dollars was insignificant. In fact, this is what I said when 1 quoted a figure of $15 million. We see that the total savings really amount to $300 million, which would include the $245 million saved in the possible and eventual indexing of old age pensions, and naturally, family allowances. These figures are therefore included in this document, with a margin of error of about 16 per cent, as we have just figured out.
Second, I was suprised at something I heard earlier. I can understand what were the feelings of the Minister of Finance this afternoon. I think that there must be some language barrier between two people, one of whom now is and one of whom used to be Minister of Finance, and like the present Minister of Finance, I find it difficult to understand that someone as familiar with business financing as the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), a former bank president, would tell the Government: You extend benefits to some people by granting them capital gains exemptions. 1 wish to remind him that the Minister of Finance does not call that a gift but an investment. Investing is not necessarily spending. On the contrary! Therefore, bearing that in mind, 1 would like to put things in their true perspective, namely that capital gains exemptions have been extended in order to create jobs and were not, of course, intended as gifts to the rich like some are trying to imply. Believe me, small businesses are strongly convinced that these capital gains exemptions will contribute to job creation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order! The 20-minute period has now expired, under the rules.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I am just delighted to have a chance to speak to Bill C-51, the Borrowing Authority, and to the amendment which proposes a 3 per cent reduction in the borrowing authority. Surely, the Government would want to
June 18, 1985

support that amendment. If it has seen fit to reduce the benefits to our senior citizens by 3 per cent in January, it should in fairness cut its own expenditures in a similar way.
As 1 was walking into the House of Commons tonight from a committee meeting in the West Block 1 saw the fleet of brand new vehicles lined up, with their engines idling, waiting for their $100,000 people to arrive. Surely, if this Government and the Cabinet have seen fit to reduce the purchasing power of the senior citizens by 3 per cent in January, they would not mind tightening up their belts a little and reducing Government expenditures.
The Prime Minister increased his office operation by, 1 believe, 54 per cent in this fiscal year. 1 am sure he would not mind cutting back that extra $2 million by 3 per cent. I am sure he would not mind cutting back by 3 per cent his staff which already has been increased by 33 per cent. He is asking the senior citizens to do that. 1 am sure he wants to be fair and equitable. He promised to do all these things. I am surprised that the Government is holding up the vote on this amendment because I am sure it wants to be fair to our senior citizens.
I believe as we look down the pipe over a period of four years or five years, we see exactly how this Government proposes to operate; that is by stealth, misrepresentation, and by not levelling with the Canadian people. When the Government put out the Estimates of Government revenues and expenditures it was only for 1985-86. But if we project those costs over a long period of time, taking 3 per cent less this year, 3 per cent less next year, and so on, not only to the indexation of the income tax levels but to the standard personal exemptions, and we do that as well to senior citizens pensions, we sort of get them both coming and going.
For instance, let us look at the benefits to the rich, the powerful and the mighty in this country. We see that the surtax only applies for 1985-86 and 1986-87. That is just a little over 18 months. Let us look at the special tax on the banks. It likewise only applies over a very short period of time, amounting to something like $10 million this year in surtax and $100 million next year. We see that the rich and the powerful pay a surtax, but for perhaps only 18 months.
If we look at the low and moderate income groups we see their benefits cut off year after year. Let us look at the modification to the personal income tax scale. It only amounts to $80 million this year, but by 1990-1991 the low and moderate income families will be paying $4,360 billion a year more in personal income tax. I know that Hon. Members opposite do not like to hear this because when they put out the Budget they did not bother showing what the long-term impact would be of the deindexation of the personal levels of income tax.
Let us look at the impact on the Registered Home Ownership Savings Program. It hits at young families and young couples. I met with a young couple in Toronto two weeks ago who told me they were paying $650 a month for rent. They said if they could get the down payment, such as the RHOSP would provide, they would be able to purchase a home by paying only another $150 a month. But this Budget does away
Borrowing Authority Act
with that program, which means that thousands of young couples who might have been able to put aside the down payment for a home using the RHOSP Program will not now be able to do so.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why when the Minister of Finance was releasing those funds which are held in the RHOSP Program, he did not allow them to be taken out this year and invested in a home, in furnishings or in major appliances. The people I have talked to have told me that they would just roll it over into another fund. So even if those funds are released without taxation this year, they will not be generating any jobs related to major consumer goods, and they will not be providing the down payments for a home.
If we look at the rest of the projections over a five-year period we see that the loss, because of the capital gains tax exemption, jumps from $300 million this year to $1.25 billion by 1990-91. The Minister has portrayed this as a job creation scheme. If he really wanted it to be that, rather than a valentine to his friends on Bay Street in high income brackets, it seems to me that he would have made a provision whereby the capital gains would be invested in Canadian business and farms rather than in anything from a condo in Florida to art and all kinds of things. Clearly what will happen is that people who have a capital gain of $500,000, because most of them will be in a high income bracket, will save themselves $125,000 with no benefit to the country. Surely what we want is a fair tax regime to encourage development and provide jobs.
The elimination of the PGRT will save the multinational oil companies $124 million this year, and $2,449 billion by 1990. That is rather interesting because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources outlined several weeks ago about seven major projects which she saw going ahead. I have forgotten the exact number of jobs created in the development stage of projects like Venture and Hibernia, but the total number of permanent jobs for those seven major projects was something like 31. We hear of small Canadian owned companies who are afraid of being taken over by these rich multinationals. Not only have they had the PGRT removed with no effective monitoring system to see that those funds are reinvested, but they gain as well because the value of the oil they have in the ground will increase by some $800 million this year. We are seeing a massive transfer from the poor, the middle-income earners, and senior citizens to the rich, the powerful, and the multinationals. How can the Government justify that?
Last fall in his Economic Statement the Minister of Finance made a great thing of the Government's campaign promise to reduce the excise tax on gasoline for farmers and primary producers. It was reduced by some 20 cents a gallon, but in the Budget it was increased by 9 cents a gallon. The Government realized that excise tax would be harmful to the tourist industry so it does not take effect until early September, but that is the time when the harvest in western Canada is getting into full swing. The people in the West are appalled. They cannot understand the duplicity of the Government in remov-

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
ing the tax last fall and then reimposing it when the harvest is really beginning. In western Canada it is being described as the harvest tax. Add to that the fact that the Government, with no exemption that I have been able to find for farmers and primary producers, will reimpose a sales tax January 1 on energy costs, indeed on all farm input costs. So we see a number of items in the Budget which are very harmful to Canadian agriculture.
The tobacco industry is suffering tremendously and the Government has imposed an additional tax of 25 cents on a package of cigarettes. The tobacco farmers say that will be very harmful. A tax levy of some 2 per cent on alcohol has drawn a violent reaction from the grape and wine industry in the Niagara area and other parts of our country. As well, the Government has said it will be reducing the budget of the Department of Agriculture by $50 million a year over the next five years. Given a budget of about $1.25 billion, a cut of $250 million is very significant.
The Budget does not say specifically where those cuts will be. They may be in crop insurance. The Government may ask the provinces to put up half the crop insurance premiums, or a third, along with the federal Government and producers. The cuts may be in transportation assistance or agricultural research. That is not clear, but if you look at the Budget papers it is clear there will be a cut of $50 million a year. Perhaps the cut will be in the milk stabilization program, a program which not only provides assistance to our agricultural producers, but also acts as a unifying or cohesive force to help keep them in business.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate if the budget of the Department of Agriculture will be frozen at its present level, less the $50 million, or will it increase 3 per cent or 4 per cent, less the $50 million? What effect will reducing the borrowing authority in line with the reduction being applied to senior citizens have on the budget of the Department of Agriculture?
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture met on June 6 at a special directors meeting in Toronto. Not only did the regular table officers of the federation attend, but the county directors and county presidents were there as well. It was one of the largest emergent meetings they had at which to consider exactly what to do in response to the Budget.
They passed a resolution at that meeting which Hon. Members should read because I know they are very concerned about the plight of farmers in the country. Tomorrow they will hold a special emergency meeting to plan the strategy for coping with the cut-backs which the Government has made in the agricultural budget and how to deal with the disincentives and lack of action in the Budget presented by the Government.
During the election campaign, the Government promised to introduce an agri-bond program. Obviously the Minister of Finance did not support that program because he was demonstrably against an agri-bond program in his special White Paper on taxation issues in agriculture. He was also
against any concessions on Section 31 of the Income Tax Act and changes in the capital gains tax. While he recognized the capital gains provision for farmers in his Budget, he took no action with respect to the agri-bond program. That is regrettable because the Finance committee made a strong presentation for a long term agri-bond program with low interest rates.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Chairman, 1 am delighted to be able to speak on this amendment. Frankly, it has been presented in order to send a strong message to the Government because, in spite of strong protests, representations and pleadings from millions of senior citizens and Canadians generally as well as Members of the Official Opposition and the other Opposition Party in the House, the Government has refused to listen. It has acted in an arrogant and stubborn manner by insisting that it will proceed with the Budget measure to deindex senior citizens pensions and not allow any adjustment for inflation below 3 per cent.
From time to time. Government spokesmen hint that something may be done at some future date to respond to the quite justified concerns over the deindexing proposal in the Budget. However, the Government does not take a consistent line. The Prime Minister speaks in a soft, cajoling, conciliatory manner, suggesting that he understands the concerns of seniors and there is nothing to worry about because action will be taken to respond to those concerns. However, when the Minister of Finance speaks about the same subject, his tone is very different. It is harsh and stubborn, indicating a closed and arrogant mind when it comes to this crucial subject of such great concern to millions of senior citizens and millions of Canadians generally.
All we had to do to confirm this point was listen to the Minister of Finance during Question Period today when he talked about the need to reduce the deficit above all. He talked about the need for senior citizens to bear what we consider to be an unfair and unnecessary share of the burden to reduce that deficit.
It was as if nothing had been said and nothing had happened since the night the Budget had been presented. Anybody who had been listening at all and had not been away on another planet, in his mind if not in reality, would have known that there had been a growing feeling of outrage on the part of Canada's senior citizens and Canadians generally when they recognized what that cold, arrogant and unfeeling Government was fully intending to do in its Budget of May 23 when it talked about removing the indexing of senior citizens' pensions for all inflationary increases in the cost of living below 3 per cent.
How can anyone take anything the Government says seriously about the Budget in general, or about this provision to cut the indexing of senior citizens' pensions in particular, when it is talking out of both sides of its collective mouth? On the one hand there is the soft cajoling, honeyed, yet not credible words of the Prime Minister and, on the other, the tough.
June 18, 1985

arrogant, unfeeling words of the Minister of Finance in the House today. I suggest that those latter words represent the real views, opinions and decisions of that cold and unfeeling Government. That is why the Budget not only deserves to be rejected but that the amendment before the committee deserves to be strongly supported.
The Minister of Finance continues to claim, as he did in the House during Question Period today, that there is no change being made to the Old Age Security pension. He says that if the Budget is adopted in the form in which it has been presented to the House, senior citizens will continue to receive cheques at face value, in amounts that will not be in any way less than face value amounts of those cheques now. No one is denying or debating that point. We are saying on behalf of millions of senior citizens and senior citizens are saying themselves that the sneaky, unfair provision to cut indexing in the Budget will cut the purchasing power-


Paul Wyatt Dick: You cut it back by 6 per cent with your six and five.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -of those cheques, not for a time period of two years but on and on in perpetuity.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Not necessarily.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On and on in perpetuity. We must stand up for the Canadian people and send a message to this arrogant and unfeeling Government through the amendment before the committee and through fighting as hard as we can against an arrogant and unfeeling Budget presented by an arrogant and unfeeling Government.
Frankly, even the Minister of Finance, when he is not in the House, is willing to admit that the provision in the Budget to cut the indexation of the pensions of senior citizens will in fact harm seniors by cutting their purchasing power. In fact, the following was reported today in The Toronto Star about the Minister of Finance when he was in Halifax:
And Wilson later agreed with reporters' suggestions that there will be a decrease in the "real dollar value" of pensions.
No matter what the Minister of Finance tries to say in the House to defend his indefensible Budget, deep down he knows what is wrong with that part of the Budget dealing with the pensions of senior citizens. While he is not yet ready to admit it to the House, where he should admit it first, he admitted it when faced with this reality from reporters in Halifax yesterday.
The Minister of Finance and other government spokesmen keep saying that the only reason senior citizens are protesting the deindexing provision of the Budget is because of the scare tactics of the Opposition, that the seniors have been stirred up by the scare tactics of the Opposition.
The Government is insulting the intelligence and common sense of our senior citizens. They are able to analyse proposals in this Budget as well as anyone. They are able to make up
Borrowing Authority Act
their own minds about what is wrong with the Budget in general and about what it says when it comes to pensions of senior citizens in particular. Whether it is the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister or anyone on the government side of the House, when it comes to them saying that senior citizens are only upset about the Budget because of the scare tactics of the Opposition, all they are saying is that they do not attribute enough intelligence and common sense to our senior citizens to think for themselves and make up their own minds. That is an insult to our senior citizens which should be placed on the record. 1 am sure it will be held against this arrogant and unfeeling Government for a long time to come.
To demonstrate that senior citizens are quite capable of thinking for themselves and making up their own minds about what is wrong with the Budget, I refer the Committee to a press release dated June 13 and issued by Mrs. Yhetta Gold, President of the National Advisory Council on Aging. According to the press release, Mrs. Gold sent a letter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, from which I want to quote some relevant extracts as set forth in the press release. In her letter she said:
The May 23 Budget... has stimulated seniors to joint together to lobby and advocate on their own behalf. Seniors are saying "Listen to me" to Government.
The tragedy is that the Government is refusing to listen. This is why we have to send a message, on behalf of seniors, to this arrogant and unfeeling Government through the amendment which we presented to the Committee on this Borrowing Authority Bill. In part the press release goes on to state:
Commenting on her letter, Mrs. Gold indicated that "deindexing has not only brought seniors together but also many other Canadians including youth and business groups".
The press release continues by referring to the response of seniors to the May 23 Budget and "their belief that they should not be penalized any more than the general public". Also it states:
NACA is encouraged by the response of seniors and their associations and is sure that seniors will continue their efforts-
Another part of the press release reads:
The letter to Mr. Epp refers to other effects of deindexing. According to the Council "it will provide a short-term saving in exchange for a long-term loss. The stress associated with a tighter and tighter budget will take its toll. More and more senior Canadians will find it difficult to cope with a deteriorating physical, mental and social condition. In time, expenditures for other types of care will limit the savings due to deindexing", according to the Council.
I have quoted from a letter which was sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the President of NACA, the official body established by government to advise government on the needs and concerns of the aging. This demonstrates that what government spokesmen are saying, to the effect that it is only the scare tactics of the Opposition which are stirring up senior citizens, is absolutely wrong, inaccurate and downright false. The letter sent by Mrs. Gold to the Minister shows very clearly that the National Advisory Council on Aging, the senior advisory body speaking for senior citizens, has analysed the government Budget and what it said about pensions. It has figured out for itself, on behalf of senior

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
citizens, that the Budget will reduce the purchasing powers of old age pensioners in ways which will be very harmful to senior citizens, not only now but for a long time to come.
1 also draw to the attention of the Committee another very important point which was made in this June 13 press release by NACA. It reads:
NACA also believes that pre-retirees, the 60 to 64 age group (1.1 million Canadians with an average income of less than $17,000) will be hurt by deindexing OAS. "Many will have to modify drastically their retirement plans and save more to compensate for their loss of income, or delay their retirement", said Mrs. Gold. "The first is not conducive to economic growth and the latter will have Canadians even more anxious about jobs."
These are the words of the President of the non-political and non-partisan National Advisory Council on Aging.
If the Government is not yet ready to listen to what the Official Opposition says about this, surely it will listen to the National Advisory Council on Aging. If it is not ready to listen to NACA, then it is clear why, as I have already said, we have to send a message to the Government on behalf of senior citizens and all Canadians through the amendment before the Committee, that the Budget in general is wrong and in particular it is wrong when it wants to cut the purchasing power of pensions for older Canadians.
There are many other reasons to send a message to the Government through this amendment. The Minister of Finance continues to say that no changes will be made to the Old Age Security pension. If that is correct, why do the budget documents attribute hundreds of millions of dollars in savings from what the Budget says about deindexing Old Age Security pensions, savings which the Government intends to use to reduce the deficit? If everything remains the same, from where will the savings come which the Government says it will get from the Old Age Security system to reduce the deficit?
The truth of the matter is that the Government is changing the Old Age Security system. If that were not the case, it would not have those savings to reduce the deficit. What is even more shameful about what the Government is trying to do in this Budget, in a sneaky and surreptitious fashion, is that in its official Blue Paper of last January, it said that it would not make any changes to the present Old Age Security system. In that Blue Paper, the Government said that the present system was working well and did not require any changes. Let us not let the Government get away with trying to explain the unexplainable, when it tries to justify its Budget and the drop in purchasing power as a result of the deindexation it wants to make to Old Age Security pensions, by saying that it has suddenly discovered that the deficit is so large that it had to do something, that it had to put an extra burden on older Canadians.
The fact is that when that Blue Paper came out, the Government had already been in office for many months. It already had full access to the books of the Government and knew what the financial position of the Government was then and what it was going to be. In its Blue Paper it said that the present system of Old Age Security pensions was working well,
that if there were to be any changes, they would be only to improve pensions and the social security system, and that any savings would never, never be used to reduce the deficit.
This Budget shows us how much we can believe what the Government says.


Don Boudria: Never believe a Tory.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Government ought to be ashamed of itself for pressing ahead with this Budget and for having this borrowing authority Bill before the House. Through the amendment before this Committee we must send a message to this cold, arrogant and unfeeling Government.
In order to try to defend the indefensible and justify the unjustifiable, the Minister of Finance and government spokespersons say that this Budget is going to create jobs.


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear! Good idea.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Members on the other side of the House say "Hear, hear. Good idea". Yes, it is a good idea, but will someone explain to me why there are no forecasts whatsoever in this Budget of the number of jobs it is supposed to create? Where are the forecasts of jobs? There are no forecasts, but there is something else in the Budget which shows what the Government really thinks the Budget is going to do with regard to jobs. The Budget has forecasts about economic growth. The Budget says that while economic growth in the last year of Liberal government was 4.7 per cent, the results of Tory economics would be that in two years that level of growth would be cut in half.
How can hundreds of thousands of jobs be created as a result of this indefensible Budget if, at the same time, that Budget is going to cut economic growth in half? That is Tory economics. That is not job creation. That is not a Budget which helps Canada. In their indefensible budget documents, the Conservatives themselves are admitting that this Budget will hurt the economy and cut jobs. If I am wrong in this, Mr. Chairman, let the Minister of Finance, who is cowering in the back row, come forward and produce the figures of his Department, which he did not have the courage to put in his Budget, which show how many jobs his Budget is going to create and explain how his Budget is going to create any jobs if its result is to cut economic growth in half.
He cannot do that because he knows that even Tory economics will not create hundreds of thousands of jobs with a rate of growth which is less than half of what it was in the last year of Liberal Government.
On behalf of senior citizens and all Canadians, I say that this arrogant, unfeeling Government needs to get the message that it is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is unfair, cruel, and heartless in what it is trying to do through its Budget to senior citizens and middle and lower income Canadians generally. If the Government does not receive the message through this amendment, we will continue to fight long and hard on behalf of Canadians because the Government is not going to do it and Canadians have already started to catch on.
June 18, 1985


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to say a great deal at this point.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That's what you said yesterday.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The reason I feel motivated to say a few words is that I have been waiting for nearly two days for a single Member of the government Party to rise and answer some of the questions that are being posed by Opposition Members. Why are no Members opposite rising to say that they do not understand why the Government is going to take $1,500 out of the wallets of senior citizens over the next five years?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Because it is wrong. Why should we say that when it is wrong? I gave a great speech today. You didn't listen.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I must have missed that speech, Mr. Chairman. Every calculation that I have seen done by our Party researchers and by various financial and economic analysts all show essentially the same thing.


An Hon. Member:: They are all socialists.


Nelson Andrew Riis: All socialists, my goodness, Mr. Chairman. 1 will not give a long list of columnists who have been saying the same thing. However, 1 will quote from Mr. Jeffrey Simpson who writes regularly in The Globe and Mail.


Mr. Orlikow:: Which is quite a radical paper.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is quite a radical paper, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North says. In The Globe and Mail, our effort at a national newspaper, Mr. Simpson, who is a reputed columnist, said the following:
In Sherbrooke, Quebec, on July 26, 1984, Brian Mulroney promised unequivocally to "reinstate complete indexing of Old Age Pensions to the actual cost of living, as of January 1, 1985.
People who heard those comments would have believed that the Prime Minister was saying that when the Conservatives became the Government they would reindex pensions to their full level. That is what he said and I suspect that is what people would believe. The Prime Minister said:
Senior citizens are often isolated, poor and in a crippling state of dependence. Recent statistics indicate that more than 60 per cent of women and 40 per cent of men over the age of 65 who live alone have incomes that are below the poverty line.
The Prime Minister was pointing out, as he should, the plight in which the elderly of Canada find themselves. The Prime Minister went on to say:
The position of senior citizens in our society has slipped drastically in recent years.
That means that the purchasing power and disposable income of senior citizens had eroded over the years and that conditions were worsening for them. The article goes on:
Allan McKinnon, a former Tory defence minister ... says there is anger and concern about deindexing of pensions. Alan Redway, whose York East riding is full of seniors, believes the Government must "review the issue".
Borrowing Authority Act
We have heard from a number of Conservative Members who, when caught by a reporter at a weak moment, said that they were getting mail on this matter and wanted to register their deep concern. We have been debating this issue for two days trying to find ways and means of approving this $18 billion borrowing authority. We have been asking questions and I do not think it is unreasonable to expect somebody from the government benches to stand and say that they really think that hammering senior citizens and slashing their pensions is a good idea.
I am reminded of a Question Period not long ago when the Minister of National Health and Welfare was asked if he could name a single individual who supported the Government's position, let alone a single group. He hummed and hawed and said that he thought he could, then went on to talk his way out of that question.
The Prime Minister of Canada has said that senior citizens are isolated poor who are in a crippling state of dependence. He has also said that their situation in society has slipped drastically in recent years and is slipping even further. Then the first chance the Government gets to provide leadership- and I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is here- the Government indicates that the problems of senior citizens, the problems with deindexation and the problems it had identified in the election campaign are going to be ignored.
The Government decided that it was going to ignore the critical problems. Since it wanted to give tax breaks to the 4 per cent of tax filers who file capital gains on the first $500,000 of income from capital gains, it needed to come up with the money some place, so it decided to hammer the 10 per cent of Canadians who are senior citizens. This is not my analysis but is the point that is made by Jeffrey Simpson. He has said that if the 4 per cent is put against the 10 per cent of the population, there is a political problem.
Every single Member opposite knows that there is a political problem in his or her constituency. I would like to think that there is a great deal of pressure within the Conservative caucus to change the mind of the Minister of Finance on this particular issue.
The Minister of Finance and his caucus colleagues were saying that we all have to suffer a little bit and that it is reasonable to ask senior citizens, most of whom live below the poverty line, to take a 3 per cent cut in their disposable income over the next number of years. To be more accurate, that means that by the year 1990-91, senior citizens will have $1.6 billion taken from their pockets in one year. Between now and then, that adds up to $6.6 billion that we will take away from senior citizens.
Jeffrey Simpson goes on to describe an interesting balance. After all, the Minister of Finance said that there was justice and that he had weighed the situation very carefully. However, 1990, the year the $1.6 billion will be taken from the pockets of seniors, is also the year when that 4 per cent of the people who file capital gains will receive $1.25 billion. In other words,

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
we are taking from the poorest citizens of Canada to give to the most wealthy citizens of Canada. At least that is the analysis as I see it, and I trust some of my colleagues opposite will correct me if I am wrong.
The Government is requesting that we cut the income of seniors by 3 per cent, so it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to cut 3 per cent from its borrowing authority. That is the motion we are debating at the moment. The Minister of Finance has said that we should be passing this $18 billion borrowing authority quickly so that the Government can get on with doing the job. Doing the job means a number of things. As the Minister of Finance has indicated time and time again, doing the job means creating jobs. He has said that the Budget he introduced on May 23 will create jobs. Let us take a look a what some analysts have to say about that. Again, I am not referring to a good NDP source but to a post-Budget survey done by the Canada Permanent Trust Company.
The Canada Permanent Trust Company contacted a wide variety of business economists. 1 would point out that these are business economists and not academic economists. They are people who make their living examining the Canadian economy and advising their clients on what is happening in terms of future economic development.
Interestingly enough, Canada Permanent found that none of the forecasters agree that the Minister of Finance's promise of greater job creation will succeed. Not one single business economist that was commissioned by the Canada Permanent Trust Company could find anyone who felt that the Minister of Finance's promise of greater job creation would succeed. As a matter of fact, 20 per cent of those business economists expected that the jobless rate would be higher than it had been before the Budget. That is a very telling comment because one of the reasons for the Government asking senior citizens to bleed a little bit and one of the reasons for the Government to slap user-fees on a whole variety of things and to raise sales taxes and taxes on confectioneries is because it will create jobs. Yet business economists, people who make their living by predicting the implications of the Budget, say that this will not take place and that as a matter of fact the situation will worsen.
Let us take a look at what else the economists have had to say. Seventy-six per cent of those business economists who were surveyed said that they are unlikely to alter their projections of real growth this year because of the Budget. In other words, 76 per cent of them felt that they had no reason to change the projections of growth or lack of it as a result of the Budget. That is very interesting, Mr. Chairman.
As well, the economists felt that the new tax measures will drastically reduce the spending power of the average Canadian. I think that this is rather important because the Government has asked us to give enhusiastic endorsement to its request to borrow $18.2 billion while we are being told that the small and medium-sized business sectors are falling all over themselves in their enthusiasm to create jobs. Probably everyone in this House believes that the small and medium-sized
business sectors would like to expand operations, but to do that, they require one thing: they require a population that has the confidence and the wherewithal to purchase whatever it is that is being produced, whether it be a good or a service.
The Budget that was introduced on May 23, along with the November statement made by the Minister of Finance, takes away from every family in Canada $1,000 of disposable income. As well, over the next five years, every single senior citizen in Canada will lose $1,500 from his or her disposable income. It does not take much imagination to figure this out. I hope that Members opposite will understand what 1 am about to say.
When so much disposable income is taken away at the same time as people are being asked to buy more in order to assist small business, the logic breaks down somewhere in that process. One cannot expect businesses to expand if people are not prepared to purchase goods or services, yet that is what the Government expects will happen. I suspect that is why the business economists to which I referred a moment ago did not agree that the Minister of Finance's promise of greater job creation will succeed.
I ask Hon. Members opposite who feel that the incentive of capital gains tax avoidance will encourage job creation and expansion to tell me about any Government in the world that has introduced a similar policy that has resulted in net economic expansion and job creation. I do not think Hon. Members could find a successful example of that. It is good in theory but in actual fact, I do not think that it has ever occurred. I challenge Hon. Members opposite to correct me on that assumption if I am wrong.
I would like to end my comments today by indicating why we as New Democrats are less than enthusiastic about giving carte blanche approval to the Government so that it may borrow $18.2 billion and why we are less than enthusiastic about the Budget that was introduced by the Minister of Finance.
A few days ago my colleague from Essex-Windsor gave the House a history lesson. For Members who were not present on that day, I would like to repeat that lesson. He recalled an election campaign which was waged against an arrogant Liberal Government. At the time there was a decline in productivity, a decline in the country's production and a dramatic increase in unemployment. People said that the situation had to change and that the arrogant Liberal Government had to go.
The Tories spoke of optimism, hope, a better Canada and a new era. In Regina, the Leader of the Conservative Party said: "This is a new country. There is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if the Government does its duty." In Moncton, New Brunswick, he said: "The Conservative Party is going to find work for all who are willing to work or perish in the attempt, and take such steps as will end the tragic conditions of unemployment and bring prosperity to the country as a whole." During that election campaign the Conservative
June 18, 1985

Leader said: "I promise to end unemployment in Canada." The Tories were swept into power. The Tories were elected on those promises, with an overwhelming majority.
A Budget was brought down shortly thereafter. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Stevens, said that the Budget was wise and courageous. The Budget included major cutbacks in government services. It included reductions in agricultural services to western, central and eastern Canada. It imposed additional taxation on all people of Canada. It imposed new taxes through increases in the sales tax, increases on import duties and what were then called nuisance taxes. Those whose incomes were $10,000 a year saw their taxes increase by 53 per cent as a result of the Budget. However, if a person's income was $1 million, their taxes only increased by 31 per cent. At that time, Social Democrats stood up in the House and said that the millionaires had been very gently dealt with by the Minister of Finance.
That was the election campaign of 1930. The promise of tens of thousands of jobs was made by R. B. Bennett. The Budget was brought down by the Hon. Henry Stevens in 1932. Canadian people got a shot at that Conservative Government in 1935. They realized the disastrous results of the Budget. They knew that the promises which had been made in the 1930 election campaign were empty promises. That Government did not deliver.
The point is that it is nothing new. The rhetoric is the same. The Budget is the same. It is R. B. Bennett all over again. We know how successful those practices were at that time. Mr. Chairman, I see my colleagues opposite questioning some of the comments I have made. Will one Member opposite stand and explain how this Budget is different from the one brought in by R. B. Bennett in 1932? Can they explain how this Budget was different from the major thrust of the 1932 Budget? Can they explain how the promises which were made by the Conservatives in 1932 were any different in principle, thrust, or even words, from the Budget of 1985?
I suspect that is the reason why people today cannot take these people too seriously. They have seen it before. I would encourage people to read what happened during the election campaign of 1930 and the subsequent years until the next election in 1935. They will find that the times and approaches of the Conservative Government then were no different from the times and approaches of the Conservative Government today. That is why we find this Bill inappropriate. This is not the kind of borrowing authority which results in enthusiastic endorsement by members of the New Democratic Party.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a question to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier).
A moment ago, to a question from the Hon. Member from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) who was talking about indexation, you answered that indexation to the cost of living
Borrowing Authority Act
would not be lost. If inflation were 4 or 5 per cent, pensioners would get 2 per cent.
Now here is my question: Can you tell us whether or not senior citizens will lose the 3 per cent basic OAS indexation, and I said basic, if the Government does not change its position or its mind? Is that 3 per cent indexation of the basic pension going to be lost from the start, regardless of the cost of living and so on? From the start, will senior citizens lose the 3 per cent indexation of their basic pension? That is my first question.
As well, you mentioned in your answer that you had visited many senior citizens homes in your riding. Could you give us the name of these residences so that we could check and find out what comments people have made to you, since you said that they were worried and anxious . . . Indeed, that is exactly what you said, even though you are shaking your head, because we will see what is reported in Hansard. You actually said that these senior citizens were worried and anxious because of assertions made by the Liberals. Now, if they are concerned and anxious, give us the names of the residences where they live and we'll check if they have asked you to rise and to present a petition on their behalf in Parliament.


Claude Lanthier: To begin with, Mr. Chairman, I will answer the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) and then, I would like to have the opportunity to reply to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). First of all, it is true that earlier perhaps did not make myself clear. I want to make you understand that I did not say that they were anxious, on the contrary, I said that the old people I visited in old folks homes in my riding felt that some people were trying to make them anxious. And if I gave the impression, earlier, that they were anxious, I was wrong. I am sorry, I did not make myself clear.


Carlo Rossi: I am sorry, but you created anxiety.


Claude Lanthier: No, you tried to create anxiety and I repeat "tried". I did not say that you succeeded. Alright? Certainly, it is well understood that, the Budget clearly states two things: as of 1986 the Old Age Security payments will be indexed on the cost of living above 3 per cent. Everything above 3 per cent will automatically be indexed-Everything above 3 per cent would be indexed. First of all, because I believe that the thrust of the measures "contained" in the Budget is to assure a maximum indexation and to remove the anxiety of elderly people who are afraid of what happened to them two years ago when they lost 6 per cent in indexation and they could have been lost even more when the order in council was passed. We now offer them the possibility of making long term plans, since anything above 3 per cent will be indexed.
Secondly, and I repeat it again because the Opposite Members are asking about it and they should at least listen to me, regardless of what people tried to say or make others say, that we should namely perhaps reconsider our position or to back

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
down, whatever you want to call it, it is clear that it is more with a political purpose remind than for the good of the elderly. That the Opposition carries on as it was. With your permission I should like to repeat once more what is contained in the Budget, what has been clearly stated and repeated that I quote: "The government will review the adequacy of payments in light of future circumstances and will increase them as resources permit".
I would not want to isolate one part of a sentence and use it for a political strategy campaign. This is really what I wanted to say, and if the record says something else, regretfully, I have to admit that I must have used the wrong expression.
Secondly, I would like to have the opportunity to reply to the Hon. Member-


Carlo Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Chairman, he will have this opportunity, before going any further, to reply to the other Hon. Member. I think 1 can ask him the question again because he has not fully answered the one I first asked him.


Steve Eugene Paproski: 1 am sorry. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) knows that on this particular point it is a matter of opinion. I am sure the Hon. Member will have another opportunity during this debate to ask his question again. I am sorry, but this is a matter of opinion.


Carlo Rossi: I want to repeat my question!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has actually given you an answer. Later on, if you are not satisfied with the answer he gave you or if you claim that he did not answer your question, you will have the chance to rise and ask your question again. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) has the floor.


Claude Lanthier: With your permission, I would like to reply to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).
Earlier he challenged the members opposite, not the Opposition but the Government Members, to uncover whatever figures might be inaccurate. Most of the figures he quoted were accurate. We checked them. But there is one which is not accurate, when he suggested that needy senior citizens will have their income reduced by 3 per cent. That is not true. First of all, their income will not be reduced by 3 per cent; true, starting in 1986, the indexation of the basic old age security pensions will be limited to the increase in the consumer price index exceeding 3 per cent; so I grant you that they will lose 3 per cent of their buying power. However, the needy will not be losing 3 per cent on their total income, because it has been clearly stated that the guaranteed income supplement will be fully indexed; if we compare the case of the neediest those who
receive the OAS, and G1S benefits and of those not quite so poor and who only receive the OAS benefits, as in the case for example of the former prime minister of Canada who will eventually lose 3 per cent of his buying power, starting next year. First of all, the neediest, those who benefit from the fully indexed guaranteed income supplement, will eventually lose about only 1.5 per cent of their income, that is without the additional condition. It is therefore unfair to maintain that the neediest will suffer a net loss of 3 per cent on their total income. I wanted to correct those figures.
Secondly, let us take a look at the forecasts mentioned by the member who is only doing his job as an opposition member; according to some business economists apparently the budget proposals of our Minister of Finances will not create jobs. I have some reservations about the forecasts made by those economists. Remember those about the draconian measures we were forced to take in November; they were supposed to create unemployment, however, since then, some 70,000 jobs have been created and the unemployment rate is the lowest in the last three years, which totally contradicts the economists, forecasts. That is why 1 have the greatest reservations about the figures which were quoted.
Thirdly, the Hon. Member challenged us to give him some examples of areas where capital gains will create jobs. I will tell you where; the Hon. Member even referred to history and spoke of the time before 1 was born; 1 am very flattered that he would go back so far in our history-


An Hon. Member:: It has been quite a long time.


Claude Lanthier: Indeed. But let me describe one in my wonderful riding of LaSalle and more particularly in Ville Emard. Businessmen wanted to transfer their assets to their children but they did not know how to do it, and the children were not really interested. To then, it was that kind of gift that costs more to take than to turn down. The children have now been able to take over those businesses and they will invest money in them, which they have already started to do. The parents are investing too because eventually they will be able in the next 5 years to plan ahead because, we will not change the rules on investments every year by decree. So, each year, they will be in a position to declare capital gains and not have to hand the government their hard earned money. 1 know three businesses where direct investments are being made either in buildings or equipment thanks to the capital gains tax exemption. Those are the three elements on which I have been challenged and that is my answer.
Now, concerning the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), the main thrust of the Budget is to assure the elderly .. . Mr. Chairman, I repeat that we want to make sure the elderly will not be faced with the same anxiety to which they were subjected two years ago. I am sorry, but 1 cannot accept the answer the Hon. Member for Bourassa would give. That is fundamentally what the Budget is all about. People are told that five years from now, they will not have to take a terrible 6 per cent loss in one year. That is what is implied in the Budget. As to the deindexation proposal, the senior citizens I have
June 18, 1985

talked to told me two things. First, they understand very well the indexation guarantee we are proposing. Secondly, they understand-and that is what I was told in the letter homes for the aged-that people most in need should receive more. And third, there is something they have told us and which I would like to put on the record. We have a French Canadian expression and I am anxious to see how it will be translated in English in Hansard. They told us-and I am going to tell you exactly where I heard this, it was in a senior citizens club in Ville Emard, you can go and see them if you like, following in my footsteps. Anyway, they told us: "It is about time you stop drawing on our savings". They do not fully understand that notion of capital, but the savings, that means something for the French Canadian. And they fully realized that we had to push the country into debt in order to pay for the social programs. And they told us: We have enough pride not to force upon our children a debt load they will have to pass on to the future generations. We heard this morning that outrageous suggestion that all we have to do in order to come up with $15 million or $180 million more is to force yet an additional load on our country's debt burden.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we must credit our elderly with some intelligence, as the Opposition Leader was saying a while ago. They are worried when first, we create unemployment, and second, we draw on their long-standing earnings.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Chairman, the question is quite simple. You said that anything above 3 per cent will be indexed. I agree with that. I simply ask: the 3 per cent they now have, the 3 per cent that are presently indexed regarding the basic Old Age Security Pension-you said in your speech that anything over and above 3 per cent would be indexed, and I grant you that. This deindexing of this 3 per cent of the basic pension, assuming you do not change your mind by January 1, 1986, will this deindexing measure be implemented, yes or no? That is what I want to know: Yes or no? Will you go ahead with the deindexing of this 3 per cent? I agree with you about the amount above 3 per cent. But I ask you: What about the 3 per cent they now have? That is all. Yes or no?
Mr. Lanthier. Listen, this was called skating earlier, because I did not answer yes or no. Listen well. I have my pride. I am going to choose the answer I am going to give, according to what I understand, and not according to a strategy which seems to be imposed on me. First, it is understood that during the whole year until December 31, nobody loses anything.


Carlo Rossi: Agreed.


Claude Lanthier: We agree on this. What may happen on January 1, 1986? What may happen? Everything was provided for in the Budget. In the Budget we said by 1990, and if it is by 1990 we can begin now or on January 1. The first 3 per cent will be the share we ask from senior citizens-


Carlo Rossi: This is what I want to know.
Borrowing Authority Act


Claude Lanthier: -to make them aware of the fact that we are now in an extremely difficult situation and that social program payments have increased. However, we say this to those who are most in need: Do not worry, as we have more money, we are going to study the situation and it is clearly said, we will see what is going to happen by that time. Of course, it is guaranteed above 3 per cent, it will not be guaranteed under 3 per cent, in as much as we are not going to implement this phase; La Palice would not have said it better.
Let me tell you then that we should not apply the 3 per cent suddenly; it should be related to all the conditions. I did not invent what I said now, it is in the Budget Speech.


Carlo Rossi: That's just like you!


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, when the Parliamentary Secretary says that they will closely monitor the situation and make appropriate adjustments, it is but another promise and I simply want to ask him this: Is the government going to take this promise as seriously as the one made on July 26, when it stated: "We are committed to proceed to a complete reform of the pension system in order to eliminate poverty among retired Canadians and to improve their standard of living."


Claude Lanthier: Listen, I do not want to elaborate on this statement of policy but I heard what you said, and 1 think we can isolate it and give you the assurance that it will be fully implemented not as a promise but as a statement of policy of this Government.
I have said and repeated it many times, but 1 do not know if I am getting through. 1 said that this policy remains as a leitmotiv or modus vivendi, whatever words you want to use. You can be assured that this Government's policy is not only to deal with financial and economic matters but as well to direct our resources as much as possible to those who need help the most. To this end, we will not mortgage our children's future but we will conduct pubic business in a rational way, which will of course lead us to a deficit, while creating new jobs. Our primary goal is still job creation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, 1 am pleased to rise in this debate. I have not had the opportunity for a long time to comment on these budgetary measures, Mr. Chairman, and particularly on the cuts to be made to the Old Age Security pensions. I would therefore take this opportunity to try once more to get Ministers and Government Members to understand how important it is for them to immediately cancel the measures they have taken in the past. And I want to say to the Conservative Member opposite that this time, I will deliver my speech slowly so that he too can understand.
Here we go again. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate tonight, in this House, to raise the matter-

-that after 42 years we should indeed bring to the attention of this House officially that there is finally an end to the tyranny of the Tories in the Province of Ontario. At 6.19

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
tonight the Tories were put to rest in the Province of Ontario and they will be resting for a very long time. I can see that is generating some excitement on the opposite side. Undoubtedly the electoral success of the Tories in Ontario was due to the help of "Brian Wonderful" who went to Toronto to help Premier Miller.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No, it was because you left.


Don Boudria: The wheels fell off the Tory machine. Undoubtedly they will fall off of Mr. Hatfield's machine and all the other Tory machines. As a matter of fact, I hear he lost a few wheels off his golf cart lately. He will probably lose a few more.
I see we have the Tories somewhat excited. They are an excitable bunch and, frankly, given this Budget, that is understandable.
I want to talk about the effect of this Budget on the agricultural industry.


Arnold John Malone: You could not figure out a budget for your piggy bank.


Don Boudria: We know that some Conservative Members- Mr. Tobin: Speak slowly.


Don Boudria: Yes, I will speak slowly to make sure that Members on the opposite side understand. Let me repeat that the farmers of this country are not at all pleased with the Budget. Let me emphasize: not at all pleased with the Budget.
1 see one prominent farmer sitting over there, the Minister of State for Small Businesses. I know he would be very-


Mr. Mayer:: You don't have a farmer sitting on your side.


Don Boudria: -very interested in the livelihood of the agricultural industry. Some Conservative Members have claimed that the capital gains exemption provision is everything that farmers wanted. Let me read to you what some farmers said. This is a resolution from an emergency board of directors meeting held on June 6, 1985. They say:
Whereas the federal Government has betrayed the farmers of Canada by presenting a budget which totally ignored the results of its own consultative process and the commitments of the Government of Canada, and Whereas the Government has not only ignored its own promises, it has ignored the legitimate needs of our farmers
Therefore be it resolved that we are demanding that the Government live up to its own commitments made during and after the election campaign and that in order to get this message across to our Government, we recommend the following action steps:
1.	That every MP in the province be talked to over the next week and that this be done by a substantial group of farmers in the MPs own area and that we demand that our MP represent our frustration and anger and demand for action to their respective caucuses and Ministers, and
2.	That the Executive of OFA and CFA be charged with the responsibility of determining a national plan of action and to bring this back to our June 19 Board meeting, and-
The resolution goes on and on and on. The Hon. Member who is heckling-


Mr. Forrestall:: I am not heckling, I am asking you a question.


Don Boudria: -will be interested to know, I am sure, that this is a resolution of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. That is the implication of that Budget for agriculture. That was not said by an opposition member of this House, but it was said by objective, non-partisan and concerned citizens of our country, farmers of the Province of Ontario, who collectively and unanimously passed this resolution to send the message to Members across the way. Surely, given the statements made by our seniors and farmers across this country-


Paul Wyatt Dick: How would you know?


Don Boudria: -surely it is starting to sink in, or it should, that this Budget is just not all it was cracked up to be. Can Government Members not see that this Budget is a disaster? Its orientation is wrong.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member to whom I have been listening for the last ten minutes keeps referring to the Budget. The Budget debate took place a couple of weeks ago. This is a borrowing Bill. Perhaps he does not understand the difference.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I guess I was not going slow enough. Obviously the Member opposite was not able to understand that the reason we did not give the Government money is that it has proven in the recent Budget that it cannot administer it. Surely even he can understand that.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is the first time you have mentioned it.


Don Boudria: Let me try it again. I am sure I will convince him this time. This is not the first attack upon the farmers of the country which the Government has perpetrated. It is actually the second major assault on the farmers of this country. The first one took place in this booklet called "Expenditure and Program Review" which was introduced on November 8, now know as black Thursday.


Mr. Kempling:: You are silly.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member opposite says that this is silly.


William James Kempling: You're silly.


Don Boudria: It is silly to cut $6.2 million from the dairy program. Maybe that is what he thinks of the importance of agriculture.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you are close enough to hear, Mr. Chairman, so I will not name the Hon. Member directly. However, you are close enough to hear what he said to the Hon. Member. I am sure that it is not language that should be used in the House. I would not ask you to call him to order except to remind Members that we may differ in opinion, have a profound
June 18, 1985

difference of opinion, but 1 suggest that to call a Member silly is absolutely unparliamentary.


Brian Vincent Tobin: And childish besides.


Arnold John Malone: Let's take a vote on it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. Let's not be silly. I say that in gest, but for the information of all Members of the House, the word "silly", as far as this Speaker can draw from his vast parliamentary experience, is not unparliamentary.
If Members will permit me to add, there is a certain question of order that I think the Hon. Member for Saint Denis is also raising.


Don Boudria: As I was saying before the Hon. Member opposite, who is obviously not interested in agriculture, made those remarks, is that on black Thursday the Government of Canada perpetrated its first of two major assaults on the farming industry. Then it cut $50 million from agriculture in the Budget. Let me ask the Member opposite if he knows of farmers who can dispense with $50 million.


Arnold John Malone: Yes.


Don Boudria: Who can give it back to the Government because they do not need it. If that is his opinion of the farming industry in this country, let me tell him that that is not the farming industry of my riding. The farmers of my riding need assistance and every penny they can get. They have difficulty making ends meet. It is small wonder that farming has been getting into greater difficulties since the Government took office with an attitude like that.
Let me elaborate on those savage cuts perpetrated by the Minister of Finance on the farming industry. For instance, $9.4 million was cut from the departmental operations of the Ministry of Agriculture. Under the heading of "Elimination of Programs", there was a $6.6 million cut in the abolition of Canagrex.


Arnold John Malone: That's good stuff.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: It is rather unusual to hear members say that. Obviously he was not present at the agricultural committee meetings when we heard witnesses and their statements. Perhaps they were speaking too quickly, Mr. Chairman.
In another section of the document entitled "Expenditure in Program Review", under the heading "Cost Recovery"-a euphemism for increasing taxes-there is another $32.3 million in cost recovery, or tax increases, to our farmers. This document continues with these policies against the farm sector.
The Government made a series of promises, not only to the farmers of Canada but to everyone else. I have that list here in which there are 338 Tory promises. Let me read a few of them.
Borrowing Authority Act


An Hon. Member:: What does this have to do with the borrowing Bill?


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I will have to repeat it again.


Mr. Cook:: Mr. Chairman, there used to be a rule of relevancy in the House. I have not heard much relevance lately. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, 1 am having great difficulty in determining whether he wants us to borrow more money or less money. It is a borrowing Bill, and even by convoluted reasoning one should connect one's remarks. 1 hope he will at least relate his points rather than refight a six-day Budget debate, as he has been doing for the last fifteen minutes. I would urge you to please be aware of the rule of relevance and I, for one, would like to see it applied a little more thoroughly.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. The debate is on the amendment, that Clause 2 of Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the words "eighteen billion, two hundred million", and substituting therefore "17 billion, 654 million". That motion is by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate. It is a borrowing authority Bill. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, and will repeat again since it seems to take time to sink in, we have decided as a caucus that whereby the Government has decided to cut senior citizens' pensions by 3 per cent, we have proposed-


John Kenneth Gormley: It is not a cut.


Don Boudria: -an amendment to cut the Government's borrowing authority by 3 per cent.


John Kenneth Gormley: It is not a cut.


Don Boudria: Because of the Government's inability to manage the funds-


John Kenneth Gormley: Don't lie.


Don Boudria: -that the House has given to it in the past-


John Kenneth Gormley: Don't lie. Come on, stand up.


Don Boudria: We are explaining to the Government again why its budgetary actions are inadequate and why we do not want to give it money through this borrowing Bill. I hope I will not have to repeat that again in five minutes. Perhaps the Member from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake would like to withdraw some of the remarks he has made in the last few minutes, which I am sure Hansard has picked up by now. Can I draw that to your attention on a point of order?


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member wishes to draw some matter to the attention of the Chair.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I had been led to believe that it is unparliamentary to call other Members liars in the House. However-

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know exactly to what the Hon. Member is referring. He has named me in his remarks. I want to find out exactly what he may be naming me for, and be more specific, to see if a point of order is established.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I believe the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asked the Chairman to take note of the fact that the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake may have called him a liar, something I regret to say I did not hear, for many good reasons, one of them being that there was a great deal of noise around the chair.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really did not expect him to withdraw it. I was about to start describing some of the promises which the Government made to the farming community, how the Government had not delivered and why it should not be getting any more money in this borrowing Bill. The Government has not sufficiently and properly administered the funds which the House has already given it.


An Hon. Member:: That is because the Liberals put us in a hole.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the Hon. Member opposite raises the topic of government waste. He says that the Liberals wasted money in the past and that this is why his Government is in trouble.
If the Government would cut back the 57 per cent increase in the budget of the Office of the Prime Minister, perhaps we could restore indexation to senior citizens in a few ridings. If the Government had not given Roy McMurtry and Lawrence Hanigan salary increases totalling $50,000 or $60,000 per year, perhaps we could restore it in one or two more ridings. If the Government had not spent $1 million on the Shamrock Summit, perhaps we could restore indexation for one year to many ridings.
I will continue. Perhaps the Government should not have wasted $1,000 flying video clips to the Prime Minister when he was in Florida at Christmas, another cost to the taxpayers of Canada. Perhaps the Minister of Communications should not have spent $57,000 flying across the world to the Middle East with his staff and family. Perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is supposed to tell us how to save energy, should not have flown on a jet to Vancouver, only to arrive three minutes ahead of an Air Canada flight, at a cost of $17,000. That amounts to a cost of over $5,000 per minute for the Minister to arrive in Vancouver ahead of time.
The Hon. Member is right. The Government should not waste money. Perhaps the Government should not have wasted $36 million by buying new uniforms for the military. Perhaps it should have thought about not wasting that money before deindexing pensions of seniors. Maybe its priority was wrong.
At an appropriate time later, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I will bring more to your attention about government waste. I thank the Hon. Member across the way for reminding me of that.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the amendment to Bill C-51, because the Budget brought down on May 23 of this year was supposed to emphasize employment, according to the slogans used by the Progressive Conservative Party during the election campaign last summer: 'Job, jobs, jobs.*
Although the Conservative Government stated that its first priority was employment, it has failed to come up with a real strategy. It hopes that tax deductions, including the tax exemption on $500,000 in capital gains, will be an incentive for people to invest and for businesses to create jobs. This is speculative, to say the least.
The most controversial proposal in the Budget is of course de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions. Mr. Chairman, this is a generation that lived through the Depression and World War II, a generation that raised large families and worked at a time when there was no such thing as retirement plan. I think it is obscene to ask a generation that has suffered so much to make even more sacrifices, when the Government gives the wealthy in our society over half a million dollars in tax exemptions.
I would like to say a few words about this tax measure. The proposition that jobs can be created by offering a tax exemption worth $500,000 is very speculative indeed, and I am not alone in holding this view. A number of independent observers think so too. The day after the Budget, one of our economic experts wrote in the press that the Government had failed both to reduce the deficit and reduce unemployment. Mr. Alain Dubuc, whose political objectivity and professional integrity are without question, said in his article that the measures introduced to benefit business would not necessarily bring about an increase in the number of jobs. For instance, eliminating the tax on $500,000 in capital gains may also encourage the purchase and sale of stocks and real estate, without creating a single job. The Government assumes that the Budget will create jobs after creating a climate of confidence. However, this is still speculative rather than a sure thing. That being said, until those jobs are created, if they ever are, the middle class is seeing the erosion of its purchasing power.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday in Baie Comeau, the Prime Minister accused the Liberal Party of scaring senior citizens. Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister is trying to put the blame on the Liberal Party for causing anxiety among the elderly. The Liberals are not the only ones who are worried about our senior citizens. Read the papers, Mr. Chairman, listen to what senior citizens' organizations are saying and look at the cartoons in the papers. Did you see the cartoon in the Telegraph Journal on June 4? It shows the Prime Minister pushing a couple of senior citizens, while he is saying: "Sure the budget is tough enough on some citizens, but we must concern ourselves with those voters who will be around next election."

June 18, 1985
The cartoon in the Toronto Star of June 10 shows a senior citizen being tripped. These are not figments of the Liberal Party's imagination, Mr. Chairman. The Conservative Government is following a right-wing policy and is putting all its money on private enterprise. It is determined to reduce the size of Government. It is true that everywhere in the Western world people are questioning the influence of the welfare state and what the degree of Government involvement should be in the economy, but more and more people are starting to think that a mixed economy where the state still has a substantial involvement remains the ideal solution for a country like Canada. The Conservative Government has decided to abdicate its responsibilities in this respect.
Totally oblivious to the fact that we are in a democracy, the Minister of Finance stated in his Budget presentation that for too long, and I am quoting, Mr. Chairman, the Government decided what was good for Canadians. It set priorities, steered activities and subsidized efforts.
Well, Mr. Chairman, was it not the role of a democratically elected Government? I should like to recall a few facts concerning senior citizens, women and poverty. Poverty is the lot of women, particularly elderly women. Being both a woman and elderly is a ticket to poverty in Canada. The odds that an elderly woman will have a low income are about 66 per cent and she has the dubious honour of being poor for a longer time since, on average, she lives seven years longer than her husband.
If being both a woman and elderly is a ticket to poverty, being an elderly woman and a widow is a sure guarantee. More than 50 per cent of married women expect to be widows some day, and 70 per cent of widows and single women aged 70 or more live in poverty. As a rule, a widow does not get anything out of the retirement plan of her husband's employer and is entitled only to limited benefits under the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. The situation is not the same for her husband-he continues to get the same pension even after his wife has died.
The income to which a widow is entitled after the death of her husband is less than 30 per cent of their previous income as a couple, and should a widow remarry she almost invariably loses the benefits she might have otherwise. Three out of five women over 65 and four out of five women over 75 are single, widows or divorced.
Mr. Chairman, these few facts are a reminder that women make up most of the elderly group and that they are more directly affected by deindexation. Women have long since been waiting for the day when Canadian society will put them on the same footing as men. Elderly women have long since been waiting for the day when they will be able to live in complete dignity rather than live off social assistance. In my opinion, therefore, pension deindexation is unacceptable to an elderly person since it flies in the face of the most basic principles of
Borrowing Authority Act
social justice. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, what justice is there in reducing from one year to the next the purchasing power of a group of people who are among the most needy in our society? In my opinion, this is an inhumane measure which denies the fine principles contained in the speeches made by the Prime Minister during his election campaign.
I remember the solemn promises made by the Hon. Member for Baie Comeau (Mr. Mulroney) last summer. First, he was to re-establish full cost of living indexing of old age security pensions from January 1, 1985, and he also said that, as soon as its financial position would allow it, the government would provide greater financial assistance to single senior citizens still living below the poverty line, that the New Horizons program would be maintained and that it would be adequately funded. In his usual low and solemn voice, which he uses to try to show how serious his comments are, the Right Hon. Prime Minister therefore made specific promises to senior citizens. From now on, Mr. Chairman, we should perhaps become suspicious when the Prime Minister lowers his voice and speaks slowly. The solemnity of his voice is not proportional to the priority he gives an issue, contrary to what he is always trying to make Canadians believe.
The deindexing of senior citizens' pensions is unacceptable. Even the Prime Minister heard this yesterday evening in Baie Comeau, and he did not succeed in convincing anyone. I therefore believe that it is more than time for him to retreat. It is time to reassure senior citizens and tell them that deindexing will not happen.


Claude Lanthier: Please! I do not want to discuss the value of the solemn voice of the Prime Minister or of the caricatures, but I would like to comment a few points. First, 1 completely agree that the situation of some women, especially older women, is deplorable. What was said earlier is quite right. They stay old longer and poor longer. This is a deplorable situation of which the Government is well aware. However, I can tell the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) that our Government did something about it. We were criticized for acting with too much haste, but we were conscious of the difficulties faced by a certain group in our society and we took action to provide pensions for single people, most of whom were women between the ages of 60 and 65. Without waiting for a comprehensive economic study, we immediately took action to alleviate somewhat this obvious inequity of which one group in our society was the victim. Indeed, there remains a lot to be done, but the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) are aimed at creating jobs, putting the affairs of the state in order, and bring our national debt under control. But it means bringing down the social programs to what they used to be and developing them progressively, instead of increasing outright our national debt.
I can tell the Hon. Member for Outremont that the government is fully aware of these problems and that we are trying,
5954

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
within the limits of our available resources, to meet the most pressing needs of the less favoured Canadians.
That was my second point. My third point is that Hon. Members have mentioned on several occasions that the 3 per cent cut in purchasing power would affect, as of next year, the income of our senior citizens who receive the Old Age Security pensions and the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
I brought this figure to its proper level a moment ago when I said that it represented slightly less than 1.5 per cent of the total income of the OAS and GIS recipients. It certainly represents 3 per cent of the total income of OAS recipients. But let us turn to the former, those needy senior citizens, for they are those whom I sincerely believe the opposition is trying to help. I am reminded that actually I am lucky there are experts present who can answer this kind of questions-


George Albert Proud: How lucky you are!


Claude Lanthier: and make up for my limited competence which I confess, and that is the difference!
So I am told here that this was less than 1.5 per cent of the total income of the people who were in need of it, but this should not be considered directly as a decrease in purchasing power. I would, therefore, like to submit a figure which is based on economic studies and which indicates that the 1.5 per cent indexing loss on total income amounts to a purchasing power decrease of approximately one half of that, because where the food basket is increasing in price, there can be substitute products and the result is only one half of that. Therefore, they should not broadcast figures like 3 per cent as they are now doing, as they were trying to push on earlier. They were trying to equate the 3 per cent possible de-indexing loss to a 3 per cent loss in purchasing power.
On the basis of our studies, we feel that for those who are most in need, the decrease will amount to only 0.7 per cent, according to those economic studies.
Third, I would like to raise another point the Hon. Member for Outrement (Mrs. Pepin) made, and this makes me a little nervous, when it was suggested that we were in-
\ English]


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Some time ago my colleague, the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, asked that a ruling be made on comments made by the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who used the word "lie" in association with the Member's comments. Since the previous Chairman claimed not to have heard those comments, and since I know that you heard them, I wonder whether you could rule on whether it was appropriate for the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake to call the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russel a liar in the House. I am quite sure you heard the comments, Mr. Chairman.


John Kenneth Gormley: I would like to advise the Member


Arnold John Malone: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman.


John Kenneth Gormley: Order, I would like to advise the Member that the Chair has already ruled on that matter. It is not a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Chair claimed it had not heard the comments. I know that you heard them and that is why I asked you.


John Kenneth Gormley: It is not a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: I was interrupted on the third point. What scares me terribly bad is the reference to a mixed economy, coming from a member of a party that is so near those who would rather nationalize and operate the economy by means of state measures. Recently we have been seeing direct or indirect Government involvements. We have seen how successful that has been in dealing with unemployment and job creation. I think that all Canadians now feel, as they clearly showed on September 4, that Government must get out of our business. The Government is not qualified to manage business. This is acknowledged by all Canadians, and it has been proven. The results are there to see. So, what scares me is when they refer to a mixed economy. I submit that we are now contending with a multitude of Crown Corporations, and it is very difficult to get out of that situation.
I must now show this Government's colours. We are for private enterprise and we are convinced that the numerous permanent jobs we need to create will only be created through the private sector.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on this debate because I have heard so much nonsense from the government benches that I cannot remain silent. Our Party is not opposed to borrowing. Our Party is not as frightened of the deficit as the Conservative Party which now forms the Government. We support deficits and we support borrowing if they are required for reasons which make sense, if they are required to help people who need help and if they provide jobs. We cannot support a borrowing Bill which takes from those who are poor and old and gives to those who already have more than anyone else.
The Government is proposing to take $1.6 billion from the retired people of Canada to give almost all of it, $ 1.4 billion, to those in the top income levels of the country. That we cannot support. There is nothing which has made me more angry than to hear Conservative Members of Parliament here in the House of Commons and outside say that there is no real concern among the retired people of this country, that they understand what the Government is doing and are prepared to take their share of the burden in getting the country moving in
June 18, 1985

the right direction. They say that all the fuss we hear is caused by the misinformation given to senior citizens by members of the Opposition. That tells me that Conservative Members of Parliament, beginning with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, have contempt for senior citizens. They believe that senior citizens are stupid.
Government Members believe that even though what the Government is proposing is good and necessary, somehow those terrible people in the Opposition have fooled and befuddled senior citizens so that they are expressing opposition to what the Government proposes even though what the Government proposes is good and should really be supported. They are really saying about senior citizens that not only are they old and poor but they are stupid. They are not stupid. They understand what is going on and they have reacted in a way which I have not seen before in almost 40 years of political life. 1 have never seen such unanimous opposition to a proposal made by any Government, federal or provincial, as I have seen expressed in the last few days and weeks to the proposal in the Budget designed to reduce the income of senior citizens by 3 per cent per year beginning in January 1986.
I do not know how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance came up with the figure of 1.5 per cent. It is quite clear in the Budget that the Old Age Security benefits will not be automatically indexed quarterly, as they have been since 1972 or 1973, by whatever the increase in the cost of living has been in that quarter, but that in each year beginning January 1, 1986, there will be no indexation of the Old Age Security pensions for the first 3 per cent of the increase in the cost of living.
The increase in the cost of living is down right now. This year it is down dramatically from what it was a few years ago, but it is only down to 4 per cent. If it stays at 4 per cent next year, something which is doubtful, then people receiving Old Age Security benefits will have a reduction in their real purchasing power of 3 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to rationalize his position by saying that the reduction of 1.5 per cent would not be so serious because somehow senior citizens could purchase alternatives.
1 would like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette, a newspaper which is neither radical nor revolutionary. This article appeared on May 24 of this year and the headline reads:
Budget hurts poor, consumer groups say.
Let me read to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary a couple of paragraphs from that article, because they point directly to what he has said and show how wrong he is. The article reads:
To illustrate the effect of the budget's new taxes on consumers, The Gazette bought the Pare-Julien family a pre-budget sample of consumer goods-including food, vermouth, cigarettes and health-care products-that appear to be affected by the budget increases. The goods came from a nearby Provigo.
The total bill came to $46.72, including $1.37 worth of Quebec tax on certain items.
If the Quebec tax stayed the same, the new taxes would raise the bill to $50.66-
Borrowing Authority Act
But based on the budget indications, the new taxes would add $3.94 to the shopping basket.
It seems to me that $3.94 on $46.72 is not less than 1.5 per cent. According to my calculations, it is over 6 per cent of that amount. The Parliamentary Secretary is wrong on that score.
Let me put on the record some of the things which Members of Parliament are hearing from senior citizens across the country. Let me begin with a communication which came from the New Brunswick Senior Citizens' Federation dated June 14, 1985, addressed to all Members of Parliament of Canada of all political Parties, all Members of the Senate of Canada, all provincial premiers and all senior citizens' associations across Canada. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows that we terrible New Democrats do not have very much support in New Brunswick, so we cannot be accused of having fomented that. After all, the Conservatives won most of the seats in New Brunswick, so I do not know how the Liberals could have produced it. Someone must have done it. Maybe it was the senior citizens themselves. Despite the arguments of Conservative members, maybe the senior citizens of New Brunswick are not so stupid. Maybe they know what is happening.
I would like to read into the record what the senior citizens in New Brunswick wrote in a circular which was sent to all Members of Parliament. I presume the Parliamentary Secretary received a copy. The circular is from the New Brunswick Senior Citizens' Inc. It reads:
On June 5th, we held a media conference in Moncton to announce our plans to make everyone aware of the immorality and dishonesty of tampering with Canada's (already inadequate) pension system for the elderly.
We indicated that we would make waves from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This has indeed happened.
The circular continues:
New Brunswick senior citizens are a rare breed. There are 76,800 of them. Five hundred new retirees are added to statistics monthly.
Seventy-three per cent of them are below the poverty level (GIS). Tremendous numbers of these are single ladies and/or widows of lumbermen, fishermen or farmers.


An Hon. Member:: Is that relevant to the borrowing Bill?


David Orlikow: Of course, it is relevant. Part of the reason for which the Government must borrow the money is that it has refused to tax those who can afford to pay the money. If that money was collected, the Government would not need to borrow as much. It is taking the money from those who do not have it-old age pensioners. I presume that the Hon. Member who interjected did so because he does not want me to put on the record what the senior citizens of New Brunswick have said.
The circular continues:
We will go to any limits to stop these troublesome vibrations coming out of Ottawa, upsetting the quality of life of so many.
You should know that the "social", "physical" and "medical aspects of a senior citizen's life are extremely interwoven.
Anything that is done or caused to be done to affect any one or more of these three important aspects... will have a nefarious effect on the elderly!

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
Anything that is done to improve any one or more of these three will have a marked beneficial effect upon the elderly.
That is what the senior citizens in New Brunswick have said.
I have a copy of a telegram which was sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and to the Minister of Finance a few days ago. The telegram was sent by the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada. That is a very hard-working group which has been in the forefront in urging improvements in the social security system of Canada for many years. The telegram reads:
National Council of Jewish Women of Canada representing 4,000 women presently meeting in Ottawa at its 23rd biennial convention urges the Government of Canada to continue the indexing of old age pensions. We oppose any measure which threatens the financial security of senior citizens in order to reduce the deficit.
We are beginning to hear from seniors. I received a telephone call in my office last week from the management of a large shopping mall in my constituency. They invited my assistant to go to the mall in order to obtain signatures for a petition which would oppose the deindexing of pensions. They told us that they would be quite happy to set up tables and chairs. They said that the only thing we could not do was put up a sign indicating that we were from the New Democratic Party.
I would like to read into the record the wording of the petition. 1 would like a Conservative Member of Parliament, who has been saying that we have been misrepresenting the facts to the seniors, to get up after I have finished and tell Members of the House how we are misrepresenting the facts and the situation as it will affect our senior citizens. The petition reads:
That in the opinion of your petitioners, the May 23 Budget imposes undue and unfair hardship on pensioners by deindexing the Old Age Security (OAS) program, and
That the annual cut to each and every OAS pensioner in Canada will be $100 in 1986, $205 in 1987, $315 in 1988, $431 in 1989, $553 in 1990 and $680 in 1991 and
That cuts in the OAS fly in the face of a Progressive Conservative campaign promise that "a PC Government would once more index the old age pension to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis", and
That deindexing represents a massive withdrawal from our collective commitment to public pensions, indicating the Government favours shifting to a system of tax-subsidized private savings for retirement and That the losers will be the poor, the unemployed and women Wherefore, the undersigned your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security program in Canada.
I would urge any Conservative Member of Parliament who believes that any statement of fact in that petition is not true to get up and tell the Members of the House why it is not true.
I was at the shopping mall with a few friends and workers last Friday afternoon from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. We collected 1,500 signatures. The people not only signed their names, they also gave their addresses. Naturally, most of the people who signed the petition live in my constituency. However, people from the ridings of Winnipeg North Centre and Winnipeg-Birds Hill, which are represented by my colleagues, signed the petition.
As well, people from the riding of Winnipeg-Fort Garry, which is represented by a Liberal member, signed the petition. People from the ridings of Winnipeg-St. James, St. Boniface and Selkirk-lnterlake, which are Conservative ridings, signed the petition. 'Lo and behold, people from the riding of Provencher, which is represented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, signed the petition.
Conservative members from Manitoba issued a press statement which said that they were not hearing from their constituents. Mr. Chairman, they are hearing from their constituents. They ought not to try to kid their constituents or anyone else that the senior citizens are not upset. 1 told the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, that unless the Government changed its policy before Parliament recesses on June 28, that I would take a day or two in early July to visit some of the seniors in the towns of Portage la Prairie and Neepawa which are in his riding. I said that I would take the petition with me to see how many of those seniors would sign it. The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board knows that many seniors will sign that petition. They are not foolish, nor are they stupid. They know that deindexation of old age pensions will have a very adverse effect on their lives.
Let me just quote from two letters, Mr. Chairman-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, i regret to inform the Hon. Member that his 20 minute period has now expired.
[ Translation]


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, 1 am quite pleased to see ... I have the floor . . . My colleague seems somewhat surprised-

I do not argue with Mr. Chairman. He recognized the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis and I am the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. I must say that I am very pleased to see so many Hon. Members coming into the House at this time.
[ Translation]


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Chairman, the rules do not allow me to answer allegations. 1 was challenged a while ago and 1 had no opportunity to answer.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There were no allegations. You had nothing
to say.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. I have already given the floor to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


George Albert Proud: I am also pleased to note that the Government House Leader and the Government whip are here.

June 18, 1985

But I will say what 1 was going to say. Since the beginning of this debate I have been very silent. I have listened very politely to all the arguments which were put forward. It is also well known that I do not participate in debate too often. I do it when I think there are people I should defend, such as those in the arts community who are going to be facing greater problems and difficulty. Then I feel I should participate in the debate. The reason I do so tonight is very simple.
I represent a district in Montreal which is know to have the greatest number of older citizens in the Province of Quebec because it is the oldest centre of Montreal. It is called the Quartier Villeray. I have been asked questions and I must be fair-as I try to be all the time to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance-but I must admit that after listening to their arguments I was under a lot of strain to make sure that the kind of answer I have to the senior citizens in my district was the kind of answer that was fair and honest, and one which no one could hold against me.

I met with senior citizens at various locations. Their financial circumstances are slightly different. In the western section, at the Residence Saint-Laurent, the people mostly do not get the GIS. They are people who have managed their assets, who have been lucky, who worked differently, who perhaps held positions in the community which enabled them to save money more than others who were not as lucky. However, those people at the Residence Saint-Laurent asked me the following question: Why should we pay 3 per cent when the further announcement is made, granted, in 1986? I visited some people at the Residence Berri-Lajeunesse. It is another class of citizens who had a hard time finding a place to live either at the Residence Berri-Lajeunesse, at the Residence Jarry, at the Residence Helene-Boulle or at the Residence Louvain.
They had problems members of all parties should know about because we all have to deal with them. They had problems finding a place to live. They finally did, but they need both the OAS and the GIS to make ends meet. That is the only way.


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


George Albert Proud: I went a bit further and met residents of the Tournesol, Jean-Valets and Jean-Talon homes. This is another group of citizens I represent in Montreal. They are senior citizens and former residents of the Vieux-Montreal. They are not all from the downtown area. Some are from the center-north of Montreal. My colleagues know that I represent also new Canadian citizens who came to settle here in Canada for all kinds of economic reasons. You know, Mr. Chairman, that these people worked really hard. They saved a little bit of money to send the second generation of young Canadians to the best schools. They made real sacrifices. They have not been able to make provisions for themselves, but they have
Borrowing Authority Act
been good Canadian citizens, raising great children to whom they were totally devoted. All those who know some of those newcomers realize how important children are to them ... They will make any sacrifice to give their children a good education and the best training available. Their life achievement is to see their children go to college and then lead a successful life. But all they have for themselves is a meagre pension for which I admit they are very grateful. They know that this is a new country for them, a country that welcomed them and gave them the opportunity to express themselves, to raise children who have become good Canadian citizens, and a country that gives them some protection in their old age. What can I tell these people? I for one am prepared tonight-I read carefully all the statements made by the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance, and I am prepared to bet that by the end of this session, everything is being put into place in order for the Old Security Pension and GIS recipients to receive full indexation of these benefits. If that is what is coming-1 would think that is what is coming, because my colleagues from the other side have constituents as I do, they share the concern 1 have for our senior citizens, starting with my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) who also represents an awful lot of senior citizens in his riding, as compared with other ridings, and who was most eager to sign the petition. Everybody knows the respect I have for the former Minister of National Defence of Canada, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who was an excellent Minister of National Defence. I pay tribute to him, for it is not easy to go against one's party and rise to the occasion. I can tell my hon. colleagues and, hopefully, friends, that 1 have experienced how hard it is to stand for one's convictions and to vote against one's party. My Whip has also experienced the same situation. We should talk to each other and we should not fear saying it aloud, it is not easy to step out from the ranks. I can tell you that I have known this situation during 22 years. Once in a while, one should not be afraid to stand and be counted. Personally, when I saw what the former Minister of Defence, the Hon. Member for Victoria, has done, I recognized a man who said to himself: "I have listened, now the time has come for me to speak up". And he did so. As I said, the newly elected member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve had the same impulse, as did several others. I look at my colleagues tonight and I wish that if it were possible-but as usual I will not get my wish-we could rise above party politics when dealing with this issue, which would make our elderly people really happy!
Listen, last night, you watched television as I did-


An Hon. Member:: Saturday night.


George Albert Proud: Yes, Saturday night, I was on CBC. I thank my hon. friend for repeating it in case some of my colleagues did not know about it. I tried not to blow my own horn.

June 18, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act


An Hon. Member:: You did not succeed!


George Albert Proud: So, if you want to use that tone, I will follow suit.


An Hon. Member:: He does not understand anything that goes on in this debate.


George Albert Proud: But, one should always know how to resist provocation. However, in order to make the debate a little livelier and to please my colleague, I accept to raise my voice a little, without shouting of course. I remember what happened during the last election campaign. That was my eighth and I can tell you one thing, that is that it was one of the easiest for me for reasons I cannot understand. However, I can tell you that when a candidate from another riding came in mine to meet with the elderly at their residences: Tournesol, Jean-Valets, Jean-Talon, Louvain, Berri-Lajeunesse, Jarry, Helene Boulle, and said: Your IMP tries to instill fear in the elderly, they almost loated him out because they felt it was not the way I was addressing them. I simply warned them to listen to everyone but to make sure to place their confidence in the right person. Anyway, our job is not to look at the candidate they chose. I would prefer to convince them, dear colleague who interrupted me, than to rush them. With my sensitivity, it is not like me to-oh you do not like what I am saying, but I can tell you openly that I am not ashamed to speak about what 1 can do. So it would be a shame for me to go and see these people, our elderly, and try to foster anxiety in them. If some people do that, they do not come from the Saint-Denis riding, 1 can guarantee you that. However, I can tell you that these people know how to listen. They still remember hearing our Right Hon. Prime Minister then, Mr. Turner, telling them to be aware of the secret agenda. It is policy, and he told them frankly. I do not want to be rude to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), his Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) or his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). However, faced with a general outcry in every part of the country they should reconsider because I never thought that in politics, it was humiliating to reconsider his position. I can guarantee you one thing; I will not be one of those to shout: "We won, we won", like kids. I suggest that the Prime Minister, a man who is willing to listen to sound representations from members of his own party and from other people, will feel free to back track on this now that he knows Canadians do not want deindexation, not only old people but also their children and their grand-children as well as those who are currently 50, 55 and 60. It does not seem much for young Members of Parliament, but think of those people who planned all their life to build up a pension fund, who will say to themselves: "I did not save enough because I was sure that I would get a pension and the GIS". All of a sudden they do not have that anymore money. I would not want to be charged with being prejudiced but one Member said "What is $100 a year?". Face facts and try to say that to someone to whom
$100 means a lot. I would not want to play cheap political games by saying that that represents the breakfast of one single person everyday of his life. But that is what it means actually. One has to figure out what $100 is for those people. It might not mean much for some but $200, $500 and $1,200 for a five years period does make a difference to old people. One must think about that. Although I do not understand the government's position, I still hope that from now until June 28, the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and I should add that I did not consult with my party before taking that stand, but-


An Hon. Member:: That is not true!


George Albert Proud: No, I do not do it. I did not do it either in this case. You can laugh as much as you like Mr. Chairman of the national caucus of the government, but I did not consult my party because when I rise, and I do not rise in this place very often, I know what has been said and I have heard a lot so far on that matter. I think it is time to remove the political aspect of it, to understand that elder people are helpless.
My father was an old doctor who looked after those people and I learned from him that one of the saddest things about old people is their helplessness, their fear of the future. They always ask themselves if they will have enough for tomorrow. We all have parents and we can understand their concerns. The Hon.-


Claude Lanthier: Why do you use these scare tactics? What you say is outrageous.


George Albert Proud: I am sorry. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has an excellent question. He is asking why I am using scare tactics. Well, I am not. Would the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) not agree that it is logical, because the announcement is made, and if nobody spoke up, people would say, of course: You see, nobody is protesting, therefore we will do it. The announcement has not been made by us. It is in the Budget. It is clear. It is absolutely clear. Granted, there will be some "monitoring". I say to the Prime Minister and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to let us say directly to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and to his Cabinet, that nobody should be ashamed to reverse a decision when it is clear that it is not achieving its purpose. There would be no shame-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Albert Proud: -he should not be ashamed, for instance, to tell us before the end of the session, that he is prepared to reconsider and split this major decision; it was hard to make for him since he was quoted so much as saying the opposite during the election campaign. It is even harder to hear everyday that you have not kept your word. It is hard for a politician to hear that, even harder if he is the Prime Minister of Canada.
June 18, 1985

We could make an agreement and believe that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, the Prime Minister will announce that, because of all these representations, he is going to split his decision, that the people who how receive the OAS and the GIS will get the full indexation. It is over, we do not talk about it any more, do not worry, and have a wonderful summer. First part of the decision.
As far as the others are concerned, those who do not receive the OAS, he could go ahead with everything he said, as reported on page 5772, as he has said so often:
So he could go on for those people who are not as worried about their future. These people are less concerned, those who have only their old age pension, because there are always people who are more worried than others.
We will continue to fight so that the people who are not as worried can keep their indexing.


An Hon. Member:: He is doing great, is he not!


George Albert Proud: We will keep on fighting so that they can keep their indexing, but the Prime Minister could still say .. . Listen. Last night, he was told off. Mr. Belanger, if I am not mistaken, asked him in the senior citizens' home: Why not cut the pension paid to Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Desmarais or Mr. Bronfman. You could study that during the summer. I said "study". I repeat for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I said "study", monitor, but do not come up suddenly with a surprise at the end of the session, saying: Yes, we are going to play politics, or no, you are going to get half-
I believe my colleagues from the Official Opposition and others would be pleased if the Prime Minister came to us and said: Listen. It is going to be the end of it. I think we received enough representations, because, you know, I do not want and I will never reveal a private conservation I had with my colleagues from other parties, because that is the proper way to behave for any civilized Member of this House. We must have discussions with our colleagues from the other parties, listen to them and get some results. This is what I have done this afternoon with the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) when he argued for a Bill which I find very reasonable.
Thus, I decided to behave sensibly with him. Anyway, I do not see why the Prime Minister, after listening to Members of his party ... I am looking at you and I could ... I will not do it, but you know him, we are looking at each other. Be serious. You all have senior citizens in your riding and you have received representations.


An Hon. Member:: Of course!


George Albert Proud: Why should we get more than the others? Why should my colleague from northwestern Ontario not get any? Why should the Hon. Member who is pointing at me not
Adjournment Debate
get any either? We do not have a monopoly on representations. We are not by monopoly or by virtue the best and you, the bad ones. I think all of us have enough sensitivity to understand that we have brought about a huge problem. You will remember a previous budget that the other Government brought down a few years ago and was then forced to change because of some of its measures were unpopular. I therefore do not see why, Mr. Chairman, and I shall conclude my remarks presently, if you would allow me a few more minutes. But, Mr. Chairman, I think that-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. The Hon. Member's time has now expired.
It being nine o'clock, shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on May 29, I addressed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) on the dismantling of the Patent Office. It will be remembered that in the working paper tabled with the Budget and entitled 'New Management Initiatives', on page 21-this is the famous paper of the Hon. Deputy Minister of Canada (Mr. Nielsen), the following suggestion is made: The Government will suggest that the review of patents no longer be carried out by the federal administration and that the examination of patents originally filed in Canada should be contracted out to international research bodies.
Mr. Speaker, I was just paraphrasing an excerpt of that document, and I ask for your indulgence for reading through it a little hastily.
On May 29, I asked the Minister about the proposal made by the Nielsen Task Force. He told me at that time, and I quote:
-the Government is anxious to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible cost... and I can assure him that there are quite a few patent applications that must be examined before any employees can be laid off-

June 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate
In French he used the word "debauchage", but I assume this is correctly translated by "laid off'.
-and we must proceed with these applications before any final steps are taken.
Mr. Speaker, this answer suggests that he is in agreement with the recommendation made in that famous document issued by the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Nielsen). The question, then, is why is the Government seeking to dismantle the Canadian Patent Office and to have its work done by a foreign agency, which would do the research required to grant Canadian patents at the same time as research for other countries?
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1984-85, for example, 26,947 patent applications were received. More than 90 per cent of them were from abroad. How many people does the Patent Office employ? The jobs of 200 public servants are threatened by this measure. In 1983-84, revenues of the Patent Office amounted to $13,411,000, whereas expenses were only $9,266,000. So, profits for that year reached $4,145,000. These are public figures, Mr. Speaker, I did not make them up. They prove that it is a money making service, a profitable operation serving all Canadians.
The Patent Co-operation Treaty, which the Minister indicated would have to be signed following amendment in the House to the present legislation, was intended, in the words of the Minister, "to overcome the need for the examination of patents in those countries that adhered to the Treaty".
The signatories to the Treaty recognize that domestic laws vary from nation to nation and that each country must have ultimate control over its domestic patent laws and the patents granted thereunder.
The Patent Co-operation Treaty exists for the benefit of inventors who wish to file patent applications in a number of countries throughout the world. However, experience has shown that it is not economically viable for inventors to take advantage of the terms of the Treaty, unless protection is sought in more than five countries. In 1984, WIPO or the World Intellectual Property Organization office examined only 271 applications under the relevant section of the Treaty.
There would be consequences of the "Nielsen" recommendation concerning the abolishment or withdrawal of the service to Canadians. First, Canada would abdicate its sovereignty over its patent system and would become the only industrialized country in the world which grants patents without domestic examination. On the assumption that 25,000 persons per year still want patent protection in Canada, the staff of the Geneva-based organization will obviously have to be substantially increased, resulting in an export of jobs from Canada to Geneva, Switzerland. Trained professionals in Canada who are knowledgeable in patent law will disappear from the public sector and will substantially be reduced in number in the private sector. The quality and availability of advice to small
business will be substantially reduced. That would go against what I consider to be a promise of the Government to encourage small and medium-sized businesses.
What made this question very important was that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) said in a speech in Montreal that there was never any question of him abolishing this service. He said:
Let me state categorically that we have no intention whatsoever of closing the patent office. Nor have we the intention of letting go that substantial body of people whose technical and scientific expertise underpins one of the finest patent services in the world.
I say "hurrah" to the Minister. We have finally received an answer after several weeks of the Minister unknowingly leading people to think that he would close it down following the report entitled New Management Initiatives, by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen).
What will the Minister do? Will he close it down or leave it open? Are we to take the Minister's word in Montreal, or are we to take the word of the Deputy Prime Minister?


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to deal with the matter of the Canadian Patent Office, because the Hon. Member who brought the subject forward discussed a possibility that was studied and a possibility indicated in a report. Again the Opposition is jumping to conclusions when it assumes, if someone studies something or takes something under consideration, that all things are final.
There has been a great deal of confusion about the future of the Canadian Patent Office in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs since budget night. I want to clarify the situation. To begin with, let me make it perfectly clear that the Government has no intention of doing away with the patent office, nor does it have any intention of letting go, as has already been stated by the Hon. Member who is once again using the old policy of scare tactics, that substantial body of people.
This issue appears to have become magnified out of proportion. The Government intends to reduce our costs by accepting foreign examination results wherever possible. Indeed, this will, as indicated in the budget paper entitled New Management Initiatives, "terminate departmental examinations". However, this does not mean that it will close up the shop.
The confusion probably lies in the fact that the substantive patent examination process consists of three distinct phases, and the Hon. Member is referring to only one of them. One phase is the search, which is to identify earlier, similar inventions. The second stage is the preliminary examination, which is to decide if the invention merits a patent under Canadian law. It is steps one and two of this process which we intend to streamline, although a lot has been done in this regard in the last few years. By acceding to the Patent Co-operation Treaty the Government hopes to be even more efficient. Step three, on the other hand, is not something we can contract out to
June 18, 1985

foreigners and we have no intention of discontinuing that activity.
All of this means that the Patent Office will remain very much in business, doing those things that depend most on its Canadian scientific and technical expertise. There will certainly not be any wholesale dismissal of professional or support staff, nor will there be any reduction in the service offered to the business and scientific community. Indeed, as the Budget points out, we intend to improve our levels of service. Work has already started to find ways to best carry out another important announcement about patents made on budget night; the strengthening of the patent information dissemination through expanded use of the established network of the National Research Council's Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information.
We want to be certain that the Canadian patent system is as efficient and effective as possible in meeting our needs as a modern industrial nation. It must enhance transfer of technology between ourselves and the rest of the world, and it must continue to contribute to a strengthening of the climate for investment in Canada.


ENERGY-CLOSURE OF CAPE BRETON HEAVY WATER PLANTS- CREATION OF EMPLOYMENT. (B) REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on May 29, 1985, I directed a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) regarding the closure of the two Cape Breton heavy water plants. I requested that specific action be taken to create jobs in eastern Nova Scotia. As usual, the Government has failed to take any concrete action when, in fact, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) stated unequivocally that it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to create the jobs and resolve the high unemployment problem in the area.
On two specific occasions the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) made two commitments. She made a commitment to the workers and the people of Nova Scotia that those two heavy water plants would remain open until such time as new jobs were available and in place. As a result of the Budget the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has reneged on her commitment. It would not be appropriate for me to use the word used by some workers describing the Minister as a "liar". I would not use that word, Mr. Speaker, but that is what they call the Minister. That is what she is doing to the people of Nova Scotia and the workers at those two plants.
There has been no consultation on the closure of those two heavy water plants, not withstanding the fact that the Minister promised the union responsible that there would be meaningful consultation. There has been no impact study of the effects that that will have in Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury. I find it appalling that the Government of Canada would cut 700
Adjournment Debate
jobs, affecting approximately 300 people, without doing an impact study.
What has the Government done with regard to the closure of the two heavy water plants? The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) said that the closure of those plants would affect 3,000 jobs. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) arrived in Cape Breton on his private jet. Before leaving Ottawa he said that thousands of new jobs will be created for the people who reside in eastern Nova Scotia. This jellyfish of a Minister said that the Government is going to upgrade a highway and build an industrial park in Antigon-ish. He said there would be a study with regard to Carbogel. That will create a lot of jobs, Mr. Speaker.
He then went a little further in making another announcement that same day. He talked about having Magna International expand into Cape Breton. That will create another study, Mr. Speaker. There will be another study done on Sydney Steel. He is also going to have another study done of another private company with regard to having a sock manufacturer enter industrial Cape Breton. However, the big announcement of thousands of jobs that the Minister and the Government had promised, and to which they had alluded in the national media, amount to a mere 30 jobs. I suggest that those jobs may be in conflict with an already existing company which operate in industrial Cape Breton.
I say shame on the Government, shame on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and shame on the jellyfish of a Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I say shame on the Prime Minister who has been referred to both by his own constituents and by workers in my riding as a liar. I say that this is hogwash. The Government ought to take specific action with moneys for Sydney Steel Corporation, the coal industry and a joint venture for the synfuels project. We do not need all government money but we need joint ventures.
The Government ought to conclude a federal-provincial subsidiary agreement on development in eastern Nova Scotia, to include research and development, tourism, fisheries, forestry, municipal infrastructures, small business entrepreneurs and training and education funds. That is what the Government ought to be doing rather than deceiving and, as the workers have said, lying to the people of Nova Scotia.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is surely not a novice in politics. He has known for a long time about the crucial problems experienced by the heavy water plant of Atomic Energy of Canada in Cape Breton.

While federal Governments have been as supportive as possible to this industry which has historically been plagued with marketing problems linked to international conditions, the Government has taken decisive action in announcing the closure of these plants. The fact is that there exists a very

June 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate
major over-capacity in Canada's heavy water industry and no immediate solution to marketing difficulties is in view.
In these circumstances, the Government could no longer justify continuing operations at the plants. We found it unconscionable to maintain the status quo at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million per year. We believe that such action would not only have been unfair to the Canadian taxpayer but to heavy water plant workers. They knew that these closures were inevitable and that the indefinite perpetuation of operations would only delay the time when these plants could be replaced with viable long-term industrial activity in Cape Breton.
The Government decided to take the political risk and announce these closures in the May 1985 federal Budget. However, we have not abandoned the people of Cape Breton. As outlined in the Budget, workers will be provided with generous severance benefits, retraining and relocation assistance and financial and career counselling, together with measures designed to facilitate re-employment. In addition, the impact on the affected communities' property tax revenues will be offset for a specific period of time. Another Budget measure is the introduction of a special tax credit which will be instituted to enhance private-sector investment and productive employment in Cape Breton. This will result in no federal income tax being payable by investors for 10 to 15 years.
The unemployment triggered by the plant closures has been significantly offset by announcements made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). The Minister has announced that $1.5 million in federal funding has been designated to rebuild a burned out fish plant, $4.1 million has been committed for improvements to the Point Tupper pulp and paper mill, and $16 million has been earmarked for improved facilities in the coal mines. In addition, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has appointed an advisory committee on economic development measures for Cape Breton Island, a committee which will start work immediately and submit its first report in September. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has indicated that she is ready to assist in bringing economic renewal to Cape Breton through reliable, sound employment creation.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the Government does not enjoy playing the villain. However, when a very difficult problem exist we try to ameliorate it. Since 1982, AECL has been recommending the closure of the heavy water plants of Cape Breton. Since we came into power, we have studied the problem and the acceptable options considerably. We feel that we have made a responsible decision and put into place responsible measures which will put Cape Breton back on the road to economic renewal.


FINANCE-INVESTMENT OF PENSION FUNDS-BUDGET PROPOSAL. (B) MINISTER'S POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on June 5, I asked the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) two questions about the budget proposal which will allow Canadian pension funds to invest $3 abroad for every $1 invested in Canadian small business. I asked the Minister what consultation there had been with Canadians to establish that they were willing to have one-third of their retirement savings invested outside the Canadian economy. The only answer I received was that the people who administered the pension funds wanted this because it would enable them to earn a higher rate. That seemed like a strange answer.
My supplementary question concerned the possible impact, if the Government's three-to-one offer was taken up on a large scale, of an amount leaving Canada which could be as high as $28 billion.
Canadians have at least $90 billion in pension funds. The budget proposal would let pension funds invest up to 7 per cent of their assets in a new small business program, and three times as much, or 21 per cent, in foreign investments. Prior to this, pension funds could invest a maximum of 10 per cent of their assets in foreign investments. With the addition of 21 per cent, there is now a maximum of 31 per cent. The House has just passed the Government's Investment Canada Bill, which throws the country wide open to unfettered foreign ownership, allegedly to create jobs. Nevertheless, apparently the Government is prepared to accept, with equanimity, a flow of capital out of Canada to create jobs elsewhere.
The Minister of State for Finance answered my question about the impact on the Canadian economy of a massive capital outflow, if the program was taken up. She said:
Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Hon. Member is suggesting that $10 billion invested in Canadian small business is a bad thing.
It is getting increasingly hard to take this Government's dismissive attitude toward serious questions which are asked by the Official Opposition. This is a serious matter and it should be dealt with seriously.
Companies are now being set up. It is happening. Pension funds have generally invested in very traditional kinds of investments. The new companies, which will act as a channel for investment in Canadian small business, will, we trust, bring expertise to entrepreneurial and higher risk investments. We have no guarantee that there will be any limits, other than the percentages which I previously quoted.
I do not understand the Minister's answer that pension funds want this because they can get a higher rate of interest outside Canada. That is a terrible admission of failure. If the Minister is saying that pension funds do not believe they can get a satisfactory rate within Canada, are we to understand that the Government is completely abdicating any improvement in the Canadian economy?
The other point to which I believe we are entitled to an answer is, will the Government be doing any monitoring? Will there be any kind of sensible limits placed on the program? Are we to assume that we again have the kind of open-ended measure which will be demand-driven, which will take on an impetus of its own, and which will leave us possibly facing undesirable consequences down the road?
June 18, 1985


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, the government is worried because pension funds have been slow to invest in Canadian small businesses. However, pension fund assets in Canada now total about $100 billion. Acording to some estimates, only $200 to $300 million, that is one quarter of one per cent, have been invested in limited partnerships. The government has therefore committeed itself to guarantee that a larger part of those funds will be made available to small businesses.
The Budget tries to overcome the lack of interest shown by pension funds by proposing three measures. The first two involve the creation of new institutions, small business investment corporations and small business investment limited partnerships, to facilitate investments. Pension funds will then be allowed to use those vehicles to co-ordinate the research and administration of their investments in small business and thus provide them with limited responsibility.
The third measure would encourage pension funds to make good investments in the small business sector. For each dollar invested in a Canadian small business, these funds will be allowed to invest $3 abroad.
Adjournment Debate
It is true pension funds can invest 7 per cent of their assets in so-called basket investments which, of course, can include investments in small businesses. It is also true that in so doing, another 21 per cent of the assets of these funds could theoretically go to foreign investments.
It is not presently possible to determine how much of this theoretical limit will in fact be used if all basket-type funds are invested in small businesses. However, if pension funds take full advantage of this opportunity, if they invest up to the theoretical limit, they would provide a tremendous economic stimulus to Canadian small business.
The Government will closely monitor the impact of foreign investments by pension funds as well as their direct effects on the economy. If any problems arise, corrective measures will be taken immediately.
Because these measures will encourage investment in the more productive businesses and in high growth firms, we are confident they will contribute to increase productivity and create more jobs for Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 19, 1985