1985-06-12

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Mulroney-Wilson Budget is clear proof that the Government has abandoned Canada's farmers. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union, which collectively represent thousands and thousands of Canadian farmers, have clearly expressed their frustration and anger with the Budget.
Across the country there is a growing sense of despair that the Government doesn't really care about farmers, pensioners, the unemployed, our youth, and middle-income families who are struggling to raise their children. As further evidence of the concern, last Thursday 150 of the executive officers of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture held an emergency meeting in Toronto to review the Budget and its negative impacts. They passed a resolution condemning the Budget for betraying the farmers of Canada, and are now preparing an action plan to demonstrate their frustration and anger.
The Mulroney-Wilson Budget does nothing to deal with the farm financial crisis. The 39,000 farmers who, the FCC says, are under severe financial stress, can only look forward now to foreclosure. What happened to the agri-bond program promised by the Conservatives in last year's election campaign? What happened to the promise to lower farm loan interest rates? What about Section 31 of the Income Tax Act?
When you look for winners and losers in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, it seems everyone loses except the multinational oil companies and the rich.


PENSIONS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday representatives of 11 organizations with a membership of one million pensioners met in Toronto to oppose strongly partial deindexation of old age pensions. They are
mad and militant, and demand that the Government reindex pensions.
They protest that there was no formal consultation with senior citizen organizations concerning fundamental changes in old age security; that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) broke his promise to index old age pensions to the actual cost of living; that seniors, many of whom live in poverty, are being forced to sacrifice to reduce the deficit; that deindexation will mean a loss of over $1,600 per person over the next five years; that the ranks of the poor will swell due to the measures in the proposed Budget; and that the wealthiest Canadians will have added windfalls from the elimination of the capital gains tax, while Canada's elderly are asked to contribute $400 million.
Pensioners feel this is a cruel move against Canada's elderly who have contributed so much to Canada. Pensioners demand reindexation.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, while the domestic shipbuilding industry is reeling through its worst crisis in 50 years, foreign built ships for the domestic market continue to enter Canada in record numbers. In the last two years alone, this has amounted to over 434,000 gross tonnes. Every time a vessel is built abroad for the domestic market, shipbuilding and allied industrial jobs in Canada are lost to foreign competition.
It is ludicrous to see as well, Mr. Speaker, that export orders placed in Canada by offshore buyers are eligible for subsidized financing through the Canada Export Development Corporation, yet domestic ship owners, Canadian ship owners, do not qualify for these reduced rates. No other shipbuilding nation in the world subsidizes export orders and not domestic orders. Common sense would indicate that if Canadian owners were to be eligible for concessionary financing at EDC rates, increased orders would accrue to Canada, creating much needed employment for domestic shipbuilding and allied industries.
There are some 40 constituencies across Canada which have shipbuilding and ship repairing facilities, and allied industries, in their areas. These ridings, and the industry, have had their hopes and expectations dashed and devastated. We had hoped that at long last something would be done to ease the dire situation in the shipbuilding industry by the introduction of positive initiatives. This has not materialized, leaving our shipbuilding industry crippled, and deeper and deeper in the mire of uncertainty.

June 12, 1985
I believe I speak for all Hon. Members of this House, especially those Hon. Members-


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

[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the House to the very positive impact of the climate of confidence this Government is creating with respect to foreign investment.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, I attended the sod-turning ceremony at the Nardeux construction site, a French company which has decided to invest in Matane in the Gaspe area. This high technology electronic equipment manufacturing plant will create 200 jobs when it becomes operational in about a year.
I take this opportunity to set the record straight. It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that it was somebody else rather than I who first made the suggestion to build that plant. My response to this claim is that a good many bright ideas turned out to be white elephants or ghost industries under the previous administration. This is where a distinction must be made between the original concept and its implementation by the successor. That being so, it is imperative to emphasize that the installation of the French company's facilities in the Gaspe area is due, first to the favourable climate brought about by this Government's Bill C-15 and, second, to the dynamic human resources in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, it is concrete and patent evidence that the present Government can take full credit for restoring confidence among countries that are anxious to invest in the Canadian economy.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on June 3 I made a statement in the House because of a potential conflict of interest concerning the appointment by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) of his sons as legal agents. The possibility existed that a person could be asked to prosecute another member of the same family. Given the track record of the Government on nepotism, and its reckless disregard for the conflict of interest rules, that possibility could have become a reality.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Income Tax Act states that directors of a company are jointly and severally liable for
the withholdings of taxes, as confirmed by the Minister of Justice reported at page 5589 of Hansard, when he stated "there is a claim against Andrew Crosbie", the Minister further stated that his brother owes nothing to the Government.
Whether there is one son or two who act on behalf of Revenue Canada, whether there is a "claim against" or "debt owing" is not the issue. If there is a difference between "claim against" or "debt owing" I withdraw, but I am informed that there is not a difference. It is highly improper, Mr. Speaker, for a Minister of Justice to state that his brother is innocent before the merits of the case have been heard.
When asked whether he was using his position as Minister of Justice to defend a member of his family, the Minister of Justice stated to the press outside the House: "You may be prepared to let down your family, but I've got a right to defend my family".
The Minister has attempted unsuccessfully to deflect his own inadequacies on someone else, but it hasn't worked. He has gotten himself into deeper trouble every time he has raised this issue in the House of Commons.


PENSIONS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the well manicured hand of the Government has been caught in the cookie jar of the elderly. It has even offended its allies, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues, and the Canadian Federation of Small Business.
I have a telegram from the Ontario Federation of Students which reports that an emergency resolution was passed last night, which reads as follows:
Whereas the recent decision of the Government of Canada to deindex old age security programs will have a harmful effect on many senior citizens in Canada, and whereas deindexation of the old age pension is unfair to Canada's seniors who have inadequate sources of income, and whereas Finance Minister Michael Wilson has stated that deindexation of pensions is of benefit to the grandchildren of senior citizens, and whereas we, the grandchildren, oppose forcing seniors below the poverty line to subsidize our futures, be it resolved that the Ontario Federation of Students demands immediate reinstatement of full indexation of old age pensions for the seniors of Canada.
I think that makes it unanimous for everyone, Mr. Speaker, except the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
June 12, 1985


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
CHALLENGE '85-TliMISCAMINGUE, QUEBEC
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, on February 12 of this year, following the announcement of a new student summer employment program, Challenge '85, I said in the House that Temiscamingue would accept the challenge.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of announcing today that Temiscamingue has indeed accepted the challenge. In fact, the response of the private sector and our municipalities to my appeal was so positive that 530 jobs will be created this summer in my riding, which is 180 more than in the summer of 1984. I particularly want to stress that this tremendous success was made possible by the efforts and involvement of 78 businesses in the riding which decided to do their share by hiring students this summer.
That is the kind of leadership given by our Government in creating jobs. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) deserve our appreciation for designing a program that has proved to be so popular.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, offer my sincere thanks to the business people and municipalities that agreed to encourage and to invest in the energies and talents of our young students.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I present you with a proposal which would make Parliament Hill a more pleasant workplace. The Hill has the dubious distinction of possessing its very own source of air pollution. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the powers that be to disallow chartered buses from idling their engines while parked between the Centre Block and the West Block. Diesel fumes hang everywhere in that area and fairly choke the people who work on the Hill, as well as many tourists who have come to meet their representatives in Ottawa.
Having checked with the RCMP I have learned the buses in this area are parked illegally. Efforts to keep the area clear of buses are not always successful, but surely we could try to have the drivers turn them off if they do stay.
As Chairman of the Special Committee on Acid Rain, and a concerned citizen, I would remind Members that the nitrogen oxides spewing from these beasts is a major contributor to acid precipitation. Heavy duty vehicles contribute 12 per cent of the NOx emissions in Canada. I have heard of Members of
Parliament with offices in the West Block say they want the bus engines turned off. We are tired of having a pall of pollution hanging over our heads, and I encourage others to join us in the fight for clean air.


DISARMAMENT
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from the Women's International Peace Conference in Halifax, and I would like to read into the record excerpts from their final affirmation:
We 350 women of the world community, from 33 countries, affirm the overwhelming need and desperate urgency for peace, which we believe is both the process we live and the goal for which we work.
At this conference, women from diverse racial, cultural, ethnic and political backgrounds representing different sides of conflict areas, came together as a living example of women negotiating peace. Some of us compromised our own safety to make this commitment. Although women's voices have not been heard and women have not participated equally in peace negotiations or in the formulation of the institutions and the cultural fabric in which we live, we are more than half the world's population; we do have power, and we are shaping it for peaceful living. We condemn militarism. It is an addiction that distorts human development, causing world-wide poverty, starvation, pollution, repression, torture and death. Feeding this habit robs all the world's children and future generations of their inheritance.
We all live in the shadow of the threat of nuclear war. We demand an end to research, testing, development, and deployment of all weapons of mass destruction, to the militarization of space and to all forms of violence. As a first step, we call for a comprehensive test ban treaty. We are committed to acting globally, nationally, locally and individually for peace. We will not compromise our commitment to the survival and healing of this planet. We affirm the right of every human being to live with dignity, equality, justice and joy.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Brome-Missisquoi, I would like to say how proud I am of the honour bestowed on one of my constituents. In Toronto on June 6, Her Excellency Madame Jeanne Sauve awarded the Governor General's Award for Literature to Jacques Brault.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gabrielle Bertrand: The author was very definitely inspired by the natural beauties of the riding, its lakes, hills and valleys.
I sincerely hope that his work will continue to find an enthusiastic readership and that Hon. Members will be unanimous in offering him their congratulations.

June 12, 1985
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the last 24 hours the Maritime Premiers have said that deindexation is unnecessary, senior citizens have said that they feel betrayed, and numerous social agencies have called for restoration of indexation. Most significantly, the business community, at which the Budget was aimed, has said that deindexation should be stopped and full pensions restored. As the President of the BCNI said, we shouldn't reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged.
The Prime Minister came into office wanting to build a consensus. He has achieved the consensus, but people are against his order. Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government has made a serious mistake, and immediately withdraw the Budget order cancelling indexation for senior citizens?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in light of his attitude today I think my hon. friend would want to reflect upon a statement he made in the House of Commons on June 29, 1982. At that time he said: "They say we are deindexing down to 5 or 6 per cent for certain tax brackets. Yes, we are doing that".
You deindexed and cut away the value by 6 per cent to elderly citizens, and you have the temerity today to stand up and say exactly the opposite. That is why you are in such bad odour with the Canadian people. They do not trust you and do not believe you precisely because of statements like that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The business leaders are Canadian citizens and taxpayers. They are entitled to their point of view. We listen to these views, as we do others, and will continue to monitor the situation very carefully.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about trust. I do not think a group of organizations representing over one million senior citizens ever said that they felt betrayed by a Liberal Government. That never happened to us, but it is happening to this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We know that the Government will change its mind. The Prime Minister has already said that the change
will have to be made. The only reason they are not making the change now is that they feel they have to defend the Minister of Finance.
If the senior citizens can keep their full old age pensions, we will let the Prime Minister keep the Minister of Finance, and not ask for his resignation. God knows why he would want to keep him. However, would the Prime Minister agree to that proposition-return full pensions to the senior citizens, and he can keep his Minister of Finance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The candidate for finance from the Liberal Party is just entering now. I have said many times that no one on this side of the House, or anywhere, takes any joy or pleasure in having to cut back on expenditures to anyone. The fact is that we inherited a situation such that, without action, the social security programs for the elderly and others would be placed in serious jeopardy. We have been acting in what I think is a thoughtful way and, I hope, is a fair way, to try to ensure that the strength of the economy is such that these programs can be sustained and enhanced in the future.
There would be very little disagreement on the statement that the Hon. Minister of Finance is viewed by all Canadians as a thoughtful, competent, and compassionate man.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (M20)


EFFECT ON CROSS-SECTION OF CITIZENS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Prime Minister should change his clipping service because he is obviously not getting the right information.
We obviously see that an entire cross-section of Canadians are demanding a change. Perhaps the business community put it best when it said: "If you want to reduce the deficit, do it another way rather than trying to take away the security and future of senior citizens."
Why can the Prime Minister and the Government not understand a basic consensus of all Canadians, and make that change? You have admitted plenty of mistakes in the past. Now is the time to admit a mistake that really affects Canadians.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend has never been associated with the expression of acknowledgement of a mistake.
I know that this will surprise my hon. friend, but we have never contended that we are without flaws. We have been trying to deal in a straightforward manner, not a perfect manner, with a gravely imperfect situation that we inherited.
May I tell my hon. friend that we are trying to sustain these important social programs through economic growth and development, and the creation of 271,000 new jobs since the
June 12, 1985

Government was sworn in is ample proof of our capacity and commitment to do precisely that. It is because we want to preserve the integrity of the social programs for the elderly that we are building these new jobs across Canada that will benefit the entire nation.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET SENIOR CITIZEN ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that surprises Members on this side is the flippant manner in which the Prime Minister answers questions.
Joyce King of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario said yesterday that, contrary to Government propaganda, there was no formal consultation with recognized senior citizens organizations prior to those OAS changes being brought in in the Budget. That is the same story that we heard last week in Atlantic Canada-no consultation.
In the interest of allowing senior citizens to be heard, will the Prime Minister agree to set aside adequate time next week to meet with the recognized senior citizens' organizations in a public forum in Ottawa? Will he do that for senior citizens?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 try as best I can to meet with all groups who seek to see us. I cannot see them all, but I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been meeting with representatives of seniors groups, as have other Ministers of the Crown. I know that we would look forward to further meetings, some of which are already scheduled between the Minister and representatives of other groups. We are careful to listen to them, and we listen to them carefully. That has always been our position.
In fact, so that there is no surprise, it is set out in the budget document that the Government will review the adequacy of payments in light of future circumstances, and will increase them as resources permit. That has always been the intention of the Government. It seems to me perfectly honourable and straightforward.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The only senior citizens the Minister of Health apparently met are those who, he tells us, support this budget measure. I can tell him that there are some who do not.
Prime Minister, senior citizens want to meet with you. They want a meeting with you, and they deserve one. They believe that you have been deafened by the applause of 210 Members of Parliament, who applaud your brutal measures toward senior citizens. Will you, Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will you, Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members are trying to remind the Hon. Member that questions are to go through the Chair.
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: Through you, Mr. Speaker, 1 ask the Prime Minister if he, not another bevy of Ministers, but the Prime Minister, who personally carried the flag last summer and made specific commitments to senior citizens last year, will be available? Can you make a few hours available next week to meet in a public forum with senior citizen organizations which are coming to Ottawa to hold yourself accountable, or are you telling them that, even if they spend precious dollars, you will not hold yourself accountable to them?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They want to know.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I could not hear the end of the question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: May I repeat the question? Point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beaches.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I have just returned from talking and listening to seniors in Manitoba and Saskatchewan over the last couple of days. Those seniors are telling me to advise the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister did not have a mandate to do what he is doing to senior citizens through the Budget.
There is now a broad cross-section of Canadian society that is saying he does not have a consensus. Would the Prime Minister now do the honourable thing that he promised to do during the election campaign, and since, and say to the seniors: "I gave you a clear commitment and 1 am going to live up to it"? Will the Prime Minister not make that statement now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that, with the measures presently in place, we will not only honour our commitments to the senior citizens but do very much better during the life of the mandate of this Government in the obligations we have toward senior citizens. I think senior citizens, and all Canadians, recognize that a healthy economy is required-


Mr. Nunziata:: You have no credibility, Mulroney.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to be able to pay out these benefits. We want to make sure we are able to do so. We are hoping that the kinds of economic moves we are making will result in a stronger economy so that we can do more, infinitely more-not less-for the elderly.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENT
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The seniors across the country are

June 12, 1985
Oral Questions
saying to me, and I am sure they are saying to other Members of Parliament: "We do not need more rhetoric. What we need is action from the Government". I ask the Prime Minister again, will he do the honourable thing by the seniors, and now do what he promised he would do during the election campaign, and not do a flip-flop and do the opposite? Will the Prime Minister give that commitment to the House and to the seniors, now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be obviously pointed out, although 1 thought it was clear, that, as we speak in the House of Commons, no senior citizens' revenues have been negatively impacted upon in any way.


Mr. Deans:: You said you would do it.


An Hon. Member:: It is proposed.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member says it is proposed. Yes, it is proposed for January 1 of next year. Meanwhile no senior citizens are in any way negatively affected by this. We also indicated in the same document that was put forward that, as a concomitant obligation, we would continue to monitor the matter very closely to ensure that, at the earliest possible moment, we would be able to sustain the senior citizens further. That is what we are doing. It seems to me it is straightforward and in good faith, and I hope my hon. friend accepts that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, Canadian seniors took the Prime Minister at good faith a year ago, and look what has happened to them since.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET SENIOR CITIZENS IN HALIFAX
Neil Young: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. If the Government truly believes in consultation, I intend to be in Halifax on Monday speaking to seniors.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order.


Neil Young: The Minister of Finance will be there at the same time, speaking to business people. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will take Five or 10 minutes out of his busy schedule to come and talk, meet, and listen to the seniors I will be meeting with in Halifax on Monday. Would the Minister of Finance agree to do that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that the Canadian seniors voted for this Party, and then asks "what happened?". What has happened is that 271,000 of their children and grandchildren have
new jobs. That is what has happened since this Government came in.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: How many seniors have new jobs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: If you are going to be fair-and 1 know my hon. friend wants to be fair-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Why don't you sit down? You are a disgrace; you are a sham.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Rodriguez:: You broke your promise.


John V. Nunziata: What about integrity, honesty, and
credibility?


Mr. Speaker:: All this yelling back and forth does none of us any credit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BUDGET MEASURE
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last week when we visited Atlantic Canada we talked with senior citizens who told us of the serious situation in which they find themselves. In fact many of them who are receiving OAS and GIS are living at a loss of over $300 to $400 per year. The Council of Maritime Premiers met yesterday and it, too, agreed that seniors had been ill-treated by the Budget.
Will the Prime Minister rethink this ill-conceived move in the Budget, and restore full indexation on the OAS to senior citizens? Will he meet with seniors to discuss this in a public forum, and look at it seriously? It is a very serious problem, and I think the Prime Minister should address it seriously.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have been seeking to do precisely that. I recognize that it is a serious problem. I told my hon. friend, 1 think on another occasion, that I suspected that no one in the House of Commons, irrespective to his political persuasion, took any pleasure at all in having to reduce programs for any of our citizens. I think in an ideal world we would like to increase those programs for everyone. The fact of the matter is that it was our judgment that the value of these programs was being seriously jeopardized by a mountain of debt, the interest payments on which were compromising the capacity of the Government of Canada to meet and enhance these programs.
Having said that, I acknowledge full well the possible impact of it, which is why it was specifically inserted in the Budget. There has been no impact upon any of our senior citizens as we speak, nor could there be until 1986. Meanwhile
June 12, 1985

we are continuing to monitor it very carefully to evaluate precisely the kinds of concerns which my hon. friend mentions, and others, and to do everything we can for the elderly.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET SENIOR CITIZENS
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and I have a somewhat similar background inasmuch as we both drove a truck at one time. The Prime Minister should take his responsibility as Prime Minister very seriously. He has done very well, to go from a truck driver to a Prime Minister.


Lloyd Axworthy: Don't disparage truck drivers.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot hear. The Prime Minister has to stop playing the role of a truck driver.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Roland Henderson: You gotta stop playing truck driver, you gotta stop blowing your own horn, you gotta stop giving the gears to senior citizens, and you gotta-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry, but I cannot hear the question. Could the Hon. Member, please, direct his question through the Chair?


George Roland Henderson: Will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and meet next week with senior citizens in a public forum in Ottawa? I want a clear answer. Yes or no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I meet with senior citizens all the time, and I will be meeting with senior citizens again next week.


PENSIONS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Progressive Conservative Party has called a special end-of-ses-sion caucus meeting to be held this Saturday, and they are obviously going to discuss pensions and the de-indexation announced by the Government in the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, this gives the Prime Minister only 24 hours, since the group of Conservative Members that just travelled across the country knows that Canadians in general are opposed to de-indexation. Instead of waiting for his special caucus meeting, will the Prime Minister take advantage of the
Oral Questions
remaining 48 hours to reverse this policy and re-instate indexation for the elderly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the caucus meeting mentioned by the Hon. Member was called well before the Budget was brought down in the House.
There is no connection between the subject of the Hon. Member's question and next Saturday's caucus meeting. It is the usual meeting held at the end of a session by any properly run caucus.
That being said, 1 repeat the comments I made earlier. The Budget proposals on limiting indexation are not in effect at this time and will not come into effect until January 1 of next year, and if we do proceed with this measure, the initial effects thereof could not be felt until April, 1986. We have a whole year to monitor the situation, as we mentioned in the Budget. It seems to me that is entirely reasonable.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
During the election campaign, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party promised he would follow a policy of consensus and consultation. Is consensus dead? Is consultation now being ignored? If that is not the case, why is the Prime Minister ignoring the consensus reached by all social groups, including business, that are opposed to indexation. And why is his Government ignoring his promise to consult with the elderly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems I admit we do encounter on a regular basis is the fact that as far as large groups in our society are concerned, we cannot meet the demands or needs of all groups at the same time. In fact, I think even our political adversaries would acknowledge, and rightly so, that we are trying to find a consensus, to build a consensus, on important national issues.
I can say without the slightest hesitation that, as far as this particular measure is concerned, we were somewhat hesitant, the proof being the statement in the Budget that we are going to monitor the situation on a regular basis. No one enjoys budget cutbacks, any more than my hon. friend does, and that is why we wanted to monitor the situation very closely in order to be fair to the elderly citizens of this country.

June 12, 1985
Oral Questions OLD AGE SECURITY


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will agree with me that the situation of elderly Canadians is serious enough as it is, that their prospects for the coming months are not very encouraging. Mr. Speaker, we could resort to abuse, but that would not improve the plight of senior citizens. You could be civil and polite. Yesterday you saw Mr. Levesque who said: It is an inhumane decision. You also know that the business community said that it is an unacceptable decision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister accept two suggestions: First, would he agree to meet here in Ottawa with various groups of Quebec elderly citizens who I know want to see him and, second, will he admit that it has been a mistake and will he amend the Bill at the earliest opportunity?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the idea of limiting the indexation of benefits did not come from the Conservative Government. My colleague will admit that, when he was sitting on this side of the House, the Liberal Government did implement a much more drastic measure concerning limited indexation in Canada. I think it is an undeniable fact. That being said, I am neither ashamed nor hesitant about repeating to my colleague that we wanted to be so fair with senior citizens that we thought we had to include in the Budget a specific provision concerning our intention to follow up on this case, hopefully to make appropriate changes in due time. Since not one elderly person has yet been adversely affected by the Government's intention and that the first impact would not be felt before April 1986, we have ample time to see how the situation evolves and take immediate action to help elderly Canadians.


GROUPS TRAVELLING TO OTTAWA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister will have to admit that the Liberal Government at least protected the elderly through double indexation, for 20 years. I think that if the Prime Minister is at all honest, he will acknowledge that fact, unlike the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary contains two points: first of all, the Prime Minister failed to answer the question: will he agree next week to meet with the groups that are coming here to Ottawa and second, could the Prime Minister explain to the
elderly why they should trust him this time around on what it says in the Minister of Finance's Budget Speech, because on two occasions he broke promises that had been given in writing, one in July in Sherbrooke in the Province of Quebec and one in January?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member started out saying he wanted to be nice and polite, and unfortunately, he wound up his statement with some very harsh, and I would think petty, judgments of others in this House.
However, the question was: Will I be meeting Quebec groups next week in Ottawa? The answer is no. Next week 1 will be meeting Quebecers in Quebec City and elsewhere in the Province of Quebec.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET SENIOR CITIZENS IN HALIFAX
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. A few months before the Budget was brought down the Minister of State for Finance as well as the Minister, I think, and certainly some of his officials, met with representatives of the oil industry in western Canada, discussed their taxation plight, made promises to them, and in the Budget and the Western Accord delivered great windfalls to the industry.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance why is he hunkering down here in Ottawa. Why is he afraid to meet with the seniors? Why is he isolating himself, and will he not accept the perfectly reasonable suggestion of the Hon. Member for Beaches that he meet in Halifax with a seniors' group next week?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the fact that I will be in Halifax does not mean that I am hunkering down here, afraid to meet with people. I would be happy to meet with the group that the Hon. Member suggests.


THE BUDGET
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to tell us, and to tell the seniors in my riding who have been asking me, why is it that the oil industry got such favourable treatment from the Government and the seniors have been treated so shamefully. I want to ask him further, apropos of that, why do some of the seniors' groups in the poorest part of the country have to pay for job creation when the oil industry gets so many windfalls compared to the seniors. Why do the seniors have to pay for that job creation?
June 12, 1985


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member is still the energy critic for the New Democratic Party. He will know that the tax position of the oil industry today, after the changes that have been brought about by this Budget, is less attractive to the industry than it was prior to the energy agreement in October 1980. We have put the oil and gas industry back into a position where it is being treated equally with other industries in the country, with no discrimination, and that did involve taking some favourable tax measures away from the oil and gas industry that were in place prior to October, 1980.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to address this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that five American states, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, have effectively banned the importation of Canadian livestock and meat due to the use of the drug chloramphenicol in Canada, could the Minister tell this House what action, if any, is the Government prepared to take so that Canadian farmers can sell again, the United States?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have been concerned about the ban in the five states, and that chloramphenicol was used as the example to have that ban put into effect. I believe that it is a non-tariff barrier. I think government Members feel that it is a non-tariff barrier, but prior even to that date we had put in a 60-day review period. As of last Thursday, Cabinet signed an order, but we waited until yesterday's decision on the countervail by the U.S. Commerce Department. This morning, as a result of the hardship to Canadian producers that emerged, we decided that immediate action should be taken on the ban. I, therefore, effectively immediately, am imposing a temporary ban on the use and sale of chloramphenicol for food-producing animals.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEW BRUNSWICK MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt to advise Members of the presence in our gallery of Mr. Yvon Poitras, Minister of Municipal Affairs for the Province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions PENSIONS


REQUEST THAT BUDGET MEASURE BE RESCINDED
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister promised last July, and I quote, "complete indexing of old age pensions to the actual cost of living", and since in November he further promised that any money saved through the review of universal social programs would be redirected to people in need, will the Prime Minister honour these two promises and instruct his Minister of Finance not to proceed with the $1.6 billion assault on the pockets of Canadian pensioners?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks a very good question. I do not think there is any doubt that the wish of all Members of the House of Commons is to do more for the senior citizens, the elderly and the disabled. We have taken many initiatives since we have been here, to extend the spousal allowance, to extend the definition of disability and so on, along those lines.
What my hon. friend, given her expertise in finance, would,
I think, readily acknowledge is that there is substantial peril to the social programs in Canada involved in the financing required for deficit coverage. What we have been trying to do precisely is to begin the process of financing, but we want to do it with as much fairness as is humanly possible. This is why there was no precipitous action taken on this, and why it was triggered for next January to take effect in April of 1986, so we would have the time to listen to my hon. friend, and to monitor the economic situation so that-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the question was quite short.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, taking money away from consumers will not reduce the deficit. It will slow growth, and increase unemployment. Even The Wall Street Journal, so admired by Members opposite, has described the Canadian Budget as a prescription for economic disaster.
Recognizing that the Prime Minister has often spoken of a compassionate society, and I am sure he was sincere, may 1 remind him that 10 groups, representing one million Canadian senior citizens, have asked for this-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Hon. Member is making a long preamble to her supplementary question. Does she have a question, please?


Aideen Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since 10 groups, representing one million Canadian senior citizens, have said that the measure will represent an attack on the compas-

June 12, 1985
Oral Questions
sionate society which they built, will the Prime Minister reconsider?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the reason this particular measure was not implemented on budget night was because of our apprehension in regard to the possible impact. That strikes me as being legitimate. We wanted to monitor the situation as closely as possible so as to minimize whatever effects there were on the elderly.
It is our view, and I hope it is shared, that the way to sustain sound social programs is through an economic recovery. That economic recovery appears to be in train. That is good news for Canada, and most of all it is good news for the integrity of the social security programs.


CONSULTATION INQUIRY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sure the Minister knows that heads of 11 major organizations, representing one million pensioners, met in Toronto yesterday to protest partial deindexation of pensions. They are mad and militant. They are demanding that pensions be reindexed.
Will the Minister explain why there was no consultation with seniors' organizations, when there was consultation on every other front? Why was there no consultation with seniors before the Government changed its policy and decided to deindex pensions? The Minister knows that deindexation will affect 2.5 million pensioners and will push another 200,000 pensioners into poverty.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member said that consultations took place-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There were no consultations.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I listened to her, and I would appreciate the same courtesy. She said that there had been consultations with various groups. She said that there had not been consultations with senior citizens' groups. But there was consultation with various groups, and I say to her-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Not regarding pensions.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I would say to her what the Prime Minister has been saying today in Question Period. That is why those words were in the Budget. Those words were there the day the Budget was brought down. The Government then looked at the situation very carefully. The Prime Minister and I have said today that, as the economy improves, the matter will be monitored. That has been the commitment, and we will stand by that commitment.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SENIOR CITIZENS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that there was no consultation with seniors at the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, but that there was consultation regarding child benefits. Why is he trying to deceive people?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that suggestion and proceed to her question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of getting on with the question, I will withdraw. But I think it is abominable the way that the Minister has been treating-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the Minister read the seven-point brief which was presented yesterday by those groups, if he has not already done so? Will he consult with them personally? He can do that today. Most important, will he, at the Tory caucus meeting this weekend, become their advocate? Will he speak for a change on behalf of pensioners, and take their position to that caucus?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am the spokesman for pensioners in the caucus and in the House. I am also the spokesman for the spouse's allowance, the widow's allowance, the widower's allowance and disability-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I could go back to the report on The Journal when she and I appeared together. She said that she would be willing to tax senior citizens more. Why has she changed? We have not changed.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the influential newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, in a four-column article asked: "Will Canada cut its economic throat?" In commenting on the Budget, the article began: "Canada is about to commit economic suicide in the interest of economic theory".
How can the Minister of Finance expect to keep the economy growing and reduce the deficit when his avalanche of taxes will erode more and more the buying power of Canadians? Does the Minister of Finance believe that he can tax the economy back to prosperity?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 12, 1985


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the same Cassandra-like tones came from that side of the House last November. They said that 50,000 to 100,000 jobs would be lost. Since then, more than 200,000 jobs have been created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would suggest that the Hon. Member look at what is happening in the economy. Let us look at what has happened. In the first quarter we had growth which was approximately 50 per cent higher than the normal economic expectations. Yesterday we had the investment intentions which have increased from an expectation of 6 per cent last October to 13 per cent. That equals jobs. Those jobs will support the social programs of the country. I am sure the Hon. Member will understand that that is the positive direction to be taking.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, still concerning the tax policy of the Minister of Finance, I would like to get back to the capital gains tax exemption. The 1Vail Street Journal pointed out in the same article, and I quote:

"Exempting capital gains will indeed be helpful to entrepreneurship but to U.S. not to Canadian entrepreneurship." [Translation]
Instead of defending the indefensible, would the Minister of Finance not agree that he should immediately close this tax loophole he opened in his Budget and use the money to fully re-index Old Age Security pensions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom the Hon. Member has been talking. I know the man who wrote that article. I have met him and I have talked to him on a number of occasions. Over the course of the time which I have known him, I have read numerous articles in which he stated that the United States was on the wrong track and that it should not have been going in the direction which it was. What has happened? Last year was a year of record growth in the United States. The year before that was a year of record growth in the United States. Surely the Hon. Member knows that for every one-handed economist there is another one-handed economist, and that there are all sorts of two-handed economists saying different things. If the Hon. Member believed every economist and followed what every economist said should be done with the economy, he would be very, very mixed up, even more so than he is today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Petitions


PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Earlier in Question Period he said that the Liberal six and five program was even more draconian than this Government's program. Why would the Prime Minister want to propose a program of deindexation that he, by his own admission, calls draconian?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be general agreement at any time in which there is a lessening or even a maintaining, without increase, of contributions to the elderly, that that represents an important step. It is one which must be thought about very carefully. It is because we would only do it with such reluctance that I used that term. It is because of our concern and our commitment to the elderly in the country that we have acted with such prudence in accordance with the compassion and the traditions of the country.


GOVERNMENT MONITORING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister as well. He has been indicating that the Government is carefully monitoring the situation. Precisely what is it that the Government is monitoring? Is it public opinion which the Government is monitoring? Is it the number of senior citizens who will be living below the poverty line? Could the Prime Minister be precise so that we can understand what it is the Government is monitoring as it evaluates this deindexation proposal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we said in the Budget precisely what we intended to do and how we intended to do it. Obviously, if my hon. friend will understand, we are going to be looking very carefully at all of the leading economic indicators, following them very carefully to see the impact which this might or might not have by April of 1986. And at the earliest possible moment, as 1 have indicated many times, we will, hopefully, be able to take steps which will be of further benefit to the elderly in Canada.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 11, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
May I add one comment? In relation to the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) on Tuesday, June 11, 1985, I wish to draw to the attention of the

June 12, 1985
Petitions
House that it is not in accordance with the rules or traditions of the House for Hon. Members to produce exhibits while presenting petitions. Furthermore, I would like to remind Hon. Members that documents are objects other than sheets of signatures and should not be included in a petition.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in both official languages. This is the report of the Canadian Commercial Bank inquiry.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


LAW REFORM COMMISSION
Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 46(1), I am pleased to lay upon the table of the House, a copy, in both official languages, of Report No. 25 of the Law Reform Commission entitled "Obtaining Forensic Evidence". I ask that the report be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


PETITIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens, including many senior citizens, protesting against measures in the federal Budget which severely affect the economic situation of senior citizens and asking the Government not to deindex the old age pensions.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many citizens, including students, requesting that the full indexation for old age pensions be continued.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several dozen citizens of the City of Sault Ste. Marie calling upon the Government to reinstate the full indexation of the old age pensions and pointing out that the
seniors should not have to pay for the increased benefits given to the multinational oil companies and high-income people.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 610 concerned women, many of them constituents but others from across Canada, requesting the Government to redefine pornography, to fully recognize the human rights of women and children and to legislate against the importation, sale and circulation of pornographic materials in Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in Coquitlam, Burnaby and Vancouver, British Columbia, protesting that the Old Age Security cuts fly in the face of a Progressive Conservative promise that " a P. C. Government would once more index the old age pension to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis". I would like to file that petition.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melvilie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several dozen citizens from the great Saskatchewan community of Wynyard. This petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to reinstate the full indexation for senior citizens, saying that if that does not happen, the losers will be the poor, the unemployed and the women of Canada.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition which calls upon this House of Commons to direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to call immediately upon the Ambassador of the U.S.S.R. to demand that Ida Nudel be given an exit visa in order to receive adequate medical attention. Ida Nudel has now waited for an exit visa for 12 years. She has been diagnosed as suffering from pancreatic cancer and she requires medical treatment.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) have another petition?


Sheila Finestone: I have a second petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by another 15 women with the same concern. It is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and requests that a demand be presented to the Ambassador of the U.S.S.R. for the release of Ida Nudel so that she can come to the West and have proper medical treatment.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition of three pages with the signatures of senior citizens and other citizens of Saskatche-
June 12, 1985

wan who petition this Government to take another look at the deindexing of old age pensions and to change them back to the way they were before.


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the privilege to present a petition on behalf of 58 residents of the Niagara region and elsewhere, most of them members of the Niagara branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society. They ask the House to release copies of the 1891 census for Canada and make it available to the public for research purposes.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents who are protesting the deindexation of Canadian pensions. They are asking that the Progressive Conservative Government live up to its campaign promise to maintain pensions at their current levels.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petition from citizens in Vancouver East and in many of the surrounding areas, namely, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Surrey, Kelowna and New Westminster. These citizens, of all ages, are asking that the Government change its policy regarding pensions and that it reindex pensions so that senior citizens will not suffer in the oncoming years.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of senior citizens in my riding who call upon the Government to live up to its promise to index fully senior citizens' pensions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Salmon Arm, British Columbia, protesting that the annual cut to each and every OAS pensioner in Canada will be $680 in 1991.
I also have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from the community of Kamloops, British Columbia, who point out that the May 23 Budget imposes undue and unfair hardship on pensioners by deindexing the Old Age Security and call upon Parliament to reinstate full indexation for the Old Age Security Program of Canada.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition in the form of 11 pages of signatures of senior citizens who protest the Government's intent to deindex Old Age Security. They demand that the Government listen not only to senior citizens but to the Chamber of Commerce and other interested groups and abandon its intent to deindex Old Age Security.
Canada's International Relations NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LIMITED DISPOSAL AUTHORIZATION ACT


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-53, an Act to authorize the disposal of the Northern Transportation Company Limited and the forgiveness of its debt to Her Majesty, and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties with respect to the terms of reference for a Special Joint Committee of Parliament on Canada's International Relations. I think that if you were to ask the House, there would be unanimous consent for me to bring this motion forward on the following terms. It is a bit lengthy but I think it is important enough that I should read it into the record. It reads as follows:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider Canada's International Relations;
That the document entitled "Competitiveness and Security: Directions for Canada's International Relations'', tabled on May 14, 1985 (Sessional Paper No. 331-4/10), be referred to the Committee;
That the Committee consider and report upon the issues discussed in the above-mentioned document and make recommendations in their report concerning the objectives and conduct of Canada's international relations;
That the following 12 Members of the House of Commons to act on behalf of the House as members of the said committee be: Messrs. Axworthy, Chretien, Crofton, Mrs. Duplessis, Messrs. Harvey, Hockin, Jardine, Miss Jewett, Messrs. Kempling, Langdon, Porter and Stackhouse;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;
That the Committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;
That the Committee have the power to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff accompany the Committee;
That a quorum of the Committee be seven members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever 4 members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;

June 12, 1985
Canada's International Relations
That the Committee submit an interim report on Canada's participation in research on the Strategic Defence Initiative and on Bilateral Trade with the United States no later than August 23, 1985;
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the Committee is completed, that the Committee shall report its findings by depositing its report with the Clerk of the House and that it shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the table;
That the Committee present its final report no later than May 31, 1986; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, there are two matters I wanted to raise with the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) before the motion is put. Clearly we intend to give consent, but I wanted to say that I think it is the hope of all Parties that, although the time limit is short for deliberations, there will be adequate time for the extensive consultation we know is necessary. I also want to ask the Government House Leader to verify on the record that, recognizing the extensive nature of the travel involved in order to hold hearings and achieve the necessary input from the public, a reasonable substitution of Members on the Committee will be permitted from time to time as necessary in order to accommodate the hearing process.
There is one final matter. I believe the Government House Leader intends to assure this House, perhaps by reading into the record the letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to the Opposition House Leaders, that the Government does not intend to move on any verification of any arrangements between Canada and the U.S. on either of the two questions the committee has been asked to deliberate upon until after it has tabled its report in the House of Commons.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, when we heard that the Government wanted to propose that the House and Senate create a special joint committee to hold hearings lasting up to a year on its Green Paper on foreign policy, we took a firm position that this committee would be of no value either to Parliament or the Canadian people unless the Government gave an undertaking that decisions would not be taken on at least two key issues, the Special Defence Initiative, known as star wars, and the matter of bilateral trade relations with the U.S., until the Canadian people have had a reasonable opportunity to present their views on these issues to the parliamentary committee. At first, the Government, to say the least, was reluctant to-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Come on, Herb.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -give such an undertaking. But I am very pleased to note, through the motion presented today, that the Government is prepared not to make such decisions until after August 23. I understand that the Government House Leader is prepared to table certain letters confirming that undertaking. In those circumstances, I am pleased to say on behalf of the Official Opposition that I give our consent to the motion just read out by the Government House Leader.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) wish to comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, Mr. Speaker, It is with mixed feelings that I rise at this time. I had rather hoped we would not get involved in the political rhetoric of the House Leader of the Official Opposition on this matter. I think this has been addressed in Question Period and I am not going to comment other than to say that the consultative process we brought forward in the Speech from the Throne is a precedent. This Government has to apologize to no one with respect to participation by Members of Parliament in the consultative process through parliamentary committees. I think it is important to understand that we have been delayed by the actions of the Opposition for one month when we could have had important meetings with the people of Canada. But I will not say those things because I do not want to get involved in political rhetoric on this issue.
In response to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, 1 think we will be able to work out, and I am quite prepared to do so, a sensible and reasonable arrangement with all Parties concerning membership on the committee-and the necessary substitutions. He will understand that on these joint committees, because of their nature, there are some difficulties with respect to substitution. Having said that, I can give him the assurances, as I have done privately to both him and the Official Opposition House Leader, that I am very much interested in making sure that we make the best use of Members of Parliament from all Parties. If there is a reasonable proposition to be put forward, we will of course agree because we are able to do that in so many instances.
I have documents here which I propose to table with the unanimous consent of the House at this time. The first document is a memorandum which I sent to the opposition House Leaders outlining the confirmation of the agreement. The second document is a letter which I have from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) which has been circulated to Hon. Members, and I think I can read it into the record now so that we will understand what has been agreed to by the opposition Parties and the Government. The letter is dated June 10, addressed to myself, and reads as follows;
I am pleased at the progress you are making in discussions with House Leaders of the other Parties respecting the reference of the Green Paper to a Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate.
I understand the other Parties want a reliable assurance that the hearings and the interim report will be considered by the Government when we take decisions on trade arrangements with the United States, and the American invitation to participate in SDI research. Please assure them that I see no circumstances that would require us to take decisions on those questions before August 23; indeed, I would welcome the observations of the Committee and the interested public, before any decisions are taken on those questions.
With good wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Joe Clark
With the consent of the House, 1 will table those two documents.
June 12, 1985


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Government House Leader to table the documents?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: I listened very attentively to the Hon. Minister. I am sure that my interest in foreign affairs is well known. The Minister said that he is ready to consider proposals made by the hon. representative of the NDP. He said that he will look into them and come to an agreement. Is it possible that the Minister would now consider amending his proposal and tabling it tomorrow? In that way there would be unanimous consent of all interested parties.
1 listened very attentively to the representation of the representative of the New Democratic Party. He made a very sensible proposal. The Government House Leader has answered in a very sensible way. He is an old Member of the House in terms of tenure. Would it be possible that, after quick consultation, he would return tomorrow so that we will all know exactly where we stand on this matter?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the matter was discussed between the House Leaders. 1 am in your hands, of course. However, the specific terms of reference had been agreed upon, as had the procedure to be followed today. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) raises a question which I take very seriously. We will want to resolve this matter. It has been in the interest of us all to work out a sensible arrangement because we will all be faced with some pressure owing to the fact that this committee will be sitting in the summer months.
As I have indicated to the House, we want to continue with the core. It is important to specify the people who will give leadership to this committee. We will, of course, be prepared to sit down and work out an arrangement between the Parties. I have given a commitment to sit down with the House Leader of the distinguished Member's Party. We will be able to work out a solution that is agreeable to all Parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Does the Elouse agree to the motion of the Government House Leader?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Reluctantly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 279 and 280.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	In 1984, how many inmates of federal penal institutions were allowed unescorted temporary absences and how many were (a) parole violators (b) convicted of (i) murder (ii) manslaughter (iii) armed robbery?
2.	How many were convicted of crimes committed while on absence?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1.
There were 3920 inmates who received unescorted temporary absences in 1984. (a) 563. (b) (i) 111, (ii) 185, (iii) 831.
2. Data on inmates convicted of crimes committed while on any form of leave from the institution does not currently exist in the Offender Information System.


Mr. Stackhouse: Of the 3,116 inmates of federal penal institutions allowed unescorted temporary absences in 1983, how many were convicted of crimes committed while on absence?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Data on inmates convicted of crimes committed while on any form of leave from the institution does not currently exist in the Offender Information System.


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


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire once again of the Parliamentary Secretary as to when an answer to question No. 86 asked on November 15, 1984 might be forthcoming. This question deals with PCBs at abandoned DEW line sites. I know from private conversations with DND and DIAND personnel that this information is available. Is it just that this particular question has been forgotten about?


Paul Wyatt Dick: By no means, Mr. Speaker. 1 want to assure the Hon. Member that this extremely important question will be answered very soon.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 12, 1985
Indian Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, now that we have finished with the details of clauses and motions to amend it is time to review briefly what we have accomplished and where we shall go from here. The passage into law of Bill C-31 will be an historic moment. It will mark the first time in a generation that significant amendments have been made to the Indian Act. It marks a small but tangible beginning to the process of federal government recognition of Indian self-government.
When I rose in the House nearly four months ago to move second reading of this Bill I said that there were three principles at the heart of the Bill. With the passage of Bill C-31 these principles will become reality. For the first time in well over a century we will have an Indian Act free of the blight of sexual discrimination. For the first time in over a century the Government of Canada will recognize that Indian communities should be able to define who their people are. Finally, after more than a decade of struggle, those women who suffered the direct effects of sexual discrimination through marriage to a non-Indian will be able to regain the Indian status and band membership that they lost so unjustly.
In the course of debate we have become well aware that Bill C-31 does not resolve all the shortcomings of the Indian Act. It was not meant to do so. Much more needs to be done. However, let us recognize with some honesty the solid achievement which this Bill represents. When I spoke last March I said that I would stick to the three basic central principles in the Bill, but that I would also accept amendments that would make the Bill better. There is no doubt that the work of this House on all sides has made this Bill better and fairer. The standing committee alone adopted 30 amendments at report stage, and the House adopted another 10 the other day. The positive results of the parliamentary process are there to be seen in the final version of this Bill.
These results were achieved by a joint effort that 1 want to acknowledge. I would first like to express my gratitude to, and respect for, the dozens and dozens of native and other groups which apppeared before the standing committee and made their views known. Second, I want to salute the chairman of the standing committee, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). The Hon. Member offered his patience and wisdom in guiding the committee's deliberations. In the same breath I would like to thank as well my Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz); the two opposition critics, the Hon. Members for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), and all the members of the standing committee for
their long hours and obviously very careful consideration and reflection on this Bill.
I am probably more painfully aware than most in the House that many groups will not be satisfied with this Bill. Some will complain that we should have given band membership directly to the many tens of thousands of descendants of those who lost their membership through discrimination. This Bill says no to that proposition. Only those who themselves had band membership and lost it through sexual discrimination should be restored to band membership. Other groups will complain that we should leave band membership entirely to the bands and let bygones be bygones. This Bill says no to that as well. This Bill says that there is a duty on the part of the federal Government to restore what its laws have unjustly stripped away.
After all the debate, Bill C-31 is, I say with some modesty, a careful balance between two just causes, that of women's rights and that of Indian self-government. If either of those two clauses had triumphed, it could only have been at the expense of the other. Therefore, this Bill avoids both those extremes. No one gets 100 per cent of what they sought, but each group gets something that is vitally important to them. There was no other fair path to follow.
I think now is the time that our thoughts should shift from Bill C-31 to the future. The first step is implementation. The Government understands the heavy responsibility it has in this matter. I have repeatedly assured the House of the Government's commitment to seeing the Bill through to implementation. I want to reiterate today that bands will not become worse off as a result of this Bill.
When Bill C-31 is passed in the Senate and receives Royal Assent, which I expect will be next week, I will announce my Department's administrative arrangements for dealing expeditiously with implementation. In two years this matter will be brought back before us when I report to Parliament on the progress of implementing the Bill. I can assure the House that that report will be extensive and thorough.
I see a real opportunity in this Bill for greater local community control by Indian communities. I hope that virtually all bands will take the initiative to assume control of their own membership. They will also discover, if they do not know now, that the Bill provides other new opportunities for increasing local control over their own communities, to regulate the use of intoxicants, to regulate residency on reserves, and to enforce their by-laws by injunctive relief in court. These are new examples of powers that bands have not had until the passage of this Bill.
I also urge the bands to open their hearts to those 18,000 people, mainly women, whose right to band membership is restored through this Bill. These people are not strangers, they are their own flesh and blood. Now is the time for reconciliation, to welcome back those whom unfair laws had forced to leave.
To those regaining their rights, I offer my sincere best wishes. Their long wait is over. At the same time, 1 would like
June 12, 1985

to suggest to them that they also share in the responsibility of bringing about a true reconciliation. The sensitivity of these people in dealing with the concerns of many band members will accelerate the healing process within Indian communities.
However historic Bill C-31 may be, it is only the first stop on a very long journey. Our goal becomes clear with each passing day: to restore true self-government within the Indian nations of Canada.
Bill C-31 is not self-government. Band control of membership is merely a modest step forward. The main challenge remains, the Constitutional process has not proven to be a shortcut. It is becoming more and more evident that self-government can really be defined only at the band, tribal and community level. That is the next agenda. The two years between now and 1987 will not be lost.
I invite all Hon. Members to join with me in committing to the cause of Indian self-government the same enthusiasm and dedication which has brought Bill C-31 to its final approval in the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you may recall the song with the words, "No, I never promised you a rose garden". No one ever said that being a legislator was easy. If anyone thinks that being a Member of Parliament is like living in a rose garden, some of us, including the Minister, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) who was our chairman, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and the Parliamentary Secretary can attest at least to the thorns.
Bill C-31 has been a conundrum to those of us who have been intimately involved with this legislation for a long period of time. It has been a riddle because one must wonder why so many good intentions, honest endeavours and heartfelt efforts to correct wrongs and injustices in our laws-not Indian tradition-can create possible misery, disharmony and problems.
I hope the Minister's appeal for a reconciliation that would avoid much of that disharmony is forthcoming. I share that sentiment with him totally, but I am not sure it will happen.
Who will incur this possible misery and problems? It will be the Indian First Nations, the Indian bands and the Indian communities. The formation of Bill C-31 is somewhat analogous to the manufacture of gunpowder. Gunpowder is made by taking three non-explosive elements and combining them to produce an explosive mixture. With respect to Bill C-31, there were good and well-intentioned elements which, considered separately, are valid. Yet, when placed together they have the possibility of creating difficulty and turmoil.
First, there were the women who, because of our law, lost their status by marrying non-Indians. At the same time, their brothers who married non-Indians retained their status, and in fact their wives acquired Indian status. If one attempted to
Indian Act
explain that legislation to anyone outside of Canada, or to many Canadians for that matter, they would not believe that we would have such provisions within a statute passed by this Parliament. It makes one wonder what takes place in the House of Commons.
It should serve as a warning to what we do in this Parliament, because I am always apprehensive about passing legislation that will be ridiculed and scorned by future generations of Members of Parliament. I hope that will not be the case.
During this debate we have heaped abuse on Section 12(1)(6) of the Indian Act, which is a totally indefensible provision of that federal statute. It is a provision that enshrined sexual discrimination. The women who were affected by it were rightfully incensed. No one can argue with them. They were joined by women right across the country in a cause celebre. There were court cases. The issue was even brought to the attention of the United Nations, much to Canada's shame. Then along came our Charter of Rights and Freedoms within our own Constitution. This added a new powerful incentive to rid our laws of all discriminatory sections. That is the first element, Mr. Speaker.
The second is the attempt by the Minister to deal with this complex issue. It is an issue the Minister inherited when he was appointed to that portfolio. It is a complex issue that was imposed on him. It is not a problem he created. The Minister realized from the outset that he was dealing, as he said at the beginning of his speech, with an important women's issue, but he was also dealing with an Indian issue, the right of Indians to be self-governing and the right of Indians as self-governing entities to determine their own citizenship or membership, if you prefer. There were two aspects. I think the Minister knows that these two aspects were bound to be on a collision course. It was inevitable. Try as you will, there was bound to be a confrontation. The Minister tried to avert the clash. He said the Bill rested on three pillars, that it was constructed on three basic principles: first, to remove the discriminatory provisions of the Act; second, to restore status and band membership to those who had lost it because of the sex discrimination provisions in the Act, namely that infamous Section 12(1)(B)- isn't it going to be marvellous if we never have to hear any more about 12(1 )(B) when this Bill is passed-third, to ensure that Indian nations, if they wish to do so, could have control over their own membership. Those were the three pillars or principles.
The Minister made it clear that not everyone would be satisfied. There would not be 100 per cent satisfaction on every principle. That is true. When this Bill is passed, there will still be some discriminatory aspects of the Indian Act.
When this Bill is passed, we will not have ended the practice of deciding who is and who is not an Indian and creating categories of Indians.
Just listen to some of the categories we create because of our legislation and policy, Mr. Speaker. We have registered Indians and status Indians. We have non-status Indians and band

June 12, 1985
Indian Act
list Indians. We have Indian children of reinstated Indians. We have treaty Indians and reserve Indians and off-reserve Indians. And so it goes.
Finally, on the matter of not everyone being 100 per cent satisfied, we know that the Bill will give only partial control to the Indian First Nations over their own memberships. It is partly recognized and partly affirmed. Of course, it is true that the Minister has said that this is only a beginning and there is a future to which we must look, and no one here can have any disagreement with that.
Let me remind the House once again of the assertion of the Indian First Nations, an assertion that was solidly supported by the all-Party unanimous report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. The assertion was that it is the rightful jurisdiction of each Indian First Nation to determine its membership according to its own particular criteria. All Hon. Members in this House may not agree with that assertion. I say to them that it is, in my view-and I think those who served on the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government would agree-an aboriginal right, and when we tinker, meddle or interfere in matters related to membership within an Indian First Nation, we are clearly outside of our jurisdiction, we are into someone else's jurisdiction. That right by Indian First Nations was never surrendered to any Parliament of Canada. It was assumed by us in our Constitution of 1867 and by the passage of the Indian Act that we have some prerogatives in dealing with Indian band membership and citizenship.
What we did was to usurp that right. It was never surrendered to us. It was never given to us. We simply took it. Never was it relinquished at any time by Indian First Nations. Therefore, it follows logically that, when Indian leaders and Indian Governments say to us they reject fully and completely any federal interference in such matters. They say we are simply and clearly out of our element. It is beyond our authority. But we do it every time we decide who is and who is not an Indian, and what are the different kinds of Indians, those categories to which I referred a moment ago. To engage in this exercise is presumptuous beyond reason. It is presumptuous when we do it now, just as it was presumptuous of those parliamentarians who preceded us and did it in a fashion that left us with this awkward, embarrassing situation that we have to try to resolve. We cannot do it satisfactorily. We could not do it satisfactorily through the Bill presented by the previous Government and we cannot do it satisfactorily through this Bill, try as we will.
I think the difficulty is that we have forgotten from history what should never have been ignored but has been ignored until very recently when we amended and added to the Canadian Constitution. There was something we forgot that could have pointed the way and avoided for us so much of the difficulty in which we have enmeshed ourselves over a long period of time. I am referring to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It is not my intention to make too much of that document. I know it is a colonialist document. It is not a Magna Carta for Indian people by any means. But it did
provide for us, and it could have provided for previous generations, at least a modus operandi, a way to proceed, that would have avoided so much of the difficulty and so many of the problems that now entangle us hand and foot.
If only we had only followed the prescription which was clearly laid down and proceeded on the basis of nation to nation, government to government, Crown to Indian First Nations. That was the way to proceed. If we had proceeded that way, what would the result have been? Instead of usurping authority that did not belong to us and instead of assuming unto ourselves the power to legislate for these people, these first citizens of Canada, we would have proceeded by way of negotiation leading to agreement. That is the way it was done with the treaties. That is why most Indian people in this country who have treaties, even though they recognize they are far from perfect documents and that a much more powerful Government took advantage of them, regard them as sacred, not so much for every substance in a treaty itself, every item and clause in a treaty, but because of the way in which the treaties were reached through negotiation leading toward agreement.
When we followed that approach in modern times, we were able to avoid, to a significant extent but not entirely, many of the problems foisted upon us by the Indian Act. For example, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was negotiated and agreed upon. Members of Parliament, in the House and in committee, indicated that they did not like certain aspects of that agreement. They had to be reminded that their job was not to renegotiate that agreement but simply to ratify it and that, if they did not like certain parts of the agreement, it would have to be returned to the signatories for renegotiation. That approach is one which must always be followed and never abandoned. Although the approach to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was correct, we have to say that once again the Government of Canada failed in its implementation. Thank goodness an all-Party committee decided to take the Government to task and make it live up to its obligations. We grabbed government Members by their shirt collars and gave them a good shaking, and they responded with some protest by saying that they had lived up to the legal obligations but may have betrayed the spirit of it a little. They betrayed the spirit more than a little. In any event, it demonstrates why there is so much suspicion and hesitancy to engage with parliamentarians and with Governments in these kinds of agreements.
If there is difficulty in that respect, how much more is there when it is done unilaterally, or when we pretend that there has been some kind of consultative process when something has already been put in place and we just allow briefs to be presented and viewpoints to be expressed and call it consultation?
Another example of the approach which I am advocating is the Cree-Naskapi Act. That Act was not unilaterally devised by the Government with the help of private Members of the
June 12, 1985

House of Commons. It was worked out over a very long period of time, clause by clause, with government officials and officials of the Cree-Naskapi peoples. When the Bill came before the House, we knew that what we were doing was ratifying the agreement. That is the way we must proceed at all times in the future.
Another example would be the agreement which was reached with the Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement, the so-called COPE Agreement, and the people who live in the Mackenzie Delta and the Beaufort Sea area of northern Canada.
Through the various stages of Bill C-31-and it has been a lengthy and difficult exercise-we thought we were allowing some room for consultation. I have nothing but praise for the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin. He did everything he could to accommodate as many witnesses as possible. I have only praise for his work and his leadership in that committee. However, the kind of consultation we have is not the same as negotiation leading to agreement. This is why in the Indian community of Canada "consultation" is a stained word, a word which we can hardly use, a word which has become suspect.
When Bill C-31 has been passed, we will have driven out, if I can use such language, an unclean spirit from the Indian Act. That unclean spirit is sex discrimination. St. Luke's Gospel tells us what these unclean spirits do when they are driven out. According to St. Luke, they tend to pass through waterless places seeking rest but they find none. Then they return to their place of origin and find that everything is swept and in order, at which point they say: "Oh, look how everything is clean and orderly", and invite in seven of their friends. That is a very unusual mid-eastern biblical way to describe a problem of today. What St. Luke is saying, very simply in modern language, is that depending on how we proceed to solve problems, the end result may prove to be a state which is worse than the original situation. I hope I did not lose you on that, Mr. Speaker.
Let me deal with it from another point of view. In my first year as a Member of Parliament, I met in the corridor upstairs a Cabinet Minister whom I greatly respected. He supposed that I had come down here to solve the problems of my constituents and of Canadians in general. I told him that that was my hope, and he gave me a word of advice. He said: "You will probably discover at the end of your career, whenever that is, that for every problem you solved or attempted to solve, in all likelihood you have created seven more". I thought of that when I read in the newspaper this morning about an Indian woman who had lost her status through marriage and was reported to have said that it was unfortunate that the discriminatory provisions and the Government's attempt to correct them have caused hostility and deep divisions within Indian communities. Then she went on to say: "We are all victims of a very bad law, and it is going to take 10 years of healing".
Indian Act
I believe deeply and passionately that our colonizing measures and attempts to deal with Indian people must end. The policies of termination, assimilation and mainstreaming must halt. It is time to recognize fully and unequivocally, without any hesitation, the right of Indian people to self-government, to govern with the consent of their own people and to govern being responsible to their own people. We want them to participate in Confederation; we want them to be partners in Confederation. They have been kept out from the beginning. We want them to participate, but their participation in our Confederation, as I emphasized earlier, should be by way of negotiation leading to agreement. Let us honour those agreements when we make them. Let us not hedge, fudge, legalize, squirm and wiggle our way out. Let us make honest and good agreements and stand by them. That is the way Indian First Nations and Indian people want to participate in our Confederation.
In any event, we must proceed on the basis of Government to Government. That may sound a little incongruous because we are talking about our Government, which is big and powerful, in comparison with many Governments of Indian First Nations, which are small, but surely that is not an argument against dealing Goverment to Government. After all, we do not hesitate to go to Washington, to Moscow or to any other nation much larger than our own, to deal Government to Government for the benefit of our people and their people at the same time. That is the way in which we must proceed.
When we recognize that Indian self-government is the only way that we can proceed in living together with the Indian people of this country, then we have to recognize at the same time that the right to control their own membership is an essential aspect of Indian self-government. It is a cornerstone of Indian self-government; it is the underpinning of self-government. If you cannot control your own membership then what does self-government mean?
The process whereby we decide who is and who is not an Indian must cease. We cannot go on categorizing Indian people into all these various divisions, arrangements and a range and varieties of groups and sub-groups. When one thinks about it, does it not offend one's sense of human rights to do this to the first citizens of Canada, to divide them up into all these groups as if they were exhibits in a zoo, to put them in these categories with a title of status or non-status, in all of these various divisions that I mentioned earlier? It is repugnant; it violates my sense of human rights, and I am sure the other Hon. Members of this House feel the same way. The constant meddling and interfering in the internal matters of Indian First Nations must stop, and it must stop now.
Let me say, for the benefit of Members who may think otherwise, that those who within the Indian community oppose this Bill are not opposing it because they want to see sex discrimination continue; on the contrary. Within the Indian community there is opposition to this Bill because they see it

June 12, 1985
Indian Act
as based upon faulty premises whereby we proceed to solve problems which belong to us and which have been created by us at the expense of the Indian people.
The community hearings and the debates in this House on Bill C-31 have been spirited, vigorous and often emotional. There is one question that will continue to be in my mind, which is, has any real light been shed on the issue of Indian rights? Do we understand even a little bit better now than we did before? Within my own caucus we have many meetings, and I know that there are now many members of my caucus who had never before acquainted themselves with this issue who now have the beginnings of some comprehension, and for that I am grateful. I am sure that there are other members of the commitee who had not been immersed in this problem for a long period of time who also began to understand and to appreciate the significance of Indian rights.
Have we learned enough, as the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East suggested yesterday, so that we will not be back here again in the near future chasing ourselves down the very same dark and dead-end valley? It is time for a new day. It is time, as the Minister said, to put all this behind us and move into the future when we will recognize the right of Indian self-government and their right to determine their membership. When we recognize those rights, then we can no longer go on interfering, meddling and creating problems, and in trying to solve them, creating more problems.
May I say to you, Your Honour, let there be light.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the sex discrimination in the Indian Act, Bill C-31 has finally moved to redress a long-standing wrong against Indian women and against the Indian community. Like most of our legislation, it continues to be written in sexually exclusive language. I think we need to remember the words of the philosopher that "the limits of my language are the limits of my world". If we use sexually exclusive language, then we are limiting the world of over one half of the population of Canada. I believe it is time for the Parliament of Canada to clean up all of its Acts, including the Indian Act, to use sexually inclusive language. I am pleased to understand that there is a committee working with the Department of Justice on this issue. I think it is important to flag it right at the beginning.
I first raised this issue on March 5, 1981, when the Sandra Lovelace case was before the United Nations, and other parliamentarians had raised the issue before that. In 1981, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. John Munro, indicated to the United Nations that Canada would soon be introducing legislation to end the discrimination and that this legislation would give bands the ability to pass by-laws on membership. He promised that this legislation would be introduced by mid-1981. Instead, the Liberal Government waited until June of 1984 before introducing Bill C-47. With only two weeks to go before recess, the Government pushed the Bill through as a final attempt to redress the issue. Indian witnesses had only a few hours to address the Bill. Yet, with a lot of pressure from the Liberal
Government, the Bill did pass through the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it passed through this House on the last day of our sitting, with all-Party support. Then it was stopped in the Senate.
Between the Sandra Lovelace case in 1981 and the Liberal Bill C-47 in 1984, we were given a steady diet of leaked government memoranda and secret documents supplemented by regular statements and press releases that promised action. When the Liberal solution, Bill C-47, finally did come, it raised many problems for all concerned. The Bill was so poorly written that the committee had to make some basic changes simply to make it consistent. The Bill ignored the consensus that had been reached earlier that year between the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations when they met in Edmonton. The Government said that it had not had time to talk to either group about that proposal. The Minister responsible at that time for the status of women, the Hon. Judy Erola, went even further and described the AFN/Native Women's Association consensus as inadequate.
The Liberal Bill, Mr. Speaker, made absolutely no provision, nor does this Bill, for band control of membership, but instead used blood line provisions to decide band membership. It made no provision for providing the necessary funds to meet the needs of reinstated members. The Liberal Government, in fact, could not even provide Members of the House with realistic figures of the costs. Estimates ranged between $50 million and $250 million. Increasing funding to Indian bands to meet the needs was to be at the Government's initiative, and as the Liberals had been in power through the years when Indian conditions deteriorated, it is hard to believe that the Liberals would have provided the necessary funding.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the Liberals and Conservatives voted together to defeat my motion that would have recognized the right of Indian band councils to make by-laws controlling the residency on reserves of non-Indians that would not have jeopardized the right of any band member to reside on the reserve. Liberals and Conservatives supported the clause giving band councils the right to control the residency not only of non-Indians but also of band members.
What hypocrisy! A year ago, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development was dealing with Bill C-47, the Liberal Bill on the same subject, and Clause 8 of Bill C-47 gave residency rights to non-Indian spouses. I moved for its deletion, Mr. Speaker, because I believed then, as I believe now, that Indian bands should have the right to determine the residency of non-Indians on reserves. My motion was defeated by the same group of Liberals and Conservatives who defeated my other motion yesterday. Last year they refused to recognize the right of band councils to determine residency for non-Indians. Yesterday they wanted the band councils to have the right to control residency, even the residency of band members. I find that inconsistency very hard to understand.
June 12, 1985

June 12, 1985
Indian Act
Minister at least introduced an amendment which made it clear that band councils can involve the full membership of the band in setting out band membership criteria.
I think it is important to remember that we are dealing with 100 years of history. In that 100 years, many Indian systems of accountability were deliberately broken down by the agents of the Government. Because our Government has broken down Indian systems of accountability, we cannot simply walk away from the system, say that we are involved in decolonizing and that all we have to do is to sign our name to a document. It is more complex than that. I would have liked to have seen the Government include some of my amendments which provided for basic appeal processes and some basic accountability. Some bands might not wish to include it, but I believe most bands will do that of their own accord.
One of the most important amendments which, unfortunately, was ruled out of order because it infringes on the Government's financial prerogatives, would have provided funding and land for reinstated band members. The Minister talked about the three principles on which this Bill was constructed. I maintain there is a fourth principle which should have been included, that is, the principle of adequate funding and land for reinstated band members. The Minister talked about the need for reconciliation, and now is the time when reconciliation is badly needed. I want to emphasize that reconciliation will become impossible if government funds are not made available to deal with this situation. Witness after witness emphasized this point, yet the Government was not willing to write a basic financial provision into the legislation.
This is a great weakness in the Bill. The Minister in testimony admitted the appalling nature of Indian conditions across Canada. Those Hon. Members in the House right now are fully aware of the unemployment on Indian reserves. It is 80 per cent and 90 per cent in some cases. We are aware of the terrible housing and health statistics, the suicide rate, the incident of alcoholism and family violence. We know that these problems cannot be solved simply by throwing money at them, but we also know, or we should know and should recognize, that they will be made worse if we are not willing to provide the basic financial resources necessary to deal with them.
The Government's track record on providing necessary funding is so poor that Indian nations are quite correct in being very concerned and suspicious about any increase in on-reserve population. Budget shortfalls have been common for years, so they are not the specific problem of this Government. But the Indian nations have a special concern now because the lack of financial guarantees in Bill C-31 coincides with the secret Conservative task force studying Indian Affairs budgets. This is the same backroom approach which the Liberals used, and it is time, I think, Mr. Speaker, that we opened up a funding process instead of continuing to confine it to the back rooms.
The Indian people should be brought directly into the budget process. In April, Members of Parliament and the
Indian people first learned some of the details of what was cynically called in the Government's own document, "Operation Buffalo Jump" of the 1980s. That is the Conservative's secret report on how they could make cuts in Indian Affairs and other native programs. "Operation Buffalo Jump" attempts to walk away from the trust in and responsibility to the Indian people of the federal Government. The report, constructed totally in the back rooms without any Indian involvement, casts a very serious shadow on this Government's credibility on native issues in general and on this Bill in particular.
The Minister has given his personal word that the funds will be forthcoming to deal with any increased expenditures arising out of Bill C-31 on a case by case basis. But, Mr. Speaker, the personal word is the kind of style we should have left behind with John Munro and the Liberals. Personal word is not enough. It does not work. Ministers come and go, and in the meantime the Indian people get stuck with paying the bill.
We can look at the betrayal of senior citizens in the present Budget. The Indian people are aware of that as well. That makes them wonder very seriously how much the Government's commitment to provide financing for their needs really means. They have seen the Government's betrayal of senior citizens and wonder whether they are next. They saw the Nielsen task force working away while the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) were meeting with Indian people at the First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal rights and the Constitution.
'Operation Buffalo Jump' is a reprint of the 1969 Liberal White Paper. It amounts to nothing more than a cruel blueprint to use Indians as the shock troops in the Government's fiscal policy. First, we send in the waves of senior citizens, then follow the Indians. It is going to be the same kind of massacre we saw at Galipoli. Even the name of the report 'Operation Buffalo Jump' is cynical, racist and objectionable on that basis.
With the appointment of a new Minister there was hope that Indian people would receive a better hearing from the Government. The land claims policy was going to be reviewed. Indian people now wonder where that review might take them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but by virtue of our Standing Orders, only the Minister moving the motion and the critic of the Official Opposition has unlimited time. The Hon. Member's time is up unless the Hon. Member asks for consent to continue.


James Douglas Manly: It is customary, Mr. Speaker, for the first speaker in the opposition Party to have extra time, and I would ask for that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to grant the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) extra time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 12, 1985


James Douglas Manly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank Hon. Members for this courtesy.
Land claims policies are now being reviewed and we wonder where such reviews will take us. Indian people are wondering where they are going to end up with the reviewed land claims policy. Will the Government address the serious need of Indian peoples for land, or will it simply take more away from the Indian population and give it to large resource companies, particularly in the North?
The Minister called for reconciliation. We agree with that call. This should be a time for reconciliation. I want to emphasize to the Minister and to all Hon. Members of the Government that the Government itself has to play a key role in that reconciliation. The provision of adequate financial resources is absolutely crucial if there is going to be reconciliation and not more difficulty.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the women who are going to be reinstated to band membership, and other people as well, have a great contribution to make to their own nations. I think that most Indian people across the country are looking forward to this with a sense of celebration. Even while I say that, I know that others are strongly opposed to it. But I believe there are a great many Indian people who look forward to it with a sense that they will be reunited in band membership with their sisters and daughters, nieces and cousins, and this is an important step. They have a contribution to make and they are going to be able to make it.
The Assembly of First Nations, when it appeared before the committee, said, "We are glad to re-state our pleasure that the Government has moved dramatically toward the position that the Assembly of First Nations has put forward in the past. There has been a real attempt to recognize First Nations' self-determination of citizenship". It went on to say that there were still elements of distrust, however, in parts of this Bill, the first most basic criticism of its provision being:
The limitations on band control of membership in the clauses on compulsory reinstatement and in the clauses on acquired rights represent a final paternalistic or colonial thrust by the Government of Canada.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that this is not one of the points on which the Government was prepared to move. I can only presume that the Assembly of First Nations feels a great disappointment that the Government was not prepared to accept that suggestion. They continue:
A third basic point is that this reform must not be at the expense of the ongoing constitutional process. The fundamental principle of the First Nations' self-determination must receive constitutional recognition, and with it the basic right of self-determination of citizenship. On this understanding we can proceed with proper reform legislation.
The constitutional process has bogged down, at least temporarily, and I urge the Government to get on with it and make resources available so it can move ahead with the constitutional processs. The Indian people see that as absolutely essential to recognition of their right to self-government. They continue:
Indian Act
A final basic point is our continuing concern for adequate arrangements in relation to reserve lands, band funds, program funding.
I regret that the Government has not moved to provide adequate arrangements for program funding, band funds or adequate lands. As New Democrats, we want to see Indian self-government recognized with the proper funds in order to make decision making at the local level a reality. We have seen the First Ministers meet time and again to discuss aboriginal rights, only to restate, like Premier Bennett, that they do not understand what the term means.
Bill C-31 is a small step toward redressing some of the injustices of the past. It is a step toward recognizing the right of Indian peoples toward deciding their own membership. It is a small step, an important step, and I want to commend the Minister for taking it.
We have not washed our hands of this issue yet. The last part of Bill C-31 calls for a report. The Minister has promised that report will be very detailed and will be referred to the committee. I am sure the committee will want to examine it closely. The impact of this legislation on bands all across Canada demands the very closest scrutiny on the part of the Government and members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I am pleased to see that the Government has included that amendment. This is an important element of what we are attempting to do in Bill C-31, but, in conclusion, we cannot feel that great about it. It is a small step which some Indian peoples see as a negative, others see as a positive but not going far enough. However, it is a step in the right direction and 1 want to commend the Minister and his Government for taking it.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a Member who has an interest in this Bill and as one who served as chairman of the committee. As anyone who serves as chairman of a committee knows, it is often difficult to express your views or question witnesses. The chairman's job is to attempt to keep members of the committee on course, keep order, and run the meeting in the best way possible.
It is often difficult for Members to put up with the personal tactics which a particular member may use in committee. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for putting up with those tactics which I may have used from time to time but which I felt were helpful in our attempts to deal with this Bill. I recognize that as chairman you make few friends when you have to deal with a particular question. I also realize that being chairman of a committee is a very important responsibility, one which I take seriously and took seriously when I assumed that responsibility. As chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I know that we attempted to retain the reputation that committee has had over the years of finding solutions to the problems of Indian people in an impartial manner.
In the past the Committee has had very little legislation of a controversial nature brought before it. As a result, members of the Indian community looked highly upon the committee as a group of people who were helpful. Indeed, we were helpful over the years in certain areas, as was pointed out by the Hon.

June 12, 1985
Indian Act
Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). He is a past chairman of the Committee and he acted very responsibly and took his duties seriously. We assisted in the matter of the James Bay Agreement and other problems across the country. As everyone knows, we are popular when we take on the bureaucrats for the way they spend money given by Parliament to the Minister. However, from time to time this House gives the committee legislation which does not make us too popular with the people we have to represent.
1 noted that the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior said that we had something analogous to gunpowder. I looked at it as kind of having a tornado by the tail because it was always twisting. As we brought witnesses before the committee, they gave emotional testimony as to how this Bill was going to affect them as communities and as individuals, and then another witness or group of witnesses came before us and said that if we did that, it would affect them in such a way and we simply could not take that advice.
Each day we went through that kind of testimony from various bands across this country and their representative organizations. The committee tried to take that testimony seriously. We tried to deal with it in a manner which we felt would best accommodate the various interests and yet not harm the communities too much. I want to commend the members of that committee for doing what I feel was an excellent job. I also want to say to the Minister that we appreciate the work he did. He was available when we needed him, he was flexible, and yet he tenaciously stuck to his principles. Knowing that the Cabinet and the Minister had certain principles they were not going to deviate from was helpful to the Committee.
As we look back over the history of the past 100 years, we know that governments were reluctant to deal with these problems because they were difficult. This Minister inherited a problem which had to be dealt with because we adopted a Constitution and society said it was time to deal with this problem. Bill C-31 was brought to the House and went through various stages, and we are now in the final stages of passing those changes in the House of Commons.
As was stated by the previous speaker, it is not that those who opposed the Bill are for discrimination. That is not the case at all. The concern is with regard to the impact of this legislation. There is concern about people who will return to their communities after not having been there for a long time. There is concern about the resources that have been available to try to build a life for the people who stayed in the community. There is concern about whether the Government will provide sufficient resources if new people decide to move to the reservations.
1 know that many individuals here would not be happy if the Government attempted to impose changes on their community without proper negotiation and settlement beforehand. In committee and over the years we attempted to consult with the people involved. Parliament acted with good intentions. However, I agree with the Member for Cochrane-Superior that it is not the same as negotiation and agreement. We are dealing with a jurisdiction that has never been given up by the Indian people of the country. One wonders how a legislator can accept responsibility for them. Yet, laws which have been passed in Parliament have assumed that jurisdiction. They have assumed that the Parliament of Canada had responsibility for the Indian people of the country.
I know that there will be difficulties with regard to the removal of discrimination and that problems will be caused for bands as people return to the communities. I also recognize that the starting point for allowing Indian people to resume responsibility for their own government is contained in this Bill.
I enjoyed the year and one half that I spent touring the country on the special committee on Indian self-government. We went from province to province, reserve to reserve, and community to community listening to testimony. We then worked diligently to put that testimony into a report. Now that Parliament has dealt with this law, I hope that the Government can move quickly to be as helpful as possible to Indian bands across the country. I hope that the Government can move quickly to return the responsibility for self-government, which they never gave up, to the Indian people.
The message that I want to leave here today is that I hope the committee can now get on with that work. I believe that we have done the best that we can to deal with this legislation in a fair manner. Members from all sides of the House have contributed to it. Amendments have been accepted from all sides of the House in an attempt to make the Bill even better. 1 agree with the Minister and other Members who have spoken that now is the time to reconcile the differences and to get on with the very important job of restoration of self-government to Indian people across the country.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two comments in connection with this matter. As a Member of Parliament I represent three tribes of Indians; the Blackfoot, the Sarcee, and the Stony. I believe that a Member should reflect the thinking of the people who send him here. My Indian constituents are strongly opposed to the Bill. They look upon it with fear and trembling.
They say that they signed Treaty No. 7 with the Queen and accept that as gospel. The Queen gave them the right to operate their own reserves without outside interference. They are the master in the reserve, the same as a father and mother are masters of their own home. They object to the assumption that we now give them something which they believe they already have. The chiefs and band councils of all three of these tribes look upon the passage of this Bill with fear and trembling.
At present there is a lack of housing on the Sarcee reserve. The chief estimates that 500 people may come on to the reserve in addition to the 750 who live there now. What will the situation be? There is a lack of land. Will we create reserves within reserves, or will we extend the reserves? Many
June 12, 1985

of these problems have not been answered, and they are worrying our people.
The bottom line is that the Indians whom I represent want to preserve their culture. It is a question of survival within the realm of their own decrees and customs. They want self-government within our nation, but they want it to be in the Indian way on each reserve without interference by other governments or organizations that do not like the customs of our native people.
Members of the Blackfoot, Sarcee, and Stony tribes are good Canadian citizens. They have excellent statesmen. When the law is passed, they will endeavour to live by it. We must all co-operate to the highest degree because there is a possibility of tremendous strife developing when we categorize the people who will live on a reserve. It will be a challenge to make this Bill work for those who presently disagree with it.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on third reading of Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act, I would like to reiterate some of the comments that I made at first reading stage and to relate some of the lessons that I have learned and some of the observations that I have gleaned in the committee process of examination and debate of the Bill. As far as possible I would like to avoid repeating those comments that have been made by previous speakers and to try to confine myself to my own assessment of the impact of this legislation and the challenge that it poses for this and future Parliaments. Let there be no doubt that this revision of the Indian Act, by its very nature, is in no way a final solution to the very many difficulties that this institution's habit of legislating for Indian people what they should rightly and legitimately legislate for themselves has caused.
I believe that I will be the only new Member to speak on this Bill. I am fully conscious of the responsibility that rests upon me by virtue of representing more Indian bands than any other Member of the House. As Bill C-31 stands it is, at best, a mechanism for a transition which it starts but is not going to accomplish fully. I believe the Minister himself said that it does not correct all problems, and I certainly support that assessment. However, as he observed, it does represent the first revision of the Indian Act in a generation. It is a sad comment on the process in which we are engaged that it cannot represent the last revision for a generation but does in fact, in itself, contain the seeds of the necessity for future revisions.
A favourable aspect of the Bill is that it requires a report back to Parliament in two years on the impact of the Bill. I am hopeful that in two years time, while some Members may not relish the prospect, some of the imperfections in the Bill will have made themselves manifest by their effects and we will in fact be in a position to correct some of the problems which this Bill will create by its passage. Problems are never stamped out. They may be stamped, but only into many smaller reflections of the major problem which existed in the first place.
Indian Act
I am pleased that the Minister, in the last few days before the Bill came back to the House, introduced a measure to empower bands to pass legislation on the regulation of intoxicants on reserves. I believe that one of the unwelcome consequences of the Charter of Rights was that the bands were essentially stripped of their power to regulate intoxicants. 1 am glad that this legislation empowers bands afresh with that ability to regulate intoxicants.
At the same time, as the Minister observed, the Bill places band control of membership in the hands of the bands. It certainly does not place in their hands the full control of membership that bands should have. Let me quote from a resolution of the Chiefs of Ontario who state that Bill C-31 should "recognize the exclusive right of First Nations Governments to determine their own citizenship". As we know, that exclusive right is at some variance with the need to put Bill C-31 into a form where it does not discriminate against those females who married outside the band. Nevertheless, we must indeed hope that this is the last time that the House of Commons will see an abrogation, because it is an abrogation, of the rights of First Nations to determine their own citizenship.
I believe that I learned something from my daughter a couple of weeks ago. When discussing matters of citizenship and ethnicity and race, my daughter insisted that she was fully Chinese because her mother is Chinese. Perhaps she has grasped a truth that had escaped the House of Commons for many years-the dominant role of the mother in the transmission of a person's identity. I believe it is justly said that morality can never be fully legislated. Today, we are trying to legislate identity which also cannot be fully controlled or predicted by legislation. Therefore, our effort is doomed to a partial failure at the very least.
The process which we went through in committee examination of Bill C-31 was, in some ways, a tragedy. That is not meant as a criticism of any Member of the House. However, we were negotiating under that deadline set by the Charter of Rights. While we missed that deadline by a couple of weeks, the legitimate objective of the Government was to avoid the court challenges to the Indian Act which would have inevitably resulted had the legislation not been passed.
I agree with my colleagues who have said that there was not enough consultation in the framing of the amendments to Bill C-31 and in the framing of the Bill itself and not enough consultation in the committee process. We were denied the opportunity to seat representatives of the aboriginal organizations as members of the committee for the process of examining Bill C-31. That is an opportunity that I would have liked to have seen taken advantage of. Heaven forbid that we should go again to a major revision of legislation that so dramatically impacts the lives of Indian people without the special seats reserved on the committee for Indian people in order for their leaders to represent the people's views and needs before the committee.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) spoke of the way in which the Bill will create classes of

June 12, 1985
Indian Act
Indians. I would charge the Minister with the objective in future revisions that we should be able to eliminate the classifications of Indian people to the point where there will just be the one classification, namely those people who are Indians and members of a band and who are recognized as Indians and band members by virtue of the due process operation of the membership code of the band to which they belong.
There are major funding issues that have not been addressed in the Bill. They have been touched on. Other issues include population on reserves, equity, delivery of the same programs to all members of a particular band residing on the reserve, the inadequacy of housing, the differential way in which people are to be reinstated which leads to those different classes of Indians that have been mentioned.
We must indeed hope that this is the last time that legislation will further divide Indian people and that all future legislation will be designed to lessen those divisions rather than create new divisions and in some ways also perpetuate old divisions, which is what we have seen.
Let me quote further from the resolution of the Chiefs of Ontario regarding Bill C-31. "Each First Nation will establish membership codes. Each First Nation shall establish an appeal mechanism". I believe that the commitment of Indian people to the establishment of membership codes and appeal mechanisms is of paramount importance because it is a commitment that is made, regardless of what action is taken or not taken by Parliament.
This is a point on which I would like to expand further. The fact is that Indian nations today are formulating their own membership codes or citizenship codes. They will be doing this obviously with an eye to legislation and an eye to the decisions of Parliament. However, they will be doing it in the free exercise of their independent right. As the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) observes, they never abrogated their free independent right to determine their own citizenship. Indian people have come a very long way since the time when Government was personified as the "Great White Mother" in the treaties. I use the term "Great White Mother" advisedly because the majority of Indian people in Canada today are in treaties that were signed in the time of Queen Victoria. Indian people today are very well cognizant of what the federal Government can do to their lives and what the federal Government is not able to do to their lives. It is in appreciation of those parameters that they are, themselves, developing those membership codes.
I received a telephone call from Chief Charlie Nash of one of the bands in my riding, instancing the reservations that the Chiefs of Ontario had placed in their resolution. I would like to have read the entire resolution into the record, but it would take too long to do so.
I understand there is in my riding today a petition circulating against Bill C-31 instancing, of course, the degree to which Bill C-31 abrogates the inherent life of Indian First Nations to determine their own membership. Nevertheless, I think I have
to say that we must remember the dictum, I believe of Clausewitz, Das Politik ist der Pratik von das Moglichkeit, translated normally into English as politics is the art of the possible.
We have been presented in the continued operation of the former Indian Act, the way in which it divided Indian people and the way in which it controlled virtually every aspect of life in a fashion that otherwise would not be permissible in a democratic society, with a Gordian knot, such that Alexander solved by completely severing it. That is not an option possible to us.
We must in the best spirit and the best faith possible do our best to unravel that knot. It is in the context of unravelling that knot that I would say Bill C-31, for all its deficiencies and drawbacks, is nevertheless a first step that has been worthwhile taking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there any questions or comments? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1985-86 (No. 2) MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 28, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of State (Finance)) that Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks concerning this Bill and the Government's request to the House for borrowing authority as it relates to the Government's programs for this year. Before I get to the subject matter of the Bill, let me say that the Canadian public is rallying behind the demand by senior citizens not to have their pensions deindexed. I believe this feeling goes far beyond that one policy of the Government as announced in the Budget.
Let us examine what happened as far as the Government's spending program is concerned for this year. Certain decisions were made last November and last October in an effort to reduce the amount of money required by the Government of Canada in the normal operation of the Government. I refer specifically to actions that did not receive very much attention nationally and that did not receive very much attention in the House of Commons. For example, when the decision was made in an effort to save money so that the books of the Government of Canada would not look, as it claimed, all that bad, the
June 12, 1985

Government took certain actions that impacted on people in such a way as to be clear discrimination against people of certain ages.
It was decided in order to save x number of dollars to use the income of a person from his or her separation of employment. In other words, when somebody today, as of March 31 gone by, receives an amount of money from his or her employer, whether it be separation pay, accumulated sick leave benefits, no matter what it is, that person in receiving that money would impact on other federal Government programs, specifically, unemployment insurance. If you receive say, $2,000 on separation of your employment and if you were eligible to receive $200 a week unemployment insurance upon separation, then the new policy says you cannot receive it until after the first 10 weeks. When you look at that as a cumulative effect on somebody's income he or she received after being employed, you discover that in a great many cases people lost as much as $12,500 because you have to take into account what that person would have been eligible to receive and what that person now loses as it relates to payments upon separation of employment.
If that were not bad enough in trying to save money for the Government of Canada, what the Government did was to say we will also take into account all payments received in the form of pensions. How many thousands upon thousands of people take early retirement? How many people in the Armed Forces leave after 20 years, go to work after that and now, although they paid into unemployment insurance, they cannot draw it because of the measures taken by the Government of Canada in the last November statement in an effort to save money, in an effort, so the Government of Canada says, not to have to borrow as much, so as to reduce the deficit.
What we had was a cumulative effect of these measures. First, if you worked all of your life, you always had in Canada that benefit given to you that you paid in all your life. You could draw a year's unemployment insurance if you so wished. That was taken away because you now take into account your severance pay, your cumulative sick leave pay, in fact all payments made by the employer upon separation of employment. Then the Government in the same measure said that all pensions received will be taken into account as income for unemployment insurance benefits.
You can imagine someone who has worked for the Government of Canada for years receiving a small pension on leaving, receiving separation pay, losing cumulatively $12,500 and then not being allowed to draw unemployment insurance after having paid it. A millionaire who could have investment income, drawing income from the bank or investment is not affected. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the Government of Canada said that only pension incomes will be taken into account.
The Government of Canada talked about old age pensions and said it was going to deindex those to a certain degree, but that was only one thing in a long list of things that have been done since the new Government of Canada took office. There are things that were not talked about very much, not discussed
Borrowing Authority Act
very much, not talked about in the committees and not examined very much, but the person who is ceasing his employment after many years knows the effects compared to previous years.
As well, along the same trend, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada took certain actions which I suppose look good on paper but which affect people to a very great degree. In some cases I do not believe the Minister in charge of that Department really knew what the effect would be down the line. I will give you as an example, Sir, the reduction in the home repair program given by the Minister as being a way of reducing the deficit, a way of reducing expenditures in his Department.
Many offices throughout the country were delivery agents for RRAP and existed on income from the Government of Canada for processing applications forms. In other words, delivery agents received about $500 for processing an application form under that program. In some cases it was $450, in other cases it was $500, and in northern areas it was over $1,000 for each application form. The offices with their clerks, inspectors and managers existed on that income. Whether the delivery agent was a national anti-poverty organization, a provincial housing authority or a municipality, that is how the system worked. The Government of Canada came along, said that it wanted to save money and chopped funds from RRAP. No one thought about-and certainly departmental officials did not think about it-what would happen after the amount was reduced by the Minister and it was realized that the income from the processing of applications would not be adequate to keep those offices going.
What have we seen over the past few months? We have seen these offices close and delivery agents disappear. We have heard provincial administrations saying that they cannot make up the difference to maintain those offices. Now we see vast areas of the country, which were covered before, not being covered. The people involved have been asking for a calculation of the cut, how the amount was arrived at. Nationally it is a 25 per cent cut, whereas in Newfoundland it is 44 per cent.
Let us look at the absolute inaction on the part of the Government of Canada as it relates to certain things which should be done. In the name of reducing the deficit, the Government has not even looked at them. One example would be the federal minimum wage and its effect on poor people. On January 1, 1985, at least five provinces increased their minimum wage, and a couple of provinces since then have done so. There is an unwritten rule-it is not in legislation nor in the regulations-which says that the federal minimum wage will be equal to the average across the country.
The federal minimum wage applies to federal property and to all agencies, organizations and groups regulated under the Canada Labour Code; in other words, radio stations and various other operations. There is a reason for that. We do not want a janitor, for example, to receive a higher minimum wage for working for a private business one week than he would
5698

June 12, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
receive for working under contract in a federal government building or for an agency controlled by the federal Government.
What has happened since the new Progressive Conservative Government took over? Nothing has happened in terms of the federal minimum wage. It has not moved one cent. What has been the result of that? If we look across the country, we see that the federal minimum wage is lower than the minimum wage of the provinces. In British Columbia, the minimum wage is about $3.65 per hour; in Alberta, $3.85; in Manitoba, $4.30 or $4.35; in Ontario, $4.00; in Quebec, which is the highest, $4.58 or $4.60; in New Brunswick, $4.20; in Nova Scotia, $4; in Newfoundland, $4; and in Prince Edward Island, $3.85. Probably for the first time in our history the federal minimum wage at $3.50 per hour is lower than the minimum wage of every provincial administration. What does this mean? It means, for example, that a security guard from Burns Security in Toronto can work at the Toronto International Airport and earn $3.50 per hour, whereas when he watches people going in and out of a private office building downtown, he can earn $4 per hour. Some people might chuckle at this, but it is a very serious matter in that it relates to people with very low incomes.
What will happen in terms of the student employment program this summer? What will happen if a student is referred to a project of an agency of the federal Government on federal property and receives the federal minimum wage, according to the guidelines, of $3.50 per hour? Such students will say: "My goodness, 1 hope I don't work for a federal government agency and end up with $3.50 per hour, because if I work for a provincial agency or private enterprise I will receive $4".
Perhaps that does not sound like much, but the difference increases in the Province of Manitoba with its minimum wage of $4.30 or $4.35 per hour or in the Province of Quebec, which has always had the highest minimum wage, at $4.58 or $4.60 per hour. That is a larger difference, it is a difference of over $ 1 per hour. Let us think about what that difference means to janitors and security guards who need every cent they can get, to people on low incomes, to people who can just barely make it, if they can, or to students who are saving in order to attend universities and colleges across Canada. For the first time the federal minimum wage has dropped drastically below the minimum wage of every province.
I have listened to remarks in the House concerning the Government following the policies of the Government of the United States. Some of us find it difficult to relate to the policies of the U.S. Government. For example, we find it difficult to understand why that Government took such a protectionist attitude last fall toward exports from Canada. We heard recently about problems with hogs, lumber and various other items. In the riding of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in my riding and in the ridings of other Hon. Members, the Government of the United States, through its Department of Commerce, has placed quotas on our fish which has been cured, which has been salted. Most companies are
paying a 16 per cent tariff. That is a policy of the U.S. Government, and the Government of Canada has done nothing to object to it. As a result of that great discrimination, people are required to post bonds in order to export products to the United States. This is the first time in our history that people involved in the salted fish industry have had to post bonds. There is a very important meeting going on today in which officials of the United States Government will decide whether the tariff will remain on salted fish.
I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that if that meeting does not produce the result of a cancellation of this improper tariff, if it does not result in having to cancel these bonds that are posted by exporters, he had better get on the first flight to Washington. He had better do that because this is happening with too great a frequency. This is happening in a great many areas of our economy.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) says that we are considering cutting off the commercial salmon fishery on the northeast coast of Newfoundland. He said that we have to consider it because the U.S. Government asked us last month to do it. Why? Because 1 per cent of the salmon that is caught commercially off the east and northeast coast of Newfoundland is supposed to be destined for U.S. waters. When we take into account the actions of the U.S. Government through its Department of Trade and Commerce and look at a request like that from the U.S. Government to cancel the commercial salmon fishery for Newfoundland, we know what we should do with the request from the U.S. Government.
I have not even reached the main purpose of my address here today. Again, this goes to illustrate the many things that this Government has done that adversely affect the ordinary person, the poor people, what it has done to cut services to the public and to cut down other pensions and disposable income. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, there are so many of these things that you cannot really get to the subject of your address. I am sure, however, there will be other opportunities that will arise when I can do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer).


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority which has been introduced into the House by the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). The substance of this Bill is relatively straightforward. I shall therefore dwell only briefly on its specifics because I wish to address in greater detail the larger issues that it raises.
Last December the Government made a commitment to the opposition Parties that it would introduce a request for borrowing authority for the 1985-86 fiscal year within two weeks of its first Budget. It is a measure of the seriousness with which this Government approaches its fiscal responsibilities
June 12, 1985

that this commitment was fulfilled when Bill C-51 was introduced within 24 hours of the May 23 Budget. This Bill will give the Government the necessary authority to borrow $18.2 billion for this current 1985-86 fiscal year. The first $16 billion of this figure will be used to supplement the $12 billion already borrowed earlier this year under the related borrowing Bill, C-ll, thereby meeting the total of $28 billion in the 1985-86 financial requirements as set forth in the Budget.
The remaining $2.2 billion is needed to roll over the temporary borrowing authority that was obtained under Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act last February. It will be remembered that recourse to Section 39 was necessitated by the intransigence of the other place with respect to the timely passage of Bill C-ll. This episode in the other place involving the deliberate delay by Liberal Senators of Bill C-ll is worth reiterating for the public record. Their irresponsible obstruction of a crucial piece of legislation cost Canadian taxpayers some $15 million. The whole event constituted a microcosm of the kind of fiscal mismanagement with which this country has been plagued for the last 16 years.
This bitter fact leads inevitably to the larger questions which arise out of this borrowing Bill, and surely there can be nothing larger than this country's annual and cumulative deficits, now the major component in government financial requirements and consequently the major reason for the incomprehensible figures involved in borrowing Bills such as this.
Let me begin my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, on the deficit with an analogy. The major financial transaction in the lives of most Canadians usually centres around the purchase of a home. It is a transaction that usually involves tens of thousands of dollars and leaves the purchasers with a substantial mortgage to repay over a given number of years. The vast majority of Canadians will work long and hard to repay this debt as quickly and as diligently as they are able. Why? It does not take a financial genius to know that a state of perpetual indebtedness is not a preferred option. The home owner knows that his mortgage is simply a necessary means to a desirable end and the sooner this indebtedness is erased, the better off he will be. Moneys once channelled into principal and interest owed, and all too often more interest than principal, can then be used more profitably elsewhere. If, however, a home owner's annual expenses begin to exceed his income, then meeting his monthly mortgage payments becomes an increasingly difficult problem. If this unfortunate state of affairs continues for an appreciable length of time, the home will be lost.
It may be something of a quantum leap, Mr. Speaker, from the typical Canadian home owner with an average annual income and monthly payments on a $25,000, $50,000 or $75,000 mortgage to the monolithic Government of Canada with its multibillion dollars in yearly revenues and expenditures, but the same basic economic principles apply in each case. It is an indication of the severity of the financial situation facing this country that any Canadian home owner who had managed his personal finances in a manner in keeping with the
Borrowing Authority Act
federal Government's requirements over the past decade and a half would have long since defaulted on his mortgage, declared personal bankruptcy and found both himself and his children indebted for life to his creditors.
Such is the situation which confronts this Government. This is simply because any Government, just like any individual, which has allowed annual expenditures to far exceed its annual revenues and which must borrow with interest every year to try to make up the difference, simply digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole. We are in a hole that is about 16 years deep. We have had successive budget deficits since the early 1970s and they have led to an annual budgetary projected deficit of approximately $37 billion when we took office in September and and a net public debt of approximately $190 billion in the fiscal year 1985-86. Fortunately the actions in the November economic statement and the May Budget have reduced the projected deficit from $37 billion to $31.1 billion.
Permit me to look ahead just five and a half years to 1990. If we had not taken the actions in the November statement and in the May Budget by cutting expenditures and raising revenues, then the interest payments on the debt would be more than $50 billion per year, not just the $22.1 billion that we have now. In other words, just the interest payments on the debt would be 226 per cent higher than they are today, and that is just in five and a half year's time.
If we fail to act now to correct 16 years of Liberal mismanagement, annual interest payments could approach $50 billion. The impact of the November statement and the May Budget taken together is to reduce our annual deficit by 1990 by some $20.1 billion and 80 per cent of that $20.1 billion reduction will be on the expenditures side and only 20 per cent in new revenues.
The net public debt now comprises 45 per cent of Canada's annual Gross National Product and the annual interest payments of this debt now exceed total federal spending on Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and the federal share of health care, combined. I think that is an amazing figure and I would just like to repeat that. The annual servicing of the debt now exceeds the total federal spending on Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and the federal share of health care, all combined.
This euphemistically termed "fiscal problem" has been detailed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in one of the budget documents entitled The Fiscal Plan. He notes that during the past three years the net federal debt has grown almost four times faster than the Gross National Product and interest charges on that debt have grown three times faster than revenues. What happens to the debt-to-GNP ratio during the remainder of the decade is inextricably related to three key economic variables: interest rates, real growth rates in the economy, and the size of the deficit. The Minister of Finance said:
In any given year, a budgetary deficit can provide support to economic activity. If, however, over an extended period of time real interest rates exceed

June 12, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
real economic growth, as has been the case in recent years and is the case today, the deficit will tend to grow rather than decline since the economy is unable to generate sufficient additional revenue to pay the ever-increasing debt service charges on its growing debt. The Government must then continue to borrow from future growth simply to pay the carrying costs of past deficits. Such borrowing itself increases future interest charges and sets in motion a vicious circle where, without policy action, the debt continues to grow faster than the economy.
If that happens, we can expect to have increased interest rates, higher inflation and a drastic decline in business and consumer confidence. In other words, the writing is on the wall. We can no longer postpone the inevitable. It is absolutely essential that we reduce both the deficit and the debt-to-GNP ratio. To do otherwise is to mortgage into oblivion the socioeconomic future of our children.
The Chinese use two symbols to write the word "crisis". One symbol speaks of opportunity. The other symbol speaks of danger. In the situation in which we are in today, there is no question that the danger with respect to the financial crisis is to do nothing. The opportunity is to seriously and honestly attack the problem. I am proud to be a member of the Government and the Party which, in the November statement and in the May Budget, has begun to attack that problem.
The previous administration sacrificed economic sanity for political expediency. It engaged in an escalating pattern of deficit financing. However, on September 4, 1984, the Canadian people put an end to that suicidal nonsense. They elected this Government with a mandate to fashion a socio-economic strategy that would put the country back on its feet. To that end, the Minister of Finance introduced the economic statement on November 8 and the Budget on May 23. Both initiatives are designed with a two-fold focus: to begin the mammoth but essential task of controlling the growth of the public debt, and to engender employment through the creation of a healthier economic climate.
Every Canadian knows that to reduce a deficit-for example, to reduce the amount of money owed on a mortgage or on a car loan-one must either increase their income, decrease their expenses, or preferably do both at the same time. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Government's reduction of the national debt is going to entail both an increase in taxes and a reduction in program expenditures. As I previously mentioned, virtually 80 per cent will be the reduction in program expenditures, and 20 per cent will be in increased taxes.
Admittedly, that is not an ideal scenario, but, let us not fool ourselves. Let us not play pathetic little political games with the Canadian public. They can read the bottom line. They know what has to be done. All they ask is that the necessary action be bold and just. Consequently, the Government is committed to ensuring that the control of the public debt will not be attained through drastic, disruptive or short-term measures. That is why the second variable in the national debt-to-GNP ratio must also play a vital role in the economic recovery and growth of the country. We must carefully facilitate a strong economy through policies which will remove obstacles to growth and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit, thereby
allowing the private sector to do what it does best-create jobs.
Of course, a welcome by-product of the latter scenario will be greater taxation revenues to reduce further the public debt and to strengthen federal government expenditures. This much needed constructive cycle of economic activity is directly antithetical to the vicious circle of debt outpacing the economy which we have now known for some 20 years.
It must be admitted, for the moment, that the Canadian economy is hanging in the balance between those two scenarios and that it is difficult to predict with certitude which of the two directions it will take in the years to come. One thing is clear. The past two decades of economic mismanagement, deficit financing and a Government continually spending beyond its means has not worked. The direction of the past is not an option.
Indeed, the recent Budget is an intentional break from the past. It is an integrated package of fiscal policies which are designed to encourage private initiative as the key to economic growth and job creation, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Government, and to take control of the national debt.
Economic growth and job creation are encouraged through such measures as the personal lifetime capital gains exemption of $500,000. That is particularly important to the farming community and to small business. Another measure is the additional $900 million which will be allocated to a series of training and employment programs. Another measure is the strengthening of research and development by allowing businesses a full refund on the tax credits earned on the first $2 million of research and development expenditures each year. The extension of the small business bond program until the end of 1987 is another measure. The creative use of pension funds for investment in small business is a further important aspect of job creation. Proposals such as these redirect much-needed financial support into small and medium-sized businesses, and reflect the Government's faith in the ability of Canadians to make investment decisions which will be of lasting benefit to the country.
The commitment to improving the federal Government's efficiency and effectiveness is indicated by such initiatives as the reduction of the federal Public Service by 15,000 positions over the next six years. Another initiative is the ending of the guarantee of full indexation of Members' of Parliament and Senators' pensions as of January 1, 1986. The privatization of those Crown corporations with commercial value but no public policy purpose is another initiative. A very important measure is the ministerial task force on program review. That is a vital initiative which has never before been witnessed in the history of Canadian public administration. These concrete examples signal a change in government policy, calling for greater fiscal responsibility in the management of its affairs.
Control of the debt is directly related to both economic growth and government fiscal management. That will be further assisted by the various actions which were announced in the Budget. First, spending increases by all Departments have
June 12, 1985

been limited to just over 2 per cent. That is the lowest increase in 18 years. Only the defence and foreign aid Department's spending will be permitted to increase beyond that limit. There was also a temporary deficit-reduction surtax imposed on higher income individuals and larger corporations. A two-year tax has been imposed on the capital of large banks and trust companies. It amazed me, when the Budget was brought down, that the NDP did not applaud that measure. Also, excise taxes were imposed on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, candy and dog food.
The modified indexation plan on Old Age Security and family allowance payments provide for indexation only when inflation exceeds 3 per cent. I must hasten to add, to ensure that I balance the whole picture, that the GIS payments will be fully indexed. Personal exemptions and tax brackets are indexed only to reflect annual increases in the Consumer Price Index which are greater than 3 per cent.
Actions such as these will achieve a reduction in this year's deficit of $4.4 billion. They will also ensure that the annual deficit and the net public debt will be $20 billion and $75 billion, respectively, lower than they would otherwise have been.
All this is very tough medicine, but it is desperately needed to cure a very sick patient. Therefore, through its first Budget, the Government has endeavoured to do what it was mandated to do-to create the climate in which all Canadians can participate to get the country back on its feet; walking, and hopefully someday running, in the right direction. There are already several indications that this is working.
Last fall the Opposition derided the Economic Statement of the Minister of Finance, claiming that it would cost Canadians thousands of jobs. What is the answer to that? Since September 4, the economy has generated more than 270,000 jobs. That is since this Government took office. While the unemployment rate is still far too high, it has dropped from 11.6 per cent to 10.5 per cent. At least it is beginning to move in the right direction. During this same time period, interest rates have also been on a steady decline, making it more viable for Canadians to generate the economy through the purchase of homes, the borrowing of business start-up money, and so on. Last year the inflation rate fell to 4.4 per cent, which is the lowest since 1971, and it has been running at an even lower rate during these past few months. Recent figures indicate that the Canadian economy is now growing faster than that of the United States.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that if this trend continues, perhaps there will be a less frequent need for Members of this House to stand up and speak in support of legislation such as the Bill we have before us today. Nevertheless, I do support Bill C-51 and ask that it receive swift passage because it is vital that this Government have the fiscal resources to function properly. However, let us remember that this legislation is a legacy of a sorry past, a past which this Government and this country simply cannot afford to repeat.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mrs. Bourgault;: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for the riding of Argenteuil, I am of course in complete agreement with what the Hon. Member just said. You know it is a funny thing, but when we hear people talking, and it is quite normal, when we go down the street in our ridings, everybody wants to reduce the deficit but nobody wants to pay. It is like Petula Clark's song: "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die."
Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the Hon. Member, it reminded me of one of my constituents who on February 5, 1982, wrote an article about something that upset him, and he was selling the article for $1. I think it is rather interesting and it fits in so well with the Hon. Member's argument that 1 would like to include what he wrote in 1982 as part of my comments, if I may. Today, he must be appalled to see that nothing has been done, that in 1985 the situation is even worse.
He wrote: "After the Interprovincial Conference of First Ministers who pointed out that the national debt was $95 billion, plus $70 billion for the provinces, making a grand total of $165 billion." At a rate of 11 per cent, he figured that the interest would be $18 billion per year or $1.5 billion per month. He said: "Supposing our debt of $165 billion is paid back in monthly instalments over a period of ten years or 120 months. That would mean monthly payments of $1.75 billion", so that according to him: "Each month, Canada would have to pay at least $2.75 billion." Two billion seven hundred million dollars a month. That is a lot of money. He said: "Where are you going to get that kind of money? Only on the international markets, on Wall Street in New York!"
Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents wrote that in 1982. Today I suppose he would say exactly the same thing, with even more emphasis. He would certainly be pleased, and I intended to call him after the Budget was tabled. He must be very pleased, because he said at the end of his article: "The result of manipulations by those clowns in Ottawa". I may recall that the Conservative Party was not in power in 1982.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that our Government has a duty and a responsibility to put this country back on the road to prosperity, otherwise the social programs which our Liberal friends like to think they are the only ones to defend ... I hope Hon. Members opposite do not think that I do not defend the elderly in my riding. I hope they do not think they are the only ones on the other side doing that in their ridings, because we do exactly the same thing in ours. Yes, we are giving answers. Last Friday, I met with senior citizens in my riding, with groups that were pleased with the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance. Yes, it is funny, we do not seem to be meeting the same people. We are on the same planet, but it all depends what you mean and what you say.


Mr. Rossi:: Bring them here!

June 12, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act


Lise Bourgault: Yes, we will bring them here, Mr. Speaker. So they were pleased because what they think... it all depends how the matter is explained to them. When you people over there do the explaining, you obviously do the explaining in your own way. When we do the explaining, we do it our way. And our way is the intelligent way.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to say that the elderly in my riding understand the issue because I explained it to them. My congratulations to the Hon. Member and keep up the good work.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, in response to the remarks made by my colleage, I can tell her that I have had comments from senior citizens, as I am sure every Hon. Member has, about the modified indexation plan. Some are supportive and some are not. However, a large number of senior citizens are being confused by some of the rhetoric of the opposition Parties which are not painting the whole picture. I think it is very important we give the senior citizens the whole picture. As 1 indicated in my remarks earlier, it is true that we have modified the indexation to begin after only 3 per cent on the OAS, but the GIS is fully indexed. I should also add that some of the people across Canada who are on GIS also receive subsidized housing. That is another plus they have as opposed to those who receive only OAS.
I believe it is also important to remember something else. During these past few moments as I have been speaking, there have been one or two children born in Canada. Are we aware of the fact that that young child, boy or girl, now has a $7,535 debt to pay which was given to him or her by the 16 years of Liberal mismanagement?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Henry Reimer: We should also recognize-Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tell those Tories to shut up.


John Henry Reimer: An Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party says to tell the Tories to be quiet. I hear it from both the Liberals and the Tories.
If one takes the taxation statistics of 1982, Mr. Speaker, and simply looks at the total figures of all federal income taxes raised, then looks at how much we are paying on the interest on the debt alone, in round figures one could say that all people earning less than $40,000 annual income would not have to pay any federal taxes if we did not have to pay interest on the debt. That is how large our debt is. I have told that to some of my seniors, and they applaud the actions of this Government. I think we have to put the whole picture before the Canadian people. I wish the Opposition would tell the whole story and not just a few selective parts.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) talked about all the seniors in his riding who support deindexing. I wonder if he could read into the record
the names of any organizations in his riding which support it, or read into the record any letters which support the government's move to deindex pensions?


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the rules correctly, I would have to seek permission to do that. However, just in response to what the Hon. Member is saying, I have met with some seniors. I cannot say I have met with all of them, but I have spoken on the telephone with some and visited some in their homes. The biggest single problem they are having today is the misinformation and the rhetoric they hear from the opposition Parties and from some of the media. That is where the problem really lies. When 1 give them the information in the Budget books and give them the full picture, the vast majority-I did not say all of them-are supportive of the attempts we are making.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Government wants to borrow some $18 billion, and I suppose the way things are in this country it has to. My question is: Money for whom? Who is going to pay for it? What is this money going to be used for? I look at the Budget brought down by this Government a few weeks ago and I say to myself that the low income people, the senior citizens, are the ones who are going to have to pay. I ask the Government why? Members opposite were elected on a platform which said they were going to be fair.
In the few moments left to me, I want to make a couple of arguments based on that concept of fairness. I have here a copy of an article from today's Globe and Mail concerning a study done by the Canadian Council on Social Development. This is a fairly reputable organization. In fact, the director was for years a gentleman named Reuben Baetz. He was and is a Conservative Cabinet Minister in Ontario and will be, I guess, for another week or so until a vote in that legislature. What that organization is saying is that the PC Budget redistributes money from the poor to the rich. The report says that by the year 1990, the wealthiest families in this country will be receiving an extra $4,500 because of the Budget, and the poorest people will see a drop in their income. They say:
A study by the council, to be released later this week, says the Conservative Government's budget will increase the disposable incomes of families earning $50,000 or more in 1990, while families with earnings of $40,000 or less will face reductions in their disposable incomes.
What they are saying is that a family earning about $30,000 a year will receive an average of $1,089 less by the year 1990 because of this Conservative Budget. The less affluent families will also face significant cuts in disposable income ranging between $808 for a family earning $20,000, to $396 for a family earning $10,000.
In contrast, Mr. Speaker, and here I speak to my friend in the Conservative Party from Quebec who was just on her feet, the wealthiest families in this country will receive a windfall because of the Budget. The Council says that families who earn over $200,000 a year will have their disposable incomes increased by $4,500 by the year 1990. That is not fair, Mr. June 12, 1985

Speaker. If you earn over $300,000 a year, your income goes up by $4,500, but if you earn $30,000 a year, your income goes down by over $1,000. I ask my friends, particularly my good old friend from Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who I know likes to talk about fairness and justice for ordinary Canadians, is it fair that we penalize the poor in this country to line the pockets of the rich? Is that fair?


An Hon. Member:: Tell us how it is done?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I can tell you how it is done. Why don't we take from those who can afford to pay? Tax on the ability to pay. Tax the wealthier people in this country, the big corporations. If there was an element of fairness in this Budget where we all had to pay a little bit but those of us who make more pay more, and those who are wealthy pay even more, then you would not have this kind of protest across this land.


Mr. Boyer:: Surtax on the banks.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is what I find very unfair in this particular Budget. You can go on and on. They mention different things in the Budget. They refer to the proviso for capital gains. Sure, farmers and some small businesses had to have the exemption increased, but why have it opened up wide to $500,000 a year? That surprised friends of mine in the investment community. It is just a wide open exemption on capital gains. Most of the money will be made by people who earn over $100,000 a year.
RRSPs are another example. The Council said that the amount claimed for RRSPs by families who earn under $40,000 a year is very little. Most people who contribute to RRSPs earn well over $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year. If the ceiling goes up, who takes advantage of that but the wealthier people in our country. I ask my friends in the Conservative Party: Where is the fairness? Where is the justice? If I go over the campaign promises I see where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said time and time again that they were going to be fair to ordinary Canadians. The Prime Minister said in a speech back in July,
Borrowing Authority Act
1984, that the Conservative Party intends to re-establish the full indexing of Old Age Pensions to the cost of living beginning in January, 1985. The Minister of Finance said in August, 1984, that they have no intention of raising income taxes for Canadians.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you talk about jobs?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That was a promise made by the Prime Minister and a promise he broke.
[ Translation]
Another thing, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance-


An Hon. Member:: He is a good Minister!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is not a good Minister. The Hon. Member says the Minister of Finance is a good Minister. The Minister of Finance has increased the burden on the elderly in this country. The Budget will have a very serious impact on low-income Canadian pensioners between now and 1990. Mr. Speaker, next year, single pensioners will suffer a loss of $100. For a couple the loss will be twice that next year. In 1987, a single pensioner will lose $205; next year, $312; the year after, $423, and in 1990, $537. Over Five years, a single pensioner will lose about $1,577, and in 10 years, pensioners, the elderly in our society, will have lost 30 per cent, Mr. Speaker, and that from a Government that made an election promise to bring fairness to Canadian society.
The same applies to family allowance, Mr. Speaker. I have the example of a family with two children, and an income of $20,000: their family allowance will be $15 less next year and $105 less by 1990.
Something else: tax credits applied to income tax payable by Canadian residents, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member, but it being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 13, 1985