1992-06-12

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code (jury), be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code, is a series of amendments that deal specifically with jury selection in Canada. It is a direct response to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Regina v Bain. That decision was handed down on January 23, 1992. It struck down certain provisions in the Criminal Code as they relate to jury selection. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada felt that the present jury selection method as contained in the Criminal Code placed the Crown at an unfair advantage vis-a-vis defence counsel.
This bill that is before Parliament is a direct response to that. Prior to its tabling on I believe April 6 of this year, there were consultations with the Canadian Bar Association and other interested individuals as to what should go into this particular bill.
I believe that because of the consultation process that took place, this bill is as non-controversial as it is. There is a recognition within the legal community that these
changes can, should and must be made. Indeed, they must be in place by July 23, 1992, because the Supreme Court of Canada suspended the operation of its decision for a period of six months. Therefore, we are under some time constraints to have this bill enacted.
When this bill went before the legislative committee, there were no witnesses before the committee. No one expressed a desire to appear. The bill passed the legislative committee without amendment and was returned to the House of Commons for the report stage.
There was an amendment by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam that was dealt with yesterday. It concerned the multicultural justice review. I indicated to the hon. member that study would continue and that it would continue within the Department of Justice. As well, I indicated that if the hon. member wished to pursue an outside inquiry, certainly that was something that was within the purview of he and his fellow colleagues who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. They could do that.
There is some urgency to the particular bill that is before Parliament. It addresses a specific problem. It goes further than was required by the Supreme Court of Canada inasmuch as the procedure in Bill C-70 allows the selection of jurors to be done on an alternate basis between the defence counsel and the Crown attorney. That in and of itself was not called for by the Regina v Bain decision, but we went slightly beyond that in the interest of fairness in the judicial process. That is welcomed.
At one point, my friend in the New Democratic Party suggested that we might consider abolishing the ability of the Crown attorney to reject certain jurors. That would be going too far. Most people would recognize that the Crown is there to represent the interests of the people of this country and however else we might design the judicial system and the jury selection, there should be an even handed approach between the defence and the Crown.

Government Orders
Bill C-70 accomplishes that. As well, I might point out that the specific provisions that related to the territories allowed juries of six people. Those references have now been removed from the Criminal Code. That as well is a step in the right direction.
The bill was passed by the legislative committee and sent back here. The government certainly has not dawdled in bringing this matter forward.
I ask hon. members in the best interests of the judicial system, the legal system of Canada, to pass this bill as quickly as possible because this is a non-controversial bill. It is good. It is required. Every major group in Canada that has had an opportunity to either be consulted or to comment welcomed this bill. I ask the House of Commons to pass this bill as quickly as possible and send it on to the other place.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. We participated, of course, in the legislative committee and I have checked with my colleagues on the subject.
Bill C-70, as the hon. member said, is a bill that essentially relates to a better system for the selection of jurors. We agree it is critical to the legal system. While it may not be non-controversial, which I can certainly agree with, it is time sensitive. We are pleased to see it here at this particular point in time.
It is in response to the charter and it is time sensitive. We have no amendments. We have no problems with the bill. We would also like to see it go forward as quickly as possible.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill at third reading stage on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
I should tell the House that back in 1980, the Law Reform Commission recommended changes. Governments, both this Conservative government and the previous Liberal government, never did anything about it. In fact, we see once again a government that is reacting to a decision of the Supreme Court. This is the pattern for this government.
The Minister of Justice would have us believe that she is taking a lot of initiatives. In fact, her initiatives,
including the new rape shield bill which we support, are still reactions to decisions that were rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. In other words, the government has to do something. One should see that pattern, and this is another example of the pattern.
The parliamentary secretary admitted that there is a report on multicultural issues, racism and racism in the justice system. This is a priority issue in Canada today. Just look at the Lewis report of the other day in Toronto. Look at other patterns across this country, some of which I will speak about in a minute. There was a report. It had to be dug out of this government. It was an uncompleted report by the Law Reform Commission. The government has abolished the commission now. This report was dug out by a reporter from the Toronto Star and we never had the benefit of considering this report before our legislative committee.
I got a lot of flack yesterday from the Conservative opposition, including some cabinet ministers-Conservative government, it will soon be opposition-when I raised the issue and delayed the passing of this bill.
I had a simple request which was that the report be completed. It is a crucial report. We just had a draft report. I asked that the report be completed and that it be done by an outside person. In other words, it should be done by a consultant, that it be continued by people who were doing work for the Law Reform Commission. I wanted that procedure so that it could be tabled in the House of Commons and made public. It would be an objective report.
We have been offered a report which will be done by the Department of Justice. It may never see the light of day. We do not have to get these reports. They are not tabled as a right.
What can I do? I could go and pursue the issue in the justice committee. That is not good enough.
The government wants our co-operation. We have given it a lot of co-operation on a number of bills. Surely my request could have been met. The parliamentary secretary could have said: "This is an important issue. The Conservative government is concerned about racism. We are concerned about these problems, we are going to complete this report and we are going to table it in the House of Commons."
June 12, 1992

This is a rigid ultra-conservative government on this issue. It does not have much interest, as shown by its actions in multiculturalism or in attacking these racist problems in our society. That is the only conclusion I can draw from that rigidity of the parliamentary secretary in this matter. He is not always that rigid, I will give him that. I do not know why he was so rigid in this case, but he was. I think the country is poorer for it.
We had a great opportunity here when we were forced to take a look at the jury selection process in the draft amendments. It is unfortunate we did not take time to examine the issues more thoroughly and we did not use the opportunity to address some of the features of the justice system which have recently come into question. I found our justice system unequal.
I will state the problem, to make it simple. We are dealing in this bill with the question of how a defence counsel or Crown counsel-and I have been both-in all levels of all courts in Canada can choose a jury. People are selected by lot, they come before the court and a jury is chosen.
In our system, defence counsel or Crown counsel can stand up and challenge someone, not have that person on the jury because they do not like the colour of their skins or they might think they are Jewish, Arab, aboriginal, or of some other group. We have a case directly on that point which I will mention in a moment.
We should not have a system like that. It is a challenge on a purely subjective criteria and we should at least have a look at that. That is what I am saying. It is why I was pressing for the report to be completed. I hope the government will listen.
I am on a little bit of a tangent here but the parliamentary secretary said I had suggested in committee that the Crown counsel not even have a challenge. Let me suggest to you what the argument is.
Remember the government makes the laws through the majority in Parliament. The government sets up the courts. The government chooses and pays the judges. The government pays the police. The government has such control of the system that it is not really equal.
One way of giving the accused a better break in this matter is to consider the fact that it should be only the accused person who has the challenge and not the Crown. The Crown has to take the ordinary people from
Government Orders
the street. I put that out. Of course, we are not going to do that and it will not come for some time.
Canadians can be rightly proud of the commitment we have made as a people to the principles of equality and fairness and we have all done that. Sections 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee all Canadians the right to equality.
It is because of that statement of principles we have rulings like the Bain case we are dealing with from the Supreme Court of Canada and has forced the government to make these amendments to the jury selection process. Both Liberal and Conservative governments were not going to act on their own. It took the court to force them to act. It took the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to get the court that power.
There is more to the standards we have set for ourselves when it comes to fairness or equal rights. Section 27 of the charter provides: "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians".
We as a people have recognized the multicultural and multiracial composition of our society and have stated clearly our commitment to respecting the diversity in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.
We have stated clearly that all of us deserve equal treatment and equal protection regardless of race. We are not asking that anybody get unequal treatment. We want equal treatment for everyone. It seems to me it is a fundamental principle of democracy; it is certainly a fundamental principle of what my party stands for.
Canada has signed the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Clearly, Canadians believe that racism is not to be tolerated in our society, yet we also have a good indication that Canadians believe that racism or racist attitudes are increasing in Canada.
I mentioned the Lewis report. A recent Angus Reid poll for Southam News found that 55 per cent of Canadians feel that racism is increasing in Canada. What is perhaps even more disconcerting, there is growing evidence to show our justice system has elements of racism and that is a serious charge.
Unfortunately, there are some individuals working within the justice system who do not hold to the principles I have outlined. The inquiry into the killing of Leo Chance in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan revealed there are Aryan nation sympathizers in the police de-

Government Orders
partment in that city. Other inquiries have found individuals who promote and act on racial stereotyping in cities like Montreal. These things need to be said.
These incidents and individuals must be dealt with. Even more urgent is the need to deal with the systemic flaws which make our system racist or at the very least undermine the perception of fairness and equality. For example, visible minorities make up over 20 per cent of the population of Toronto, but only 6.2 per cent of its uniformed police. That can and should be changed.
There have been numerous studies revealing just how deeply flawed our justice system is when it comes to fairness and equality for visible minorities and even how deeply flawed and prone to racism the jury selection process can be. The jury selection process is what we are debating now.
A draft paper from the Law Reform Commission, the paper I was talking about that was only recently brought to our attention, notes that between 1974 and 1989 nine commissions investigated allegations involving racism and ethnic discrimination in the justice system and made over 229 recommendations for changes.
We will remember the Marshall inquiry, for example. We had eight other commissions and they made 229 recommendations for changes. The draft paper I spoke about states: "The repetitiveness of the proposals reveals almost two decades of", to be charitable, "slowness in reaction, a phenomenon that has been characterized as the gap between discourse and political will". That is an academic putting it. I will be less polite: we have been dragging our feet.
The inquiry into the Donald Marshall case and the Manitoba inquiry into the deaths of Helen Betty Osborne and John Joseph Harper are two of the inquiries which most of us are familiar with.
The Marshall inquiry found that throughout the entire history of the province of Nova Scotia no aboriginal person had been on a jury. This is the fair jury system we are rushing through the House today.
While the inquiry found no evidence to suggest aboriginal people were deliberately excluded from jury duty, it did strongly recommend, as did counsel for the Attorney
General, a full study concerning proportional representation of visible minorities on juries. We never even considered that in this bill when we opened up the Criminal Code-and we do not do it very often-to look at the provisions on the jury. That is a shame for this House.
In Manitoba the inquiry found that on the Osborne case there was clear evidence that six aboriginal people who were called to the jury panel were excluded because of their race. All were challenged by Johnston's lawyer, Greg Brodsky. Mr. Brodsky excluded all of them through use of his peremptory challenges. The result was there were no aboriginal people on the jury that heard a case involving the brutal murder of an aboriginal woman in an area in which a large percentage of the population is aboriginal.
Was that jury really representative of the community? Was that justice the way we want to see it?
As a result of the finding of the aboriginal justice inquiry of Manitoba, it was recommended that the Criminal Code be amended so that only the challenge to prospective jurors be challenges for cause, that stand asides and peremptory challenges be eliminated.
Bill C-70 only removes stand asides and only addresses the perception of unfair advantage of the Crown. It does not address the use of peremptory challenges on the basis of race or culture. It is purely subjective. We could have another case like the Osborne case where defence counsel or even Crown counsel could make sure that the jury did not represent any people of a racial group they did not want on the jury. That is not right.
There are ways to make the jury selection process fair, ways to free the process from racist abuse. It is unfortunate that the report of the Law Reform Commission on ethnic minorities and the justice system appears to have been another casualty of this government's attack on independent thought in this country.
That is why the government got rid of the Law Reform Commission. That is why it got rid of the Economic Council of Canada. That is why it cut the Science Council. That is why it got rid of the Court Challenges Program. The government does not want independent thought. By independent thought I mean thought that
June 12, 1992

would challenge the in-house positions of government departments.
With a report such as this one, we might be able to make these changes in the jury selection process. It is not going to be easy. It will have to take some real thought to tackle this matter and that is why we needed that report.
There are suggestions on how to deal with other aspects of trial procedure and policing in the report. In particular, during the discussion of this specific bill, it would be nice to have completed the report.
There may be some useful directions from that report however. There is already a suggestion for a study of the use of peremptory challenges including the frequency of their use and reasons for an effectiveness of their use, particularly in relation to minority prospective jurors. There are in fact useful recommendations regarding the use of challenge for cause as opposed to peremptory challenge, and that is what the government should focus on.
We should be looking at these recommendations now, not in another 12 years from now when another Supreme Court of Canada, after going through all this expensive litigation, tells Parliament to make this justice system fair.
At about the same time the Law Reform Commission first recommended the stand asides for the Crown be abolished, the recommendation 12 years ago that foresaw the Supreme Court ruling that has pushed the government to bring forward this bill, a justice of the Ontario high court denied defence counsel for a black accused challenge for cause involving questions relating to prejudices against black people. The reasons given were that to allow such questions would have admitted to a weakness in the nation and a community which should not be acknowledged.
These are still strange goings on in the justice system in this country. Times have changed and today we are forced to acknowledge that weakness. The evidence of a system-wide injustice demands it. We should not be satisfied with a bill that simply reflects the recommendations put forward 12 years ago in an environment that commonly included rulings that turned a blind eye to racism, the kind of rulings we look upon with horror today.
Government Orders
We should be working on a bill that will create the kind of jury selection process that will serve us well into the future, that will ensure our justice system upholds the principles of fairness and equal treatment before the law that we value so highly.
Before I sit down I want to tell the government that one government in Canada has committed itself to eradicating racism in the justice system and changing procedures that foster it. I am speaking about the recent comments of the attorney general of Ontario, Howard Hampton. He is to be congratulated for those comments.
The commitment includes the formation of a race relations unit in the ministry of the attorney general to implement anti-racism training aggressively and to hold the ministry accountable for rapid progress on race relations initiatives. What is the federal government doing in this area? Nothing.
While there is much the provincial governments can do to improve the jury selection process, including amending their own juries acts, because the juries acts are provincial acts, in each province they could amend it for that province to ensure that a broad representation of society is available for jury duty. The attorney general of Ontario is calling upon his federal counterpart to eliminate any possibility that visible minorities are being excluded without cause as jurors at criminal trials. He has asked the Minister of Justice to look at the entire way in which criminal juries are selected, including the ability of counsel to disqualify jurors at trial other than for valid causes.
I suggest that the attorney general of Ontario is on the correct path here. He is talking about looking at the peremptory challenge in the jury selection process in a new and innovative way. Why is the federal government not doing it? Why is this House not doing it when we are looking at this bill? This is not a bill we should be rushing through.
The federal equivalent would be on the right path by calling upon the Law Reform Commission to complete the study and to see how we make changes at the federal level, but the government has not done that.
I will conclude there saying that the bill does have to go through. The reality is that we have to meet the timetable of the Supreme Court, although we could go back and ask for changes. I asked the government about

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
that and asked for an extension of time, but the government is not about to do that.
Reluctantly and I say reluctantly-when I started on this bill it was not so reluctantly-I was quite prepared to see the bill pass veiy quickly. Indeed a New Democrat, the member for Brant, chaired the legislative committee and pushed the bill through in record time. I had been prepared to let the bill go through like that.
The more I began to see what else is involved, the more I began to see that we are behind the times on this. We are reacting. We are not up to date. We have a problem of racism in the justice system, especially as it affects aboriginal people and black people. We should look at it. One area to look at is the jury selection process.
I urge the government to complete that study and not put the onus on us to go back to a committee. "We will go back to the committee. We will do that". I ask the government to complete the study that was being done by the Law Reform Commission, to be careful about doing it in-house because it gets warped inevitably by a government constitutorial point of view, to try to do it from an outside consultant and make it public so that we can debate it in this House of Commons and that a Toronto Star reporter does not have to go and dig out this thing. It should be out for all people to see.
Having said that, we will not put up any other speakers and will let the bill go through now.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief.
My colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has already indicated that our party will be supporting this bill. My colleague from the New Democratic Party who just spoke has had a lot of experience with juries. I would like to to reinforce some of the points he was making.
Juries have taken a very bad rap recently because of the decision in Los Angeles. An awful lot of people and most of us in this House feel that the decision was completely unfair in the matter of Mr. King. There was untold havoc, pain and suffering inflicted because of the representation of the jury that heard the case outside of Los Angeles.
I feel it is worth making the point that when you have 12 of your peers judging the matter, if there are 12 representative men and women, in my experience you are going to get a better decision than when it is one man or one woman sitting on the bench deciding the guilt or innocence of an accused. As somebody once put it, the biases should cancel out on a jury because when it is one individual judging, even if they have been legally trained, they are all products of our environment and they tend to have biases and so on which often tend to work against the interest of justice.
It is very, very important, as the member for New Westminster indicated, that we do everything we can to ensure that the people chosen for jury panels and the people who sit on juries are representative of the community. Had that happened in the Los Angeles case-I believe all the jury members were white except for one-we could have avoided an enormous tragedy and a setback for the jury system in a neighbouring country.
I appreciate that the jury act in the provinces is the primary legislation dealing with that. There are fewer and fewer of us who are lawyers in this House and I am sure that everyone else will agree with that. Those of us who have watched panels come into courts and who have seen often how unrepresentative they are would identify with the view that we must ensure that in a community in northern Alberta, for example, or the Vancouver area justice not only be done but is seen to be done by the representation of the people who are called for jury duty.
As my colleague just indicated, more work needs to be done on this matter. I am sorry I was not on the committee that looked at this bill. I must say that I do not see that it does very much about the problem that seems to be the central problem which is that juries do not reflect the demographics and so on of the communities they should represent.
I will close by saying that I hope more work will be done both at the federal and the provincial levels to make sure that in future, wherever jury trials are held in Canada-they should be held as often as possible, not as rarely as possible-those called for jury duty will be fully representative of the men and women in the community in which the case takes place.
June 12, 1992


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member. Both of us were Crown counsel together, perhaps at different times. He was first in Vancouver.


An hon. member:: Many years before.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know my colleague has also been a defence counsel. He has been through the process.
I am very pleased that he picked up a point that I really missed and that is how good the jury system is. It is one of the great inventions of Anglo-Saxon culture, going back years and years.
It stood the test of time by and large and it can still stand the test of time. I agree with what the hon. member said and I am glad he said it. I am glad he mentioned the King case because it is giving juries a bad name. He put his finger right on the button, if you like, by saying for the jury system to really work it has to represent the community and that means it has to represent all aspects of people in the community and not exclude people. If it represents all aspects, it tends to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. It can even be ahead of society, as the Morgentaler juries in Quebec were. It is a real protection both for the accused and for society.
That is why it is important that when we have an opportunity like this, as my hon. friend said, we could do so much more. I am thankful for his comments and I am sure the government was listening. At least I hope it was.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act
Government Orders
and the Pension Benefits Division Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the House would show a little patience, the Speaker will have the total ruling. I have part of it but I am told the Speaker will be with us in a minute with the ruling on the 112 motions that you can see as notices. Since so many of them were tabled later yesterday, the Speaker has just now finished.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Before I begin, I again want to let the House know that motions, that is, proposed amendments with regard to Bill C-55, total 112. Over 80 of those were received the day before yesterday and the rest were received by six o'clock last night. Members will understand that is, again, a very heavy task for the table officers and there have been attempts made to discuss these rulings I am giving with the concerned members. I hope those discussions have been satisfactory. However, it may be that because of the numbers of motions and the limited time, discussion has not been as extensive as some members would have wished.
However, my duty now is to bring to the House the consequence of my deliberations.
Therefore, I am prepared to give a ruling on Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act.
There are 112 motions on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-55. Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, is extending the bill to cover an additional class of persons. In this respect I refer the hon. member to Beauchesne's citation 698(1) which states that motions that go beyond the scope of the bill are inadmissible. Therefore Motion No. 1 will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 2, 17, 36 and 72, standing in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 2 being applied to Motions Nos. 17, 36 and 72.
Motions Nos. 3,18, 37, 69 and 70, standing in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, appear to be going beyond the scope of the bill as it was agreed to by the House at second reading. The purpose of these proposed motions is to broaden the class of persons who would be eligible to receive benefits. As a consequence,

Government Orders
this concept is out of order. In this regard, I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's citation 698(1).
Motions Nos. 4,19 and 38, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will not be selected as they are identical to Motions Nos. 5, 20 and 39.
Motions Nos. 5, 20 and 39, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 5 applying to Motions Nos. 20 and 39.
Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 6A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will not be selected as it is identical to Motion No. 6B.
Motion No. 6B, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 7, 30,31, 57 and 58, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, and Motion No. 8, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay East, appear to be introducing a new concept for surplus funds which is going beyond the scope of the bill as read a second time in the House. Accordingly, I must rule these motions out of order, pursuant to Beauchesne's citation 698(1).
Motions Nos. 9, 26, 27, 28, 29, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, will be grouped for debate but voted upon as follows: (a) Motions Nos. 9, 26 and 27 will be voted upon separately; (b) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 28 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 29; (c) a negative vote on Motion No. 28 requires a vote on Motion No. 29; (d) Motion No. 52 will be voted upon separately; (e) an affirmative vote on Motion 53 obviates the necessity for a vote on Motion No. 54; (f) a negative vote on Motion No. 53 requires a vote on Motion No. 54;
(g)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 55 obviates the necessity for a vote on Motion No. 56; (h) a negative vote on Motion No. 55 requires a vote on Motion No. 56.
Motions Nos. 9A and 58B, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, will be grouped for
debate with a vote on Motion No. 9A applying to Motion No. 58B.
Motions Nos. 10, 32 and 59, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 10 applying to Motions Nos. 32 and 59.
Motions Nos. 11, 13, 14, 33, 60, 62 and 64, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, and Motions Nos. 15, 34 and 65, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay East, will be grouped for debate with the vote on Motion No. 11 applying to Motions Nos. 13,14,15, 33,34, 60,62,64 and 65.

Motions Nos. 12, 61 and 63, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will not be selected as they are identical to Motions Nos. 13, 62 and 64, respectively.

Motions Nos. 16, 35 and 66, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, and Motion No. 84A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria, will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
a)	The vote on Motion No. 16 will apply to Motions Nos. 35 and 66;
b)	Motion No. 84A will be voted on separately. [English]
Motions Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47 and 51, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, will be grouped for debate but voted upon as follows:

a)	The vote on Motion No. 21 will apply to Motions Nos. 22, 23, 24, 40, 41, 43 and 45.
b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 21 obviates the necessity for a vote on Motion No. 44.
c)	A negative vote on Motion No. 21 applies to Motion No. 44.
June 12, 1992

d)	Motions Nos. 25, 47 and 51 will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 42 and 46, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will not be selected as they are identical to Motions Nos. 43 and 47.

Motions Nos. 48 and 50, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately.

Motion No. 49, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will not be selected as it is identical to Motion No. 50.

Motions Nos. 58A, 72C, 75C and 87, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will not be selected as they are identical to Motions Nos. 58B, 72D, 75D and 88.

Motions Nos. 67, 68,68B, 68C and 69A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley East, will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows:
a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 67 obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 68 and 68B, but the question will be put on Motion No. 68C, which will apply to Motion No. 69A.
b)	A negative vote on Motion No. 67 applies to Motion No. 68B and obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 68C and 69A, but the question will be put on Motion No. 68.

Motion No. 68A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast, will not be selected as it is identical to motion No. 67.

Motion No. 71, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 72A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, and Motion No. 72B, standing
Government Orders
in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, will not be selected as a similar motion was moved, debated and negatived in the legislative committee which studied the bill.

Motion No. 72D, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 73,75, 80 and 83, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay East, Motions Nos. 73B and 78B, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, Motions Nos. 74, 77 and 78, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley East, Motions Nos. 76A and 82A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria, and Motions Nos. 79 and 81, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, will be grouped for debate but voted upon as follows: (a) a vote on Motion No. 73 will apply to motion No. 75; (b) Motion No. 73B will be voted upon separately; (c) a vote on Motion No. 74 will apply to Motions Nos. 77 and 78; (d) a vote on Motion No. 76A will apply to motion No. 82A; (e) Motions Nos. 78B, 79, 80, 81 and 83 will be voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 73A and 78A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will not be selected as they are identical to Motions Nos. 73B and 78B.

Motions No. 75A and 75B, standing in the name of the hon. members for Ottawa West and Ottawa-Vanier, respectively, will not be selected as they are identical to Motion No. 75.

Motion No. 75D, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 76 and 82, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay East, will not be selected as they are identical to Motions Nos. 76A and 82A.

June 12, 1992

Motion No. 84, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay East, will not be selected as it is identical to Motion No. 84A.

Motions Nos. 85 and 86, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, and Motion No. 88, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 85 applying to Motion No. 86.
Motion No. 88 will be voted upon separately.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 2, 17, 36 and 72 to the House.


Mr. Arseneault:: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling. As you know, it is a very lengthy one and a very technical one. I was wondering, in view of the time, perhaps we should find it wise to suspend this sitting for a few minutes until Question Period rather than start the debate on the amendments.
We would be able to then start preparing our debate on the amendments. We could probably even start statements by members immediately if we decide not to suspend the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party is making headlines, the type usually reserved for the National Enquirer.
For example: "Manning would end universal medicare" or "Luxury cars on parade as Manning held court",
or "Manning rhetoric like Hitler in 1939". It is what the editorial writers are saying under these headlines, for example: "Manning's stance on GST is a complete joke. He called for one of three alternatives, scrap it, replace it with a reformed tax system-whatever that is-or revise it by expanding it to food and health care".
Another quote: "Manning, the self-described champion of the grassroots everyday Canadian voter, was himself chauffeured in the back seat of a grey Jaguar Sovereign". There is this one: "This smooth talking, mild mannered Clark Kent type could just be more of a danger to Canada than was the little Austrian with a moustache, but beware of politicians who tell you just what you want to hear".
Canadians will not be fooled by this phoney leadership.


SMALL BUSINESS
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Madam Speaker, it is only the federal government that sees the reflection of prosperity in the sea of bankruptcies drowning small businesses across Canada. Businesses that spent their last votes on the promise of a Tory lifeline of loan guarantees have seen their dreams scuttled.
The government's television ads are a futile investment in its own popularity at the expense of Canadian prosperity. I call upon the government to stop trying to sell illusions and begin investing in real solutions to help the small business sector. Businesses need less flash and more cash.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, UN resolution 750, approved on April 10, endorses a set of ideas proposed by UN Secretary-General Boutros Ghali which reaffirms that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a state of Cyprus, with a single sovereignty and a single citizenship.
There is no question that the time has come for a solution to the 18-year old division of the island. The occupation of northern Cyprus by Tbrkey, or the occupation of any nation's territory by another nation, is an anachronism and strictly out of place in the emerging new world and European order as we approach the 21st century.
June 12, 1992

We hope that the forthcoming discussions at the United Nations on June 18 between Secretary-General Boutros Ghali, Cypriot President George Vasiliou and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash will be positive and will result in a genuine breakthrough toward a united Cyprus.


CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, yesterday at the biennial convention of the Canadian Labour Congress, delegates elected new leadership including a new president, Canadian Auto Workers leader, Bob White.
On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and in particular our leader, Audrey McLaughlin, I want to congratulate Bob White and the other officers on their election and to express our best wishes and thanks to the outgoing president, Shirley Carr, and the other retiring officers.
Bob White has shown strong, dedicated and effective leadership not only on behalf of his membership in the CAW but on behalf of all Canadian working men and women. He has worked all his adult life in the trade union movement, and in fact he was first on a picket line with his father and his brother at the age of 16.
In 1990, he was named an officer of the Order of Canada. Bob White will be a progressive and powerful voice for working men and women in Canada and internationally. Again, on behalf of all of my colleagues, congratulations and continued strength to you and all of the officers and members of the Canadian Labour Congress.


AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the fact that June is the month of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, awareness month.
More commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, it is a fatal, rapidly progressing disease attacking the nervous system. Individuals suffering from this devastating disease become completely dependent on their families and friends for their every day needs.
The ALS Society has been working diligently over the last 15 years to help improve the quality of life for the ALS patients and their families, and to find the cause and cure of ALS. To mark ALS awareness month, the society will be handing out replica cornflowers in return for donations toward medical research.
I salute this fine organization and its many volunteers, and would ask all Canadians to help support the important work that the ALS Society does.


CELEBRATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, a birthday marks a significant date in time. The calendar this year is full of important dates, not just one's personal birthday, for it includes as well special highlights such as the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' discovery of America, Montreal's 350th birthday, and Canada's 125th.
An exciting year of celebration has been unfolding, specifically to date Montreal's grand parade and weekend fireworks with lots of choice for everyone down in the old port. All are welcome to this dynamic cosmopolitan city, so come along.
Canadians love to party and celebrate, in particular our birth as a nation, Canada Day on July 1. This year on May 1 a bill was introduced in the Quebec legislature to rescind an article in the Quebec Labour Standards Act so that we are assured that Canada Day will officially be celebrated on July 1 across our land from coast to coast to coast.
I urge that this legislation be proclaimed as soon as possible so all of us can join-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize. The time has expired.


RP AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that this is RP Awareness Week which is sponsored by the RP Eye Research Foundation.
I commend the work of the RP Eye Research Foundation in providing information about retinitis pigmentosa,

June 12, 1992
promoting public awareness of RP and related disorders and providing funds in support of RP research.
Funds collected from this year's tenth annual "Ride for Sight" fundraising events will help to continue the advancement of knowledge about RP that is so important to thousands of Canadians and their families.
I wish to thank the volunteers of the RP Eye Research Foundation for their hard work and dedication. I encourage all Canadians to take part in the "Ride for Sight" activities in their communities.


REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, I hate to criticize "Presto" Manning and the Reform Party once more since they certainly do not like examination of their policies, but I see that Mr. Manning is being chauffeur driven around Ontario in the back seat of his fancy Jaguar making speeches to fat cats to tell them the Reform Party is opposed to universal medicare and old age pensions. We know Mr. Manning does not care about minorities, but one would have thought that he would care about senior citizens and sick people.
I have called the Reform Party a lot of things. Let me add to the list: callous, heartless and dumb.
Maybe Mr. Manning in his great big limousine thinks we do not need universal medicare, but senior citizens in my riding who are waiting for heart operations do. Maybe Mr. Manning thinks we do not need old age pensions, but we happen to believe that senior citizens who have worked for 65 years to build this country deserve a decent retirement.
Why does Mr. Manning not get into his limousine and drive off into the sunset?


MUSLIMS
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to wish Canadian Muslims "Eid Mubarak".
Eid is a three-day religious holiday in the Muslim religion, an equivalent to the Christian Thanksgiving, during which Muslim families all across Canada will donate food to those in need.
This humanitarian gesture commemorates for Muslims the ritual sacrifice of Ishmael by the prophet Abraham.
The Muslim community was established in Canada at the turn of the century with the immigration of a few hundred Lebanese Muslims. The first mosque was built in Edmonton by that community in 1935. Since then the Canadian Muslim community has grown to encompass more than 400,000 members from all over the world.
The diversity of races and cultures within the Muslim community is a testament to the Canadian dream of multiculturalism.
On the occasion of this Muslim religious holiday and Canada's 125th birthday, I want to thank the Muslim community for the contributions they have made to Canada over the past century and wish them success in all their endeavours.


THE LATE BILL SMITH
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Charles Mayer, Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, it is with deep regret that I inform the House of the death of Canadian Wheat Board Commissioner Bill Smith.
Mr. Smith died as a result of an accident while he was on a trade mission in China.
Bill Smith had a distinguished and extensive career that began on his family farm in Alberta. He was employed with the Alberta Wheat Pool where he provided invaluable service. His many achievements and his contributions to the agricultural industry led to his appointment as a Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board in May 1983.
Bill was very active in international marketing and developing an expertise in his marketing relationships with a number of Canada's customers including China and Russia, two of Canada's major purchasers. He will be sadly missed. This marks a great loss for his family, his friends, the agriculture industry and Canada.
I would like to offer my personal sympathy to his wife Kathy and their children and their families.
June 12, 1992


MPS' PENSIONS
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, my constituents know me to be a member of Parliament who is not afraid to take a stand.
I want my riding to know exactly my position on pensions for MPs. Quite frankly, there must be some changes. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues, the hon. members for Winnipeg-St. James and Edmonton Southeast. Both have private members' bills that would make the pension system more fair.
I believe no one should get a pension until at least the age of retirement, after four years of service, or at age 60 at a reduced amount. Double-dipping should be eliminated to prevent someone from getting a pension while holding another government job.
The grassroots in my riding want to know where we stand on this issue. It is a difficult one that may upset some people here in Ottawa. I was elected to represent the views of the people of Kent and not have the opinions of Ottawa told to them.
As we discuss Bill C-55 in the House today, I believe we must show leadership to Canadians by making our pension system more equitable. It must be seen to be fair and-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret the hon. member's time is expired. The hon. member for Niagara Falls.


EARTH SUMMIT
Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, one of the things that Canadians can always take pride in is the leadership role this country exerts. Whether it is through the Commonwealth, the Francophonie or the United Nations, Canadians can always be counted on to exert a positive influence, and that role is obvious at the United Nations conference at Rio.
As you know, there have been no shortage of critics of the earth summit, yet one thing is clear, Canada's Prime Minister has done everything possible from the beginning to make this environmental conference a success. When other world leaders dithered on whether they would take part in the conference, our Prime Minister stepped forward and said he would be there.
When the United States said it had problems with the biodiversity convention, our Prime Minister again stepped forward to make it clear that Canada would sign. That kind of leadership in the environment has wide-ranging consequences. Among them is the fact that it encourages other like-minded countries to lend their support to important environmental initiatives.
Every Canadian can take pride in the role that Prime Minister Mulroney has taken in the area of the environment.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, Inuit from Nunavut who are concerned about the Great Whale James Bay II hydro project met in Ottawa this week. They are concerned because so far the federal environmental review of this proposed project has largely excluded them, yet they will be directly impacted by this project.
At particular risk is the community of Sanikiluaq located on the Belcher Islands in Hudson Bay. Sanikiluaq is situated almost directly opposite the Great Whale River, a mere 90 miles from the outfall from the project.
The Keewatin region coastal communities of Arviat, Whale Cove, Rankin Inlet, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour and Repulse Bay will also be impacted. The marine environment of Hudson Bay is the traditional food source for the Inuit people of all these communities. The environmental threat to these marine resources is real.
I urge the federal government to fully include the Inuit of Nunavut by funding them in the environmental review process. Without the full and sufficiently funded participation of the people of Hudson Bay and its western coast, the review of this project will be incomplete.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise in this House today to point out to Canadian taxpayers the second most stupid proposal in the history of the world to spend taxpayers' money.

June 12, 1992
Oral Questions
The most stupid proposal in the history of the world to spend taxpayers' money was the proposal by this government to spend $15 billion on a fleet of nuclear submarines for Canada.
The second most stupid proposal was to spend $5 billion of taxpayers' money on 50 helicopters for antisubmarine warfare. It forgot that there is no justification any longer for this expenditure. There is no longer a Russian submarine fleet as a threat.
As far as the search and rescue role, the existing Chinook and Labrador helicopters, with upgraded engines, are far superior to the present proposal.
Let us be clear: This is in fact the most stupid proposal to spend taxpayers' money since the last election.


FEDERATION DES CLUBS DE L'AGE D'OR
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Beauharnois -Salaberry):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow evening, hundreds of people will meet in Valleyfield to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Federation des clubs d'age d'or du sud-ouest, which includes 28 senior citizens clubs in the diocese of Valleyfield. My wife Colombe and I will be delighted to join in the festivities.
The Prime Minister has sent his best wishes, and today, I would also like to congratulate all members, and especially Gerard Malouin, president of the federation, and Gaston Lafontaine, the federation's director general. We also have special greetings for four members who were present at the founding of the federation 20 years ago: Rebecca Trepanier, of Valleyfield; Lucienne Goyette, also of Valleyfield; Marielle Legault, from Huntingdon; and Albert Besner from Dorion.


TERRA NOVA NATIONAL PARK
Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I am fortunate to have in my riding one of Canada's most scenic parks, Terra Nova National Park.
It was beautifully carved by glacial activity a long, long time ago. Unfortunately the same glacial activity occurs
every winter and it has taken a serious toll on the conditions of the 42 kilometres of Trans-Canada Highway that runs through it.
My constituents from the 22 communities in the immediate area have been writing to me with petitions by the thousands protesting the deplorable state of the highway. Elizabeth Blackmore, town clerk of Clarenville recently wrote me and she said:
In past years a drive through Terra Nova National Park with its beautiful scenery was a very enjoyable experience. Today, that same drive is a nightmare.
I have written to the minister several times on this subject. I now appeal again to the Minister of the Environment, in the wake of thousands of tourists who will be celebrating Canada's 125th birthday in Terra Nova National Park, that repairs be expedited to the Trans-Canada Highway through this beautiful piece of land.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade, but first I would like to say that we in the Liberal Party wish the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs Godspeed in his last minute negotiations. We await his successful return to the House of Commons.
I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade about his trip to Washington this week to meet with U.S. trade representative Carla Hills. The minister was supposed to convince his good friends in Washington to intervene with the American steel industry so that Canada's steelmakers would not be the victim of a vicious American steel war.
Could the minister confirm that all he got in Washington was a great big American kiss-off?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Tirade):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what my hon. friend means when she uses that expression.
I did have a discussion of this matter with Mrs. Hills. I expressed very strongly the concern we have in the
June 12, 1992

Government of Canada about the impact of the actions that could possibly be taken by the U.S. steel industry. She indicated that she is continuing discussions with the industry. I asked her to make sure that these views would be conveyed to the industry.
As my hon. friend knows, if members of the private sector in Canada or the United States wishes to institute a trade action it is within their power to do so. If the Canadian steel industry wanted to initiate an action against the U.S. industry I am sure she, representing a steel city, would not want me to step in and tell the steel industry exactly what it should do. She would expect that I would convey views of other countries, which I would hope Mrs. Hills would be doing. More than that I think would probably be inappropriate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am shocked and surprised by the about-face of the minister who claimed as late as last week that in fact he was going to convince the American administration to get the facts through to the American steel industry.
I can tell him that what I intend to continue to do on behalf of the constituents and the workers in my riding is to stand up for the Canadian steel industry against an unfair, unfounded U.S. complaint that has already cost Canadian jobs and is going to cost further Canadian jobs.

I am getting to my question. We already know that Canadians are losing out to other suppliers. U.S. customers are reluctant to rely on Canadian suppliers because of the trade war that might start as early as next week.
What specific action does the Canadian minister intend to take to at least urge the U.S. administration to approach the U.S. companies directly, in order to stop this useless trade war which will cost us thousands of Canadian jobs in an industry that is already hard hit?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I met Mrs. Hills on Thesday, and we discussed the issue of measures that might be taken by the U.S. industry. I mentioned that since both the Canadian and U.S. steel markets were highly integrated, the impact of these measures, if taken by the U.S. industry, would create very serious problems for our own industry. I made it clear to Mrs. Hills that it was extremely important to discuss the problems effecting the Canadian steel industry with the U.S. industry. And I
Oral Questions
hope that as a result of our meeting, Ms. Hills will discuss those problems with the industry.
The Canadian government's position is to work together with the U.S. industry to defend Canadian interests, bearing in mind any measures that may be taken by the U.S. industry.
I believe that as soon as a decision is made on the U.S. side, the Canadian government's position will be quite clear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the position of the Canadian government may be very clear. The fact is that Carla Hills told the minister to take a hike. She has no intention of intervening to get the message through to American industry.
Since the Minister for International Trade failed miserably in his mission last Thesday, I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to call upon our Prime Minister because we know the clock is ticking on this one and there could very well be action taken as of next week, formalized action.
Will he ask the Prime Minister of Canada to have a chat with President Bush while in Rio, to take 10 seconds to try to help save thousands of Canadian jobs, to stop this steel war before it starts, not after the fact when it will be too late?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member from Hamilton East has said is quite right. It is much, much better to avoid this type of trade war before it starts, rather than get into it and have the damage that flows from that. That is precisely the position that I took with Mrs. Hills on Thesday.
The position we have taken all along, whether it was when the Prime Minister met with the President earlier this month or late last month I guess it was, was the position the Prime Minister took with the President.
As the Prime Minister has said on other occasions, these are issues that are initiated by the industry. We cannot stop what industry wants to do. We can make our views known, and these views have been made known very, very clearly. We will continue to do so on every occasion that we have.

Oral Questions TRADE


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Canada's special relationship with the United States just is not working.
I have another question for the same minister. The GATT report released yesterday on Canada's trade policies concluded that Canada's present recession has been prolonged because of its overdependence on a single country for its trade. In fact, Canada's share of total world trade has declined from 5 per cent to 4 per cent under this government.
Why is Canada so intent on tying our trade to one single country rather than expanding our trade to other markets around the world like these GATT countries are telling us?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has distorted the facts. The facts are that Canada has not suffered because of the free trade agreement. Our exports to the United States in the first quarter this year were at record levels. They are at record levels in total.


An hon. member:: What about jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend from Edmonton asks: "What about jobs?" Surely he can understand that every billion dollars worth of trade adds
15,000	jobs. If we add $5 or $6 billion of trade we get somewhere between 75,000 to 100,000 new jobs in Canada that would not be there without the free trade agreement.


An hon. member:: Where?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend asks where they are. They are in her city. I could give her some specific examples of companies that have increased their market share and have created jobs in Canada because they are taking advantage of the opportunities ' that are there with the free trade agreement.
My hon. friend suggests that we are becoming too reliant on the United States market. One of the considerations in entering into a free trade agreement with the United States is to expand into that U.S. market, build our competitive position by increasing our competitiveness through rationalization and specialization into the
U.S. market and use that position to increase our sales into other countries. That is precisely what is happening.
Companies are gaining market share in the United States. They are using that increased competitiveness to sell into other markets.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, what I am telling the government and what I am telling the minister is that other countries around the world are telling Canada that it is too overdependent on a single economy and that it will be disastrous for this economy.
Although the Asian bloc accounts for some 60 per cent of the world's population and 50 per cent of global production, Canada only does 11 per cent of its trade with Asia. It is incredible, but since 1988 our share of exports to Japan and to Europe have been declining.
Why is this government preaching competitiveness and preaching globalization yet at the same time increasing the integrating of our economy with one single country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the simplistic conclusions that my hon. friend is drawing demonstrate clearly his total lack of understanding of how companies and countries build their competitive positions.
If my hon. friend looked at the statistics and read them honestly into the record, he would see that the reliance on the United States market started back in 1980. At that time our percentage of exports to the United States market was at about 65 or 66 per cent. They reached a peak in the middle eighties of close to 80 per cent. They have come down to 75 per cent.
The precise approach we are following is to increase our trade promotion activities into other countries. I have personally led trade missions to China, Japan and Korea. I will be in other parts of the Far East in September this year and also in Spain, the Middle East and the reforming countries of the former Soviet Union.
These are the efforts the government is taking to broaden our trade but we need a competitive position. The best way that we can build that competitive position is by rationalizing and specializing in the United States market. With access to that market companies are able to do so and are doing so right now.
June 12, 1992


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday she said that the $4.3 billion helicopter deal was necessary because the existing search and rescue helicopters were unsafe.
The minister will be aware that the proposed new helicopters are single rotor and that the existing Labradors are twin rotor and are therefore much safer in the kind of terrain in which they have to operate.
Perhaps the minister is also aware that most of the $4.3 billion purchase is not for search and rescue helicopters but is for very expensive anti-submarine helicopters.
Is the minister not aware that the existing 12 Labradors, the 12 Labrador search and rescue helicopters, can be made safe and efficient for another 20 years for simply $200 million, not $4.3 billion?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, there are so many erroneous assumptions in the hon. member's question that it is hard to deal with them all.
First of all I want to make it clear the existing Labradors are safe. They have limited capability and we have had to limit their operations in that respect. They do not even make Labradors any longer. They are already getting to be 30 years old.
We are looking now at a replacement helicopter both for search and rescue and for shipboard aircraft which will take us through to the year 2035. Is my hon. colleague saying that we should be operating 70-year old helicopters at that point? I do not think so.
We have to plan ahead. We have to look at what our needs are going to be both for search and rescue and for our new frigates which involve all of our new missions including the patrol of sovereignty. I think my hon. colleague, coming from Victoria, British Columbia, would have a very strong awareness of the importance of
Oral Questions
providing that kind of support to our navy. It is going to benefit British Columbia and the maritime provinces primarily.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, neither my party nor I have to take a back seat to anyone in our support for the navy.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John F. Brewin: I am glad the House is listening. The fact remains that 35 to 50 of these Cadillac version helicopters the government is proposing to buy are for anti-submarine warfare. That is what they were designed for. That is how they will be equipped.
Is the government not aware that the American house armed services committee has frozen a similar U.S. program because the deep sea Soviet submarine threat is over and that these kinds of helicopters cannot meet the likely threats of the future?
How can the government leave this project alive while killing national child care programs and leaving over one million Canadian young people in poverty?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, as I have said several times in the House this week, there has been no decision on this matter. There has been no recommendation to cabinet.
This project has been worked on internally for the past six years. If my colleague had kept up to date with the various defence journals he would have been following the developments which have gone on in a very extensive manner looking at a whole variety of options.
I would like to advise my hon. colleague that the helicopters on our new frigates are capable of performing a whole variety of tasks. The ability to detect submarines is only one small component.
The major missions, as my hon. colleague will know from our new defence policy, will require them to be involved in sovereignty patrols, fisheries patrols, interdiction of drugs, the whole mechanism by which we maintain the navy's capability on each of our two coasts.

June 12, 1992
Oral Questions DRUG TESTING


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, on another subject to the associate minister. The government has announced that every employee in the Department of National Defence, no matter what the employee's duties, will be obliged to undergo mandatory drug testing. The government has said the program will be extended to other departments.
Has the government ignored the strenuous objections of the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Phillips, that these tests simply do not contribute to public safety, are unnecessarily expensive and are an Orwellian infringement on individual rights? If the government does insist-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the question has been put or it is turning into a very long preamble.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I do not exactly consider that a supplementary. Once again, my hon. colleague has his facts wrong. There is no program to test all employees of DND.
We are in the process of introducing a drug testing program for our Armed Forces personnel. It will be phased in. We will focus first on those who have had high risk jobs in those areas where we are most concerned. Over a period of time, we will be extending it to other units.
We are having discussions. I met with the chairman of the Human Rights Commission just this week to discuss these matters with him and to ensure that what we plan to do will be compliant with both the Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission.


SMALL BUSINESS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister of small business. Canadians need jobs and small business needs financing to help create those jobs.
The minister has stated in this House that he is concerned about the constriction of financing to small business by the banking industry. If the minister is so concerned, why has he allowed the Federal Business Development Bank to cut back on loans and guarantees to small business in this past year by over $385 million?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, last year the Federal Business Development Bank did close to 4,000 loans that the private banks would not do.
It is playing a complementary role in terms of providing credit to small business. The problem the FBDB faces is it has fewer applications than in previous years. Therefore, its volume is down. The FBDB has been very active in spite of that.
Also, I am delighted to see today the chartered banks are coming to terms with what I have been complaining about. They were in Ottawa this week and I have spoken to a number of them. They assure me that they will move in the opposite direction, away from constriction of credit.
The banks say the business level has been down somewhat for credit and that accounts for it. I do not know whether that is the case or not.
This week, two of the banks did announce a freeze on service charges to small business for the next year or two. Then we see one bank announce today it is cutting its loan rate to small business 1 per cent below prime to 6.2 per cent. I do not think we have had a rate for small business at that level for over 30 years.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, if there is a lack of demand for financing from the Federal Business Development Bank as the minister indicates, then this government should start looking for a better way to provide this service.
Many small businesses are desperate for financing. How can this minister be taken seriously when he is urging the banking industry not to be as restrictive on small business if his own government has allowed the Federal Business Development Bank to cut loans and guarantees by over 43 per cent this past year.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, first of all, the Federal Business Development Bank does not provide guarantees. I think the hon. member should understand that. She does not understand what the FBDB does.
Second, in terms of the volume of loans, her figures are exaggerated. It has moved into a venture loan program which is totally new. Its marketing and management assistance to small business has been stepped up further and has been extremely well received. As well, it
June 12, 1992

Oral Questions
has maintained a very healthy level of loans filling a complementary need in the market.
Beyond that, this government through financial institution reform as of June 1 now makes it possible for insurance companies and trust companies to do an unlimited amount of commercial lending. That is going to put competition in the market for the banks. The hon. member speaks only of the banks and the FBDB. She should also urge the insurance companies and the trust companies to get into small business lending as well.


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
There has been a recent announcement that the Canadian Coast Guard's regional headquarters will be moved in 1993 from Toronto to Sarnia. Will the minister assure me and the House that this is not the beginning of greater centralization affecting other Coast Guard offices in Canada?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker yes, the regional headquarters is moving from Toronto to Sarnia this year.
This move was taken because of space requirements in Toronto and the end of a lease on the particular space we were occupying. It was a move to take the Coast Guard people closer to the those with whom they were working.
We have combined the services in Sarnia. This was a move to better provide service to the coastal and marine people. It is only one move; it is not part of an over-all move at all.


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
In order to dispel the rumours circulating in my riding and reassure the other Coast Guard employees, would the minister's office issue a statement or a directive to employees advising them that the Toronto to Sarnia move of the Coast Guard in 1993 will affect Toronto employees only?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to have a letter sent to the employees in his area to reassure them.


NUCLEAR REACTORS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of energy and concerns a grave situation affecting Essex county and Windsor.
On June 2 the Fermi II nuclear plant in Michigan locked out skilled unionized workers. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said this could cause maintenance problems within several weeks.
Given two accidents at Fermi since the lock-out the Canadian consul in Detroit today tells me that she contacted Fermi and I quote: "To express our deepest concern about the operation of the plant".
Is the minister prepared to go further through the contacts which the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada has kept up with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States?
Will the minister tell Fermi to cease operations, to end this lock-out, to do something to see to it that Canadians are protected during the course of this labour dispute, to see that this labour dispute is in fact settled before this plant goes back to full operation?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a valid point. I say to him the Atomic Energy Control Board as he has also indicated in his question has been making the point in respect of nuclear plant operation safety.
There are two points that I have to add. One, obviously the Government of Canada cannot get involved in a domestic labour strike. Two, the United States, Canada and other countries are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We all have agreed to various means by which we will safely operate our nuclear plants.

June 12, 1992
Oral Questions
I will take the member's point further and check with the AECB today as to what response it has received or what further actions it is contemplating with its counterparts in the United States.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
Champion Sparkplug in Windsor has been thriving up until recently. Indeed, up until yesterday it was hiring new workers. In fact, the vice president in charge of operations said in a letter that Windsor workers were known for their efficiency and quality of work ethic in the Windsor plant. However, in that same letter the vice president says that 225 people are going to lose their jobs at Champion Sparkplug because production is being moved to Burlington, Iowa.
In the last two weeks five other plants in Windsor have closed. Three thousand men and women have lost their jobs. We have lost 50 plants.
The workers in Windsor want me to ask the minister this question: When will this government recognize the failure of its industrial policy, of its free trade agreement, and its prospective North American free trade agreement and produce an industrial strategy that will stop this haemorrhage of Canadian jobs and produce real industrial growth in this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the specific incidents that my hon. friend refers to.
I can tell him that Pratt & Whitney opened a $12.5 million plant that will bring some good technology into Canada and help create jobs in Canada. I can refer to a company in the Hamilton area, Linde Canada, that is going to be the headquarters for its new industrial and specialty gas distribution system.
No one is happy in raising these types of concerns. My only point in making these other two observations is that we live in a dynamic economy. There are some changes going on. There are changes for the good and changes for the bad, but I think the fact that our exports to the United States were at record levels in the first quarter of
this year indicates we are having more successes than downturns.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The government is telling the Canadian public to shop at home. We all know the profound impact that crossborder shopping has had on border communities and on the Canadian economy in general.
Can the government explain to those same Canadians why Canada Post is currently supplying each of its 23,000 letter carriers with three short sleeved shirts, three long sleeved shirts and three ties; 200,000 pieces of clothing made in the United States?
Will the government direct its own Crown corporation to buy in Canada?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the minister responsible for Canada Post, I know that we have often heard the minister say here that in recent years, since it came to power, this government has taken a Crown corporation that was running a $400-million annual deficit and now we have a team at Canada Post that is one of the best in the world. So I think that people are fed up with paying taxes for money losers and I think that the whole country wins if we have policies that make Canada Post profitable.


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand how buying in the United States is going to reduce the Canadian deficit.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. Canada 125 is buying outside of Canada. Canada Post is buying outside of Canada. What directives, if any, does this government give Crown corporations about crossborder shopping?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend is aware of an advertising program we have under way called "Canada: Buy Into It".
June 12, 1992


Some hon. members:: Whoopee!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If my hon. friends on the other side would relax for a minute I will give them the answer.
This program is being presented in conjunction with a number of companies in the private sector, major retailers like The Bay, Sears, Dyelex; companies that are using the program we have introduced to reinforce their advertising and sales promotions to increase sales within Canada and, in that way, deal with the difficulties of cross-border shopping.
I am sure my hon. friend is aware that there was a significant drop in cross-border shopping in the month of April. I am sure my hon. friend is also aware that there is a 6 per cent to 7 per cent increase in department store sales. I think this is an indication of a trend of business coming back to Canada, supported fully by the activities of this government.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
If there is a small drop in cross-border shopping I cannot help but wonder why this government is trying desperately to bring it back up.
The minister will know that at the same time as his government is spending all that money on advertising, telling people to shop at home, the government-owned, to the tune of 85 per cent, Petro-Canada is opening up gas bars across the border in the very famous Canadian city of Plattsburg, New York with the sole purpose of getting Canadians to go across the border to buy cut-rate gas? What is the government going to do about this?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am sure that my hon. friend would support a position of the Government of Canada whereby we are reducing our ownership in Petro-Canada so that we can use those resources more effectively to support such things as social programs and economic development here in Canada. We provide support through the provinces for education and health care through the privatization of Petro-Canada.
Once we move down that track it is not within our power to direct Petro-Canada as to where it should or should not do business.
Oral Questions
My hon. friend and I may well agree that Petro-Cana-da's activity is something that we do not agree with. This is something that I am sure Mr. Hopper will be sensitized to when he watches this show this evening.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am at least glad to hear that message and I hope Mr. Hopper gets it loud and clear.
I want to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and resources on cross-border shopping as well.
The Government of Canada has embarked on another patriotic adventure. It has decided to use the Dutch company Interpost to ship mail from Canada to other countries. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources uses Interpost, and I quote from the minister's documents here: "because it offered low rates and 'reliable service'".
I want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources why is it that his department is spending $301,237 giving contracts to the Dutch company Interpost to deliver Canadian government mail outside the country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, the minister who reports for Canada Post would probably like to have the answer as well.
Putting it very directly, I will do some checking on the file. I say to the hon. member that he has to be a little careful; I had the same type of question in Halifax on the weekend, on why for example did we-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's a good answer!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The most the hon. member ever does is sit and make inane comments. Motor-mouth Sheila.
Madam Speaker, what we are saying to them, as for example, that energy that we got out of the ground last weekend for the first time was dropped in the Gulf of Mexico. We made good money on it. The question then becomes, well, why did we not drop it in Canada? If we can get some more money for Canadian products, we will do it. The reverse works as well.


Don Boudria: That was from Canada.

June 12, 1992
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Precisely, but it works the other way as well. I guess that is what you do not understand about an economy.


THE VICTORIA CROSS
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence and concerns the Victoria Cross.
Does the minister support the restoration and Cana-dianization of the Victoria Cross as Canada's highest medal for valour in the face of the enemy?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague's interest in this subject, but I would like to point out to him that the Victoria Cross is a British medal bestowed by the Queen. It is not a Canadian medal. Obviously Canadians would still be eligible to receive it. It is given for extraordinary valour in the face of the enemy. We hope we do not have to face such an enemy.
At the same time, within Canada we have been developing our own system of honours and awards over a number of years. The final component of that would be to develop our own awards for valour in the face of the enemy. That work is not complete but is ongoing.
I am sure that the hon. member would agree that it is important that we have within Canada a method of recognizing bravery of Canadian men and women in the Armed Forces.


WAR CRIMES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it concerns the bringing to justice of alleged Nazi war criminals who are currently living in Canada.
Recently the minister announced a cut-off date of March 1994 for completion of all current war crimes dossiers. In view of the very strong criticism of that decision by many groups, both in the Jewish community and beyond, and recognizing that there must be no statute of limitations on these crimes against humanity, I
want to ask the minister to clarify to the House just how many files remain active in this area, and will the minister assure the House that her announcement will not in any way preclude further investigations based on new evidence or information on these terrible crimes?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I did not announce a cut-off date of March 1994. I indicated that March 1994 was the target date by which we had to try to complete the dossiers that came out of the Deschenes commission and dealt with World War II crimes.
This was not by any means to suggest that we would not continue to investigate after, but to recognize that those particular offences took place at a period of time which creates problems for us now in accumulating evidence. We have set that target date for ourselves as a way of allocating resources in our department, to try to ensure that we get that evidence within a reasonable period of time. We do not have an unlimited period of time to investigate these offences.
I indicated that date during the hearings on my estimates to indicate to people that we are deeply committed to this process and have set for ourselves a target, not to cut off investigations but to ensure that we devote sufficient resources to resolve those problems. In fact, we are devoting more resources to that file than have been allocated by Treasury Board. We have allocated additional resources to try and meet that challenge.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that assurance. The minister still has not indicated how many files do remain active. I trust she will answer that.
I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Respected Canadian historian, Dr. Alti Rodal, prepared five years ago for the Deschenes commission a full study on Canada's shameful record of closing the door on Jews fleeing Nazis while allowing war criminals to enter.
In view of Judge Deschenes' statement at that time, that this study deserves wide distribution, will the government finally release the full Rodal report so that the truth can be told about this shameful chapter in Canadian history?
June 12, 1992


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, with respect to the first comment of the hon. member, as he will know, it is the policy of the government and of every attorney general in the country never to confirm or deny whether investigations are under way.
It is awkward because there was some misunderstanding coming out of the Deschenes commission of precisely what number of files there were that had promise of prosecution. He will know that Justice Deschenes did not have access to evidence from outside of Canada, from eastern European files, or have the ability to evaluate the viability of those files, based on the full range of evidence and availability of witnesses. Some have proved to be more promising than were expected and some have proven to be less promising.
With respect to the release of any kind of report, he will know that there are very important charter and privacy considerations that are involved in these reports. These have governed our approach to releasing that kind of information.


HIBERNIA
Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In mid-February shock waves went through Newfoundland when the news broke that Gulf Oil would pull its 25 per cent share out of the Hibernia project. Since that time there has been wild speculation, as the minister knows, both positive and negative, about the future of this project.
Since this is such a critical project to Newfoundland, indeed to the whole of Canada, I wonder if the minister could share with us what are the prospects of another fourth partner to replace Gulf and what is the possibility of success for this project.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question because he and members of the House have been very helpful on this project.
I want to say to the member that his assessment of the period post-February 4, when Gulf served notice on the consortium and the two governments that it was pulling out its 25 per cent share in Hibernia is correct and that
Oral Questions
all concerned have been working very diligently across the world in an attempt to find investors in the project.
I do not think it comes as any surprise to the hon. member when I say that it has been difficult because of the investment climate in the oil business world-wide. Returns are not as buoyant in the oil industry as we have experienced in past years.
I can indicate to the hon. member that as we speak we are in negotiations for a possible partner or partners who are examining very seriously the possibility of their entering into an arrangement with the two governments and with the consortium.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the minister's response and the somewhat delicate nature of the negotiations.
With the future of the Newfoundland economy hinging on the possibility of a shutdown fishery, the Hibernia project takes on an even greater significance, if that is possible.
The critical date of early October, when the 240 day penalty clause is up for Gulf, their continued funding until that date is fast approaching. In fact, we are a little bit more than midway there. I think the minister can appreciate how anxious people in Newfoundland are getting right now.
I wonder if perhaps he could reconsider and give us some indication of how many options are available, whether there is any likelihood of success and perhaps even more important, the dates that we may know more information.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to be as forthcoming as possible. I appreciate the member's sensitivity to the timing of this question.
I appreciate what he says about Newfoundland having difficulties in the fishery, the announcement that Hibernia had lost a partner on February 4 and the general state of the economy. It is that reality that has doubly motivated all of us to try to get a solution on Hibernia.
I have always said that Hibernia is important, but it is important in the larger context of Newfoundland being able to develop a resource. That is why I mentioned earlier today about offshore oil coming into Nova Scotia. I saw on Saturday the buoyancy in Nova Scotia. Again, it

June 12, 1992
Routine Proceedings
does not solve every problem in Nova Scotia but it does add to the buoyancy.
I can only say to the hon. member that I do not want to raise false hopes in Newfoundland because they have been dashed too many times. We are going to use this weekend to negotiate. In fact, starting tonight I will be involved personally as well as members of the Newfoundland government with a consortium and with potential investors. We will be dedicating this weekend in the hope that we can bring this to closer fruition.


CHILDREN
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, following the conference on the rights of the child, the government put forward the child tax credit. In fact, this proposal will actually make children on welfare poorer, not better off.
If the government is really concerned about child poverty, will the minister promise to fully index the child tax credits to inflation?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, I have always maintained here in this House that the best way to ensure quality of life for families and children is to reduce the deficit, improve economic growth and create jobs, and that is what we are working on.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I know that the minister is aware of this question. We have had a discussion about it and his sympathies in the matter.
Is the minister prepared to meet with representatives of the Gwa'Sala-'Nakwaxda'xw council to discuss some of the problems that it has had over the last 30 years in terms of social disintegration? Also, is he prepared to meet with his colleagues to co-ordinate the response from the ministries of health, employment and aboriginal affairs in this very important matter?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I certainly am prepared to meet with various First Nations chiefs and councils as I travel across the country.
I certainly would be prepared to meet the representatives of the Gwa'Sala-'Nakwaxda'xw council at an appropriate occasion when I am in British Columbia, which is almost weekly.
I should say that the department is reviewing a specific claim from this community on northern Vancouver Island, and we are undertaking a number of capital improvements within that community of which the member is well aware.
I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to table today in the House, in both official languages, Orders in Council announcing appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), these Orders in Council are deemed to have been referred to the standing committees indicated in the appendix.


CANADA'S SENIORS
Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, as Minister of State for Seniors, I have the pleasure and honour to remind all of us assembled here that at this time of the year, seniors are honoured all across Canada.
From the end of May until the end of June, all provinces and territories have ongoing activities for seniors. These activities, organized at the community, municipal or provincial level, vary from social gatherings
June 12, 1992

to officially designated events, such as the Seniors Day in the Manitoba legislature.
I am particularly happy to take part in this tribute to our seniors. As you already know, the mandate the Prime Minister entrusted to me as Minister of State for Seniors is to give a voice to seniors in cabinet and to represent their interests in Parliament.
Very early in my mandate, I decided that one of the most important contributions I could make was to become a good listener. Consequently, I have spent many hours consulting with older Canadians from coast to coast and in our northern territories. I have also talked with those who represent seniors' organizations, with self-help groups and with individuals who work with older Canadians.
The government has also commissioned a number of studies to learn about seniors' views and we can now rely on the results of two interesting studies.
The first, conducted by Statistics Canada, explored issues affecting the independence of older Canadians. The topics addressed included: preparation for retirement, employment, physical and social activities, health and well-being, life experience, mobility and travel, accidents and safety, housing, income and finances, and satisfaction with life.
The second study, by Health and Welfare Canada, was a series of focus groups exploring the meaning of independence and quality of life for older Canadians. This research and my extensive contacts with seniors have enabled me to understand what seniors expect. They expect independence, equality and recognition as individuals.
For Canada's seniors, independence is both a state of living and a state of mind. Independence, for seniors, means being free to do what they want to do, being responsible for their own initiatives.
Aging is indeed a life long process which involves a series of changes from birth to death, but unfortunately many misconceptions and myths on this subject persist.

Canada's seniors expect to be integrated into society, not seen as a group apart. They want to be treated as equals. They want people to take their views into account, to listen to them and involve them in decision-
Routine Proceedings
making. They want to have the opportunity to participate directly in the design and implementation of programs that affect them. They want to be seen as contributors to society, not as yesterday's corporate leaders, retired teachers or mechanics.

Seniors also want to be recognized as individuals, as different from one another. They do not want to be viewed as a statistic, an age group. I find these expectations very reasonable. Canadian seniors vary in income, cultural and educational backgrounds, state of health, and life experiences. They have different aspirations and fulfil themselves in many different ways. While they have many common concerns, their priorities and opinions differ.
Administrators, health care workers and elected officials often ask themselves how they can best help seniors achieve and maintain this desired independence.
In Canada, we have a number of supports available to seniors. The first major program for older Canadians began in the late 1920s, when the federal government co-operated with various provinces to finance a joint old-age pension scheme. Today, our government's concern for seniors is reflected in the fact that Canada's "elderly benefit system" is now the largest program expenditure area within government.
The rapid increase in the senior population has stimulated the development of other federal programs and services for seniors in such areas as housing and health and social services.
Worthy of special mention is the Seniors Independence Program designed to help seniors improve their health, well-being and independence and to enhance their quality of life. This program encourages seniors to get involved in designing and carrying out projects which affect their quality of life and independence.
New Horizons is another program that has encouraged and supported projects planned and carried out by seniors themselves.

In concluding, I would like to build on our experience in developing a new strategy that also promotes improved co-operation between departments and in-

June 12, 1992
Routine Proceedings
creased partnerships with the various interest groups, including seniors themselves.
I think you will agree with me that in a world concerned with preserving the environment and making the best use of resources, it will be unacceptable to ignore the experience and knowledge of seniors.

Like many other cultures in the world, let us give our seniors the place they deserve.
I encourage hon. members to take part in Seniors Month and to respond to the aspirations of all of these people who have helped build our vast country.
[English)


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond briefly to the statement made by the minister.

Needless to say, we all listened attentively to what the minister had to say and we support the wishes that she expressed today.
Personally, I would have some things to add. This statement is off the cuff. I would like to tell the minister that I spent almost all my life with seniors, since I was raised by my grandmother, my grandparents. Every time I hear something like what the minister said, I remember those childhood years.

There is no doubt that for many of our seniors the greatest enemy, if I can refer to it that way, is solitude. To that extent, programs such as New Horizons and others have contributed to getting seniors together in order to counter that solitude that so often affects our senior citizens.
It is regrettable, though, that quite often those seniors we would want to make part of a group of other seniors are often the ones who are the hardest to approach. They live perhaps in more remote areas, not in our cities and towns, or they sometimes have lived alone for a long time and they are hesitant to join groups of other seniors.
Our golden age clubs, our seniors' clubs, have succeeded in large measure in bringing the seniors together and organizing good, sound recreational activities, both physical and otherwise, in order to occupy the time of many of our seniors who have retired, particularly those living alone.
One should not stereotype our senior citizens as people who have necessarily all retired and are living alone because that is not the case.

Many seniors, of course, live very productive lives and contribute to the labour force, directly or indirectly. I for one am glad to see that the old way of looking at things, of forcing seniors to retire at 65 or some other arbitrary age, is disappearing or observed less and less.
The time has come when Canadians must consider our seniors as people who are as much a part of society as those who are younger and, of course, we must consider them as full members because they contribute so much.

Another thing we should consider in all of this is the aging of our work force. We must ensure strong and meaningful participation for our people who have reached some of those milestone years in their lives. They are needed components of our work force and elsewhere.
In a study I participated in some years ago about skilled trades people in Canada we were noting that some of our skilled people, machinists, skilled people in other specialized areas, were all approaching that so-called age of retirement we use to talk about a lot.
If all those peoples did retire at that arbitrary age, which granted is disappearing now, their retirement would have meant that others would have lost their jobs because they were the team leaders, the organizers, the high-tech people, the machinists, the trades people on whom others depended.
Sometimes some will say, wrongly, that if so and so retired, that would make room for the rest of them to go up that ladder. Perhaps there are occasions when that may be so, not that it would make it a credible argument. In many cases the exact opposite is true.
June 12, 1992

{Translation]
The same thing is happening now in the academic field. Teachers at the secondary and post-secondary level who have doctorates are almost all approaching so-called retirement age. Fortunately, we are eliminating that arbitrary age limit.

In conclusion, I want to indicate the support of my colleagues of the minister's statement but I want to inform the government that we certainly do not want the episode that took place some years ago in which pensions were attacked to happen again in this House. It is my hope that not only that government but any government would have learned its lesson from the attacks of that particular time.
I do not want to end on a negative note. I want to conclude, though, by saying that we consider the message of the minister to be a very positive one, one which we support but again with the caution I have expressed earlier.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on this occasion on behalf of my party and our critic from Beaches-Woodbine, the seniors critic for our party, and express my congratulations to the minister on her statement today. It is my pleasure to be able to be part of a statement in the House of Commons, pointing out to the people of Canada and to anybody else watching the parliamentary channel the resource we have in Canada; namely, our golden agers, our seniors.
One of the things that has been brought out in the speech by the Minister of State for Seniors, and it is an important one, is the need for seniors to be and to feel they are independent.
Independence comes from a sense of economic wellbeing, a sense of security in the knowledge they are surrounded by friends, acquaintances, and that they have sufficient funds squirrelled away, if you will, to see them through their golden years.
When I look at the aspect of aging in the reports of Statistics Canada and others I see that 57 per cent of seniors, those over 65, are women. As it gets up into the higher age groups, those percentages increase. We look at the report of Statistics Canada and we see that women
Routine Proceedings
are more likely to be single, widowed and living alone and independently and that fewer women own homes than their male counterparts.
I also look at the recent study by Statistics Canada on aging and independence and see that in the ages 65 to 69, 18 per cent of males have incomes under $10,000. Of those females over the ages of 65 to 69, the figure is 48 per cent having incomes under $10,000 per year. When I speak of independence and the economic well-being that goes with independence, I point to those figures as an area that we as parliamentarians must look at carefully in deciding the course of our legislation and our thrust for seniors in the future. I know this minister has been one who has worked hard on behalf of seniors throughout the time I have been here and I have appreciated her forthrightness with me and others regarding seniors.
I want to point out that all has not been rosy throughout the time I have been here. As seniors critic for my party and as one who has been interested in the problems of seniors, I have noted health care cuts to various provinces, including my home province of British Columbia. Seniors tell me the GST has hurt them enormously in a number of ways that were not thought of when the GST was brought in. The clawback of old age security has hurt them.
One thing that has been brought out very graphically to me is that as people get older they need various other hygienic products. In one recent case, I am aware those particular products cost an elderly gentleman over $200 a month. There is no tax deduction and there is no way he can get these products under his pharma-care program. It is an out of pocket expense.
I know all of us as parliamentarians have had calls flooding into our offices since April 1 from seniors who get Canada pension, advising that their over all income has dropped by $8 or $9 a month.
For many of us who make reasonable salaries, $8 or $9 a month does not seem that significant. However, when you are receiving under $10,000 a year and you are scraping together enough money to be able to eat properly, $8 a month may make the difference between three full meals in a month. It can make the difference if you want to get out and see a friend that month. I want to highlight that.

June 12, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Although this is a time to celebrate with seniors and draw attention to seniors, I do not think we can turn our backs on the problems that seniors have. There are also other areas we must look at.
I have travelled across the country as the seniors critic. We speak about independent living. As medical breakthroughs come along, people are living longer, but we do not seem to have proper facilities for people that require them, the wandering confused, those with Alzheimers disease, those who have had strokes that have rendered them incapable of looking after themselves. We are just starting to be able to properly and adequately look after these people. When you speak to people who have experienced the trauma of having to place their loved one in a home, it is essential that we have those homes for people and make those facilities available.
I point to the Hardy View Lodge in Grand Forks which just celebrated its 10th anniversary as an example of one that has made a community effort out of this.
I want to mention in closing that I know the minister has worked hard and I know there are many things she would like to do that cannot be done. One thing I want to emphasize as we proceed with the celebration of Seniors Month, is that we have to ensure there is more research and development done in the area of aging, gerontology and the whole process of growing old. We know that it happens. However we must deal with some of the results of aging. I want to congratulate the minister. I want to congratulate the seniors for all of the things they are doing this month. It has been a pleasure to speak on behalf of my party in this celebratory month for seniors.


ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF TIMISKAMING
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: for leave to introduce Bill C-351, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Timiskaming.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, on July 13, 1987 when the Electoral Boundary Readjustment Act came into effect, the riding of Timiskaming, which was noted as a north-south riding, was changed to more of a
north-south-east-west, taking in a large part of the Nickel Belt riding.
Communications in Timiskaming normally followed a north-south path, and in identifying the new part of our riding it was felt that the French River, which was the most southwest point of the riding, that we would be able to change the name to recognize the new portion of the riding and to rename it Timiskaming-French River.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. MacDougall moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed carried.
Bill read the first time and printed.


JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That three members and one staff of the Standing Committee of
Justice and the Solicitor General be authorized to travel to Halifax,
Nova Scotia from August 22 to 27, 1992 to attend the annual
meeting of the Canadian Bar Association.


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of this and I do not have to give my consent until I get some information as to who has been informed here on this side of the House. Until I get that kind of advice I will not give my consent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is a discussion that might be held behind curtains. It would be helpful to the House.


ELECTRONIC VOTING
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I and a number of my colleagues in the House would seek unanimous consent of the House to place a motion before the House to implement electronic voting. I wonder whether there might be unanimous consent.
June 12, 1992


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has heard there is not unanimous consent at this time.


Mr. Kindy:: Madam Speaker, I am sure you will now find unanimous consent in the House in view of the fact that the McGrath commission recommended electronic voting. I am sure the Liberal Party is going to give consent and you will find consent to have electronic voting in this House.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, this attempt to negotiate putting or not putting a different kind of voting system in the House is very interesting. It is normally done between House leaders of the parties, brought to the committee of internal economy if it involves an expenditure and then given to the House.
I am 100 per cent in favour of what is proposed by the hon. member but I am 100 per cent against the scheme he is trying to develop right now. He is trying to get the House to commit to something that his House leader is not even around to see whether or not he agrees with.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member is saying, and possibly that is going to be the best route to follow.
I gather from the other side that it is now likely to be under way next week. I think certainly calling attention to the situation has proved useful. Hopefully it will proceed.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, as the hon. member who just spoke said, I think there is agreement on the other side to have a serious look at this question of electronic voting.
I am sure that the House leaders are going to meet and try to implement that type of voting in this House.


JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably out of the House for
Routine Proceedings
a moment a little earlier when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader moved a motion.
I can now confirm that there have been the usual consultations. I apologize that I had to leave the House for a moment at approximately the time that the motion was moved. I am able to confirm now that in fact the usual consultation and agreement has been sought and obtained.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that is the case. While I appreciate the unflagging vigilance of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, I would not have moved the motion in bad faith. I can assure him of that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I never even implied that the member for Edmonton Southwest would move such a motion in bad faith. If it is in his mind that he may, then I am glad that he withdrew it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Not only is it Friday, I think the full moon is just about to be upon us.
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Felix Holtmann: Madam Speaker, I knew we would get to this portion of Routine Proceedings.
I have with me five petitions, the first one being from a group of residents in the Toulon area asking the federal government to reinstate the federal Co-op Housing Program.

June 12, 1992
Routine Proceedings YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Felix Holtmann: Madam Speaker, I have four other petitions signed by a large number of constituents from the Portage, Oakville, St. Claude area of my riding.
The petitioners are requesting Parliament to revise the laws of Canada and replace the Young Offenders Act in view of a 15-year old who was accused of murdering a 13-year old and given a slight slap on the wrist.
They humbly pray that the government will look at these petitions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have five more petitions this morning which are part of a campaign to persuade the government and Parliament to reinstate the Court Challenges Program.
As you know, this program has helped many individuals and minority groups to clarify their constitutional language rights and equality rights before the courts.
These people maintain that the program, which was not very costly, was very useful in that it enabled all Canadians to clarify these constitutional rights.
At a time when we are reviewing all our constitutional commitments, I think the government would do well to listen to these Canadians.
Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider the option of reinstating the Court Challenges Program, which gives Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by residents of my own constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway as well as North Vancouver, Richmond and a number of other cities in British Columbia who note that Steven Ogunwuyi, a Nigerian, 23 years of age, was unwittingly implicated in an unsuccessful coup attempt against the unelected Nigerian president. Other people implicated in the coup have been executed after unfair trials and
prisoners awaiting trial have died in Nigerian prisons because of the terrible conditions there.
They note that Steven has escaped from Nigeria, made his way to Canada, applied for refugee status and has been denied and ordered removed from Canada back to Nigeria and that he fears for his life.
Therefore, they request that the House of Commons urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to allow, on compassionate grounds, Steven Ogunwuyi to remain in Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I have a second petition which contains signatures gathered by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, particularly Gordon Christie, executive member, which notes that in February of 1985 the House of Commons mandated the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to prepare a report on equality rights in Canada.
That committee did report in October, unanimously recommending that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction. Despite a promise by the federal government in March 1986 to act on this commitment, there has still been no amendment forwarded. The other provinces have acted and the Canadian Human Rights Commission has called for such an amendment.
The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to ensure that government and Parliament act to bring forward immediately an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Finally, Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway, particularly the residents of co-operative housing in Burnaby-Kingsway.
This petition notes that recent government constitutional proposals will transfer jurisdiction over housing to the provinces, including the responsibility for non-profit, co-op housing. It notes that non-profit, co-operative
June 12, 1992

housing provides thousands of Canadian families with quality, affordable shelter. It also notes that many provinces will be unable to support a non-profit, co-operative housing program. It condemns the recent elimination of the co-op housing budget in the federal government budget.
It therefore calls upon Parliament to recognize housing as a shared provincial-federal responsibility, to support the federal non-profit, co-op housing program, to maintain the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation and to restore the budget for co-operative housing.
Having knocked on many co-operative housing doors in my constituency, I know this reflects the concerns of many residents of Burnaby-Kingsway, both in co-operatives and elsewhere.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present to the House a petition that is signed by 2,250 or more residents of Canada, most of them in Ontario but some of them in Alberta and Quebec. It was gathered by the British Heritage Institute of Canada. A particular moving force was my friend and constituent, George Penfold.
This petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada to recognize explicitly, respect and retain in the Constitution all those elements of Canada's British heritage that benefit all citizens through historical honesty, fair play, good manners and precedent, including one dominion under the Queen, the supremacy of Parliament.
It also calls for the repeal of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that the supremacy of Parliament is recognized through the majority of the elected representation.
It also calls for equality of all individual citizens. It calls for individuals' responsibilities for the consequence of their actions rather than prescriptive rights to be recognized in the Constitution. It calls for all of our basic freedoms and it calls for the continuation of the British parliamentary tradition within our Constitution.
Routine Proceedings JUSTICE


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, I have two groups of petitions. There are several but I will table them according to the two subject matters.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society. It calls upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Lyle Vanclief: This petition calls upon the government to put forward a referendum on the constitutional amendments and the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces, with the territories being given the status of one province.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the attached petition is hereby certified correct.
I have the honour to present this petition on behalf of the Kinettes and Kinsmen Club of Kootenay East with over 300 signatures on it.
Whereas Canadians are normally a reserved people, often concealing their patriotic feelings, and whereas Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada have created an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the proud to be Canadian project during the celebration of our 125th anniversary of Confederation in 1992, the undersigned, your petitioners, hereby support the proud to be Canadian project as an opportunity to nurture a positive life-long relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadian for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and promote our tremendous pride in being Canadian.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a petition signed by many of my

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
constituents who are calling on the government to take action in order to correct the discriminatory action on the part of some of the major suppliers of gasoline in the Ottawa area.
These petitioners want to see this injustice corrected.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition today signed primarily by residents of Saskatchewan who are concerned-and it ties in very much to an announcement expected to be made today by the CRTC regarding long distance communication-that the consequence of this possible rate restructuring will lead to increases in telephone bills for nine out of 10 Canadians, particularly those in rural and more isolated communities, and will jeopardize Canada's tradition of affordable universal telephone service. They are very concerned about this expected decision.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition that I have the pleasure of presenting to the House. It is signed by a large number of residents of Vancouver Island and the coast of B.C. It asks that the government repeal the goods and services tax.
The petition points out that the tax is regressive and punitive, that it is of tremendous harm to small business and people in lower incomes. The petition notes that the New Democratic Party is the only party to advocate the repeal of the goods and services tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 18 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will now put to the House the first group of motions which includes Motions Nos. 2, 17, 36 and 72.
I will remind the House that a vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to Motions Nos. 17, 36 and 72.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-55 be amended in clause 13 by striking out line 11 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"residing with a person to".
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-55 be amended in clause 43 by striking out lines 30 and 31 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"death, residing with a person to whom the contributor was not mar-"
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 72 by striking out lines 26 and 27 at page 67 and substituting the following therefor:
"death, residing with a person to whom the contributor was not mar-"
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out lines 34 and 35 at page 150 and substituting the following therefor:
"sion plan, means a person who"
He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise to put before the House today this group of amendments to federal pension legislation in Canada.
The fundamental purpose of these amendments is to ensure basic fairness, equity, and justice for thousands of Canadians who are currently denied that in this country.
June 12, 1992

The amendments would amend five pieces of federal legislation which deal with federal pensions: the Public Service Superannuation Act which is the pension plan that currently covers some 312,000 federal government employees; the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act which covers nearly 88,000 Armed Forces members; the RCMP Superannuation Act which covers some 20,000 RCMP members; the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act which covers that pension plan for members and senators; and finally the Pension Benefits Division Act which provides for the division of benefits if a marriage or common law relationship breaks down.
We are talking about tens of thousands of Canadians who are affected by this legislation. Among those tens of thousands of Canadians are lesbians and gay men who are involved in committed loving relationships.
Current federal pension legislation does not explicitly preclude the possibility of the survivor of a lesbian or a gay man within the scope of the legislation being eligible for a pension. However, Bill C-55 would explicitly amend these statutes to make it clear that we would be denying access to benefits to couples involved in lesbian or gay relationships.
We have been told the federal government is reviewing all federal legislation to determine whether distinctions which are made with respect to spouses constitute a violation of the equality rights section of the Charter of Rights based on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
We have been told the results of that review will be available in June 1993.1 therefore have to ask, why is the government now moving ahead to explicitly close the door to equality and justice for lesbians and gay men in this countiy who would otherwise be eligible for such pensions?
I would note the Government of Ontario recently extended a series of job benefits to same sex partners of government employees, but the government was told because of current federal pension legislation it could not extend its pension scheme to lesbian and gay employees within provincial jurisdiction.
I would argue the amendments which are being proposed in Bill C-55 violate the Charter of Rights because they deny fundamental equality on the basis of
Government Orders
sexual orientation. The purpose of the amendments which I am placing before the House at this time would be to repeal the explicit reference to families being of the opposite sex and would in fact leave open the possibility that these pension benefits would be available to lesbians and gay men involved in committed relationships.
I would have preferred to have put in amendments which explicitly and clearly set out that entitlement, but I was told such amendments would be out of order.
I would note as well that some six years after the government promised to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, we are still waiting for that basic justice, for that promise to to be fulfilled.
Meanwhile the courts have ruled in a number of instances. The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that a gentleman there, Mr. Timothy Knodel, was entitled to health care benefits. In fact, the provincial legislation which governed the Medical Services Commission discriminated because it did not extend benefits to same sex partners. The judge noted that the two men in question were deeply committed to each other emotionally and sexually, exchanged vows and rings in a private ceremony, established a home together, pooled their finances and shared bank accounts and credit cards.
She noted that evidence in the case by psychiatrist Michael Myers pointed out that the type of emotional bond between homosexual couples is no different than that between heterosexual couples.
Others have made similar arguments, the case of Haig and Birch before the Ontario high court, Brian Mossop whose appeal was recently heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, seeking one day of bereavement leave to attend the funeral of his partner of some 11 years.
I would note as well that we are not talking about a major cost here to the Canadian taxpayer. Indeed, it has been estimated by Mr. Bernard Dussault who works with the federal government in this area that the costs would be minimal. In fact, Mr. Dussault who is the Acting Chief Actuary for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in Ottawa has said that it would add, based on the maximum possible estimate, some 1.5

Government Orders
per cent to the over-all cost of the pension plan if all those who were eligible claimed their benefits.
Similarly, Jim Egan and his partner Jack Nesbit, over 40 years together in a committed, caring relationship have been told that in the eyes of the law their relationship does not exist. Others have moved for justice in this area. In fact, I would note that a number of jurisdictions, including the city of Toronto, the Government of Ontario, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the city of Vancouver, the city of Montreal, the government of the Yukon, a number of universities and a number of major unions have moved in this respect.
Frankly, I as a gay man and as a member of Parliament am tired of hearing that somehow our relationships are not just as strong and just as committed and just as loving and caring as any other relationships in our society, that somehow we are incapable of being families.
In fact, we have heard from REAL Women on this. Peggy Stacey, the president of the B.C. chapter has said: "The traditional family is a mother, a father and children. This ruling affects the fabric of our country". Well, tell that to the tens of thousands of lesbians and gay men in this country who are involved, often against considerable odds, in deeply committed and caring relationships.
I must say that I have seen those relationships, the partners of people with AIDS who have demonstrated incredible love and care and compassion in the course of their struggle against that terrible disease. I think we could learn a great deal from those couples in terms of how to love and build commitment into our relationships.
I would hope that in Canada we will see that it is time to recognize and to celebrate the diversity of our communities, to recognize that lesbian couples and gay couples have been a part of Canadian society, a part of our communities for many, many centuries and to recognize that we too pay taxes. We are not asking for any special rights or special privileges. We are asking for basic equality and basic justice, a recognition of our relationships.
As Dorothy King wrote in a letter to the former premier of Saskatchewan: "Your definition of family is a very distorted one, indeed. If you would care to look outside your own narrow concept of family, you will find an amazing array of family units and many of us, thank
you veiy much, are doing extremely well in spite of the odds against us. My partner and I are just as concerned about our kids as you are about yours. We ski on the weekends, have pets, work, play games, do homework and communicate with each other. When my daughter comes home from school giggling over the cute boy who sits behind her in school, we laugh together and talk about her feelings. She is nine by the way. I do not attempt to make her into anything".
That is one of the many families in Canada. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we recognize that in Canada that among the splendid diversity of families in our community are families of lesbians and gay men as well and we should be entitled to full equality. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we are entitled to full benefits, pension benefits and survivor benefits. Hopefully this amendment will meet with the approval of the House to ensure that the words of the Charter of Rights in section 15 apply to all Canadians.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I just wish to say a very few words in support of this amendment.
This is an important amendment. It is an historic day in this House that the amendment is being discussed and I hope an even more historic day if it is accepted by the government and adopted.
One of the very positive things about our times is that the scourge of homophobia is slowly lifting. It has not completely lifted, but it is beginning to lift. Thus, it brings a freedom with it from a fear which those who are gays and lesbians have had to suffer for years and years and years.
I just wish to say that I give my support and I know that of many, many members of this House to this motion. It is a matter of right, I believe, that this motion be included in this bill and I hope the House supports it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
June 12, 1992


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed with the second group: Motions Nos. 5, 20 and 39.1 may remind the House that a vote on Motion No. 5 will apply automatically to Motions No. 20 and No. 39.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 37 to 47 page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"repealed."
Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out lines 7 to 16 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"repealed."
Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 73 by striking out lines 4 to 13 at page 68 and substituting the following therefor:
"repealed."
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be as quick as possible. I know we have a number of amendments today. Basically these Motions Nos. 5, 20 and 39 were put forth to remove what we commonly refer to as the gold-diggers clause in the various pension plans. What it basically does is remove the age 60 limitation on marriages in the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Armed Forces Superannuation Act and the RCMP Superannuation Act. This is for survivor benefits.
Government Orders
The age 60 rule is clearly contrary to the charter on the basis of age discrimination and must be removed. It is also discriminatory because of the changing demographics. I also think it is basically an insult to many of our senior citizens who receive a pension.
If I may be permitted, I will explain what the clause is all about.
For anyone who marries or remarries after age 60, their spouse would not be entitled to survivor benefits unless the person paid extra pension benefits to have those benefits assigned to his or her spouse. That goes back many years ago to the thirties or forties. I do not not have the exact date.
At that time governments felt that maybe people were retiring much older, in their seventies and some in their late seventies. Sometimes they were remarrying and apparently they thought that the remarriage was basically because someone was looking for some type of advantage. The younger person would marry the older person and take advantage of that person with regard to survivor benefits and whatever.
Now with the change in demographics people are retiring earlier. People are remarrying more often, in the sense that there is a higher divorce rate. This would remove that gold-diggers clause.
We had a witness appear before the committee who was a very specific example. He was part of the RCMP for 33 years. He had contributed pension benefits for 33 years. He had remarried because his first spouse had died. He had been married for 12 years. In this case his spouse would not be entitled to survivor benefits unless the person took a decrease in the pension money he was receiving and put it toward survivor benefits in another plan.
It is a reasonable amendment. We have discussed it in committee with the witnesses who appeared. It seemed to have a lot of approval, but the amendment was not put in committee because we wanted it put in the House to explain to everyone exactly what the clause was all about.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I would like to rise in support of the amendment. I too was in the committee when this former RCMP officer appeared before it. It was a sad experience to see someone who had devoted his whole life and paid into a pension scheme have his spouse pass away before his retirement and then be told that if he wanted to include

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
his new spouse, even though he had a spouse and paid into the program, there would be extra expense costs to him.
It is an injustice. The amendment that has been put forward is a very realistic one. I realize that there have to be some guidelines as to how it is implemented, but I would urge the government to take this amendment very seriously.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Chaleur.
At the present time, pensioners who marry after the age of 60 do not have the option of making provision for survivor's benefits. Bill C-55 provides this option, because it allows pensioners to finance such benefits by reducing the amount of their own pension. The excess amount will be used to finance the pension of the surviving spouse.
Whether this puts an end to age discrimination, which goes against Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is a very moot point. The Federal Superannuates National Association, with a membership of several thousand retired public servants, supports the principle of extending survivor's benefits in the case of marriages that take place after retirement but does not agree with the proposal that would require pensioners to reduce their own pension in order to provide for survivor benefits.
Since the regulations will be determined later on and we have yet to be advised of any details concerning the amount of such benefits, I think we could reasonably expect the government to support this motion. Because so much depends on the regulations, we are still in the dark about how much it will cost pensioners to finance their pension and how much survivors will receive.
The Liberal caucus is proposing this amendment at the report stage. It would simply eliminate the rule relating to marriage after 60 as well as the need for this financing provision.
I would urge hon. members to support Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Chaleur.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 7 at
page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion referred to in section 37 or 68, and prescribing a procedure for informing bargaining agents and other organizations representing contributors and pensioners of the amounts to be paid into the Superannuation Account by these corporations."
He said: Madam Speaker, I have just a quick explanation. This amendment deals with the pension cost of Crown corporations. Government decisions to subsidize the pension cost of privatized Crown corporations, et cetera, are not a proper concern of employees and pensioners.
However it may be a different story when employees and pensioners are required to bear the cost of these subsidies in the form of lower salaries and benefits.
June 12, 1992

As a minimum, when the pension cost of Crown corporations and other organizations having employees under the PSSA are subsidized by the government, employees and pensioners should be informed of these subsidies. Accordingly they should have the necessary data to defend their interests in a collective bargaining and consultation process.
Motion No. 6 does that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 6B
That Bill C-55 be amended in clause 22 by striking out lines 33 and 34 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
'Account;
(w) prescribing circumstances in which a surviving spouse or child of a contributor shall receive an allowance in excess of 50 percent but not exceeding 60 percent of the annuity otherwise playable to the contributor; and
Government Orders (x) generally as the Governor in Council".
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to attempt to increase the survivor benefits on 50 per cent to 60 per cent in those cases where it is needed.
The scope of Bill C-55 does not extend to this particular issue. Legal counsel feels that the only way to bring this issue into the discussion on Bill C-55 is to provide for regulation making power, to provide circumstances in which a surviving spouse or a child of a contributor can get more than 50 per cent of the annuity.
To put it bluntly, it conforms to the benefits standards act which the government tries to make private companies follow. To put it even more bluntly, it is in the MPs pension plan and it should be in the other plans as well. It is simple as that. If it is good enough for us, it should be good enough for all of the others.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I thought members would appreciate a bit of history behind this motion and some consistency with regard to the attitude that the government takes toward public servants.
Since 1984 Canadians have become disillusioned about the political institutions of this country and the whole political process. This has been created and fostered in no small measure by this government's philosophy of do as I say, not as I do.
This hallmark of the present government's approach to public policy matters is evident in Bill C-55. The purpose of the motion before the House at this time moved by my friend from Restigouche-Chaleur is to correct a serious fault in the present legislation.
In 1985 the Canadian government introduced a pension benefits standards bill. This bill which was enacted into law set out a series of minimum standards that Canadian private sector employers required to observe and to follow in setting up and managing pension plans for their employees. This was the government telling the private sector: "Here are the standards".
One of the key provisions of this legislation that affects benefits is the requirement that employers observe the 1966 Canada Pension Plan standard with respect to

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
widows' pensions, namely that as a minimum widows be provided with 60 per cent pensions.
We know at this time that the widows of public servants get 50 per cent of the entitlement. In so far as we are concerned, we have tried over the years to convince this government to stick to its promise of treating public employees, their dependants and their surviving relatives with minimum attention to what this government preaches; in other words a minimum of 60 per cent rather than maintaining the 50 per cent which is presently the order of the day.
The government did not include that in Bill C-55, although it had given the indications in prior communiques, prior declarations or statements that it would.
We are talking of a fairness issue. That is why I wanted to take a few minutes to cover this. If ever there were a longstanding fairness issue, it is to treat our own employees, those who work for the Government of Canada, in the same way as the Government of Canada states the private sector should treat its employees.
I must confess that I have great difficulty in understanding why this bill does not increase widows' pensions from the 50 per cent to the 60 per cent level as promised by the government some time ago.
As I have mentioned, this feature has been in our own Canada Pension Plan for 25 years. It now exists in the MPs pension plan and was made a mandatory requirement for private sector pension plans over five years ago.
I know of no one who disagrees with the proposition that the widows of public servants should not be accorded the same treatment as those of former employees in the private sector.
The government's failure to act on this matter I find even more difficult to fathom given the assurance the President of the Treasury Board gave this House on April 17, 1985. He said: "The Public Service plans will as a minimum generally meet the requirements of the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act". That was a promise, it has not been kept, and we feel it is contributing to this atmosphere of mistrust of politicians by the population.
The only conclusion I can come to is the many words used by the government to express its concerns over the financial plight of older women in Canadian society are just that, nothing but words.
It is equally obvious the government's 1985 promise to correct this human tragedy is turning out to be as empty as many of its other promises to correct long-standing unfairness; unfair processes, unfair programs, unfair application of laws as they affect women.
In this House we should stand up and keep our word to the Canadian public and treat our own employees in the same way we expect the private sector to treat its employees.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I want to echo the words of my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier.
There are three points I would like to make. Purely on the issue of fairness, this is a veiy difficult amendment not to support. Purely on the issue of fairness, how do we leave this House and go out and explain to widows they will have to accept less than those in the private sector and other sectors of the Public Service?
Also, it is probably not a good basis for an argument from a logical viewpoint, but from the pure viewpoint of compassion, if there is anytime that compensation is important it is after the death of a loved one. The last thing in the world a bereaved spouse needs is to be in need of funds. This extra 10 per cent allows for flexibility. To the issue of fairness I would add the issue of compassion.
The third point is the one made by my hon. colleague for Ottawa-Vanier. If you make a promise, you should keep it. If you do not know how much it is going to cost, you should not make the promise. But if you make the promise, then you should keep it.
I would find it veiy hard for anybody to stand up in this House and not support this amendment on any one of those three principles.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.
June 12, 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6B. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed with Motions Nos. 9, 26, 27, 28, 29, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 66.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 27 by striking out line 2 at
page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"times as determined by regulations provided that
(i)	subject to subparagraph (ii), the terms of the regulations relating to the calculation and crediting of interest to the account are determined through negotiation with bargaining agents and other organizations representing contributors and pensioners, and are acceptable to a majority of the bargaining agents and other organizations representing a majority of affected contributors and pensioners, and
(ii)	if an agreement cannot be reached under subparagraph (i) with a majority of the bargaining agents and other organizations representing a majority of affected contributors and pensioners on the terms of the regulations relating to the calculations and crediting of interest to the account, the matter shall be referred to an arbitrational panel under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act for a final and binding decision."
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 50 by striking out line 38 at
page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
Government Orders
' 'perannuation Account upon the coming into force of this section an amount equal to the amount of the government contribution required to meet the cost of the benefits accrued in respect of the last quarter of the preceding fiscal year, and in each fiscal year".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have no problem with the principle that the Chair may dispense with reading the full text of the amendment. However, I think we should realize that although the proceedings are televised, in this case people watching have no way of knowing what is going on. I think at least one amendment should be read. If there are seven or eight, one amendment should be read, and we could then dispense with reading the rest, since the same will apply to the other amendments.
I	think we have to give Canadians who are listening some indication of what we are talking about.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's comment has been noted, and I am quite prepared to read them all, every single one.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 50 by striking out line 45 at
page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
'Account, provided that the amount credited to the Account in respect of every month shall not be less than 12 percent of payroll, and".
Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 50 by striking out line 2 at
page 48 and substituting the following therefor:
"monthly balance to the credit of the Account, calculated in such manner and at such rates as the regulations provide and credited to the Account monthly, provided that the rate so calculated is not less than the rate obtained from using the method of calculating interest in force on March 20, 1991."
Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 50 by striking out lines 5 to
II	at page 48 and substituting the following therefor:
"times as determined by the regulations provided,
(i) Subject to subparagraph (ii), that the provisions of the regulations relating to the calculation and crediting of interest to the Account are determined through consultation with the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee and are approved by a majority of the members appointed pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 49.1 of this Act;

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
(ii) if the approval of a majority of the members referred to in subparagraph (i) is not obtained, the matter shall be referred to an arbitrational panel under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act for a final and binding decision."
Motion No. 52.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 78 by striking out line 24 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
"perannuation Account upon the coming into force of this section an amount equal to the amount of the government contribution required to meet the cost of the benefits accruing in respect of the last quarter of the preceding fiscal year, and in each fiscal year".
Motion No. 53.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 78 by striking out line 31 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
'Account, provided
(i)	subject to subparagraph (ii), that the amount estimated by the President of the Treasury Board shall be determined through consultation with th Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Advisory Committee and is approved by a majority of the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 25.1 of this Act;
(ii)	if approval of a majority of the members referred to in subparagraph (i) is not obtained, the matter shall be referred to an arbitrational panel under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act for a final and binding decision; and".
Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 78 by striking out line 31 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
"Account, provided that the amount credited to the Account in respect of every month shall not be less than 14 percent of payroll; and".
Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 78 by striking out lines 33 to 43 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
"monthly balance to the credit of the Account, calculated in such manner and at such rates as the regulations provide and credited to the Account monthly, provided that the rate so calculated is not less than the rate obtained from using the method of calculating interest in force on March 30, 1991."
Motion No. 56.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 78 by striking out lines 36 to 43 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
"times as determined by the regulations provided,
(i) subject to subparagraph (ii), that the provisions of the regulations relating to the calculation and crediting of interest to the Account are determined through consultation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Advisory Committee and are approved by a majority of the members appointed pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 25.1 of this Act;
(ii) if the approval of a majority of the members referred to in subparagraph (i) is not provided, the matter shall be referred to an arbitrational panel under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act for a final and binding decision."
He said: Madam Speaker, as everyone will recognize there are a number of motions grouped together here. I will try to be as succinct as possible.
Motion No. 9 deals with interest on the death benefit account. Although this clause of Bill C-55 addressed by Motion No. 9 broadens and clarifies existing unilateral authority of the government relating to the calculation and crediting of interest to the death benefit account, it also proposes that the government will have sole authority in determining the amount of interest earned by the account. This amendment recognizes the preponderant role played by employees and pensioners in financing death benefit payments.
Motion No. 26 deals with the military and with regard to payments. Since military personnel have already made their contributions to their plan for the last quarter of 1990-91 our party felt in all fairness that the government should do likewise instead of giving itself a three month premium holiday. This is where this amendment flows from.
Motion No. 29 also flows from the military as well with regard to employee contributions to the CFSA. Military personnel should have some say in determining the proportion of their compensation in pay benefits and pensions. In this case, the amendment provides that amounts credited to the superannuation account will be decided by the President of the Treasury Board in consultation with the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee. Moreover, these amounts shall be acceptable for a majority of committee members.
Motion No. 27 basically ensures that at least the minimum, the status quo in government employer contributions would prevail until the minister has tabled his studies and has reviewed the pension plan as promised several times over.
Motion No. 28 again is similar but deals with the next plan. The RCMP plan as well has a number of amendments to it.
Motion No. 52 again refers to the benefits and the contributions paid by the members of the plan and is more or less asking the government to put its contribu-
June 12, 1992

tions in rather than giving itself a three month premium holiday.
I believe the others are similar in nature to the other plans. I would maybe want to mention Motion No. 56.
Employers in the private sector cannot borrow from their employees' pension plans. The income tax pension registration regulations and the conflict of interest provisions of the Federal Pension Benefits Standards Act forbid such action. The federal government simply ignores its own laws in this area. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier spoke awhile ago about fairness and about the government making rules for the private sector and other sectors, but not following its own rules and not setting a standard for itself.
Motion No. 56 would ensure that the government observes the laws that it has enacted and imposed on the private sector. The regulations relating to the calculation and crediting of interest to the account would be determined in consultation with the pension advisory committee depending on which pension plan we are dealing with. I would ask the government members to review the amendments and I would ask my colleagues from other parties to review the motions as well. I ask for their support.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I too would like to add a few words on these amendments. Many of the amendments that are being provided by the Liberal Party at this time I presented when the committee was sitting.
I want to emphasize the importance of these amendments because they are tied very strongly to the bill. We have to recognize that this bill is changing the whole structure of our pension schemes for public servants, for the military, the RCMP, for members of Parliament, for spouses.
The amendments which the member put forward will give some security to these people who are contributing to pension schemes. The government is changing it from legislation to regulation. I think that has to be the context in which we discuss the amendments that have been put forward by the Liberal member-I am not sure of his riding-who has addressed the areas of concern. We should have some teeth in the bill itself so that the government cannot change all the rules through the Governor in Council or whatever group after the bill gets Royal Assent.
Government Orders
I urge the members opposite to look at these amendments in a more serious way. They did not do that in committee-no, I should not say that. There were areas of concern where the public servants came out very strongly with regard to the indexing portions and the Income Tax Act. There were some changes there and I give them credit for that.
I do want to emphasize the importance of some of these changes which are being put forward by both sides and I support the amendments put forward by the member.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would also like to make a few comments and express my support for the amendments to Bill C-55 proposed by the hon. member for Restigouche-Cha-leur.
The Liberal caucus has spent a lot of time and held a number of meetings to try and understand the basic principle of Bill C-55.1 think we made it clear in debate, both at second reading and in committee, that we supported the clauses that will help make our pension legislation fairer and more equitable.
We are in favour of harmonization with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as I said earlier in my remarks on Motion No. 6, but we strenuously object to the government doing to the Public Service pension plan what others are prohibited from doing.
Let me explain: There are funding: mechanisms in public and private pension plans that are regulated by federal legislation, such as the rate of return on investment. In this case, the rate of return on investments for public pension plans is much lower, over the long-term, than the rate obtained by the private sector, because we are obliged to invest this money at lower rates.
Furthermore, this government is in the habit of borrowing from its employees, in other words, from their contributions to the pension plan, to finance its own requirements.
To date, the government has borrowed $71 billion from the Public Service Superannuation Fund. I am certainly not impressed with the way this government manages our money, when I look at the reports in the Public Accounts of Canada. As chairman of the Public Accounts committee, I think I speak with some credibility.

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
It was debated in committee and in this House whether the government's accounts were indeed credible with respect to pensions, for instance. If I remember correctly, $1,367 billion was used to reduce the national debt, and this was not government revenue. Just the same, that money was used last year to reduce the government's deficit, which would otherwise have been some $2 billion more than it was at the time.

There are several areas of Bill C-65 that go well beyond the changes needed to comply with the income tax regulations. The minister has used that argument over a period of time, saying: "We are just trying to comply with the income tax regulations, which is the law of this country".
Why does the government not say: "We will comply with all the laws of this country, including the Pension Benefits Standards Act which says that you cannot borrow". The private sector cannot borrow from its own pension funds to finance its operations. It cannot do that.
Why can the government do it? I ask that question. It does it. It goes against the laws of this country. It decides what kind of interest it is going to pay on the money it borrows. That again is not allowed in the private sector. Why is it this government does it?
Here we have a bill which was supposed to comply with the laws of the land, the Income Thx Act. The minister has used that many, many times.
Bill C-55 proposes to remove Public Service Superannuation Act provisions that until now have been prescribed by a minimum government-employer contribution, minimum interest that the government must pay on pension funds it borrows and prescribed also in which pension plan deficits are to be amortized.
The government is now proposing that these longstanding provisions be replaced by a regime under which the minister alone decides how much the government, as employer, will contribute to the Public Service Superannuation Act, how much the government will contribute to the RCMP pension plan, how much the government will contribute to the armed forces pension plan.
It will do it by regulation. We do not know what those regulations will say, but I know for sure it will be a
unilateral decision taken by the government without consulting with the pension people or consulting with the joint Public Service Council which oversees many of these things. Pensions, as we know, are not negotiable in the Public Service.
I come back to that principle of fairness. How can this government continue to do things which, in my view, are contrary to the laws of this land, which it forbids the private sector to do? However, it does it. I do not understand. I wish the minister would get up and break the silence of this place this afternoon.
It is only 1.30 p.m. We are going to go on for several hours yet. He can explain to us how fairness applies in this bill, because it does not. I am afraid that this is a step backwards and I am not happy at all with the way we are going on this question.
I would tell my colleagues in the House, it is certainly a step in the right direction to adopt the amendments put by my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur and I implore members of this House to look at them seriously and to consider supporting them.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 9.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
June 12, 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 27. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 52. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 53. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An hon. member:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:

June 12, 1992
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next vote is on Motion No. 55, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion is deferred.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 9A.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 30 by striking out line 16 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"payable to any person to whom the Act applies."
Motion No. 58B.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 80 by striking out line 6 at page 79 and substituting the following therefor:
"payable to any person to whom the Act applies."

He said: Madam Speaker, in the process of trying to get my notes organized, I must have mislaid the amendment in question. I will do it from memory. I take it my friend from Burlington will help me get my point across.
Amendment No. 9A again deals with the question of financing of these pension plans. I would like to say, without repeating myself, that the fairness issue is again the point at hand here. Speaking for the caucus of which
I am a member, we would encourage members to support the amendment in an effort to show that the government, and the purpose of Bill C-55, has at heart the future and the well-being of its pensioners.
These amendments would enhance the credibility of the government in the eyes of the Public Service.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion is deferred.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 30 by striking out line 28 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"and to conform with the Pension Benefits Standards Act, make regulations".
Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 58 by striking out line 9 at page 59 and substituting the following therefor:
"and to conform with the Pension Benefits Standards Act, maVf regulations".
June 12, 1992

Motion No. 59.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 80 by striking out line 18 at
page 79 and substituting the following therefor:
"and to conform with the Pension Benefits Standards Act, make regulations".
He said: Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot today about the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Basically, these three motions apply to the three different superannuation acts and are the same motion in the three of them. It asks the government to have the Pension Benefits Standards Act apply to those three acts.
It also looks forward at the process where the minister has promised a review and has promised consultation in that review. It would also permit the minister to implement some of the recommendations out of that process without using the excuse that the statute would have to be amended because it does not conform to the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
Again I come back to the fairness issue that has been talked about time and time again here today. The government has made rules that apply to the private sector and it should have to follow those rules as well.
It is a very straightforward, reasonable amendment. It is a reasonable request and it is a matter of fairness. The minister has talked about fairness, therefore the minister and his colleagues should recognize that this is one point they should support.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, again I want to talk about this amendment in terms of trying to convince the government. I do not think we are making too much headway on trying to do this, but nevertheless we will try again to convince the government to follow its own laws.
As I said, the Pension Benefits Standards Act was a bill of this government and was adopted by this House and it should be, in my view anyway, adhered to by the government.


An hon. member:: Absolutely.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I mentioned a few minutes ago that there were longstanding provisions dealing with funding, financing, borrowing, the amount of interest that is paid on Public Service pension plans, be they the public servants, Armed Forces or the RCMP.
Government Orders
What I alluded to in my previous comments was that this bill takes a different tack and allows the government to unilaterally decide and determine how and when the pension plan deficit will be amortized, what kind of interest rates will be paid, what kind of contribution the government will make. In my view, it changes the rules of the game without giving us too much information in terms of regulations that will flow from this.
The levers the government is giving itself could launch a large scale financial raid on Public Service pension funds. Bill C-55, if enacted, will allow the government to pass some of its pension bills to the next government, if I may use that word, for payment. I will explain.
This bill will allow the government to reduce its budgetary deficit at the expense of an increased budgetary deficit for the next government. These proposed changes and their timing also raise serious doubts as to the sincerity of the statements made by the government that it intends to address the serious question and issues raised by the Auditor General in his reports over the years in the way that Public Service pension finances are managed by this government.
The timing of these changes also casts a long shadow of doubt on the minister's promise to carry out a review of the financial and benefit features of the program.
I was privileged today to get a copy of a letter sent recently to the hon. Audrey McLaughlin, PC, MP, in which the government makes an undertaking that it will review the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act after C-55 receives Royal Assent.
The government has promised public servants that C-55 was nothing but a technical bill that was going to give public servants certain advantages that they did not have in the old law. What it does, in our view, is give a few crumbs here and there, but it takes away a lot of things that we believe were important to the pension administration programs of the government.
The implications and the issues that we tried to raise in terms of the management of the funds for example have fallen on deaf ears. The Federal Superannuates Association which presented many briefs to the legislative

Government Orders
committee, for example, made some rather interesting contributions and some positive, I thought, proposals. The head of the group in his testimony to the committee says: "The government's move to propose these changes before these important studies are completed is akin to putting the cart before the horse".
I also agree with the Public Service representatives when they said: "The government's move to give itself full and unfettered authority to do whatever it wants with Public Service pension finances before it carries out promised reviews raises very fundamental questions about the purpose of these reviews". We heard another today, that it is going to review Public Service pensions, but it is also wants to review members of Parliament pensions. Well, it is well time it did. We agree with that, we have asked for that and the people of Canada have asked for it.
However, are we going to be facing the same kind of situation that the cart is going to be put before the horse in terms of here is the government's plan? We decide what is good for Public Service pensions, we decide what kind of interest rate we will pay from now on by regulation and we decide what our contributions will be. Will it again tell the Canadian public that it will decide what members of Parliament will have in terms of pensions, that it will decide God knows when what kind of contributions will be made? Whether we will correct some of the faults in that program which are needed, we agree, is another question.
We received this letter that the minister sent today or yesterday with some apprehensions. We would like to see that start now, but we are not confident that this government will act in a way that will be open, clear, fair and equitable to all those who are concerned. If we rely on what has been done with C-55, we are concerned.
The experience that we are going through at this time is that this government has absolutely no ears for amendments and absolutely no understanding of what fairness is about if it pursues this bill with final approval in third reading and Royal Assent. These amendments that we are studying at this time are important amendments. They only ask the government to comply with the laws of the land. They only ask the government to do what every other company in Canada that has a pension plan has been told to do. It will not create any additional expenditures of public funds.
It does not oblige the government to make any regulations to apply the Public Service Superannuation Act or the other two acts, the RCMP and the Armed Forces.
If the government bought those amendments, if it did comply with the Pension Benefits Standards Act, it would oblige the government to follow the law. It would be in favour of that. It would want to give that kind of an indication by supporting these amendments, by saying it will comply, it will follow the laws of the land adopted in 1985 by its initiative. The government should not try and outwit, out do or out manoeuvre public servants, be they public servants, RCMP or Armed Forces, by having its own regulation in there all the time telling them what we the government thinks is good for them.
All we ask is fairness. We want the government to be fair with its own public servants. We want this fairness to apply to them as it applies to the private sector. We would like to see a commitment that the government will apply the Public Service pension plans to the benefits standards act.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to pursue a little further the comments made by the member for Ottawa-Vanier.
We in the committee tried to get the Auditor General before the committee because in his report he identified some very serious problems with regard to the invest of pension funds and the interest accrued to those accounts and so on.
Here we have a situation in which we on this side of the House are proposing-I did in committee-that there be some protection and some methods of making sure those funds are secure and properly invested and taken through.
By accepting this amendment not only would you be strengthening the bill and making it fairer you would also be carrying out the concerns that the Auditor General had when he looked at the pension structure of public servants.
I would urge the government to take these amendments very seriously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.
June 12, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 30 by striking out lines 6 to 12 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Subject to subsection (3.1), in the vent of any inconsistency between the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) and the provisions of this Act or any other regulations made under this Act, the provisions of the regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
(3.1) In the event that the provision of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) would reduce or have the effect of reducing any benefit payable under this Act, the provisions of this Act relating to the payments of such a benefit shall prevail."
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 30 by striking out line 11 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
'Act".
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 30 by striking out lines 24 to 26 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
''payment that is payable to any person to whom the Public Service Superannuation Act applies."


Sidney James Parker: Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 30 by adding immediately after line 26 at page 34 the following:
"72. (1) The Governor in Council may not, by regulation made under section 71, reduce or in any way diminish pension benefits that accrue under this Act before the coming into force of section
71.
(2) Subsection 71(3) does not apply in respect of subsection (1)."
Government Orders


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 58 by striking out lines 29 to 35 at page 59 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Subject to subsection (3.1), in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) and the provisions of this Act, or any other regulations made under this Act, the provisions of the regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
(3.1) In the event that the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (1) of (2) would reduce or have the effect of reducing any benefit payable under this Act, the provisions of this Act relating to the payment of such a benefit shall prevail."


Sidney James Parker: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 58 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 60 the following:
"81. (1) The Governor in Council may not, by regulation made under section 80, reduce or in any way diminish pension benefits that accrue under this Act before the coming into force of section 80.
(2) Subsection 80(3) does not apply in respect of subsection (1)".


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 60.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 80 by striking out lines 38 to 42 at page 79 and lines 1 and 2 at page 80 and substituting the following therefor
"(3) Subject to subsection (3.1), in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) and the provisions of this Act, or any other regulations made under this Act, the provisions of the regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
3.1 In the event that the provision of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) would reduce or have effect of reducing any benefit payable under this Act, the provisions of this Act relating to the payment of such a benefit shall prevail."

Government Orders
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 80 by striking out line 1 at page 80 and substituting the following therefor:
'Act".
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 80 by striking out line 8 at page 80 and substituting the following therefor:
"on which this subsection comes into force and shall not be before the day on which the Income Thx Act required the making of the regulations"


Sidney James Parker: Motion No. 65
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 80 by adding immediately after line 16 at page 80 the following:
"42. (1) The Governor in Council may not, by regulation made under section 41, reduce or in any way diminish pension benefits that accrue under this Act before the coming into force of section 41.
(2) Subsection 41(3) does not apply in respect of subsection (1)".


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of motions here and a lot of them deal with the empowerment of cabinet and the Public Service; higher functions of the Public Service.
Motion No. 11 deals with the government's possible reduction of indexing with the PSSA benefits by regulation. The minister in a letter tabled with the committee promised to make it absolutely clear that this could not be possible.
It is not absolutely clear. In the government's mind it seems to feel that it will not be able to do it without going through statute. Those who belong to the plan are fearful that it is still possible. It is not absolutely clear.
This amendment, and if the government is really sincere about making it absolutely clear, would make it absolutely clear.
Motion No. 13 is an even more serious amendment, not necessarily for all of the persons who benefit from these plans, but for democracy itself.
There are a number of provisions in Bill, C-55, that where there is an inconsistency, the regulations will
supersede the statute. In other words, we could debate here. We have elected members of Parliament who could put forth a law, pass a law, so that it becomes the law of the land. Through regulation, if there is an inconsistency between the regulation and the statute, Bill C-55 would permit the regulation to supersede the statute.
In committee that raised a lot of concern. Some members went so far as to say it was a direct attack on democracy. It is. When the legal counsel was asked whether this was a normal practice, he said it was becoming a normal practice. In other words, the government was trying to run things by regulation. We know what happens with regulations. Quite often they are left in the hands of a few and quite often the regulations change overnight, depending on who and where and what it applies to.
Motion No. 14 would make it very clear. This amendment attempts to make it absolutely clear that the government cannot unilaterally use regulations to change amounts of pensions, annual allowances, annuities, supplementary benefits or lump sum payments.
If this amendment would have been adopted some time ago, after the first meeting of the committee, it would have prevented a lot of the anxiety of the members who belong to these plans. I cannot understand why, when the minister says he wants to make it absolutely clear, he does not make it absolutely clear.
Motion No. 33 is similar because we are dealing with a number of pension acts here. They follow in line. We are trying to standardize them in certain cases. It deals with that provision of regulations superseding statutes where there is an inconsistency.
Motion No. 60 would deal with the indexation again. It would again in this case make it absolutely clear, as the minister wants. I do not know why the government would not accept this amendment. It would make it absolutely clear in the case of the RCMP Superannuation Act that

the benefits would not be reduced through regulation, especially the benefits with regard to indexation.
The government says it is just getting it in line with the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Act provides for a lot of changes through regulation, so we do not know exactly what we are getting to.
The other thing that was alluded to earlier is that we talk about these regulations as if they are already there, as if we know what they are, but they have not been tabled. I do not even think that we have started that much work on them.
Motion No. 62 deals with the regulation-making power of the government. If this were accepted, it would prevent governments now and in the future-not only this government but other governments as well-to run roughshod over certain acts through regulation.
Motion No. 11 deals with indexing and is with regard to trying to make it absolutely clear, as the minister really wanted to make it clear. Again, we are asking government members to support these amendments.
These amendments are probably the most important ones in the bill at this stage because we talk about regulation. We talk about giving the government all this power through regulation. For the members of the plans, publicly and privately, in committee, in press conferences and in press releases there was the concern.
The government kept on saying it would not do that. We know what it has done. I can assure you that there is cause for concern. If the minister actually does want to make it perfectly clear, he should start with these amendments.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the amendments I put forward, Motions Nos. 15, 34 and 65.
All three are identical but we have three pension plans here. We have the Public Service pension plan, the RCMP pension plan and the military pension plan affected by this.
I want to start off with regard to clause 30 because there was some veiy, very positive work done. Through the agreement of all three parties, some major amendments were made to the bill. I want to commend not only the government and the Liberals but also the depart-
Govemment Orders
ment that understood fully the concerns that we had in those areas. There were some significant changes made.
The fact is that this is a regulatory bill and we do not know what the regulations are going to be when the bill comes into place. Therefore, I have placed this amendment with regard to clause 30 of Bill C-55.
It says:
That Bill C-55 be amended by adding the following immediately
after line 32 on page 32.
The Governor in Council may not, by regulation made under section 71, reduce or in any way diminish pension benefits that accrue under this act before the coming into force of section 71.
(2) Subsection 71(3) does not apply in respect of subsection (1).
This is a very important amendment. If the government is intent on telling the public servants, the RCMP and the military that it does not want to roll back their pensions or change their pensions, then it will adopt this amendment to ensure that they will not be rolled back.
If it does not accept this amendment, those pensions are in jeopardy because future governments, even if this minister commits that he will not do it, what is to stop a future government, knowing that the regulatory powers are in this legislation, to do the things they want.
I want to urge the government to support this amendment to ensure that the pensions and the provisions that are now in place are protected.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this whole group of amendments deals with a very important point. The amendment debated in committee, as my friend from Restigouche-Chaleur said, was highly contentious because what it proposes to do is give the government the right to do by regulation certain things, not by legislation.
We asked questions about it. I admit in the beginning in committee it was difficult to get an answer from the government. After a while they came to understand that we were concerned about this unilateral power of the government to make regulations affecting the pension plans of public servants, armed forces and RCMP.
We asked them for total assurance that none of the standard benefits, the indexing of the pensions, the contributions made by the employer, et cetera, would be changed by regulations. It took some time. It took about three weeks to a month before we got an undertaking from Treasury Board and the government, and the minister made the commitment that it was not their

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
intention to do certain things by regulation. They intended to follow the law.
I want to come back to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which people are now starting to understand is wide-ranging legislation passed by this House in 1985 and which, in my opinion, the government is not following.
In addition to legislating minimum benefit levels for Canadian pension plans for the private sector, it sets out in the Pension Benefits Standards Act a code of conduct for pension plan administrators and managers by making it a condition of pension registration that pension plan administrators, and I will read from the act: "shall exercise a degree of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in dealing with the property of another person". It goes on to require that administrators not be in a material conflict of interest.
I for one do not believe that Public Service employees and pensioners are being unreasonable when they ask that the many billions of dollars they have put into their pension plans over the years be protected by the same code of conduct.
Over the years this government has been in the centre of many conflict of interest situations. These conflict of interest involvements have seriously eroded public trust in governments. However, as serious as these conflict of interest scandals have been, in my opinion they pale in comparison with the conflict of interest situation that confronts the government if it refuses to endorse the spirit and the principle of these amendments.
They also pale in comparison to the possibility of conflict of interest that could come from the administration of Public Service pension plans. To use a variation of an expression that has been in wide use in the last few years: this will be mother of all conflict of interest situations.
We have the government refusing to say publicly in this House today that it commits itself by supporting these amendments not to use regulations to change the standards of pension plans of public servants, armed forces personnel or retired RCMP officers or personnel.
I do not understand this. Let me highlight for a few minutes the nature of this conflict of interest. As the sole administrator of Public Service pension plans, the government has a duty to protect the many billions of dollars that public servants and pensioners have put in their pension plans, a duty to get the best possible return on the billions of dollars that are in that fund. There is about $71 billion; a lot of money. The government must do its best to get a return on those billions of dollars in pension funds of the Public Service and RCMP.
On the other hand, as a borrower-and the government it does borrow the money-of that $71 billion, because the government borrows that fund to finance its operations or its deficit, the government has a natural interest in minimizing the interest it pays on those borrowings.
You can see the conflict. Furthermore, the opportunity of the government to short-change public servants and pensioners in this regard is being increased in my opinion by this bill, not diminished. Bill C-55 tightens the monopoly stranglehold of the government on the management of the Public Service pension funds.
The serious nature of this conflict of interest was serious enough that the Auditor General, an impartial person, an agent of this House, a servant of Parliament, in his 1991 report said that the bookkeeping of this government in the matter of pension leaves a lot to be desired. He did not like the way it was keeping its books and he said so. That, in my view, is a serious comment made by a very important agent of Parliament to the effect that the management of the pension fund was not taken very seriously by the government.
Over the years the government has made high-sounding speeches about doing something about conflict of interest situations. Most Canadians would agree that the time for talk in this area is long gone and the time for action is long overdue. I know that we have before this House now a study by a committee dealing with conflict of interest. I hope the government reads it and applies some of it.
I also believe that five years, the length of time since we adopted the Standard Benefits Pension Act, is sufficient time to allow for the government to get its act together and to get out, as it requires everybody else, of
June 12, 1992

the direct conflict of interest it is in managing the Public Service funds. Five years is long enough to make a decision on whether it will or will not abide by the same code of conduct it has legislated for the pension administrators of the private sector.
The situation the government is in was well described by the present President of the Treasury Board in his appearance before the legislative committee on March 17 of this year. Without getting into the question of how much blarney he was spouting that day, I do not consider it to be blarney when he said: "It would look a bit ridiculous"-this is a minister of the Crown speaking-"to ask all pension plans in Canada to conform while our own plans are away offside".
This statement was made in relation to government conformity to the 1992 income tax regulations. I hope the minister would agree the logic of his observations on March 17 apply equally to June 12 and that he will get up in his place and support an amendment which clearly sets out the position of this Parliament that the Government of Canada will not remain in a conflict of interest, but will abide by the laws of the country and follow the laws of the country.
I would therefore urge the minister and his friends on that side to bring the government on side with the code of conduct and other features of the 1986 Pension Benefits Standards Act. That is all we ask and that is all these amendments propose to do.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, we are debating a number of amendments, one of which is put forward by the member for Kootenay East.
This is the first opportunity I have had to intervene in the debate generally. The member for Kootenay East was very successful in committee in persuading the government to adopt a number of amendments that have significantly improved the bill. He has encouraged this House to adopt this amendment.
It has the very simple effect of reassuring those who are covered by these plans that under the regulations there is no way in which the government can dimmish their pension benefits. It is a valuable amendment. It does no harm to the bill, and I would hope that the government would see its way clear to agreeing to it.
Government Orders


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some short comments on the amendments that have been proposed by the member for Restigouche-Chaleur.
I think that he hit the major point of what is being considered. It is the question of regulation and statutes. It is very important that this bill should not be amended by regulation. It is extremely valuable for the pensioner to know that he is secure in what he is going to get in the future. That is why these motions should be supported by the members opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. A vote on this motion applies to Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 33, 34, 60, 62, 64 and 65.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-55 be amended by adding immediately after line 26 at
page 34 the following:
"30.1 The said Act is further amended by adding the following, immediately after section 71:
72.	Where the Minister is satisfied that as result of erroneous advice or an administrative error on the part of any person acting in an official capacity in the administration of this Act, a person has been denied a benefit to which the person was entitled or the opportunity to exercise a right to elect a benefit or to opt for a benefit, the Minister may take such remedial action as the Minister considers appropriate to place that person in the position that the person would have been in if that erroneous advice had not been given or that administrative error had not been made.

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
73.(1) The Minister shall provide a bargaining agent or pensioner organization with such data, estimates, projections, and other related information which may reasonably be required and requested by the bargaining agent or pensioner organization to monitor and oversee the operation, administration planning, policy analysis and development activities under this Act on behalf of its members.
(2) Where the Minister fails, within a reasonable period of time, to provide a bargaining agent or pensioner organization with information requested under subsection (1), the bargaining agent or pensioner organization may seek redress by referring the matter to an adjudicator under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and if the adjudicator determines that the request made by a bargaining agent or pensioner organisation under subsection (1) is a reasonable request, the Minister shall provide the requested information within the period set by the adjudicator."
Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 58 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 60 the following:
"81. Where the Minister is satisfied that as a result of erroneous advice or an administrative error on the part of any person acting in an official capacity in the administration of this Act, a person has been denied a benefit to which the person was entitled or the opportunity to exercise a right, to elect a benefit or to opt for a benefit, the Minister may take such remedial action as the Minister considers appropriate to place that person in the position that the person would have been in if that erroneous advice had not been given or that administrative error had not been made.
82.(1) The Minister and the President of the Treasury Board shall provide an organization representing members or pensioners of the Armed Forces with such data, estimates, projections and other related information which may reasonably be required and requested by such organziation to monitor and oversee the operation, administration, planning, policy analysis and development activities under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act oh behalf of its members."
Motion No. 66.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 80 by adding immediately after line 16 at page 80 the following:
"42. Where the Minister is satisfied that as a result of erroneous advice or an administrative error on the part of any person acting in an official capacity in the administration of this Act, a person has been denied a benefit to which the person was entitled or the opportunity to exercise a right, to elect a benefit or to opt for a benefit, the Minister may take such remedial action as the Minister considers appropriate to place such a person in the position that the person would have been in if that erroneous advice had not been given or that administrative error had not been made.
43.(1) The Minister and the President of the Treasury Board shall provide an organization representing members of pensioners of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police with such data, estimates, projection, and other related information which may reasonably be required and requested by such organization to monitor and oversee the operation, administration, planning, policy analysis and development activities under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act on behalf of its members.
(2) Where the Minister or the President of the Treasury Board fails, within a reasonable period of time, to provide an organization representing members or pensioners of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with information requested under subsection (1), the organization may seek redress by referring the matter to an adjudicator under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and if the adjudicator determines that the request made by the organization under subsection (1) is reasonable, the Minister or the President of the Treasury Board shall provide the information requested within the period set by the adjudicator."


John F. Brewin: Motion No. 84A.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by adding immediately after line 34 at page 156 the following:
"10.1 Where the Minister is satisfied that, as a result of erroneous advice or an administrative error on the part of any person acting in an official capacity under this Act, a person has been denied a benefit to which the person was entitled or the opportunity to exercise a right, to elect a benefit or to opt for a benefit, the Minister may take such remedial action as the Minister considers appropriate to place the person in the position that the person would have been in if the erroneous advice had not been given or the administrative error had not been made."


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the three motions that I put. They are very similar and have to do with the three superannuation acts that we are dealing with, Public Service, the military and the RCMP.
Motion No. 16 deals with remedial action in situations where employees are denied benefits to which they are entitled or the opportunity to exercise rights because they have made bad decisions concerning their benefit options due to some erroneous advice or administrative errors. It gives them a chance of reprieve. Deputy ministers and deputy department heads, senior military, and senior RCMP officers, and also I must add political appointees, have that option right now. If there is removal of benefits or rights because of an error, misinformation or whatever, that can be corrected by the minister once it is pointed out to him or her.
June 12, 1992

The second part of the amendment deals with the problems facing Public Service unions and pensioner organizations when they try to obtain information from the government on the operation of their pension plans. This section would facilitate the obtaining of this information.
We heard the word fairness many times today. In fact I believe the minister mentioned that many times in referring to Bill C-55, that it was one of the objectives.
I say again that senior personnel, senior public servants, senior officers in the RCMP and in the military have this option. There is no reason why the every day person cannot have the very same option.
I will not speak to the three motions as the three motions just follow in line with each superannuation act. I would appeal to the justice that should be in this House. I would say it is only natural that we should accept this amendment.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I too have an amendment that is in this group. My amendment affects schedule II which is the part of the bill that deals with spousal benefits under the legislation.
This is one of the amendments which the committee for spousal and children's pensions survival and related benefits was particularly anxious for the government to accept. There are cases in which there are administrative errors made or in which there is some kind of erroneous advice given and someone loses their rights.
This amendment simply gives to the government the opportunity of making a correction. It gives to the minister the opportunity to take remedial action.
There is not a piece of legislation in the world that is perfect. In our constituencies we all face the problem from time to time where people come in after having been given wrong advice. Perhaps they did not understand the advice very well or the advice was actually incorrect. No public servant can be counted on every day of the week, every week of the year, to be sure of the information they give. They are often hurried. The issues
Government Orders
are complicated. Perhaps the person has not explained the full story. Those of us who are lawyers will probably know those days where we did not ask a key question and it turned out our advice was not as good or as correct as it should have been. That can happen.
All we are asking with this amendment is that the House agree to give the minister authority to take remedial action. What is so hard about that? What is so difficult about that?
I hope that the government will consider this seriously and agree to the amendment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with amendments that could be entitled fairness, fairness in treatment of public servants when they look forward to retiring or have retired.
The amendment before us deals with affording remedial action to employees for many reasons. In my files I have dozens of cases where public servants, either because of ill health, because of bad advice or because of the stress situation they were in at the time, decided to take an option which proved to be the wrong decision. They cannot come back and look and ask for a fair hearing.
Yet deputy heads, senior military RCMP and political appointees, are protected in this bill. If they make a mistake, they can go to the authorities and say: "Change the rules for me". My point is why is it that we do it for deputy heads, senior military, RCMP and political appointees and we refuse to do the same thing for public servants?
It boggles the mind. I call unfair legislation unfair when it treats people unfairly. All these amendments put forth by the hon. members from Restigouche-Chaleur and Victoria ask the government to show some heart and consistency and to come to grips with an issue which is something that we must address, fairness, and treat all public servants equally, be they senior administrators of the government or the average worker.
That is a request which we make in all honesty in the spirit and hope that a government will get off its fanny and do something constructive.

June 12, 1992
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 84A. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 47 by striking out lines 43 to 46 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) two persons appointed from among contributors in recept of an annuity under this Act who are nominated for appointment by associations that, in the opinion".
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 47 by striking out line 3 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) four persons appointed from among".
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 47 by striking out line 9 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) three persons appointed from among".
Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 47 by striking out line 12 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d) three persons appointed from among".
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 49 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 47 the following:
"50.2 (1) Subject to subsection (2), any regulation made by the Governor in Council or other regulation making authority that has not obtained approval of the regulation by a majority of the members appointed to the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 49.1 of this Act.
(2) If the approval of a majority of the members referred to in subsection (1) is not provided, the contents of the proposed regulation shall be referred to an arbitrational panel under the Public Service Staff Relations Act fora final and binding decision."
Motion No. 40.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 75 by striking out lines 37 to 40 at page 69 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) two persons appointed from among contributors in receipt of an annuity under this Act who are nominated for appointment by associations that, in the opinion".
Motion No. 41.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 75 by striking out line 43 at page 69 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) four persons appointed from among".
Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 75 by striking out lines 4 to 7 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor:
"persons; and".
June 12, 1992

Motion No. 44.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 75 by striking out line 5 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) three persons appointed from among".
Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 75 by striking out line 8 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d) three persons apointed from among".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 47-


Guy H. Arseneault: With regard to Motion No. 47, Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw that motion at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is so ordered. Motion No. 47 withdrawn.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 51.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 77 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 72 the following:
"26.2(1) Subject to subsection (2), any regulation made by the Governor in Council or other regulation making authority under this Act is void if the regulation making authority has not obtained approval of the regulation of a majority of the members appointed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Advisory Committee pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 25.1 of this Act.
(2) If the approval of a majority of the members referred to in subsection (1) is not obtained, the contents of the proposed regulation shall be referred to an arbitrational panel under the Public Service Staff Relations Act for a final and binding decision."
He said: Mr. Speaker, a number of these motions deal with representation of those who contribute to the plan. Besides the government, there are a number of individuals who do contribute. Also there are those who are receiving benefits, some of the pensioners who are receiving those benefits.
Motion No. 21 deals with the establishment of a Canadian forces pension advisory committee. This would also put forth certain points where the government could not move by regulation without consent of this advisory group.
Government Orders
Motions Nos. 22, 23 and 24 increase this representation on the advisory committee.
Motion No. 25, this amendment stipulates that to enact regulations the government must obtain consent of a majority of the members of that advisory committee.
Motion No. 40, this amendment authorizes the minister to establish an advisory committee for the RCMP.
Motions Nos. 41, 44 and 45 would increase the numbers on that committee. Motion No. 51 would outline the way the committee would function. In so doing, it would allow the pensioners to feel confident that their benefits would be protected by at least the advisory committee.
I would ask again that the members of the House look favourably upon those recommendations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just briefly on this amendment.
God knows the government needs advice. The government needs advice to manage many things, but it needs to be told also that sometimes it is good to pay attention to what is being said.
All these amendments propose is to establish a structure that would give the government advice on how to better manage these pension plans. I hope the government does not vote against this. I hope the government members see their way to accepting this motion because it makes sense.
Pensions over the years have not been negotiable. Usually the process works this way: Unions, Public Service employees represented by unions, the employer, Treasury Board and some other specialists in the field usually meet regularly and discuss the pension plans. It is called the National Joint Council.
Membership is restricted but nevertheless it is an input to the government. It is a structure which is very helpful in giving the government sound advice on many, many things. One of them is pensions.
All we are asking is that the three large components- possibly four but I will just mention the three largest ones-be well recognized and represented on boards, that the Canadian forces pensions advisory committee should be established. It makes sense that the RCMP advisory committee be established. It makes sense. The Public Service, and possibly the superannuates, who are retired people, have a commitment, a vested interest in that their funds in their pension plans be well adminis-

Government Orders
tered. They should be listened to occasionally by the government.
All this proposes to do, and it is simple, is to give advice to the government. I know it is difficult for Tories to take this and understand what it means, but nevertheless it would be good for once if they would come to their senses and say: "Yes, we will listen and we will approve this amendment. We will vote for it and we will give these people sound boards where they can make their contributions. We will listen to what they have to say".


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak to these amendments because we moved them in committee. We went a little further than what this amendment does. We recommended that spouses-and the government is now starting to recognize it in this legislation-be given the opportunity to sit on the advisory committee. We also recommended that retirees be allowed to sit on the advisory committee. It is very simple.
I wanted to go even further than that. If we were going to regulations, I wanted to have a management board that would have representatives from the government, from the employees who are contributing to the plan and from the various groups. They would sit on a management board and have some input as to how their money-and that is what we are talking about-was going to be invested or taken care of, but the government said that was beyond the scope of the plan.
There is an advisory board in this arrangement. This amendment calls for various things within that advisory board. We were told at the committee stage from one of the advisory board members at the present time that the board had not even sat for over two years because the government did not even listen to the recommendations it made.
Here we are with a regulatory bill and an advisory board is set up. We are asking for specific things to be done on that advisory board so that at the very least it would have the input of the retirees, of the various groups and of the pensioners coming before it in an advisory capacity only. This amendment is calling for someone to be on that advisory board to advise the government at least.
I would urge the government to accept this small watch-dog program we have put forward in this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 51. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
June 12, 1992


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 77 by striking out lines 12
and 13 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Account;
(i) prescribing the terms and conditions under which the Minister may enter into reciprocal pension transfer agreements with other Canadian police agencies, commissions, and organizations; and
(f) generally as the Governor in Council".
Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 77 by striking out lines 17
to 20 at page 72.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 48 would enlarge the regulation-making authority contained in the RCMPSA. Actually it would allow the minister, or I guess the Solicitor General in this case because we are dealing with the RCMP, some portability in the pension plans.
For instance, once the government has entered into a reciprocal pension transfer agreement it could agree to transfer the employee and employer contributions made to pension plans to or from the federal plan. This would occur whenever an individual moved to or from the federal Public Service under circumstances outlined in specific agreements negotiated by the federal government with another level of government. In short this amendment would facilitate portability of pensions. It is a common sense amendment and I would ask members to support it.
Government Orders
On Motion No. 50, this amendment removes the power to apply regulations retroactively respecting annual rates of pay, interests rates and so on. The purpose is to limit the power of the government to make regulations and then apply them retroactively.
It should be pointed out that we are making these amendments now in the spirit that it will apply to all governments; the one that is here today and those that will be here in the future.
I should also use this opportunity to point out that 112 amendments were put forth at report stage. It is a bit unusual but we can see why it is unusual. It is a very technical bill. We have gone through it with a fine-tooth comb. In committee we got the same results that we are getting here. There is no compassion, no flexibility, and quite often members opposite do not even want to look at an amendment that deals with common sense. I would ask them to look at the amendments. A number of their constituents has an interest in this matter. It has to do with justice and fairness. It starts with the minister's own words. It is the minister who came up with these words and started the ball rolling with Bill C-55.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 48. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 48 negatived.

June 12, 1992
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 50. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 50 negatived.


Alan Redway: Motion No. 67.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 81
(a)	by striking out lines 34 to 38 at page 91 and substituting the following therefor:
"13. (1) Subject to subsection (2), an allowance or other benefit shall be paid in accordance with this Part to or in respect of a person who, being a member, ceases to be a member or, being a member or former member, dies.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an allowance or other benefit payable to a former member under this Part is not payable to the former member if and for so long as the former member is employed by or receives remuneration from the Government of Canada, an agency of the Government of Canada or a federal Crown corporation.";
(f>) by striking out line 39 at page 91 and substituting the following therefor:
"14.(1) Subject to sections 13 and 58, where a per-"; and
(c) by striking out line 35 at page 94 and substituting the following therefor:
"15.(1) Subject to sections 13 and 58, where a per-".
Motion No. 68.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 81
(a) by striking out lines 34 to 38 at page 91 and substituting the following therefor:
"13.(1) Subject to subsection (2), an allowance or other benefit shall be paid in accordance with this Part to or in respect of a person
who, being a member, ceases to be a member or, being a member or former member, dies.
(2) An allowance payable under section 14 or 15 to a former member or, in respect of a deceased member or former member, to a person under section 20 is not payable to the former member or the person unless the former member has reached sixty years of age or, in the case of an allowance under section 20, the deceased member or former member would have reached sixty years of age."
(b)	by striking out line 39 at page 91 and substituting the following therefor:
"14.(1) Subject to sections 13 and 58, where a per-";
(c)	by striking out line 35 at page 94 and substituting the following therefor:
"15.(1) Subject to sections 13 and 58, where a per-"; and
(d)	by striking out lines 11 to 18 on page 101 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) begins to be payable,
(i)	where the member or former member is sixty years of age or older at the time of death, on the first day of the month following the month in which the member or former member dies,
(ii)	where the member or former member has not reached sixty years of age at the time of death, on the first day of the month following the month in which the member or former member would have reached sixty years of age, and".
Motion No. 68B.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 81 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 91 the following:
"13.1 An allowance or other benefit payable to a former member under this Part is not payable to the former member if and for so long as the former member is employed by or receives remuneration from the Government of Canada, an agency or the Government of Canada or a federal Crown corporation."
Motion No. 68C.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 81 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 91 the following:
"13.1 An allowance payable under section 14 or 15 to a former member or, in respect of a deceased member or former member, to a person under section 20 is not payable to the former member or the person unless the former member has reached sixty years of age or, in the case of an allowance under section 20, the deceased member or former member would have reached sixty years of age."
Motion No. 69A.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 81 by striking out lines 12 to 18 at page 101 and substituting the following therefore:
"(i) where the member or former member is sixty years of age or older at the time of death, on the first day of the month following the month in which the member or former member dies,
(ii) where the member or former member has not reached sixty years of age at the time of death, on the first day of the month following the month in which the member or former member would have reached sixty years of age, and".
June 12, 1992

E[e said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter the debate on this bill and to speak to the five separate motions I had moved all respecting the pensions of members of Parliament. As we are well aware, this is a very controversial area with respect to the bill. These amendments are extremely controversial.
I must say, however, this issue is not a new one for me. It is an issue of longstanding. It is one that has been with me for at least some 15 years, dating back to my days serving in municipal government when numerous constituents came to me and raised matters of pension concerns and particularly raised matters relating to the pensions of members of Parliament.
I have had over those 15 years constant discussion and constant correspondence with constituents who had concerns relating to the pensions of members of Parliament. I will just name one, Mrs. Margaret Hunt, a personal friend and a long-time constituent of mine who constantly over those 15 years among others has raised this issue.
Shortly after the our government took office in 1984, the then President of the Treasury Board introduced legislation to make some modifications in pensions relating to public servants and also relating to members of Parliament. There was a great outcry at that time, particularly from public servants. As a result that particular piece of legislation died on the Order Paper and was never renewed and never pursued.
In fact this is the first time since then to my knowledge that there has been a piece of legislation before the House presented by the government dealing with this particular issue.
When Bill C-55 was introduced the present President of the Treasury Board indicated that he wanted to appoint a review committee or some review body to look at the pensions of members of Parliament. He indicated that orally and he indicated that in a letter, copy of which I have with me that appears to be dated April 2, 1992.
As I understand it subsequently he wrote a letter yesterday-I have a copy which is undated-to the Leader of the New Democratic Party in which he again indicated that he intended to proceed with some sort of an inquiry into the pensions of MPs. At the same time, of course, he did not say when. He did not indicate what the
Government Orders
terms of the inquiry would be or who would be making the inquiry.
It would seem to me, given the concerns that have been expressed about this situation and about the pensions of members of Parliament, it would have been very wise indeed for the President of the Treasury Board to have in fact at the outset of this whole entire debate on this bill set up that inquiry formally so that it would have dispensed with any question whatsoever about where we were going from here, particularly in light of the fact that things can quite logically happen along the way, and they did with the previous government bill which died on the Order Paper.
All members of Parliament know that the public has three main areas of concern, particularly my own constituents, with the pensions of members of Parliament. They include something called double-dipping. They include the whole question of indexation of the pension and they include the question of the age at which the pension begins.
These motions, and specifically Motions Nos. 67 and 68, deal with the issue of double-dipping. Double-dipping means that if an MP is already receiving a pension and then gets another government job of some sort he or she would be in a position of being paid twice for their time. This amendment would put an end to that.
The other motions I have before the House at the moment, Motions Nos. 68, 68C, and 69A, deal with the issue of when the pension begins. Right now after serving for six years in Parliament one's pension automatically begins when one ceases to be a member of Parliament. These particular motions would make it law that the pension would not begin until the age of 60.
In my view that would deal with both the issue of when the pension begins and, at least to some extent, the question of indexing because there could be no further indexing prior to the age of 60. Both those issues are dealt with in these particular motions.
There have been questions put to me as to why I chose the age of 60.1 suppose I could have chosen the age of 65 or I could have chosen the age of 55 because there are pensions that fall into those categories. I chose the age of 60 for two reasons. First of all, if I had chosen the age of 55, I would have qualified immediately and I did not

June 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
think that made any logic, any sense. I thought it would have been self-serving and hypocritical of me.
Second, I chose the age of 60 because one is able to qualify and receive a Canada pension under the Canada Pension Plan at the age of 60. In those terms that is the reasoning behind the age of 60.
A good many people have raised concerns with me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have to go into Private Members' Business. If the hon. member would like to complete his 10 minutes I will not see the clock. You will have three minutes after Private Members' Business. If you can complete it within a minute, fine. If not, we will wait until after Private Members' Business. Is the hon. member ready to complete it right now?


Alan Redway: I would conclude by saying many members have raised with me the issue of grandfathering and that certainly is not dealt with in these amendments.
It seems to me that there is a good argument for saying this sort of a change should not occur retroactively. On the other hand, it seems to me that it would be hypocritical of me to suggest I make a change which would not affect me but would affect others in this House.
It is with that in mind that I put the motions as they are. It seems to me these amendments would bring it in line with the kind of pensions that other people in the private sector have.
As a lawyer, I only had the benefit of registered retirement savings plans. As a member of municipal council, I only had the benefit of a pension that would start at age 65. These motions, if adopted by the House, would bring members of Parliament's pensions into line with those of the private sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there is going to be continuous debate on it, I am going to have to call it 3 p.m.
It being 3 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 7, the motion of Mr. Hicks, that Bill C-227, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying the other day in debate on Bill C-227, having to do with the desecration of the flag of Canada, various sources in the legal community have urged the government to exercise restraint in the application of our criminal law. The government has been urged from time to time to use the criminal law only to reaffirm fundamental values. Our Criminal Code should contain only acts which are both punishable and wrong; that is, acts contravening fundamental values and nothing more.
The criteria for real crimes are fairly clear. A real crime in my opinion is an act which is morally wrong and that threatens and infringes on fundamental social values. These values are of two kinds: those which are essential to the very existence of a society and those which are essential to the existence of our own particular society.
Generally, essential values are those without which social life would be impossible. Society is, after all, a co-operative enterprise. Its members must have some give and take, must respect each other's needs and vulnerabilities and must enjoy some mutual trust and reliance.
In other words, they must prefer order to anarchy, peace to violence and honesty to deceit. All social life therefore commits its members to such values as the sanctity of life, the inviolability of the person, the virtue of truth and the necessity of order.
Transgressions against these essential values are crimes of violence, fraud and crimes against peace, order and good government. These are the major candidates for inclusion in the code of real crimes.
June 12, 1992

Besides these generally essential values, most societies hold certain other values. For example, we in Canada set high value on individual liberty. This is by no means necessary for social life, for many societies have existed without it, and an unfree society is still a society but not a society in which we would want to live.
For us, no society would suffice without a measure of freedom, justice, tolerance, human dignity and equality. Transgressions of these important values are crimes such as false imprisonment, interfering with justice and hate propaganda. These form the second category of real crimes.
I also wish to comment on this bill from the perspective of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms. I think that it is important that members of the House keep the charter in mind whenever considering new legislation. The charter in section 2 sets out the fundamental freedoms which Canadians enjoy. That section states that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and experssion, including freedom of the press and other media of communications; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.
Honourable members will note that paragraph (b) explicitly guarantees freedom of expression. Any ban such as proposed in this bill would have to be considered in light of the charter guarantee of this fundamental freedom.
For all of these reasons, this bill proposes an inappropriate extension of the criminal law. I believe that we should explore more appropriate ways of dealing with such offensive behaviour.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to give you my views on the hon. member's bill, which deals with values and symbols.
I have always been impressed by the changes that take place in society and how our interpretation of certain actions may differ. Today, we have a generation of young
Private Members' Business
people for whom certain symbols no longer have the same value they had for us.
Let me give you an example. Today, a contract is always in writing. Everything has to be in writing, whether it is signed or initialled. I know, because I was involved as a negotiator in the collective bargaining process for quite some time. Today, everything has to be exactly right and somebody's signature has to be on it. A signature commands respect. Although we are now starting to have some doubts about that, because if there were no witnesses or a person had no authority to sign- When we see someone's signature, we immediately start wondering whether they had that authority.
Formerly, it was a matter of giving your word. Our parents and grandparents felt that very strongly. When someone said: "I give you my word or I swear on the Bible", that was sacred. This ritual hardly exists any more. We still see it among some older people, but today, even someone's signature or initial on a letter may be challenged. We saw this recently, even in contracts with native tribes or societies; today, 100 years later, they say that the person who signed the contract, which according to the White man was legal, had no authority to sign. So this has far-reaching implications. My point is that our values have changed.
To me a flag is sacred. There are other symbols that are sacred as well but today we have a generation of young people that has been told, and there is nothing wrong with that, that they must express themselves. Well, they do. The way they do it is, of course, not my way, just as my way is different from my grandfather's way.
Today, we are being ask to vote on this bill and refer it to committee for consideration. I suggest referring the bill to a committee in the departmental envelope, for consideration, because it has implications that are quite substantial. We are talking about a bill that appeals to different values in a different context.
People were told to express themselves, and so they did. We had one example last year, or was it two years ago, when five or six people trampled the Quebec flag. It was estimated that the same scene was shown on television 21 or 22 times. Each time, it was always the same five or six people making the same gesture, which was meant to insult those for whom the flag is a symbol.

June 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
We must be careful here. When we vote for a bill, it has to be votable. Second, it has to be enforceable. By the way, what is a symbol? Then we get legislation that interprets exactly what a symbol is, because we cannot start defining every single symbol. The Canadian flag is a symbol of my country: Canada. But there are provincial symbols as well. There are coats of arms and any number of other ways to symbolize something or other in this country.
Today, thanks to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have freedom of expression, which is what I am doing today. We have certain symbols in this country and there are more. Our values and our laws are changing-this legislation, for instance-but we should not let legislation make matters worse.
One of the problems we have in this country is that our communications are becoming increasingly efficient. Although that may be a good thing, there are a number of drawbacks, and some of them are quite harmful. I said earlier that we saw the Quebec flag being trampled 22 times. That is 22 times too many. It should not have been done in the first place. However, it was shown 22 times, with some kind of ferocious glee. Because we have this information overload today, people make up their minds just on the basis of a picture or perception. Of course people weren't in front of their television sets 22 times to find out what they were talking about. When the people involved in the incident apologized, the media showed them, but if you have a television set on and you are cooking or knitting or working on a puzzle or talking on the phone, you don't hear the message. The only message you get is the picture. And you say to yourself: Not again! Even if it didn't really happen 22 times, it was shown that many times on television and that was so many times too many. This is one of the problems we have today. It amplifies problems to the point that they become an irritant to people my own age, to my colleagues here in the back or to younger people. And of course with our own symbols we probably irritate young people as far as some of their symbols are concerned. It is all part of the whole problem.
This bill should be referred to committee for consideration because it contains implications for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we need a better definition of our symbols.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate today and I want to speak in favour of the bill proposed by my colleague. I want to congratulate him for bringing it to the attention of the House.
I have a bill myself, presently being drafted, which is similar except it would also cover the flags of the provinces. I share very much the concerns the parliamentary secretary has raised. I totally agree with him.
In the French media we have seen the flag of Quebec being desecrated time after time. In the English media we have seen the flag of Canada being desecrated every now and then. Of course the reverse is seldom shown because what is shown is meant to tantalise whatever audience one is attempting to tantalise.
For that offence to have occurred once was once too many as the member for Beauhamois-Salaberry has said. To have shown one incident 22 times suggesting the incident had happened 22 times makes it that much more unacceptable.

We in this House can take action to try to rectify the situation. Our colleague has proposed a bill today, and I must tell him that I support his initiative. I would like his bill to apply to the provinces as well.

Once the bill does reach committee, and I hope of course it will be passed by this House and go to a parliamentary committee, I hope my colleague who moved the bill and the committee will recommend including the provinces.
There might be a technical difficulty that might be beyond the scope of the bill under our present parliamentary definitions, but with the unanimous consent of the House, I am sure we could report the bill that way and correct it in the way I am suggesting.
I have had a research document prepared by the Library of Parliament as to the constitutional authority we have to legislate in such matters.
June 12, 1992



I note here, for example, that subsection 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 says very clearly that Parliament can pass legislation to protect the Canadian flag from any form of desecration. That is the opinion of researchers working for us in the law and government division of the Library of Parliament. Our expert advisers tell us that the authority to legislate in this area certainly exists, at least under the Constitution Act, 1867.

How did I get into this? Some weeks ago I received a phone call from a constituent of my riding. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to ask him permission to use his name in the House. I will nevertheless read his letter. Here is what the constituent said:
I am writing in reference to our conversation this morning. My family and I were absolutely shocked when we received this advertising in the mail.
The advertising in question is the one I have here:
How can anyone show that little respect for our Canadian flag? We are Canadian immigrants, i.e. are Canadians by choice, not chance and as such we are very proud of our flag. In our opinion this brochure clearly defaces and dishonours our flag and the companies responsible for it should be held criminally responsible for their actions.
I do hope that you will be able to stop further distribution of the brochure and would appreciate it if you would inform us of the results.
This is a letter I received from a constituent. It is in regard to a brochure which I have in hand. I will not put it before the cameras, pursuant to our rules, but I will share it with you. The brochure in question shows a flag of Canada which is half red and half blue.
The reason for it is to show an alliance between Air France and Canadian Airlines. They have a merger for their travel points and will give 2,500 bonus points. In so doing, they display the flag in a manner which I find totally unacceptable. I will share the document privately with colleagues afterwards, pursuant to our rules. I will show them the information so they can appreciate what I am referring to.
I regret having to say it, but other groups do that as well. It has recently been brought to my attention that a group I support very much is using our Canadian flag in an offensive way. It is not a secret in this House I am a supporter of pro-life causes, but I totally disagree with
Private Members' Business
the brochure pro-life organizations have put out. They show a Canadian flag under the heading of the Canadian holocaust and on the Maple Leaf is what obviously looks like an aborted foetus. I must say to that group, a group I agree with, I find it equally offensive, whether it is Canadian Airlines, pro-life, pro-choice or whoever else is desecrating the flag of this great country.
This is the 125th anniversary of Canada. I hope in this year we will at least pass this bill, send it to committee and ask colleagues and experts to review it. Perhaps in some small way we can show the Canadian people we as legislators feel strongly about our national institutions. Perhaps we can show them we care about the future of Canada and about those symbols and institutions that keep us together.
The flag of our country and of all the provinces and territories deserves the respect advocated by our colleague in his bill.
I trust that we will pass this bill on second reading, send it to committee and make changes to include all the provinces and territories of Canada so as to protect their flags too, to ensure that our national, provincial and territorial flags get the respect they deserve.

In doing so, maybe we will contribute in a small way to showing the people of Canada we care about this country.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, I am very honoured to participate in this debate on this private members' motion from my colleague from Scarborough East. He has introduced a very, very timely and important piece of legislation that may well affect all of us in this country in a very positive way.
As members of Parliament, we all receive a large number of Canadian flags to distribute. I am not sure about your riding but I could probably distribute 10 times the number of Canadian flags, the property of the Government of Canada, without any difficulty. A number of things have happened in the past to flags in this country, and not just to our Canadian flag. Some years ago some Canadians from the New Democratic Party in the Manitoba legislature were upset with an American

June 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
activity in Nicaragua and participated in the burning of the American flag in front of the consulate office in Manitoba. I felt very sad this was allowed to happen and no one was brought to task for it, especially since it involved elected members of a legislature participating in a flag burning.
If the law could be extended, all national flags in my view should be protected in this way. It should be an offence because the national flag is a symbol of the country. While some people may have difficulty with certain countries, I do not believe they should have the right to desecrate another nation's flag.
My colleague from Scarborough East tells me well over 80 per cent of Canadians think this is the right thing to do. I resent any member of Parliament asking the Department of Justice if it agrees with this type of legislation. We are the legislators here. We are the people who decide what laws should rule and govern us. If the Department of Justice does not happen to like it, that is too damned bad. I think this is one of the things Canadians want us to do, and we should do.
I very much want to support this. It is something that should have happened a long time ago. We would not be witnessing things happening now to our national unity where people can use that symbol of unity and try to persuade others across this land in a negative way about what is so very important.
The use of the flag and twisting it in a way is probably also done in very bad taste. My colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has highlighted this and it should be done more often. If some of these organizations want to push their point, they should certainly rethink the use of the Canadian flag as they have portrayed it.
I will close by stating I hope this comes to a vote. I will assist the House in bringing it to a vote because I believe elected representatives want to decide the fate of this bill. I hope it passes in all forms.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak as a private member and I will only speak for a couple of minutes on this.
This is a very interesting topic and I want to congratulate my colleague for introducing it. Protecting our national institutions and our symbols is very important.
With respect to this bill I would imagine there would be some interesting charter questions on this. I know in the United States the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on a similar bill. Nonetheless, committee stage would be another opportunity for members of Parliament to have a look at this.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made an interesting suggestion concerning provincial flags but the point that the member is making here is that we should protect these national symbols.
One of the speakers indicated how important and how appropriate it would be that we would want to do something to protect one of our national symbols in Canada's 125th year.
Heaven knows, there are enough attacks on Canada's institutions and enough attacks on some of those traditions and some of those things that we believe in.
Recently, the CBC ran a program called The Valour and the Horror. In it was a very thinly veiled attack on Canada's role in World War II, an attack on the leadership of Canada's war effort, and an attack on the role that Canada's allies played.
In the example of what happened in the Far East, in Singapore and Hong Kong, that particular program leaves the implication those who ran our allied war effort were either stupid or were just setting up our allies in that part of the world. It goes on to show and talk about the allied war effort in Europe and again portrays the individuals who ran Canada's allied war effort in a very negative way.
One of the unfortunate things about that is I notice the program is now available in libraries. It is in the library in Niagara Falls. This is now available for people to see the portrayal of what Canada did in World War n. That is a shame because Canadians should feel very proud about what Canada did in World War I and World War II.
It is unfortunate that when the National Film Board or CBC spends money, it is in a way that shows these things in a very bad light.
June 12, 1992

I watched part of a program called Tom Alone that was on the CBC. It showed the Mounties, another one of our national institutions, one of our national treasures, one of the legends of the 19th century and it showed a Mountie bullying some young boy. I did not know what channel it was on, but I said to my wife: "You don't have to tell me, this is on the CBC isn't it?"
I just knew it would not be Global. It would not be CTV. It would not be the private network. It would never be an American station because an American network would not show the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that kind of light.
I knew right away that the Canadian taxpayers would end up picking up the bill for this very negative portrayal of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Of course it was not done in this wonderful story about a boy looking for his father. Toward the end just before the last spike was driven into the CPR, one of the foremen arranged it so the Asian workers who have worked to put the railway together were all blown up in a tunnel.
God knows there have been instances of discrimination in this country but as I say, leave it to the CBC to put together that kind of spin, that kind of presentation, of again one of those things that all Canadians feel good about, the CPR.
One of my colleagues told me years ago that there was a suggestion CBC might do a story on General Brock, a hero from my neck of the woods. I remember my colleague saying he did not want CBC to do anything. Please, please leave some of these heroes alone. Thank you, thank you very much. Do not do anything on General Brock. He knows what a lot of us know and that is any look at this by the CBC would have the usual negative connotation.
One of our members has come forward and suggested we protect the national flag. I know this is a young country and there are very few symbols, very few legends in a country the age of Canada. The Mounties are one of them, the building of the railway is another. Our role in the wars, which Canadians are very proud of, our flag and our national anthem are others. There are few enough in this wonderful country of 125 years.
I commend the hon. member for bringing forward this initiative.
Private Members' Business


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-227. It is only fair to respect one of the most noble symbols of our nation and that is the Canadian flag. Look at this country from coast to coast, at the mountains, the valleys, the institutions, the people. There is one single thing that we all think and believe in and look up to as the symbol of Canada and that is our Canadian flag.
My colleague who just spoke was talking about the importance of protecting the institutions. Unfortunately, in his discussion he moved on to attack the CBC. The CBC is a national institution. The CBC has contributed in the past, and continues to contribute to our society as a whole, to Canadian unity and to the well-being of our people.
Attacking, defacing or burning a flag is an assault on the whole nation. It is an assault on the people. It is an assault on the dignity of the nation.
Historically, going back thousands of years, whenever there was a war between two tribes, groups or families, the first thing the winners would do would be to run up their flag. Then they would bum the other tribe's flag. Simply stated, it is a put-down to bum someone else's symbol of pride.
Even now, whenever there is an international dispute between two nations, the winning nation will pull down the flag of the other nation and raise its own flag.
It does not matter whether you look back thousands of years or whether you look at the present situation, a flag of a nation or of a group is a symbol of dignity.
Nothing irks me, hurts me and bums me more inside than seeing someone tampering with the Canadian flag. I say this because it touches me deeply. I get very mad and upset about it, simply because I know what a flag means to the people as a whole, what it means to me and to the people I represent.
What sort of punishment should we give someone who bums the flag? The maximum punishment possible. I say this because anyone who bums the Canadian flag obviously is a vicious and mean person, a person without a backbone, without any kind of respect, a person who believes in vengeance.
My colleague mentioned that we are a young nation. Well, yes, in one sense' of the word we are a young nation, but in reality, no. Historically, Canada has been around for thousands and thousands of years. Since the beginning of this planet Canada has been here. People

Government Orders moved to this land thousands of years ago. Our native people were here. We now have a country with a population in excess of 26 million.
We have a responsibility to respect the law and protect our institutions and the Canadian flag as a symbol of unity and pride.
My colleague did not make any suggestion in terms of punishment. I suggest the person should go to jail and there should be a fine. Ten years in prison, 20 years in prison; if it were up to me, even 100 years in prison would not be enough for anyone who burns or defaces the Canadian flag. This is a betrayal of the country we live in. I know we do not have capital punishment. I do not believe in capital punishment, but it irks me to the point where I would say that someone who defaces the Canadian flag should be put in jail for life. It is an incredible offence. I know it is not my decision, it is the government's decision.
The recent event that took place in our province where people walked on the Quebec flag was reprehensible. That is a provincial flag and it is a symbol of Quebec, just as the Ontario and B.C. flags are symbols of those provinces. This event was highly unfair and I was quite upset about it. Everyone knows the uproar, the animosity and the hurt it caused people. They are our brothers and sisters and part of this great land of ours.
In my final comment, I wholeheartedly support this amendment to the Criminal Code. I do not know if anyone has moved unanimous consent to the House, but if not I would like to move that this bill be adopted unanimously by this House and be passed on to the specific committee to deal with it.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate, I just want to make a point.
I have noticed in the last couple of years some of the documentation coming out of government offices has been defacing the Canadian flag as far as I am concerned in my interpretation. Quite often what I have noticed is that the Canadian flag is no longer red. The government has intentionally coloured it blue.
I will give a very specific example. Not too long ago, I was invited to a special ceremony honouring our Olympic athletes who represented us in the winter games. I was very honoured to go. It was sponsored by the Secretary of State. It was right here on Parliament Hill.
In the room there was a nice big backdrop. There was a large Canadian flag on the mast, the proper Canadian flag, red with the maple leaf. Plastered in that backdrop of blue were blue Canadian flags. I even go a step further to mention the uniforms that our athletes wore in some of the Olympic games. They were representing Canada and the colours of our flag were not the number one predominant focal point of those uniforms.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and other colleagues that the Canadian flag is recognized throughout the world. I would hope that at least the Canadian government would help to preserve the true colours of that Canadian flag.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to speak on the motions which are now put before the House by the hon. member for Don Valley East.
I want to commend the hon. member for Don Valley East for giving the House a long overdue opportunity to debate these important issues surrounding the pensions of members of Parliament. At the same time, I want to

point out that it was my own leader, the leader of the federal New Democratic Party, the member for Yukon, who first drew to the attention of Canadians in a very powerful speech on February 24 of this year the profound inequities which many Canadians believe exist in this pension plan.
I want to make it clear that in speaking today on these motions I am speaking personally. I am not speaking on behalf of my caucus colleagues, I am not speaking on behalf of my party. I am speaking personally and I am speaking as the member of Parliament for Burnaby- Kingsway.
I know my colleague for Victoria has strong feelings on this issue as well and he may very well be participating in the debate. Because of the intensity around this issue, it is a debate which transcends political considerations. I did want to make that very clear.
Certainly many of my constituents in Burnaby-Kingsway have raised concerns about the equity and the fairness of the members of Parliament's pension plan. As the member for Yukon, the leader of the New Democratic Party stated during her speech in February, we are accountable for the public trust. We are accountable to those who elected us to make sure that what we support is fair, not less, and that each and every one of us can stand before the electorate of Canada and say that we have put in place a fair system.
That is the benchmark which surely must guide us as we examine this pension system. As I look at the pension system today and as I looked at the pension system when I was first elected to this House some 13 years ago, it is clear to me that there are inequities in the system and that certainly this House should direct an independent review of those inequities.
On December 5, 1991 I tabled in this House the following motion: "That in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of establishing a non-partisan, independent commission to review all salaries, pensions and benefits of members of Parliament and particularly to identify inequities in the pension plan by holding public hearings and examining other jurisdictions within and outside Canada, and such commission to report within six months of its establishment.
Government Orders
I believed then and I believe now that kind of completely independent review of our pension plan is long overdue. The leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Yukon, has said in her speech in February that it is long overdue that we raise the question of pensions of members of this House, pensions that at this time mean that after six years of service members of this House receive a pension regardless of age or whether they move on to employment elsewhere in the federal government.
That refers to the so-called double-dipping provisions and these are the two fundamental elements of the amendments which are proposed by the member for Don Valley East.
I welcome the opportunity provided by the motions of the hon. member for Don Valley East for a comprehensive and independent review of the pensions and benefits of members of this House.
I also want to take this opportunity to signal the fact that as a result of the leadership of the hon. member for Yukon, the President of the Treasury Board within the last 24 hours has signalled that at last he is prepared to put together an independent and ad hoc review of the pension scheme. It was in response to yet another letter from the hon. member for Yukon, a letter in which the leader of the New Democratic Party called upon the President of the Treasury Board to establish an independent committee, an arm's length committee, that would be able to examine and make recommendations on all aspects of MPs' pension plans and to report back to Parliament within six months of being struck.
In response to that letter, the President of the Treasury Board replied as follows: "At this time, I am developing final proposals on the terms of reference for and composition of the ad hoc group which will undertake this review.
There is no question in my mind that all aspects of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act must be examined and that the study group should be made up of individuals with expertise and public credibility in the area of pensions and compensations".
I would certainly hope that it would be a completely independent review body, separate and at arm's length from members of Parliament and from retired members of Parliament.

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
This does give us an opportunity to review these issues. Certainly the member's motions are not likely to be adopted by the House today. As I understand it, there is some considerable resistance to the amendments. Again, this does give us an opportunity to help spur that long overdue review of the area of MPs' pensions and benefits.
Whether that review will result in proposals for change identical to those made by the hon. member for Don Valley East, whether there will be other proposals, a combination of service and age, whether there will be other proposals with respect to double-dipping, the independent commission will have an opportunity to review.
Again and in conclusion, I want to signal the leadership of the hon. member for Yukon, the leader of the New Democratic Party, in flagging this issue. I know it was a rather sensitive subject because I was in the House the day that she spoke. I remember the hon. member for Glengariy-Prescott-Russell for the Liberal Party and members of the Conservative Party getting up and braying that this was sacred territory; do not touch members of Parliament's pensions, for God's sake.
It was that unholy alliance that coalesces every so often in this country too often for many of us between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the hon. member for Don Valley East for once again speaking out independently and in particular for underlining and re-enforcing the leadership and the courage of the hon. member for Yukon on this important issue of public concern.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I will not debate the point but for the record, those who are watching the proceedings should be aware of the position in committee of the members of that committee.
From day one, the members of that committee have asked for an independent review and that includes the members of the government. It was the government that has gone along and has agreed to that independent review. I do not see where the NDP leader should be the great one who decided that thanks to her we now have an independent review. I do not see why she should get all this credit.
It has been an agreed direction from day one. The members of the Liberal Party in committee asked for it and agreed with it. The member of the NDP who was there asked for it. Even the parliamentary secretary at one of the committee meetings put forth the point of view that he would support an independent review and would take that message to the minister.
Obviously the minister did listen to the hon. parliamentary secretary. It is not necessarily one member who should get the credit. If I recall well enough, when the hon. member for Yukon spoke here, the hon. member changed her position not too long after, publicly, a couple of days later. She did not seem to have the same position all of a sudden. I would not be too quick in saying the hon. member should deserve all the credit on this one.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Certainly if there is any uncertainty I would be very pleased to seek the consent of the House to table the exchange of correspondence between the leader of the New Democratic Party and the President of the Treasury Board. I would seek that consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, as the New Democratic Party critic who attended the committee meetings and sat before the minister when he came before the committee, that was the argument the New Democratic Party had put forward. Our leader made it very clear in the House as I remember and the record in Hansard will verify who took the leadership in this.
I want to speak to the amendment because I think I have a great deal of respect for the member for Don Valley East and I admire his courage in bringing this forward. I have a problem with his amendment and the reason I have a problem with it is that I am a former mayor of a city. I remember when we used to have to vote ourself an increase in the city and I found that appalling.
I find it appalling today that we should be putting amendments forward on our own pension schemes. I like the process of having some actuaries out there and look at the problems that members of Parliament have
June 12, 1992

because maybe we should not be dealing with those problems within a pension bill.
I came here in 1980 and in 1984 I was defeated. I stood up in this House and took on my company, CP Rail. I travelled across this country fighting against the Crow's Nest agreement. I stood up in this House and criticized the other place when the president of CP Rail was appointed as a Senator in that House and I had to go back and work for that company.
When you criticise such as we do in this party, criticize the banks, criticize the major industries on pollution and other things and try to seek employment after you leave here, there are some serious problems there.
That is why I admire the leader of the New Democratic Party when she asked for an independent inquiry to look at the situations with members of Parliament and what happens to them during that.
They cannot be impeded in any way. When you are elected to this House of Commons, the citizen's coalition can talk about comparative in employment. I want to tell you there is no comparative in employment opportunities when you are defeated after four years and you have those kinds of problems and you try to anchor back into the work force.
That is why with this independent inquiry we would be looking far over the pensions of NDP or members of Parliament and maybe at the situation of how we can address this problem.
The member who represented my riding prior to me, a government member, when he was defeated he was appointed to the Parole Board as a representative, getting an $80,000 a year job.
People on the opposition do not get that kind of opportunity. I would urge the members to support the amendment we have put forward. It is imperative that independent actuaries do the job of checking into the situation and come back with a full report.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member who just spoke now. He gave some balance to what had been said previously and it is not easy. This is not an easy subject. I have tackled the critics of MPs' benefits and pensions probably more than anyone in this House, save the member perhaps from Mississauga South. I feel some-
Govemment Orders
what bruised by the process, but as they say, them's the breaks. I am not ashamed to be a member of Parliament. I think it is the greatest honour any Canadian can have. I started my working career on Parliament Hill as a busboy in the Parliamentary Restaurant on October 25, 1966. I looked in awe at members of Parliament, looking in awe at those people who had been chosen democratically by fellow citizens to represent them in this the highest court in the land.
Every election I would see new members come in, each one of them vested with this great honour, each one of them with every intention in their own way of best serving the people who sent them here. You sir, Mr. Speaker, will remember because you were one of the people who was here as an MP when I was a staffer here on Parliament Hill. Through much luck and probably some elbow grease, I ended up some 18 years after I first came here as a member of Parliament.
I do not mean to say this to describe my own political rags to riches story, although some others may have described it that way from time to time. I feel very proud of the fact that I am here, not for my own accomplishments, although I like to think that way from time to time but for the fact that we live in a country where it is possible for the Prime Minister to be an ex-truck driver and to eventually become Prime Minister of this country or for the busboy of the Parliamentary Restaurant to come back as an MP. There are not that many nations in the world where that could happen.
We live in one of them and I am proud of that. I work hard at it. Most mornings, hon. members will know, certainly the cleaning staff knows, I am here at 7.15 a.m. and many, many times particularly in winter, I go through days and nights without seeing daylight. I am not complaining because I enjoy my job. There is nothing else in the world that I would rather do and I am very proud of it.
I have some problems with organizations like the National Citizens Coalition, who for their own selfish interests of trying to raise funds for whoever they are, however many members they have if any, pretend that they are on a crusade against every member of this House and at the bottom of their little crusade block there is a little cut-out which says: "Want us to do more of the same? Please send us your cash". Cut this out and send it to David Somerville who will gladly take your

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
money to continue fighting more of this great stuff he is fighting now.


An hon. member:: That is his income.


Don Boudria: Well, some other members have said it, that is his income, and we are catering to this. We as MPs are catering to this. I do not mean that our pensions are sacred or our salary is sacred or anything else. It is not. A recent study said that Canadian members of Parliament are paid the least of the G-7 nations. That is a fact. Maybe the pensions were 5 per cent more and the salaries 5 per cent less. Let us have that independent inquiry, that independent review the way the government has suggested. It was suggested in the heat of the night in correspondence between the government and the members in the New Democratic Party.
However, it does not matter how the process got started. The point is there is going to be that independent review. I welcome it because I am not ashamed of the salary I make or how I use the stationery I have in my office to correspond with my constituents or the photocopier or the fax machine or all other so-called perks we have to correspond with the people who sent us here to represent them to start with.
I am not ashamed of any of that. I am proud to have the opportunity to represent my constituents and I welcome that study. But let us not take off to please the National Citizens Coalition and adopt an amendment or two or three amendments just because we are afraid of the Reform Party or David Somerville or somebody else. Let us have a bit more backbone around this place for once. Let us do that independent study. I know right now what it is going to say. I can tell you that most members of Parliament work hard-not just me, not just the member for Ottawa Vanier, although he works very hard, too, but members across the way, on all sides of the House. We all work hard around here and it is time that we took pride ourselves in the greatest honour that was given to us by our constituents who sent us here to start with.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the proposal for an independent inquiry into MPs' pensions, as proposed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. It is an excellent initiative she has taken and it is long overdue.
The motion before this House from the member for Don Valley East I am afraid does not do the job because it is too rigid. I would think that the proposal he has put should go to this inquiry and be considered along with it. It does not have the necessary flexibility to cover some particular situations. Someone may be asked to do a short-term job. Someone may have a pension after six years which is minimal and which the member is entirely entitled to. That member ought to be free to accept some additional income.
The problem that the member's motion deals with and which I think is the public's concern is the person at full pension who is offered some full-time job in the public sector. That issue does need to be dealt with.
There are terrible inequities in this country in the whole pension field. Probably none is worse than the pensions of the captains of industry in this country who are paid grotesque pensions. We cannot do anything about those issues today in this bill. We can today deal with the issue of pensions of members of Parliament. It is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament to be prepared to have our pensions undergo the scrutiny of an independent inquiry.
We, too, may have to make sacrifices in this particular time of economic restraint in our country. Therefore, I welcome the initiative of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and I fully support the inquiry that she has proposed and has persuaded the government to implement.


Steven W. Langdon: I think it is very important in this present economic time that we who are members of Parliament think not just of the work which we do as MPs, think not just of the sacrifices which many members of Parliament make in terms of giving up income to be MPs. I think it is more important and more sensible in looking at this question from a broad economic perspective across the country to ask where we are at in Canada today.
In my constituency just today, workers at one of our large parts plants received notices that that plant is going to be shut down. Close to 200 workers will lose their jobs. Most of those workers will have been proud of their jobs. They will have been proud of their contribution that they have made to the company for which they worked. They are going to be proud of the community of which they are part. Many of them will have worked in that company for 15, 20, or 25 years. Yet when they leave that company by September after that amount of work, they will not
June 12, 1992

receive a pension. They will have worked more than six years but they will not receive a pension.
For those people let me suggest it will be considerably more difficult than for virtually anybody in this House of Commons to be able to find a job. Those who are 50, 51 or 52 or even if they are a little younger will not find it easy at all with unemployment at 11.2 per cent in this country to go out and find employment.
They will face exactly what each of us will face if we are defeated in the next election with one major difference. For somebody who has been here for six years, seven years, for eight years as in my case or for longer as in the case of other members, they will go out to seek employment. They will find it difficult perhaps but frankly, their experience here will help them rather than hurt them in virtually every case.
They will carry with them right from the day they lose their position in this House of Commons a pension of $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000.1 have had to talk with union presidents from plants that have faced this kind of shutdown. They said to me: "Steven, I have 23 years in at the plant where I happen to work and I am not going to have a pension. I do not know what I am going to do. I fought the company hard as chairperson of the union or as president of the union and it is not going to be easy for me in this community to find a new job because I am recognized as a union activist".
I say to members of this House of Commons, as I have said within my own caucus, that we have to recognize that the world is not an easy to place for many Canadians. It is not an easy place for the 460,000 Canadians who have lost manufacturing jobs in the last three and a half years.
It is not an easy place for people who find the unemployment insurance system much tougher now as a result of measures passed by a majority of members of Parliament in this House of Commons. I say that the motions which have been brought forward today by the member for Don Valley East are motions which personally I support and which I have supported before the time that I was elected as a member of Parliament.
Government Orders
One of the issues in the first campaign that I ran in in 1984 involved the fact that the member whom I was running to replace, the former member for Essex- Windsor, the former Minister of Agriculture, was being appointed to a government position in Rome. Yet he would receive a full pension from this House of Commons. I said at the time and I say now that it is not right. We need a good pension system for members of Parliament. There is no question about that.
As finance critic for our party, I also want to say that this country is hurting. There needs to be examples set. These examples should be set by this House of Commons by putting into effect positions such as those that have been put forward by the member for Don Valley East.
The member for Don Valley East would probably be the first to agree that it is not right that this House of Commons should have control over our pensions or over our other benefits. I do not think this House of Commons should be responsible for setting our salaries. I do not think it should be responsible for setting the allowances which we receive for keeping a residence in our constituencies and so forth.
An independent commission should be established to set these things out, just as is done with the setting of boundaries for constituencies in this country. We learned long ago that if we left the setting of boundaries to members of Parliament that there would be inevitably self-interested motives that would creep in to the setting of those boundaries. We must learn the same thing with respect to the whole set of benefits which a member of Parliament receives for the work which he or she does in this place, in our constituencies and elsewhere throughout the country. That is what we have to establish.
This is an important debate. It is an important set of motions which the member for Don Valley East has put forward. I hope they will be taken to an independent commission and we will reform the pension system of members of Parliament to make it fair and to make it in a context of difficult economic times for all Canadians.

Government Orders


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few remarks to the debate.
I would like to quote from the report on the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act for the fiscal year, 1989-90. What I would like to mention is that members do contribute to their pension plan. In the fiscal year 1989-90 they contributed $2,082 million and the government contributed the same amount.
The plan that is presently in force has a surplus in the bank of over $30 million. Naturally this brings in interest so that it is self-financing, I would say.
If we look at the number of pensions ex-members are getting, it is surprising to see for instance that about 60 former members are getting pensions in the order of $500 to $3,000 and there are only seven former members who get $50,000 plus. The average is probably around $15,000 to $16,000.
I would like to mention a friend of mine who was a member here for many years, about 20 years, and who was a cabinet minister in the Clark government. When he was defeated in 1980 his pension was $14,000. At the present time he is receiving $20,000 because his pension is indexed. I do not see how he could spend 20 years in government service, been a cabinet minister and receive a pension of $20,000.
If you look at the whole issue I feel it has been blown out of proportion. The plan is self-financing, it has a surplus and it has been very well run. I think the stories that we hear about members getting huge amounts of money are somewhat false. Members who have served in this House for some time deserve a pension. These members left their professional lives and businesses. Many come from long distances such as British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces and cannot run their businesses from Ottawa.
My feeling is that members are really not getting what the public perceives they are getting. The report further states that another 15 members are getting from $3,000 to $4,000. In total there are only 332 ex-members who are getting pensions and of that only seven receive $50,000 and 27 receiving $40,000 to $50,000. It then goes down to $500.
Therefore, I believe we should have a serious look at the pension proposals. We should not be defensive about what members of Parliament are getting. If you look for instance at what some provincial members are getting
you might be surprised. They get much higher pensions than we do. Some of the salaries in the provinces are double what members of Parliament get.
I do not think we should be defensive about our pensions. I tend to disagree with the member who just spoke. He talked about other institutions and doubledipping. If there is double-dipping I think it should be disallowed across the board because there are certain members who retire in other government institutions at age 50 with huge pensions and they are double-dipping as well. If we have double-dipping I think it should apply across the board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on Motion No. 67.


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 67 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 68. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.
June 12, 1992


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Negatived on division. These votes apply to Motions Nos. 68B, 68C and 69A.
Motion No. 68 negatived.


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 71.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 109 by striking out line 12 at
page 133 and substituting the following therefor:
"into force on April 1, 1992."
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was drafted they had expected it to be passed and part of the act by fiscal year April 1, 1991 and that date was selected arbitrarily as the new fiscal year. The bill will be coming into effect in a new fiscal year so rather than make it retroactive to April 1, 1991, I assume it should start April 1, 1992, the start of the last fiscal year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 71 negatived.
Government Orders


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 72B.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out line 40 at page 150 and substituting the following therefor:
"less than two years, or".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important amendment. It deals with the fairness issue, something which I have been repeatedly saying today. I think that our amendments over-all addressed fairness.
Prior to the change in the family law legislation, many spouses received their pensions as support. Legislation stated that the pension was an asset but it was either implicitly recognized by the courts that the spouses had an entitlement to the pension or that it was unfair that they be deprived of an entitlement especially after long-term marriages.
I could quote, but I do not want to take too much time, letters from constituents, as well as comments and statements. I want to quote briefly from a constituent of mine, Joyce Struthers, who has been very active in representing the committee for spousal's and children's pension survival and related benefits. I think we owe Ms. Struthers a vote of thanks for her presentation and her fairness.
Many spouses were married for 20, 30, 40, 50 years. They shared all the contributions, supported all the employment, carried all the family responsibilities, bore the children, lost their own employment in many cases, lost their pension opportunities as an individual because they were married to a public servant and were keeping house and doing things that were required because the spouse was away from home, sometimes in a foreign country. They often represented Canada side by side with their spouse.
These people are asking for an amendment that would fine tune the legislation, making it appropriate that since many spouses have elected to take their entitlement to the pension as support rather than as an asset in order to be able to obtain enforcement through the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, these persons would be allowed to apply for the benefits available under the new Pension Benefits Division Act.
To them and to the Liberals on this side, this is crucial because these women were advised to take the pension this way by their lawyers, by Treasury Board officials. Many judges have made similar orders because the

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act did not allow for a division of assets but only for support.
Those provisions under the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act are currently being challenged in the courts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Again it is a question of justice. It is a question of equity. It is a question of fairness. All these people are proposing through us in this amendment is that this House be sensitive to a difficult situation. I could speak at length on this subject matter but I will not because I think the point has been made. We must show some considerate attention to these particular cases and adopt a motion that indeed would correct it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 72B negatived.


Sidney James Parker: Motion No. 73.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out lines 36 and 37 at page 151 and substituting the following therefor:
"intention to live separate and apart from the other and gave notice of the intention to the other spouse; and".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 73B.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out line 37 at page 151 and substituting the following therefor;
"the other and gave notice of the intention to the other spouse; and".


Alan Redway: Motion No. 74.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by adding the following immediately after line 24 at page 152:
"(2) Upon the filing of a notice under subsection (1), no pension benefits may be paid out to the member before the application under section 7 is decided."


Sidney James Parker: Motion No. 75.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out lines 26 to 40 at page 153.


John F. Brewin: Motion No. 76A.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out lines 28 to 33 at page 154 and substituting the following therefor:
"(5) Where a member of a pension plan and the spouse or former spouse of the member are living separate and apart and, before the coming into force of subsection 4(1), the parties entered into a written agreement to live separate and apart or a court of competent jurisdiction made an order that the parties do live separate and apart and the agreement or court order does not also provide that the spouse or former spouse shall receive a portion of the member's pension benefits or receive other property of the member in substitution for a portion of the pension benefits, the Minister may, on an application under section 4, approve a division of the pension benefits under this section."


Alan Redway: Motion No. 77.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by adding the following immediately after line 33 at page 154:
"(6) Subject to the terms of any applicable court order or separation agreement determining the rights of the interested parties under this subsection, where an applicant under section 4 is a spouse or former spouse of the member of the pension plan and while the application is pending, another person who is a former spouse or spouse of the member makes application under section 4 or submits a notice of objection under subsection 6(1), the Minister shall, as the Minister considers just in the circumstances, approve a division of the pension benefits in accordance with this section in such manner as fairly reflects the respective portions of the contributory period of the member during which each spouse or former spouse lived with the member as the spouse of the member. "
Motion No. 78.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out line 37 at page 154 and substituting the following therefor:
"an amount representing a portion of".
June 12, 1992


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 78B.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out line 37 at page 154 and substituting the following therefor:
"an amount representing all or part of".


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 79.
That Bill C-55 be amended in the English version of Schedule II by striking out line 5 at page 155 and substituting the following therefor:
"the prescribed kind,".


Sidney James Parker: Motion No. 80.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out line 11 at page 155 and substituting the following therefor:
"or
(b) Subject to subsection (4), deeming a portion of the pension benefits of the member of the pension plan to be held by the Minister in trust for the spouse or former spouse until the portion is transferred to the spouse or former spouse or to such other person as the spouse or former spouse may direct and transferring the portion to an account registered under the pension plan in the name of the spouse or former spouse; and".


Guy H. Arseneault: Motion No. 81.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out line 11 at page 155 and substituting the following therefor:
"or
(iv) a pension plan as defined by this Act, leaving the proceeds of a pension division and making the person a member of that plan; and".


John F. Brewin: Motion No. 82A.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by adding immediately after line 18 at page 155 the following:
"(2) Where a portion of a member's pension benefits are held in trust under paragraph (l)(a), the spouse or former spouse on whose behalf the portion is held has, in respect of the portion, the same rights and obligations as the member would have, for as long as the portion is held in trust by the Minister."


Sidney James Parker: Motion No. 83.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by adding immediately after line 6 at page 156 the following:
"(5) A lump sum payment under subsection (4) shall be determined with reference to life expectancy tables applicable to
Government Orders
persons of the same gender as the spouse or former spouse to whom the payment is to be made."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on Motion No. 73. What we are calling for here is that schedule II of Bill C-55 be amended by striking out lines 35 to 36 on page 145 and substituting the following:
"intention to live separate and apart from the other and gave notice of the intention to the other spouse; and".
The reason we have put forward this amendment is that there have been some changes in the regulations with regard to common law relationships. The bill as it stands now refers to one year living together as a common law spouse. Many former spouses are not even aware that these relationships have taken place.
We are saying with this amendment that it is incumbent upon the member who has the pension to notify the spouse so that she is aware of the divisions within that pension. It is a small amendment and it is one that the government should certainly accept.
During the debate in committee and during the debate in the House on these amendments, on simple amendments such as this one, not one member of the government is getting up and telling us why he or she would not consider this amendment. I think that is disrespectful to the employees of the Public Service, disrespectful to members of the RCMP and disrespectful to military groups.
We have put forward some very simple amendments. I think there should be an explanation from the government as to why it is not going to accept those amendments. I found it offensive in committee and I find it offensive in the House that we are not even getting an answer from the other side as to why these amendments are not being considered.
That is why there are 112 amendments before the House today. It is because we were not getting those kinds of answers in committee. Now we are seeing the same performance in the House of Commons. I think this is disgraceful on the government side. I say to the government: "For goodness' sake, have a little bit of fairness, a little bit of compassion for this piece of legislation". It is going to become law. We all know the government is going to win when the day is over. It will become law and the regulations will be put in place. We

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
are only asking for a little bit of fairness in this piece of legislation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Motions Nos. 73B and 78B which I moved and which were seconded by my friend and colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur.
The purpose of these amendments is directed primarily at the Canadian forces, diplomatic services and other federal employees who may be posted in different locations across the land or outside the country.
Some of these employees have been known to live apart from their legal spouses and take on common law spouses without the knowledge of the legal spouses. This section, unamended, would not be fair to a spouse who carried on her duties raising the family and believing herself to be in a stable family relationship, and meanwhile her spouse had struck or arranged a common law association unknown to the legal spouse. In my view the legal spouse in this situation is short-changed. She is short-changed of benefits without even knowing what her legal or economic position is.
The amendment I am proposing is simply trying to require that the legal spouse be informed, and I underline that, that the couple is living separate and apart. It sounds to me like a reasonable, sensible amendment.
On that question there has been a long debate as to why the government would not come to grips with this situation, which in many cases is a tragedy. It is a tragic situation because innocent people are being hurt. We all know this could be avoided by amending the law, by making it possible to avoid serious injustice, by adopting a motion which would correct this exploitation and by simply dropping one optional basis, that is the provision for payout on marriage breakdown, and providing instead authority for making the former spouse of the public servant a member of the pension plan. It does not seem to me to be a very complicated proposal.
I take it that the spouse at home is entitled to half, at least, of the contribution that her spouse and herself make to a pension plan. That is fair. That is an entitlement which I understand to be a just analysis of the situation.
This does not belong to one spouse. It belongs to both of them. These are earnings that are put away, saved for later use. That is a pension plan. That is why we contribute to pension plans. It is earnings today that are saved for future use.
Instead of having some injustice in a situation of marriage breakdown because the spouse receiving or contributing directly to the pension plan is having another relationship, common law or otherwise, all we are saying is that there should be an additional clause that says the spouse who is legally entitled to it should receive half those contributions and be entitled to some pension plan.
In my riding many families are affected. I know families in the Canadian forces at Rockcliffe who were subjected to this kind of situation. It is not an easy thing to settle.
I dare say that the government's answer to our proposal was: "We do not want to increase the numbers of recipients or the number of pensioners". It does not sound to me like a very positive answer or a very acceptable one in that sense.
Logic would simply dictate that this amendment is not a far-reaching or very difficult one to understand. It would be one of fairness and it would be one of justice. I hope my colleagues will see their way to supporting this amendment.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, we have now moved into a section of the bill which in effect is a whole new bill to be entitled the Pension Benefits Division Act, schedule II of the bill before the House.
The bill rights a very long injustice mostly to women who are the ex-spouses of public servants, including the military, the RCMP and so forth. Under federal pension plans ex-spouses have been denied what the courts and the provincial level have agreed they should have, that is a clear recognition that through their marriage they have contributed equally to the pension plan earned by their spouses. That has already been recognized in the Canada Pension Plan. It has been recognized at the provincial level. It has been recognized by the courts, and now finally it is being recognized by Parliament. It is a change which we on all sides of the House support.
June 12, 1992

The member for New Westminster-Burnaby has been one of the leading spokespeople on this issue and has worked with women's groups across the country in bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament.
In my own riding there are courageous women who have come forward with petitions and requests. Some of the most poignant letters I have read have dealt with the plight they have been put in by this Parliament's failure to move earlier on this issue. They have been deprived of rights they should have. It is in this context therefore that I want to speak about the particular amendments before the House.
The member for Kootenay East moved a number of amendments in committee and made some great strides forward. He won an amendment for disclosure requiring that the non-plan member spouses will now have equal access to their spouses' pension information. In the absence of a court order specifying the period of cohabitation, the minister can and must use provincial family law guidelines in determining the period. Finally, there have been improvements in the valuation of the pension rights.
There are still a number of key points missing from the bill and issues which the committee heard eloquent pleas about. The committee for spousal and children pension survival and related benefits led by Joyce Struthers and others across Canada have made a veiy persuasive case for these issues.
I would just like to review them. We have already heard about some. The member for Kootenay East referred to Motion No. 73, which simply says that for calculating the period of contribution, the spouse at least ought to be given notice of the separation. That is a simple matter of justice.
Motion No. 75 which is included in this group would deal with the problem that an appeal of a court order could unfairly defer the rights to the asset which this Parliament concedes is earned by the ex-spouse.
Motions Nos. 76 and 76A in my name deal with the issue of retroactivity. The bill already provides a certain limited transitional provision. If the ex-spouse is lucky enough to have had this included in the court order or separation agreement entered into before this act comes into force, she or he may be all right.
If the court order or separation agreement does not cover the division of pension benefits, which may well be the case because of course up until this act comes into force it is not the law, then that person may be out of luck. The ex-spouse can try to go back to court, try to go
Government Orders
back to the ex-spouse and negotiate a new agreement, but if that cannot be done, and there may be statute limitations and other reasons why that is not possible, then the ex-spouse is out of luck.
What the amendment I have moved proposes is simple and I ask the House to support it. Give the minister the authority to change the court order or pension plan and approve a division of pension benefits in appropriate cases.
I had extensive discussions with officials of Treasury Board and the associate Minister of National Defence, who is also the Minister responsible for the Status of Woman. She gave strong support not only to the bill itself, but to the thrust of the amendment I was proposing.
Somewhere deep in the bowels of Treasury Board they could not agree to this simple amendment because they are afraid their minister might have to make a difficult decision. So what did the government members of the committee do? They simply said we will only do what Treasury Board says. What is the government doing today? Silence. Silence in the face of the call for justice for women in this country who have inadvertently been deprived of a possible benefit. I think it is unconscionable for the members of the government to sit silent through this.
There are other amendments which are covered in this package. Frequently a court order or a separation agreement may recognize the spouse is entitled to more than 50 per cent because there are trade-offs, but this bill prevents the minister from recognizing that.
It is an arbitrary limit which has no basis of justice. I am amazed that the members of the government would sit silent and allow this to not be supported in this House.
We finally come to two or three other amendments. I do not know how much time I have. Two minutes. Well, in two minutes I can try to make a further pitch for those who have a case here to which the government is deaf.
Motions 82 and 82A would give the option of a trust in the ex-spouse's name. The idea here is to just provide a simple rough justice. This bill goes a long way to dealing with the problem. It provides that in the case of a proper

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
application, the ex-spouse will be essentially given her property, which is her share in the pension, but it establishes a relatively convoluted way of doing that. Whereas the spouse from whom she is separated gets a cheque every month from the government, that cannot happen under this bill. This amendment sets up a system to allow that to happen so she too can get a cheque from the government for her share rather than have to go through more convoluted methods of doing it.
The other amendments, Motions Nos. 83 and 84 also provide for important improvements. I call on the members of the government to listen to what the women of this country are saying, what the member for Kootenay East so eloquently argued in committee, and what the member for New Westminster-Burnaby has argued across this country. They have pleaded for the government to just open up long enough to give these additional changes the consideration they are due and be fair.
This is a very thick bill. As we already heard, it has 112 amendments and 150 pages. This bill surfaced just a few months ago. It has not had the opportunity necessary for the kind of discussion it should have. We are seeing a travesty of the report stage procedures in this House. The government has not even explained the reasons why it cannot find these amendments to make the sense I see they do.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as you know I had moved some motions myself to amend this portion of the legislation, which deals with credit splitting for spouses and ex-spouses of pensioners under this legislation.
I would like to commend the hon. members who have spoken and moved motions on this portion of the legislation. They include the hon. member for Kootenay East, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the hon. member for Victoria.
I suspect almost everyone in this House has constituents who have a problem, and who have had a problem which they hope will be solved by this legislation. I have many, but I would just like to put on the record the
concerns of one of those constituents who I have been discussing this matter with for many years.
Mrs. Joyce Bisset, one of my constituents who lives in Vicora Linkway, wrote me on October 31, 1991 to say: "I have written you several times in the past, specifically in 1987 and 1988, in regard to the unfairness of federal legislation, which discriminates against former spouses of military and public servants. I wrote to you about both pension credit splitting and survivor benefits earned during the years of marriage".
"Just prior to the last election, I invited you into my home at which time we discussed these issues. I did provide you with copies of my correspondence for you to read. You did tell me that if federal legislation was not forthcoming following your letters of referral to the correct ministers in charge that you would introduce a private members' bill yourself to have the legislation changed".
"I am sure that you can understand my disappointment in not receiving anything positive in regard to these pressing issues. I have enclosed a petition which has been signed by my doctor because of the stress-related illness that I have suffered including life-threatening major surgery in 1990 and also by strong supporters of this issue, some of whom find it to be unbelievable that in this day and age such discrimination exists".
That petition read:
That many women in Canada are living in poverty after years of home making, which allowed their husbands to pursue careers without the burden of of child rearing and housework.
That many of these women are disentitled by divorce to an equal share of their husband's federal pension credits accumulated during their marriage, and
That the government has stated in the past that it is in favour of mandatory, automatic pension credit splitting.
In fact, the Canada Pension Plan has had that for some time.
Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament consider amending all federal superannuation acts in which inequity exists to allow for the retroactive pension credit splitting for all divorced spouses so that they may receive one-half of the federal pension credits accumulated by both spouses during the years of their marriage.
June 12, 1992

That is not an uncommon kind of situation. There are lots and lots of homemaker spouses who are in that situation and have been in that situation. I know that myself from my own family's circumstances.
My uncle was a military officer until his retirement, my aunt worked along with him. They were a team. It seems incredible to me that somebody in Mrs. Bisset's case could not share on a credit splitting basis the pension of her husband in a situation like that where suddenly as was the case with Mrs. Bisset almost to the day that her husband retired from the military he left and is living with another woman.
As a result of that, Mrs. Bisset did not have any access whatsoever to the credits of her husband's pension. This bill helps to correct some of those inequities but as hon. members have said already there are many more inequities that have not been corrected as yet by this bill.
In the motions that I have put before the House, Motion No. 74 deals with the whole situation of what happens when there is a separation. Do you go on for a period of weeks, months, years perhaps before suddenly the credit splitting starts, or the payments to the one spouse end pending some sort of decision.
I have provided in Motion No. 74 that there will be a freeze on those payments upon notice from the spouse who is a party to this separation until there is a decision made.
I have also provided in Motions Nos. 77 and 78 that there is a right for the minister to determine that the deserted, separated or divorced spouse in those cases should be entitled to receive more than 50 per cent of the pension if she has contributed that proportionate amount over the time, in the judgment of the minister.
I would hope that the members of this House would see fit to adopt all of the motions that have been put on this issue which raise very longstanding concerns on matters of complete inequity and it is long overdue that this Parliament correct these inequities. After all, we have corrected them in the Canada Pension Plan. There is no reason why we should not be correcting them in this legislation also.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch briefly on Motion No. 78B. That is the amendment that was offered by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. As members will know, particularly those who serve on the committee that my
Government Orders
colleague from Ottawa West as well was very active in raising this issue.
Just very briefly I want to say to the House that Motion No. 78B is meant to address the following problem. Bill C-55 currently says that the amount of the pension to be transferred is 50 per cent or less even if the court order takes the entire pension into account in the division of assets, and the words "more than 50 per cent" to one spouse.
If this was a pension in the private sector regulated by any statute, federal or provincial, none of us would interfere with that. A court order would be respected. However, when we are dealing with pensions for public servants it seems that we have decided that we can inject something into the bill whereby we will supersede the order made by a judge of the court, having taken a number of things into consideration in the disposition of assets. The proposed amendment would enable the federal government to award the amount of the pension stated in the court order, whatever the court order, whether it is 50 per cent, more than 50 per cent or whether it is less. In fact, the amendment would bring this legislation in line with the Pension Benefits Standards Act which is the act which we use to impose those kinds of rules on everyone else. The amendment proposed by my colleague would inject that element of fairness that has been raised by other colleagues earlier today. I just wanted to take a moment of the House and so indicate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 73 which will apply to Motion No. 75. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.

Government Orders
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 73B which is voted on separately. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the
nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 73B negatived


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 74 which applies to Motions Nos. 77 and 78. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 74 negatived


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 76A which applies to Motion No. 82A. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 78B will be voted on separately. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 78B negatived


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 79. Is it the pleasure .of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
June 12, 1992

Motion No. 79 negatived


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 80. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 81. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 81 negatived


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 83. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 75D.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out lines 16 to 22 at page 154 and substituting the following therefor:
"those grounds are based."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to remove two paragraphs of the proposed Pension Benefits Division Act which state that the minister shall refuse to approve the division of pension benefits if, and it reads:
(d)	That periods subject to division cannot be determined under subsection 8(2) or 8(3) or
(e)	The minister is satisfied, based on evidence submitted to the minister that it would not be just to approve this division.
Mr. Speaker, we want those two paragraphs deleted.
In the case of (d), subsections (2) and (3) of the same act give ample guidelines as to how to determine a period subject to division and gives the minister the power to declare a period as the period of co-habitation even in the absence of court order or spousal agreement specifying such a period. Spouses should not be refused the part of the pension they earned because the minister has not exercised his power to declare a period of co-habitation.
Concerning paragraph (e), which we also want deleted, the proposed Pension Benefits Division Act states that pension credits cannot be divided in the absence of a court order or agreement. Paragraph (e) gives the minister the power to ignore a provincial court order or agreement between spouses as to the division of benefits for unnamed reasons. This is probably unconstitutional, as marital property is under provincial jurisdiction and provincial law is paramount in this area.

June 12, 1992
Government Orders
Other paragraphs are in place to prevent division if a court order is found to be invalid, the application for splitting is withdrawn or an appeal is underway.
Paragraph (e) may allow the minister to make decisions based on moral or other grounds, superseding valid court orders. This is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the present law does not provide for sharing pension rights. This new bill, C-55, would allow sharing pension benefits at source. Of course, we are pleased with that and support some of those recommendations. The spouse's agreement or a court order would be required, if we take the bill literally; up to 50 per cent of the entitlement would be transferred to a retirement savings plan for the spouse and the participant's benefits in the plan would be adjusted accordingly.
All that proposed amendment 75D does is to give clear, specific directions, because we do not want grey areas. We want the minister to meet his responsibilities, but we also want all public servants and everyone entitled to a pension to know clearly that there are difficult situations where the same rules as apply to the Canada Pension Plan will apply to the Public Service Superannuation Act. The CPP provides for automatic sharing of pension benefits at source and the 1983 report of the parliamentary task force on pension reform recommended that this measure also apply to Public Service pensions, as we recall.
The purpose of my motion 75D is simply to update the bill and make it apply not only like all other bills but like all other systems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 75D negatived.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to move the next motion on behalf of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur who cannot be here at this time.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Motion No. 85.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by striking out line 6 at page 158 and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Subject to sections 17 to 20, the Governor in Council may, on the".
Motion No. 86.
That Bill C-55, be amended in Schedule II by adding immediately after line 30 at page 159 the following:
"17. The President of the Treasury Board shall, at a time and in a manner appropriate in the circumstances, seek the views of interested parties and, where appropriate, members of the public generally on proposed regulations to be made under this Act.
18.	The President of the Treasury Board shall, where the Governor in Council proposes to make any regulation under this Act, lay a draft of the proposed regulation before the House of Commons at least thirty sitting days before a copy of that regulation is published in the Canada Gazette under section 19.
19.	(1) Subject to subsection (2), a copy of each regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to make under this Act shall be published in the Canada Gazette at least thirty days before the effective date of the regulation, and a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to interested persons to make representations to the President of the T-easury Board with respect to the proposed regulation.
(2)	No proposed regulation need be published under subsection (1) if it has previously been published pursuant to that subsection, whether or not it has been amended as a result of representations made pursuant to that subsection.
(3)	In calculating the thirty day period referred to in subsection (1), there shall not be counted any day on which the House of Commons does not sit.
20.	Where, within twenty five sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before the House of Commons under section 18, a motion signed by no fewer than thirty members of the House to the effect that the proposed regulation should be reviewed by a committee of the House and should be the subject of a report by the committee to the House, is made in the House, the Speaker shall within five sitting days after the filing of the motion, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary for disposition of the motion."
June 12, 1992


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 88.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Schedule II by adding immediately
after line 30 at page 159 the following:
"17. Organizations representing parties interested in or likely to
be affected by a regulation under section 16 must be consulted in the
formulation or amendment of such regulation."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I do not want to take too much time of the House.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow for pension advisory committees to have representation from organizations representing spouses or former spouses of pension plan members.
It is a proposal that is fair, that would not cost any money. It would give us a chance to hear from those who sometimes are affected by these dispositions of the law and who clearly have a financial interest in the formulation of regulations that apply to these laws.
This amendment is strictly an attempt to ensure that these groups be heard, that they be consulted, and it is an amendment that wants to open up the process to those people involved and it simply asks that they be allowed to be heard at these advisory boards.
It is a simple amendment. It is a just amendment.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on Motions Nos. 85 and 86.
The bill as presently drafted would allow the government to settle by regulation a number of important issues related to the division of pension benefits as a result of a marriage breakdown.
The amendments we are offering would only require the minister to consult before drafting the regulations and it would give the House of Commons an opportunity to review the draft regulations before they are promulgated.
In other words, we want Parliament to be consulted in the process, thereby giving the government further input that we as MPs would get from constituents. It seems to me to be a very reasonable thing to ask. It in no way contests the government's ability to make the regula-
Govemment Orders
tions, but it does provide a useful device to ensure proper consultation with members of Parliament and with the representatives of the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 85. This vote applies to Motion No. 86. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 85 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 88 which will be voted on separately. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon, members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 88 negatived.

June 12, 1992
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded divisions will stand deferred until Monday, June 15, 1992 at six o'clock p.m.
Do I have unanimous consent to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being ten o'clock, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 9, 1992, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.09 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 15,1992