1969-03-17

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Today, March 17, is known the world over as St. Patrick's Day, a day set aside in remembrance of St. Patrick, a British missionary who settled in Ireland more than 1,500 years ago.
Although historians credit him with ridding Ireland of snakes, St. Patrick was chiefly devoted to establishing Christian churches in Ireland, which also became centres of learning. At the seat of the kings of Munster on the rock of Cashel, St. Patrick explained his theory of the trinity, using a shamrock, which has been the emblem of Ireland ever since.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all members of the house and Irishmen everywhere wish to join with me today in eulogizing Ireland's patron saint.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in French and English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	By province, how many gun permits are presently in effect in Canada?
2.	What is the number of gun permits in Canada in the possession of persons less than twenty-five years of age?
3.	How many gun permits were there in 1960 and in each subsequent year?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: There are, at present, three basic gun control documents in use; namely, Firearm Registration Certificates, Permits for Minors, and Firearm Permits (Permits to Carry).
Firearm Registration Certificates are only issued by the R.C.M. Police pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. Firearm Permits and Permits for Minors are issued pursuant to provincial legislation by municipal or provincial police, or the R.C.M. Police in certain contracting provinces.
The complete statistics for Firearm Permits and Permits for Minors are not available; therefore, only the statistics relating to the Certificates issued by the R.C.M. Police are provided hereunder.
1.	Firearm Registration Certificate: Approximately 248,000.
2.	No record available.
3.	Firearm Registration Certificate: 1960
approximately 192,000; 1961 approximately 199,000; 1962 approximately 206,000;	1963
approximately 213,000; 1964 approximately 220,000; 1965 approximately 227,000; 1966 approximately 234,000; 1967 approximately 241,000; 1968 approximately 248,000.


CONTAINER BERTHS PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is it the government's intention to embark on a program to provide container berths and, if so, where will they be located and what is the anticipated cost of each?
2.	What commodities is it anticipated will be shipped by containers?
3.	Will containers be used in the Great Lakes Waterways?
4.	Is it the government's intention to own and operate a fleet of containers and, if so, how many, where will they operate from and what cargo will be carried?
5.	What countries will be given a franchise to use a fleet of containers to and from Canadian ports?
6.	Will containers be used for transporting (a) grain (b) other solid products (c) oil (d) other liquid products?
6G74

March 17, 1969
Questions


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: 1.	Through the National Harbours Board the Government has been involved in the provision of a container berth at Montreal and modem berths which will be capable of being used for containers are being constructed at Halifax, Nova Scotia. Berths capable of being adapted for containers are available at Saint John, New Brunswick and container facilities are also being provided on an existing pier at Vancouver. In addition a pier is to be adapted for container operation at the City of Quebec. Firm estimates of the cost of these facilities are not available at present.
2.	It is expected that containers will initially be employed for general cargoes and that subsequent development will be subject to commercial factors.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	The existing arrangements for commercial shipping will continue to apply.
6.	See answer to (2) above.


RIDGETOWN, ONT., POST BOX RENTALS
Mr. McCuicheon: 1.	How many contracts for rental of post boxes at Ridgetown, Ontario, for all or part of the 12 months starting February 1, 1969 were entered into between (a) January 1, 1969 and January 21, 1969, and (b) January 21, 1969 and January 31, 1969?
2.	How many of the contracts entered into in each of these two periods were at the rates prevailing before January 21, 1969?
3.	How many of the contracts entered into in each of these two periods were at the rates announced on January 21, 1969?
4.	Is it the policy of the post office to request additional rent from those who contracted to use post boxes at Ridgetown, Ontario after February 1, 1969, but who entered into these contracts before January 21, 1969?
5.	How many communications have been received protesting requests for additional rent from those who contracted to use post boxes at Ridgetown, Ontario after February 1, 1969, but who entered into these contracts before January 21, 1969?
6.	How many people who rented to February 1, 1971 post office boxes at Ridgetown, Ontario, paying rates prevailing as of December 31, 1968 had the expiry date of their contracts changed by the Post Office Department to read February 1, 1970?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. (a) 163; (b) 23.
2.	(a) January 1 to January 20-132; (b) January 21 to January 31-Nil.
3.	(a) January 1 to January 20-31; (b) January 21 to January 31-23.

4.	Persons who paid in advance at the former rates for post office lock box rentals for the year beginning February 1, 1969 were requested to pay the difference between the former rates and the new rental rates which became effective February 1, 1969. Refunds are being made of the additional amounts collected.
5.	Twenty five communications have been received.
6.	Eight.


SUMMIT DEPOT, N.B., RESEARCH STATION
Mr. Corbin: 1.	How many students have been employed at the Department of Forestry summer research station at Summit Depot on the Green River in Madawaska-Victoria constituency, during the summers of 1965-66-67-68?
2.	What is the normal duration of employment?
3.	How many students were from (a) Madawaska-Victoria constituency (b) New Brunswick (c) other provinces?
4.	How many requests for employment were received for each year mentioned above and how many were rejected?
5.	What special qualifications are required?
6.	What is the average pay?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries):: 1. 1965, 23; 1966, 20; 1967, 28; 1968, 27.
2.	17 weeks, although a few may be hired for shorter periods to do a specific job.
3.	(a)	(b)	(c)1965	15	7	11966	12	4	41967	16	11	11968	17	9	14.	Students have been hired through the Public Service Commission up to and including 1968, hence the Department of Fisheries has no record of those who have applied. In 1969, hiring will be done through Manpower Centres of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.5.	Normally 90 per cent of those employed are required to be university students with a background in forestry and biology, and the remainder are from other university faculties or technical schools.6.	The pay rate ranges from about $300 to $640 monthly, depending on the student's qualifications and experience; the average in 1968 was approximately $360.
March 17. 1969



SMOKING PRIVILEGES ON CANADIAN NATIONAL TRAINS

Mr. Corbin: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways abolished "no smoking permitted" sections in railway coaches and, if so, for what reason?
2 Has the CNR received any complaints about general smoking in coaches and, if so, how many?
3.	Is any action contemplated to restrict smoking to certain sections only, of railway coaches and sleepers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Management of Canadian Railways advises as follows: 1 and 3. As a result of improvements in air conditioning and ventilating systems, the restriction on cigarette smoking in passenger carrying equipment used in inter city service has not been enforced in many years. However, smoking is not permitted on commuter trains operating in certain areas where older type of equipment is in use.
2.	Very few.



FISH HATCHERIES AND REARING STATIONS

Mr. Corbin: 1.	How many federal government fish hatcheries or fish rearing stations have been closed since 1958 (a) in each province (b) at what locations, and (c) for what reasons?
2.	How many fish hatcheries or fish rearing stations have been (a) opened (b) re-opened (c) enlarged, and in what localities?


Eugene Whelan: 1. (a) Prince Edward Island, 1; New Brunswick, 2; Nova Scotia, 6. (b) and (c): Kelly's Pond, P.E.I., Became uneconomic because of small size and seasonal operation; Grand Falls, N.B., Silt affected water, and its primarily salmon production was superseded by Mactaquac; Haley Brook, N.B., Became uneconomic because of small size and seasonal operation; salmon production superseded by Mactaquac; Bedford, N.S., Contaminated water; Sackville Ponds, N.S., Retention facility for Bedford; Middleton Hatchery, N.S., Became cheaper to incubate eggs elsewhere; Nictaux Ponds, N.S., Insufficient water for economical operation; Grand Lake, N.S., Contaminated water; Lindloff, N.S., Required major rebuilding; capacity replaced more economically elsewhere.
2.	(a) 1-at Mactaquac, N.B.; (b) Nil; (c) 8- at Cardigan, P.E.I.; Saint John and Hales Brook (Charlo), N.B.; Antigonish, Coldbrook, Margaree, Kejimkujic and Mersey, N.S.
Questions



SYDNEY-HALIFAX-MONTREAL RAILWAY SERVICE

Mr. Corbin: 1.	Since the inauguration of a passenger train between Sydney-Halifax and Montreal by way of Edmundston in June 1967, how many passengers were (a) from Edmundston (b) from Moncton (c) from other Maritime regions?
2.	Does the revenue of this train cover the cost of its operation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: It has not been the practice nor is it considered in the best interests of the Company to disclose information of a nature which would be of value to its competitors.



DERAILMENTS ON CANADIAN NATIONAL, EASTERN CANADA

Mr. Corbin: 1.	How many derailments occurred on the Canadian National lines in Eastern Canada for each of the years 1965 to 1968 inclusive (a) of freight trains (b) of passenger trains?
2.	How many derailments occurred in the Chaleur area of the Atlantic Region in the same years (a) how many deaths resulted, and (b) how many were injured?
3.	How many of those killed or injured were (a) employees (b) passengers?
4.	In the case of freight shipments in each of the above-mentioned years, what was the total value (a) in freight (b) in rolling stock, lost?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. As reported to the Canadian Transport Commission, (a) Freight trains: 1965, 76; 1966, 65; 1967, 54; 1968, 80. (b) Passenger trains: 1965, 13; 1966, 15; 1967, 12; 1968, 18.
2.	1965, 17; 1966, 14; 1967, 16; 1968, 24.
(a)	Deaths, nil; (b) Injuries, 4.
3.	Killed, nil; Injured, (a) Employees, 3;
(b)	Passengers, 1.
4.	(a) Statistics are not maintained in a manner that would enable the Company to answer the question in the form asked, (b) 1965, $141,759; 1966, $46,813; 1967, $500,211; 1968, $560,364.



DERAILMENTS, CHALEUR AREA, ATLANTIC REGION

Mr. Corbin: 1.	How many freight car derailments occurred in the Chaleur area of the Atlantic region from June to December 1968?
2.	What was the cause of these derailments?

March 17. 1969
Questions
3.	What was the precise location of each of these derailments?
4.	How many man-hours were required to restore the track to operating conditions after each one of these derailments?
5.	What is the maximum speed authorized on these tracks under ideal climatic conditions (a) for freight trains (b) for passenger trains?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. As reported to the Canadian Transport Commission, 14.
2. 3, 4 and 5.
No. of Manhours Maximum Speed
Cause of Derailment	Required to	Freight	PassengerLocation	Restore Track	Trains	TrainsBurnt Journal	Mileage 96.6 Monk Subdivision	1610	50	55Burnt Journal	Mileage 78.6 Monk Subdivision	486	50	55Surge of Power Forced Draft Gear Sideways Causing North Rail to Turn Over	Mileage 67 Newcastle Subdivision	54	50	55Burnt Journal	Mileage 141.75 Napadogan Subdivision	713	40	60Series of Low Joints Caused Wheel to Mount Rail	Mileage 4.0 St. Quentin Subdivision	554	25	25Track Buckled Due to Expansion From Excessive High Temperatures	Mileage 122.1 Monk Subdivision	4527	40	50Broken Journal	Mileage 184.3 Napadogan Subdivision	638	45	55Journal Failure	Mileage 49 Napadogan Subdivision	30	45	55Burnt-Off Journal	Mileage 182.5 Napadogan Subdivision	2716	45	55Tractor Trailer Struck Side of Engine	Mileage 74.66 Miramichi Subdivision	139	25	25Journal Failure	Mileage 18.6 Newcastle Subdivision	3429	65	75Track Structure and Type of Car Caused Rolling	Mileage 73.5 Cascapedia Subdivision	866	20	45Broken Wheel	Mileage 80.2 Monk Subdivision	525	40	50Automobile Struck 29th Car of Train	Mileage 164.3 Newcastle Subdivision	4321	60	65

March 17, 1969



VICTORIAVILLE, QUE., PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. Forlin: 1.	Will a federal government building be constructed at Victoriaville and, if so (a) what is the approximate date for construction work to begin (b) what will be the approximate cost of the project?
2.	Will this building house all federal government services?
3.	What federal government services are involved?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, (a) During the 1970-71 fiscal year, subject to approval of funds by parliament; (b) It is not customary to reveal estimated costs of a project before tenders are called.
2.	Yes, for those government departments and agencies requiring space in Victoriaville.
3.	Post Office Department; Customs and Excise Offices; Unemployment Insurance Commission; Manpower and Immigration; and Department of Agriculture.



NORDAIR SERVICE TO HALLBEACH, N.W.T.

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Has the Canadian Transport Commission recently approved at 73% freight rate increase for services provided by Nordair to Hallbeach in the Northwest Territories?
2.	Were any public hearings held with respect to this increase of freight rates?
3.	Were the people of Hallbeach consulted by Nordair?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. The Canadian Transport Commission does not approve rates: it accepts the filing of tariffs by carriers subject to complaint and investigation. The Commission accepted for filing from Nordair Ltd. a tariff publishing an increase of 73 per cent in the general commodity rate from Montreal to Hall Beach, effective January 16, 1969.
2.	No.
3.	Nordair Ltd. reported to the Commission that it had advised their northern customers, following a review of costs, traffic and revenue, that it intended to increase some rates.



CHAPLAINS IN PENITENTIARY SERVICE

Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	For each year since and including 1958, how many chaplains were in the employ of the penitentiary service on a full time basis?
Questions
2.	Do any assessments exist of the contribution which such Chaplains may have made towards the rehabilitation of inmates and, if so, at what times were such assessments made and what are the details thereof?


George James McIlraith: 1. 1958, 13; 1959, 13; 1960, 15; 1961, 15; 1962, 16; 1963, 16; 1964, 16; 1965, 17; 1966, 24; 1967, 26; 1968, 27.
2. There are no assessments as such but the Chaplain is a member of the team working at re-orienting the inmate in the correctional and other related fields of rehabilitation.



TROIS RIVIERES, QUE., EXCISE TAX AUDITOR

Mr. Mongrain: 1.	On what date did the Public Service Commission of Canada announce a competition for the post of Excise Tax Auditor in the Department of National Revenue, Trois-Rivieres, Excise Tax District?
2.	How many people applied in this competition?
3.	What are the names and present addresses of each applicant?
4.	Who finally obtained the position and where had he been employed previously?


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of Stale):: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: 1. This position was advertised December 8, 1968, through the publication of a poster announcing Competition No. 68-M-152, for Auditor 2.
2.	Twelve.
3.	Section 25 of the Public Service Employment Regulations provides that the name of a person who is a candidate for a position, unless his name is on an eligible list established for that position, shall not be disclosed without his consent to any person who is not directly involved with the process of selection for appointment to the position.
4.	No eligible list has yet been established as a result of Competition 68-M-152 for Auditor 2, and no appointment has as yet been made to the position.



PAYMENTS UNDER FRANKED MAIL VOTE

Mr. Dumont: What amounts were paid to the Post Office Department under the Vote "Carrying of Franked Mail" during the year 1968-1969 and what amounts were provided for under this heading in the 19691970 Estimates by the (a) Department of Transport (b) Secretary of State Department (c) Veterans Affairs Department (d) Privy Council (e)

March 17, 1969
Questions
Department of National Revenue (f) Department of Public Works (g) Department of Agriculture
(h)	Department of Manpower and Immigration
(i)	Department of National Health and Welfare
(j)	Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
(k)	Department of External Affairs?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is con-
Department of Transport Secretary of State Department Veterans Affairs Department Privy Council
Department of National Revenue Department of Public Works Department of Agriculture Department of Manpower and Immigration Department of National Health and Welfare Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Department of External Affairs



HOUSING, 1968

Mr. Gilbert: 1.	What was the number of housing starts and completions for 1968 and how many were singledetached, semi-detached and duplex, row and apartments?
2.	What was the amount of financing for new housing in Canada for 1968 from (a) NHA insured loans (b) conventional institutional loans (c) other NHA direct loans (d) other NHA programs (e) other?
3.	(a) What is the vacancy rate in apartment structures comprising six-dwelling units or more, in major cities across Canada for 1968, by month (b) what is the median size of vacant apartments in the above category (c) what is the median rent of vacant apartments in the above category (d) what is the vacancy rate for single-family dwellings, duplexes and apartments with less than six dwelling units, in major cities across Canada for 1968, by month (e) what is the median sale price of single family dwellings in the above category (f) what is the median rent of vacant duplexes and apartments in the above category?
4.	(a) What was the median sale price of NHA financed single-family dwellings sold by builders in major cities across Canada in 1968, by month (b) what is the median price of a fully-serviced lot used for NHA financed single-family dwellings in major cities in 1968, by month (c) what is the percentage change in the price of these lots since 1960, by major cities?
5.	(a) Of the apartment structures (six or more dwelling units) completed in 1968, how many were under NHA (b) what was the cost per unit (c) what was the income classification of the tenants?
6.	What was the average family income of purchasers of NHA single-family bungalows in 1968, by month?

cerned-The following amounts are not paid to the Post Office Department, but are shown in the Estimates Book each fiscal year against the entry "Carrying of Franked Mail (Post Office Department)" under the heading "Approximate Value of Major Services not included in these Estimates".
1968-69	1969-70
$(00'0's)	$(000's)
161	210
35.7	64
73.6	101
9.8	16
681	861
49.8	55
389.6	455
97.4	185
120	187
124.7	181
125.5	86.9
7.	What was the total value of requests for home improvement loans in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and what was the average loan granted, by province?
8	(a) How many requests were made for NHA
financed apartment units in 1968 (b) how many were approved (c) of the above, how many were low-rental units (d) for those requests not approved, what were the reasons given?
9. How many and what was the value of the requests for NHA public housing programs by province, by major cities, in 1968, and if any, what were the chief reasons for requests not approved by NHA?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The information requested in this question will be available near the end of March, 1969, in the "Annual Report" and "Canadian Housing Statistics", published by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.



SALARY OF CANADIAN NATIONAL PRESIDENT

Mr. Coates: What is the present salary of the President of the Canadian National Railways, and on what date was that salary determined?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Canadian National Railways Act, being Chapter 29 of the Statutes of Canada 1955, the appointment of the incumbent President was approved by Order in Council P.C. 1966-1890 dated September 29, 1966,
March 17, 1969

effective January 1, 1967, at an annual salary of $70,000.



EQUIPMENT OF EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS

Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has Eastern Provincial Airways advised the Canadian Transport Commission that it intends to use DC-9 equipment on its Charlottetown-Montreal route?
2.	If so, when will this equipment be in service?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.



CANADA-TOKYO TRAVEL REGULATIONS

Mr. Anderson: Is it the government's intention, in the interests of economy, to alter the ruling whereby all Civil Servants, regardless of position, travelling between Canada and Tokyo or other points in Asia, travel first class?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The government Travel Regulations are currently the subject of consultation in a committee of the National Joint Council of the Public Service of Canada. Among the items being discussed by the employer and stafE associations are the facilities of modern aircraft and appropriate travel standards in relation to them. It should be noted that not all public servants travel first class between Canada and Asia. At present, the matter is left to the discretion of the deputy minister concerned who makes a judgment based on the rank of the employee, the length of the continuous journey, and potential hazards to health.



NATIONAL DEFENCE SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence provide subsidies and/or support programs for any segment of the economy, groups or individuals inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.
Questions



P.E.I. WINTER WORKS EXPENDITURES

Mr. MacLean: 1.	What was the amount spent under the Winter Works Program in the Province of Prince Edward Island for each of the fiscal years from 1964-65 to 1968-69 inclusive?
2.	What is the amount, if any, to be spent in that Province under the Winter Works program in the fiscal year 1969-70?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Payments made under each winter's program which extended from November 1 to April 30 were as follows:
($'000)
1963-	64	2171964-	65	2731965-	66	4271966-	67	6451967-	68 (ended March 31)	1721968-	69-Not Applicable.
2. None. The program was discontinued after 1967-68.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING POST OFFICE BOXES

Mr. Mather: How many representations to date have been made to the Postmaster General and/or the Post Office protesting the increase in post office lock boxes?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: Postmaster General, 192; Department, 55.



P.E.I.-HEALTH GRANTS EXPENDITURES

Mr. MacLean: 1.	What amounts were spent under the National Health Grants programme for health services and hospital construction in the Province of Prince Edward Island for each of the fiscal years from 1964-65 to 1968-69 inclusive?
2.	What is the amount, if any, to be spent through this programme in the Province of Prince Edward Island in the fiscal year 1969-70?
3.	What amounts were contributed to that Province in all other welfare shared-cost programmes during the fiscal years from 1964-65 to 1968-69 inclusive?
4.	What is the amount estimated to be spent under these programmes in the fiscal year 1969-70?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Questions
MILITARY PERSONNEL IN ARCTIC	CANADIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-: The Sydneys):
1.	What is the present total complement of Canadian military personnel in the Arctic?
2.	How many Canadian military bases are now being maintained in the Arctic, i.e., North of provincial boundaries, where are they located, and what is the total military personnel of each base?
3.	What is the total complement of American military personnel now stationed in the Canadian Arctic?
4.	How many Canadian Arctic exercises have been carried out by Canadian military personnel in the 1968 calendar year (a) in what areas of the Canadian Arctic were such exercises carried out, and (b) how many troops were involved in each case?
5.	How many Canadian Forces military exercises have been carried out under tropical conditions, in what areas in the calendar year 1968 and what numbers of troops were involved in each case?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. As of 28 February, 1969, there were 400 Canadian Forces personnel stationed in the Northwest Territories.
2.	Two Canadian Forces Stations, Inuvik and Alert, with 182 and 198 military personnel respectively.
3.	13.
4.	One (a) Fort Churchill; (b) 40.
5.	One (a) Vieques Island, Puerto Rico; (b) 700.



REPLACEMENT FOR &quot;TRACKER&quot; AIRCRAFT

Mr. Forreslall: Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to replace the "Tracker" aircraft presently in use by Maritime Command after they have been phased out of operation in a few years?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It is the intention to operate CS2F "Tracker" aircraft well into the 1970s. When a decision is made to phase out these aircraft, the form their replacement should take will be a matter for study.



REPLACEMENT FOR &quot;ARGUS&quot; AIRCRAFT

Mr. Forreslall: Is the Department of National Defence presently giving active consideration to the question of a follow-on replacement aircraft for the "Argus" presently in use by Maritime Command?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	What stage has been reached in the establishment of a Canadian securities commission?
2.	When will a bill respecting securities be introduced?
3.	Will the experts' report be tabled and, if not, for what reason?
4.	What point has been reached in negotiations with the provinces with regard to the trading of securities?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Proposals were discussed at the last meeting of the Federal-Provincial Committee of Officials on Financial Institutions and Securities Regulations which was held in Ottawa, on October 25, 1968. It was agreed that the federal government would have further discussions with the provinces. When these discussions have been completed, legislation will be introduced for consideration by Parliament.
2.	Before the end of the current Session of Parliament, as indicated by the President of the Privy Council on February 20th.
3.	No. The various papers that were prepared on this question are considered to be of a confidential character which would preclude their publication.
4.	The discussions with the provinces are continuing.



NEPEAN TOWNSHIP FEDERAL BUILDING SITES

Mr. Code: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works between 1949 and 1957 acquire land by expropriation or otherwise in Lots 31 to 35 in the Second Concession, Rideau Front, of the Township of Nepean, as a site for future government buildings?
2.	If so (a) what was the total acreage so acquired (b) what was the total price paid for such acreage (c) from what persons was such land acquired (d) what was the acreage acquired from each such person (e) what was the total amount paid to each such person?
3.	At the time of the acquiral of these lands, for what particular use were they intended?
4.	Has any of the said land been sold or otherwise disposed of?
5.	If so (a) to whom has it been sold or disposed of (b) what acreage to each such person (c) what was the total price paid by each such person for each parcel so acquired (d) what was the reason for each such sale?
6.	Was the sale or disposition of these parcels the result of public advertised tenders?
7 If so (a) on what date or dates were the tenders advertised (b) in what media were they advertised (c) what tenders were received (d) what was the amount of each tender?

March 17, 1969
Questions
8. If not (a) by what technique was the sale Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public or disposition of these parcels accomplished (b) Works)- 1 Yes what persons were informed of the prospective sale	...
or disposition (c) how were the purchasers chosen? 2. (a) 435.92 acres; (b) $581,186.
(c) Acquired from	(d) Acreage	(e) AmountDonald J. McKay	4.85	$ 8,000Estate of George Joseph	12.08	16,500Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation	51.00	50,000William E. Troome	4.79	10,836Estate of George Larke	52.00	58,850Estate of Warwara Spirak	28.50	45,000Harry Leiken	28.00	56,000Estate of Hugh S. Davidson	86.10	131,000George S. Annand	167.60	205,000
paid
3.	Site for future government buildings.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) Name	(b) Acreage
County of Carleton City of Ottawa Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation (c) Price No charge $	930
17,600
5.545
.22
2.00
(d) Reason
Road widening purposes Road widening purposes Construction of church to serve surrounding area
6.	No.
7.	Not applicable.
8.	(a), (b), and (c). The purchasers were not chosen but made application on their own behalf through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
Development): 1. Near Digby, Nova Scotia. The purpose is to determine the economic feasibility of a large farm unit engaged in the production and marketing of vegetables and small fruits.
2.	Yes. The province shares one-half of the cost.
3.	Yes.
4.	Federal expenditures for salaries, travel supplies and miscellaneous items: 1966-67, $9,351; 1967-68, $8,810; 1968-69, $12,178, (to date).
5.	Yes; by the provincial auditor general.
6.	Yes. (1967-68-underway; 1968-69-after end of fiscal year).



COMPENSATION TO MR. DAVID PRICE ARDA PROJECT 22024

Mr. Corbin: 1.	Where is ARDA Project 22024 located and what is the purpose of the project?
2.	Is the provincial government in Nova Scotia involved and, if so, to what extent?
3.	Has the only federal participation of a financial nature been under the ARDA programme?
4.	Since the beginning of the project, what amounts of federal money have been expended in each year and for what purposes were the payments made?
5.	Were the accounts for which payments were made certified by the provincial government and, if so, by whom?
6.	Were the accounts for which payments were made audited on behalf of the Government of
Canada?
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural

Question No. 1,680-Mr. Diefenbaker:
1.	Has payment or compensation been made to Mr. David Price, formerly a lecturer at College Militaire Royale de Saint-Jean since the Cohen findings of the Cohen Commission on his case were made?
2.	If not, why?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No.
2. A submission recommending approval of ex gratia payments to Mr. Price and his solicitor has been under consideration, but as Mr. Price's solicitor has indicated he has instructions to institute court action against the Crown, the matter has been referred to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada for an opinion as to the Crown's legal liability to Mr. Price.
March 17. 1969



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Schreyer: How many persons are attached, and at what levels of classification and pay, to (a) the Prime Minister's Office (b) the Ministers of the various Departments (c) the heads of Crown Corporations?
Return tabled.


WATER POLLUTION IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Corbin: What is the total of contributions by the federal government to help fight water pollution in New Brunswick for the years 1965-66-67-68?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for St. Patrick I am not going to ask the Prime Minister a question about housing today, but I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether his government has studied the decision by the President of the United States to build an anti-missile defence system and if the government of Canada has considered the possible implications for Canada of the President's decision?


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have begun to consider the consequences of that decision, which was announced only at the end of last week. I am not in a position today to indicate the considerations which might follow from it, except perhaps to say that we are of the view that the important factor to consider in all this is that we ought to avoid an escalation of nuclear weapons. That remains our position. We are not yet in a position to say where, in our view, the decision that has been taken will lead.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the installation of the new system will mean that interceptions will take place over Canada, is the Prime Minister free to tell the house whether the government of the United States consulted the government
Inquiries of the Ministry of Canada on this matter and whether Canada made any representations to the United States in this regard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation on this at various stages. But I am not prepared today to state that the considerations of Canadian safety which might follow from this position are more important than considerations of the safety and future of the world. In other words, I do not want to be put in the position where, in arguing the Canadian point of view from the standpoint of considerations of fallout in Canada, we should be precluded from saying that we do not want this kind of defence at all. I hope that is clear. I do not want to argue the Canadian case if it means a little more protection for us and therefore less protection for the peace and future of the world. Therefore I cannot answer the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that Mr. George Ignatieff, our chief disarmament negotiator, has stated that Canada is in the most dangerous position of any country, the danger stemming from the arms race between the United States and the U.S.S.R, and that advances in weapons technology, presumably including the A.B.M. system, require further studies and are not being studied as they ought to be, and considering that Canada is most vitally interested in this matter, is it the intention of the government to set up an interdepartmental task force or take other action to ensure that it is fully conversant at all times with the implications for Canada of these new weapons developments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of consideration has been given by the Canadian government at previous stages, according to the knowledge we had then. With a new announcement we will continue the consideration. I repeat however that Canadian interest is not more important than the interest of humanity in this subject. I do not want to take a position which, by promoting Canadian interests, would mean we are approving any United States escalation of anti-ballistic missiles. I do not want, in other words, to negotiate with the United States for a little more protection for Canada, if I feel that that protection is such that it might entail more danger for the whole world.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the first two A.B.M. bases to be established will be at Grand Forks, North

March 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Dakota and Great Falls, Montana, both close to the Canadian border, may I ask the Prime Minister whether there was any consulation, or whether prior information was given to him or any department of the government before President Nixon made his announcement that the United States was considering establishing these A.B.M. bases.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. We were notified of the decision, but there was no consultation in the sense that we might have been in a position to change the decision.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since any interception of Soviet missiles will in all probability take place over Canadian soil, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to hold discussions with the United States government in order to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people?


Mr. Nielsen:: They may be Chinese missiles.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the N.D.P. is asking me to repeat the answer I have just given to the leader of the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I wonder if the Chair might allow the right hon. member for Prince Albert to ask a supplementary question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is under the misapprehension that I am asking the question asked by the leader of the opposition. I am asking if there will be-not if there have been-discussions between the government of Canada and the government of the United States on this important matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said that there had been consultation, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that the United States had kept us informed at various stages, and that we were going to discuss it. I repeat once again, I do not think the problem of Canadian interest, or even the constituency of the right hon. member who sits to the right of the leader of the New Democratic party, takes first place over the interest of peace and sanity in the world. I am not interested in protecting a few Canadian cities if this means we will be consenting to a kind of policy which we think is dangerous to the world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister if any facilities of NORAD, particularly the

warning systems, will be integrated with these anti-ballistic missiles? If so, is Canada to be consulted with respect to the use of the NORAD facilities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course Canada would have to be consulted before this system is integrated, if it were to be integrated into NORAD. The present situation is that NORAD does not cover the anti-ballistic missiles, and it could not cover the anti-ballistic missiles system without our giving consent.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: The Prime Minister has said, Mr. Speaker, that proliferation of nuclear weapons is one thing to which he is strongly opposed. I am glad to note the change in attitude since 1963 in that regard on the part of the Liberal government. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if any consideration is being given to placing before the United States the suggestion that, instead of having these installations at Grand Forks, North Dakota and Maelstrom air force base in Great Falls, Montana, they be placed farther south. According to the President of the United States, they are to be placed in these locations. This will mean that incoming Russian missiles aimed at these two bases would actually bring about fallout in an area stretching from Penticton to Edmonton, then to Saskatoon, north to Prince Albert and also to Lake Winnipeg and Fort William.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The questions from the opposition, Mr. Speaker, all seem to lead to the same thing. They want to protect a particular city. I am more interested in seeking a situation wherein the policy followed by the United States is one that protects all of humanity, not the people of Prince Albert alone. The truth of the matter is that if these installations are used, the whole policy will have failed, as will have humanity. This kind of secondary question, whether one city is covered or not-


John George Diefenbaker: May I rise on a question of privilege? There was no such suggestion. The suggestion was that if these two bases were moved farther south into the United States, then the fallout would be over the United States instead of covering the area of western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman and the Prime Minister that this is argumentative. I wonder whether we might go on to the next subject?
March 17, 1969



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the statements made today by the inside postal workers of an explosive situation developing because of the preponderance of casual employees, has the Postmaster General any statement to make with regard to this matter?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have just arrived from Toronto and I have not seen the statement. As hon. members know, I dislike the use of the words "explosive situation". A situation may be difficult or critical but it becomes explosive only when one side or the other refuses to adjudicate or discuss, and decides it will go for illegal or irresponsible activity. I do not expect that in this case.
This afternoon the officers of the department will be discussing the letter with me, and they will also be discussing with the officers of the Ottawa Post Office Unions the reasons which caused them to send such a letter and the problem concerning the use of casuals.
We have been using casuals since the beginning of time, Mr. Speaker, since the bulk of the work in the Post Office comes at different periods, early in the morning and late at night, and it is difficult not to employ casuals to take care of peak periods. However, this is a problem that we are willing to discuss fully with the unions.


William Arnold Peters: As a supplementary question will the minister investigate the reasoning behind the fact that there are more casual employees in the Post Office in Ottawa than there are regular employees, and give a justification for this situation?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to ask the minister whether we could have a little less philosophy and a little more information?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: As a
further supplementary, will the minister investigate how much Post Office inefficiency is due to the preponderance of casual employees inside the Post Office? Will he also investigate recent charges by the inside workers of nepotism-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Compton.



REFERRAL OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES TO MEDIATION PROCEDURES

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a non-explosive question for the Postmaster General. Arising from the undertaking given to the house by the minister on Thursday that he would call Mr. Decarie to discuss with him whether there are other issues that the unions would like to have submitted to grievance procedure, will the minister advise the house whether he has been in touch with Mr. Decarie and whether he is in fact determined that there are issues outstanding not covered by the grievance procedure?


Eric William Kierans: I am meeting with Mr. Decarie at five o'clock this afternoon.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a one sentence supplemental. In the light of the decision by the minister to withdraw the application to have the work stoppage declared illegal, and the application for consent to prosecute employees, and arising from the subsequent statement by the unions that "this on again off again procedure by the employer leaves the unions no choice but to hold Treasury Board responsible for all expenses incurred"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BANKRUPTCY


Mr. Henry Lafulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Since the great increase in the number of commercial bankruptcies also leads to a good number of industrial bankruptcies involving average and small enterprises mostly, would he consider establishing a shared-cost insurance plan similar to crop insurance for farmers, to protect industry and the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could ask the minister who deals with bankruptcies to consider the problem. He is not here today; he has gone bankrupt.

March 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



WHEAT-PRICE RECOMMENDATION FROM NATIONAL COUNCIL

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent decision to lower the price for Canadian wheat, was a recommendation sought from the national Grains Council on this question before the decision was made?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, no formal request was put before the Canada Grains Council.


Stanley James Korchinski: As a supplementary question, now that the decision has been made will the Grains Council be asked to submit a recommendation on what course farmers should follow in this and subsequent years with respect to seeding and so forth?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of guidance that farmers all over Canada are seeking because of the market situation. However, I do not think that any one group, whether it be the Canada Grains Council or another, has all the wisdom to see into the future on these matters. We will be as helpful as we can in providing western Canadian farmers with as much information as is possible relevant to future marketing prospects.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the price of Canadian wheat is falling about ten cents a bushel or more, can the minister say whether he will try to resurrect the old speeches in which he spoke of a two-price system.



WHEAT-ATTENDANCE AT MEETING OF PRICES REVIEW COMMITTEE

Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on Friday to the effect that the I.G.A. is now inoperative for the time being can the minister say whether he or top officials from his department will be attending a meeting of the prices review committee of the International Wheat Council which is slated to take place this week?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will not be attending that meeting, but senior officials from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and from the Department of Agriculture are there.
IMr. Trudeau.1


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the meeting of the prices review committee and the uncertainty in respect of the situation, can the Minister of Agriculture say whether the government is giving consideration to the re-establishment of a guaranteed minimum price for wheat to Canadian farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The government is considering many things that will be helpful in this serious situation.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
SEARCH IN EUROPE FOR CAPITAL Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him if it is a fact that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is now touring Europe in search of foreign capital for Canada?
Mr. Speaker:: The question cannot be asked in those terms. An hon. member cannot ask the Prime Minister to deny or affirm a statement or suggestion.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is now touring Europe in search of foreign capital for Canada? I assume my question deserves an answer. It is a simple question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question may deserve an answer but the hon. member knows what the rules are.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
POLICY OF DAIRY COMMISSION Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Is he in a position to advise the house when the Canadian Dairy Commission will announce its policy for the fiscal year
1969-70?
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not today, Mr. Speaker, but I hope we will in
a very few days.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, by this answer does the minister mean that he will be stating the policy before the last sitting day of the house before Easter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the new dairy year begins April 1. I think it would be
March 17, 1969	COMMONS
helpful and useful to the dairy farmers if they had the policy and regulations outlined to them prior to that date.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether his department has under consideration a new set of plans with which to deal with the problem of the decline in milk production and the declining number of milk processing plants on the prairies.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for information of a very general nature. This is the type of information which certainly should be given by way of a statement on motions.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to reply to the questions I posed recently relating to the financial commitment entered into by Canada under the Canada-France agreements.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I have been in a position to answer this question for a long time but my answer is so long I would much prefer if the hon. member would put the question on the order paper so that it might be answered in writing.


Robert Muir: would be pleased to do that.


INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE INVITATION TO PRESIDENT DE GAULLE
Robert Muir: In connection with the Canada-France agreements and discussions thereon has the Canadian government invited General de Gaulle to visit Canada following his forthcoming visit to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: General de Gaulle was in Canada a couple of years ago and I think the onus lies on the other side to invite our Prime Minister to France.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Some exchange!
DEBATES	6687
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES


SEALS-ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN SHIPS DURING CESSATION OF CANADIAN OPERATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries. Is the government aware that when the Minister of Fisheries was announcing on Saturday the cessation of sealing operations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, foreign ships were killing seals within the three mile limit off Hamilton Inlet, Labrador?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the Department is aware that four Norwegian ships are in the area described by the hon. member. Officers of the department have been in contact with the ships' masters since last Saturday. Only one vessel took a small number of seals on Saturday, but stopped when warned by the officers. No seals have been taken by any vessel since then. The vessels are trying to get out of the area but ice conditions are preventing their movement.
The department has two aircraft observing the activities of the ships and the fisheries patrol vessel Cape Freels is standing offshore. I can assure the hon. member that the department is watching this situation closely.


SEALS-DISTRIBUTION OF FILM DEPICTING KILLING METHODS
James Aloysius McGrath: have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State, which is similar to a question posed to his parliamentary assistant on Friday last. Can the minister tell the house how the film on the seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, produced for the C.B.C. by Artek Films Ltd. of Montreal, and which is doing so much harm to Canada's reputation, received such wide distribution in Europe and the United States?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, in the past five years the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has acquired broadcast rights in two film productions dealing with seal hunting in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
"Les grands phoques de la banquise" - Artek Film Productions Ltee. is a black and white film running 58 minutes, 20 seconds. In a contract dated May 11, 1964, Artek Film Productions undertook to produce the film

March 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry and to grant C.B.C. exclusive Canadian television rights for a seven year period. In addition, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation acquired unlimited stock shot rights. All other rights were retained at that time by the company, including non-television rights in Canada and foreign rights. The film has been shown only twice on C.B.C.-TV. The film to which the hon. member has referred is I think another film which has nothing to do with the C.B.C. but has been shown by someone from the S.P.C.A. in New York.
As for the first film mentioned, I should note that an action for libel has been initiated by Mr. Serge Deyglun, the script writer and narrator of the film, against Mr. Louis Philippe Lacroix, M.L.A. for Isles de la Madeleine. The action is now before the Quebec Superior Court. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not involved in any way but has agreed, on court order, to deposit a print of the film as an exhibit. It is very clear that any showing of this film outside the country is not the responsibility of the C.B.C. because it did not buy the foreign rights at the time the film was originally produced.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the doubt raised by the minister in his reply, and in view of the importance of this matter, since it has already resulted in the cancellation of the seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, would the Secretary of State agree to having this whole matter referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting Films and Assistance to the Arts, for proper parliamentary investigation.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have already taken the position that the committee itself can decide to hear anybody on any matter concerning the C.B.C.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise on a point of order but perhaps it might be a question to be addressed to the Secretary of State. A few minutes ago, in reply to a question by the hon. member for St. John's East, I understood the Secretary of State to say that the parliamentary committee could consider any subject that it wished to consider. I thought perhaps I did not fully understand our Standing Orders, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State would consult with the house leader and consider rule 65 (8), and see whether in fact it is not necessary for the house to refer a matter to a standing committee before it can be considered.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The interpretation of a standing order is a subject of debate. Perhaps the discussion to which the hon. member has referred might take place outside the house.


FINANCE
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue about an important tariff hearing taking place at the moment in respect of petroleum distillates. I want to ask him whether in view of the importance of this hearing his department intends to make any representations before the Tariff Board?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minisier of National Revenue):: I have not quite understood the question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take it as notice.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Could he tell the house whether he was officially informed that the Quebec government had refused over the weekend to sign a long lease with the government of Canada for the establishment of a national park in the Gaspe peninsula, in accordance with the federal-provincial agreement?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the provincial government could not come to an agreement with the federal representative with regard to the duration of the lease.


Alexandre Cyr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister report to the house in the near future with regard to negotiations now taking place?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as national parks are the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I believe he should be the one to report to the house.
[Mr. Pelletier.)
March 17, 19G9


DOMINION CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS ACT
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the government house leader. In view of the results of the recent controverted elections in the riding of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, Comox-Alberni and the Yukon, and the costly result thereof, in more ways than one, and in view of the rather desperate need for revision of the statute, will he say whether the Controverted Elections Act will be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections at the earliest possible moment, so that consideration will be given immediately to these very desperately needed revisions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I hope within a period of approximately two weeks to be able to make an announcement to the house setting out a suggested time table to deal with all electoral questions. I might say that the Controverted Elections Act would not be at the top of priorities, for reasons which I will be in a better position to tell the hon. member at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will at the same time be referring the Barbeau report on election expenses to the Committee on Privileges and Elections?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I said I would be making a statement in respect of all electoral questions.


COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
Mr. R. Gordon Fairweaiher (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising from reports that Arnold Smith, Secretary General of the Commonwealth, is as it was put, shopping around for a country to act as host for the 1970 meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. May we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that the government and the people of Canada would be glad if Canada were the host?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Secretary of State answered a similar question a few weeks ago.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE


ANTI-MISSILE INSTALLATIONS-EFFECT ON CANADA OF U.S. INTERCEPTION SYSTEM
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it has to do with the establishment of the two A.B.M. installations in Montana and North Dakota. Did our partner in NORAD advise the government of Canada of its intention to establish these installations and, if so, will the minister say when he, as the responsible minister for foreign affairs, first received notification of the decision by the United States in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we were told of the decision immediately before it was announced.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that mean before it was announced by President Nixon, and that until that date our partner in NORAD gave Canada no information?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, there had been many discussions about the Sentinel system which involved, as I understand it, many days and weeks of discussion in the United States. The President, who had the responsibility, announced the other day the decision he made to change the nature of the plans which had been talked about at one time. We were informed just in advance of his public announcement.
Of course we shall be having some discussion with the United States. The Prime Minister will be talking to the President when he sees him next week. This will be one of a good many other matters discussed. I can only repeat what the Prime Minister has said, that the purpose of any of these defences is that they shall never be used. If they are used they will have failed. Therefore I think we all must look at this problem in its very widest context, namely to avoid a nuclear conflict.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising from his answers to my previous questions, upon which I have been reflecting. Did he mean to indicate that it is the view of his government that the A.B.M. system and the decision of the President of the United States do in fact escalate the chance of conflict, and are in fact a threat of some sort to world peace? Is that what the Prime Minister meant to indicate?

March 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Were there any discussions between his department and the government of the United States as to whether or not NORAD facilities would in any way be involved; and can he assure the house that as a result of those discussions neither the warning system nor any part of the NORAD system is involved in this A.B.M. program?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Prime Minister has said, Mr. Speaker, these are two separate matters, our NORAD agreement and the proposed system of A.B.M.'s around the cities or around the defence installations. As one of those who has joint responsibility for NORAD, we are not involved in the decisions of the United States on their A.B.M. system.


FISHERIES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago I attempted to engage Your Honour's eye on a matter supplementary and related to a question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East. Your Honour permitted a number of supplementaries related to other questions and did not allow me to put a supplementary question at that time. My supplementary is of great importance, particularly to the people of eastern Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may put the supplementary question now.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, in view of the fact that the minister is not here today. Would the parliamentary secretary to the minister assure the house that later today the minister will make a statement and communicate it to hon. members, or will make a statement in the house tomorrow with respect to the cancellation of the seal hunt last Saturday before the quota had been substantially filled and indicate, since the hunt has been concluded, the reasons for suspending it before the quota was arrived at?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say, after consultation with the minister, that the decision was taken by the minister only because of the conserva-

tion of the seal herd. The minister has made a statement in this respect. I hope that by now all members have a copy in their post office boxes, if the services of the Postmaster General are in good order, and everybody will know what the minister said in his statement.


James Aloysius McGrath: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fisheries has shown contempt for the house in making this announcement outside the house on Saturday last.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State tell us whether national or regional broadcasting will be suspended due to the dispute going on between the C.B.C. and the Association of Radio and Television Employees of Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: I cannot give a definite answer about that, Mr. Speaker. As everyone, I am aware that a strike vote has been taken, and that final efforts are made to reach a settlement. I hope it will come about but staggered strikes which were announced by the unions will have consequences which I cannot foresee and which the corporation itself, I think, cannot foresee exactly.
March 17. 1969	COMMONS




Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Friday last the Prime Minister indicated that he might be willing to report to the house the result of the discussions that have taken place between the high commissioner in Lagos and his department. More specifically, would he indicate to the house whether the high commissioner has been instructed to urge the government in Lagos to accept the peace proposals put forward by the authorities in Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in a couple of days of discussion I have had the advantage of spending some hours with our high commissioner from Lagos. We explored many matters, including the possibilities of working out a cease-fire and the termination of hostilities, which is even more important. Needless to say, many of these matters I could not very well discuss with the house until our high commissioner has had an opportunity of carrying messages from this government to the government to which he is accredited, namely the Nigerian government. I do hope that some of the initiatives may prove useful, but that remains to be seen.


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us what instructions the high commissioner has been given with regard to representations to be made to the Nigerian government? What instructions have we given him?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I tried to make clear that it would hardly be courteous to the government to which he is accredited to say in advance what he intends to tell them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the recent developments, such as Prime Minister Wilson's decision to go to Nigeria, and Biafra's proposals for a ceasefire, is the Canadian government now ready to ask the United Nations to extend the terms of reference of the international observer team to enable it to go into Biafra and investigate the alleged atrocities there?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues which we asked the high com-
DEBATES	6691
Inquiries of the Ministry missioner to talk over with the government of Lagos. I think it would not be serving the cause that we are all trying to serve if I were to indicate here in the house, in advance, the matters I asked the high commissioner to discuss with the senior officials in the Lagos government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government is now willing to go to the United Nations and ask them to extend the terms of reference of the international observer team.


DISCUSSIONS WITH SOVIET AMBASSADOR RESPECTING TENSION IN EASTERN EUROPE
[Stage Direction]
Kon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Peace River directed a question to the Prime Minister on Friday last to which the Prime Minister replied that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be delighted to discuss it today. I think those are the words the Prime Minister used. The question related to the military manoeuvres planned by the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact nations in eastern Europe. The hon. member for Peace River asked whether the government of Canada had expressed its concern and anxiety to the Soviet Union and, if not, whether it would do so.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to look at the question put by the hon. member for Peace River, and it is not clear to me what military manoeuvres are referred to. The Warsaw pact exercises in the Soviet zone of Germany early this month were of a minor nature and no large scale exercises are planned, to our knowledge, for the immediate future. Although the situation in eastern and central Europe does, as always, give grounds for concern over the longer term, there are no special reasons at present why the government should feel unusual anxiety about the direction of events.


OCCUPATION OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA BY SOVIET TROOPS
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Prime Minister's discussions with the Soviet ambassador last week, which he said were on the subject of China, can he state whether while they were discussing China there was any reference to the presence of Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia, and whether during this discussion or any other recently the Canadian

March 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry government has raised the issue of the continuing occupation of that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated that the details of the discussion are of a confidential nature.


Robert Muir: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said in his reply today, as he did on Friday, that the discussion with the Russian ambassador was privileged. My point of order is this: A mere statement by the right hon. gentleman does not make it so; it simply indicates his refusal to tell Canadians what took place, or to explain the purpose of these talks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a matter of debate; it is certainly not a point of order. If the hon. member would indicate the standing order or precedent to which he is referring I shall rule on the point raised. However, it seems to me he is arguing the validity of the Prime Minister's position in refusing to reply to his question. The hon. member knows that a minister is not obliged to reply to a question, even though the member asking it may think it should be answered, or answered in a certain way.


Robert Muir: To
continue this point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully agree I have not referred to the Standing Order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Will you hear me out?


Mr. Speaker:: I have ruled on the point raised by the hon. member and it seems to me there is little purpose in going into the matter further. The hon. member is not satisfied with the reply made to him by the Prime Minister. I do not see how that can constitute either a point of order or a question of privilege.


MAINLAND CHINA-EFFECT ON RECOGNITION OF BORDER CLASHES WITH U.S.S.R.
John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, dealing with the rights of parliament, Mr. Speaker. The other day I asked the Prime Minister again in this house whether there had been any suggestion of postponing recognition of communist China because of the aggression being practised between communist China and the U.S.S.R. The answer received from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State for External Affairs was that this could not be revealed.

Later that day it was stated in the press that according to information received the subject had been discussed between the Prime Minister and the Soviet ambassador. It is not proper that answers which were not given here in this chamber should be given outside the house by officials in order to offset any possible criticism of the failure to answer here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The subject matter which was discussed between the Soviet ambassador and myself was China. When I was asked the question, the External Affairs Department had not yet received permission from the Soviet ambassador to release the subject matter of the discussion. The ambassador did agree later to our indicating that we had discussed the subject of China, but not that we should give the details of that conversation, and there is no obligation or intention on the part of the government to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with the Prime Minister that there is no obligation to reveal what passed between him and a foreign ambassador. But there is no justification for the action of civil servants in endeavouring to help the government out after the Prime Minister has given an answer in the house to the effect that information will not be furnished.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of regional and economic expansion. Some days ago it was indicated to the house by the Prime Minister that the development plan agreement was to be signed with the government of Prince Edward Island. That agreement has now been signed and, I understand, tabled in the provincial legislature of Prince Edward Island. When may we expect a similar courtesy in the house in respect of this matter?


Jean Marchand: 
FISHERIES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat? The Chair has already indicated that the point of order referred to was not one to be raised at the present time. If the hon. member has another point of order to raise, the Chair will hear him, of course.


James Aloysius McGrath: If I cannot speak to the point of order, would Your Honour permit me to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: We have gone beyond the time allotted to oral questions but if hon. members agree unanimously, the hon. member may proceed.


An hon. Member:: Go on.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion has been made that it being St. Patrick's Day the hon. member should be allowed to ask the supplementary.


James Aloysius McGrath: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members for showing such charity to this poor, humble Irishman. My supplementary question is directed to the leader of the house. As he is permitted to do under Standing Order 65, would he agree to refer to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, the subject matter of my question to the Secretary of State regarding the film made by Artek Films Limited, on the seal hunt in the St. Lawrence?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I understand that the Secretary of State in his answer drew attention to the fact that the estimates are now before all the standing committees and that it would be entirely within the power of the standing committee mentioned to make arrangements in its timetable to call before it the people necessary to a discussion of this question. I understood my hon. friend's reply to be within that context. It would of course be a different situation if this were a period of the year when the estimates were not before the standing committee.
DEBATES	6693
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58 (4) (a)-SUGGESTIONS TO CORRECT ALLEGED ANOMALIES IN PAYMENT OF PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the introduction of legislation to improve the position of our senior citizens, including those on old age security, the war veterans allowance and various other government pensions and allowances, by providing inter alia a substantial increase in the old age pension, the removal of the income test from the supplement thereto, income tax adjustments to correct existing anomalies, and the inclusion of an escalator clause to keep pensions in line with wage and salary increases, all of these proposals being steps toward the establishing of a genuine guaranteed annual income.
As will be clear from this motion, Mr. Speaker, we are asking the house today to give serious consideration to the needs, the plight and the rights of our senior citizens. We have in mind all our people who are covered by this broad term "senior citizens", but we are thinking particularly of those in receipt of old age security pensions, war veterans allowances, and various other pensions and allowances.
If time permits, various members of our party will speak with respect to the different groups of people referred to in the motion. We hope the house will welcome this day as providing an opportunity to give special consideration to the problems faced by the older people in our community.
May I say at the outset that this is not just another appeal for a few more dollars. More dollars are certainly needed by our senior citizens-and not just a few more. But the appeal today is for a new approach to the whole question of retirement pensions, and in a moment or two I shall indicate what we regard as the three main points which are essential to such a new approach. Before I do that may I deal immediately with a couple of the answers thay may be forthcoming from the government side unless, of course, the government decides that this is a good motion and is prepared to support it.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Having listened to many debates on this subject in this house, I suspect that one of the answers will be that it is more important to do something about inflation, that it is more
6694	COMMONS
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections important to try to stop inflation, which after all hits hardest those who are on fixed incomes, than it is forever to be raising old age and other pensions. In reply to that I want to say that no government yet has stopped inflation, except in times of depression. Some governments have managed to check it a bit here and there, but the course of history is the story of prices and wages going up and up. We are always aware of the extent to which this hurts people, but it is also a fact of history that with rising prices and rising wages people who are at work fare a little better as time goes on. Things may cost a lot more today than they did when wages were 50 cents an hour but, even at today's higher prices, today's higher wages are such that working people are better off.
What is wrong with our society is that we draw a line, a line of discrimination that is hard and fast. We say to those who are at work: "You have the power to struggle for increases; you have the opportunity to get those increases and to improve your standard of living". But we say to those who are on the other side of that line, those who are retired: "Your income must remain fixed from the point of retirement until your days on earth are done". We regard this as a matter of rank discrimination and we say it is not good enough just for the government to declare that it is going to try to check inflation.
The other night I raised this question under another heading having to do with retired civil servants. The Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lang) seemed completely to miss my concern that our retired people have the opportunity to share in the rising standard of living. He said that it would be better if we stopped inflation and one of the ways, said he, to stop inflation was to stop asking for pension increases. We regard that stand not only as sheer nonsense but as most unfair and discriminatory against our senior citizens.
The fact of inflation, the fact of rising prices, the fact of rising wages-these facts are all present. What we want is recognition of a further fact, namely, that our senior citizens have just as much right to share in the rising standard of living as those who are still at work. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we reject the argument that the only thing the government should do is to carry on a futile battle against inflation. It is not carrying it on anyway. We say that a government that encourages and does its part in raising the standard of living for working people by raising salaries and wages should do the same for

DEBATES	March 17, 1969
our senior citizens and raise their pensions. Not to do so is rank discrimination against those who are retired.
Another argument that will be probably used if the government makes the mistake of opposing this motion today will be that this matter is under review. As an answer, this is becoming a bit monotonous in this house. Everything that we are concerned about is under review. As far as pension matters are concerned, not only is it not fully satisfactory just to tell the house that these questions are under review, but I am also deeply disturbed about words that leak out here and there in connection with the nature of this review. We are told that maybe there has to be a change, a new approach. I have been asking for a new approach to the problem; the government has said that it will come out with a new approach. But it talks of selectivity. Those famous words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) still ring in our ears-"We have had enough of this free stuff." The whole concept of universal social security programs seems to be under attack in the review that the government is making. We submit that as an answer to the question we are raising today this is not good enough.
I said that we are asking for a new approach to the problem of pensions for those who are retired, and I should like to indicate three matters that I think are at the heart, three things that are the essence, of this new approach.
First of all, I believe we have to establish once and for all that retirement pensions, pensions that enable people to live decently after they have done their share of this country's work, are a matter of right, that there must not be any kind of charity or means test or needs test or stigma of any kind attached to them. I thought that we had reached that point back in the early 1950's when we got rid of the means test from the old age security pension, but we got it back again with respect to the guaranteed income supplement. The words that are leaking out about the review that is now taking place suggest that something further along that line is in the government's mind.
Words like "selectivity", "responsible payments", and so on are fine words, but the fact of the matter is that if you put older people on any kind of needs or means test, even if you have a system of negative income tax-and I will come to that a little later- you are putting them in the position of receiving something that still has the social
March 17, 1969	COMMONS
welfare or relief concept attached to it. We want to get rid of that completely. We want pensions at the point of retirement and from then on to be completely a matter of right without any means, needs or income test attached to them.
A second point that we regard as essential to a new approach to the problem of pensions is that the amount of the old age security pension will have to be substantially increased so that it will be the kind of pension on which people can live decent and dignified lives. It has taken a long while to get to the point we have reached. The pension battle in Canada spreads back over many decades. As a matter of fact, it was in the very year in which I was born, 1908, that the first step was taken in the House of Commons in the field of pensions when the government annuities act was brought in. In fact it was debated in this home at second reading the very day I was born. That piece of legislation was a pretty meagre step. The debates of 1908 on this subject are interesting to read, but at least as a result of that debate it was recognized that the government had some responsibility to help people to help themselves in regard to their old age.
We moved ahead in the twenties when parliament brought into effect the first old age pensions act which provided a $20 pension at age 70 but with a means test and a whole host of restrictions. Then we took another further step forward in 1950 or 1951 when we abolished the means test for the old age pension of that day. At that time it was only $40 a month and we provided that everybody 70 years of age and over would receive it.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It has taken all this time for us to take these forward steps. It has taken too long, but at least we have moved from the idea of simple government involvement in pensions, to pensions because people needed them, and finally to pensions as a matter of right. We tried to go a step farther by providing for adequate pensions under the Canada Pension Plan, which was a good way to meet the problem or will be for those who eight or ten years from now will benefit to the full extent from the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security pension. But the mass of Canadian people still have not accepted the idea that old age pensions should be generous enough for people to live on.
DEBATES	6695
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections
I have a motion on the order paper, which was debated for an hour on a previous occasion, proposing that the old age security pension should be raised to $125 a month, that the needs test attached to the income supplement should be wiped out, and so on. The figure in my motion is a bare minimum. We ought to be talking now about old age security pensions of $150 a month. The day will come when even that amount will be considered small. In today's context a pension of that order would indicate that parliament no longer thought old age pensions a form of charity but had considered what was fair and reasonable. But the government still considers pensions a form of welfare and, utilizing a means or needs test, pays pensions so small that people can scarcely get by on them.
I suggested that there are three aspects of this problem that we consider to be important. First, as I have said, we need to give our people pensions as a matter of right, without any means or needs test. Second, we need to make the pensions substantial, even generous. We ought to pay as much as $150 a month right now. The third point I wish to make, and to me this is the most important step we must take in the pension field, is that there must be built into the old age pension scheme and into the pension schemes of retired civil servants, C.N.R. employees, veterans and people in other segments of our community, automatic escalator clauses that will provide for pensions to rise and keep up with the increases taking place in wages and salaries.
I have been arguing about this point for years, and I want to talk about it now. To judge from answers given from the government side, from interjections made from various corners of the house and so on, the notion still persists that pensions should be tied only to the cost of living. That is not good enough. For that matter we have not got that now. Most pensions have no escalator clause, but the old age security pension has one, although it limits the increase to 2 per cent per year, as does the Canada Pension Plan. So the escalator clauses in those instances are not really tied to increases in the cost of living. But even when you have such a clause you condemn retired people to being able to purchase for the rest of their years only the same basket of goods and services they could purchase at the point of retirement. We do not say that to the working sector of our population. We say that our working people have the right to keep earning higher wages and salaries and to participate in the increased!
March 17, 1969
6696	COMMONS
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections standard of living, for the standard of living goes up as the years go on.
When we were dealing with these matters in the committee that dealt with the Canadian Pension Plan in 1964 and 1965 a great many statistics were placed before us. Although I do not have it in front of me, in issue No. 3 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of that committee there is an interesting table about the rise over the years in the cost of living, wages, the gross national product and so on. I looked at it again today to refresh my memory, and these are the facts. In the 20 year period between 1940 and 1960 the cost of living doubled, but the wage index multiplied three times. So if you earned wages or a salary you had a chance to keep up with the rising standard of living, but if you were tied to some sort of cost of living index you fell behind.
I point out that not only did the cost of living double while the wage index tripled but, according to the same table, the per capita share of the gross national product of the country in the same 20-year period went up by a multiple of four and the gross national product went up by a multiple of five. So look at where we would leave our older people, even if we were to give them a full cost of living bonus. During a 20-year period of retirement, while the gross national product of the country multiplied five times, their standard of living would only double. While the per capita share of the gross national product multiplied four times and the wage index three times, the old people of our society would be left far behind. That is not good enough. It is not the way any family would operate. It is not a just society. It is not humane and it is not Canadian.
It is not right that we should say to our older people: "We must draw the line at the point of retirement. You cannot continue to share in the advantages that accrue from a dynamic society." We must remember that our present position is the result of the contribution our older people made when they were working. They worked perhaps with less efficient tools and methods, but they built us up to where we are today, just as we are building up our society for the generations to follow us. Would we like it if we were told on retirement that we would have to settle for the rest of our lives for the basket of goods and services that we were able to buy at the point of retirement, even though the gross national product might go up by a multiple of five during our period of retirement? Unless
IMr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]

we have an adequate escalator clause our entire pension program will fall to the ground and prove useless. I suggest in all fairness that if we are to have a pension program worthy of its name we must include in it an automatic escalator clause. And, for heaven's sake, let us get the idea across that this escalator clause must be tied either to increases in the wage or salary index or to the gross national product. Let us have no more of this talk of its being tied merely to the cost of living index.
I must move on, Mr. Speaker, because there are other matters in the motion. It refers to veterans allowances, which will be discussed later, and to income tax anomalies which should be straightened out. To judge from the kinds of answers given to questions on orders of the day, something may be done about this this spring. I am sure that even this government did not intend that the guaranteed income supplement should put people into an income tax bracket. I am sure that this government did not mean, after saying that certain people must not have less than a minimum income and paying them a supplement to bring them up to it, to turn around and take away part of that minimum income in taxation. The reason for this anomaly is, of course, that income tax exemption levels have not been changed since 1949. As a matter of fact, they are lower today than they were before world war II.
I have gone into details on this point on other occasions, but I think one of the most wicked pieces of unfairness relates to war veterans allowances. Those who remember the debates on the guaranteed income supplement will remember that the minister piloting that legislation through the house made the point that in any income test for the supplement the war veterans allowance would not be counted. But he overlooked the means test in the War Veterans Allowance Act. Once the war veteran who receives an allowance is paid the guaranteed income supplement his war veterans allowance is cut and he ends up with precisely the same income he had already. Being a veteran, he does not like this. He would like to get all the advantages that flow from being a veteran. But he is now worse off because of the income tax situation. If a veteran receives the war veterans allowance, that is not taxable, but the guaranteed income supplement is taxable income. Veterans between the age of 65 and 70 do not get the extra $500 exemption, so they have to pay income tax because part of their income is in
March 17, 1969	COMMONS
the form of a guaranteed income supplement rather than war veterans allowance. This is the kind of anomaly that needs to be straightened out.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
If there is going to be a budget statement this spring by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the government could cope with this problem at that time. I strongly urge that something be done. The dollars involved would not be great, but to people with small incomes it is difficult to pay $20 or $30 income tax. It is unfair, wicked and unkind and I hope these income tax anomalies will be corrected.
When speaking on this subject a year ago the then Minister of Finance, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), defended the practice. But the present Minister of Finance said that he would study my serious representations on this matter. The other night during the adjournment debate the answer was even more hopeful than that.
I hope the government is becoming ashamed of its position. There was at least one debate initiated by an hon. member on the government side with regard to income tax paid by people between the age of 65 and 70. I believe many government members made representations to the government and I hope they will be dealt with during the course of this session.
I have said the steps proposed in my motion, such as raising the amount of old age security, cutting out the means or needs test and particularly putting in an escalation clause tied to wages and salaries or the gross national product rather than the cost of living, could be considered as steps toward the establishment of a genuine guaranteed annual income. There is no doubt in my mind that in a country such as Canada the day will come when we will have a genuine guaranteed annual income right across the broad range of our society. This will not happen overnight. It will not come into full bloom the first time, but a start must be made. I think the place to start is with our senior citizens.
I urge, Mr. Speaker, that there be no confusion between a guaranteed annual income and a negative income tax. My fear is that when the government talks about a guaranteed annual income it is thinking of using the negative income tax as a means to accomplish this. Some people think that these are so similar they are synonymous, but they are not. The key to a negative income tax is to
DEBATES	6697
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections have a person report his amount of income and then pay him the difference between that amount and some established level. No matter how this is dressed up, what name it is given, it is still a means or needs test. It is no better for the older people than it is for any other.
In my view the guaranteed income supplement has not been successful. It is a form of negative income tax. It is not a genuine guaranteed annual income. Under a guaranteed annual income the pension is paid without question. There is provision for an income tax structure which takes back the major portion or perhaps all in cases of people who do not require this pension. But the difference between these two approaches is very real. One is a glorified means test. The other is a genuine pension or income payment.
The best social security plan this country ever had was the old age security program we passed in 1951, but it was messed up with the guaranteed income supplement. During those years there was pride and dignity attached to old age security. We had to battle to have the amount raised from $40 to $46, to $55, to $65 and then to $75 a month. We are having to battle now to have the amount raised to $125 or $150 a month. But the principle was right in the original plan, and when you revert to a means or needs test you are taking a step backwards.
I plead with the government not to play around in its review with programs based on selectivity, but to give weight to a program with a genuine guaranteed annual income. The government should have this objective and start with the people who deserve it most, namely, senior citizens, war veterans and all our retired persons. These people deserve recognition for what they have done for Canada. They have a human right to share in the developments that take place during the period of their retirement, whether it is 5, 10, 20 or 25 years. The prospect of greater longevity today causes this problem to be more serious than ever. The problem is intensified by the speed at which prices and wages are rising. It cannot wait for a decade of review but must be dealt with now.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the 50th anniversary of a great event in the political history of Canada, the 1919 convention of the Liberal Party, will be celebrated in August of this year. I say this without tongue in cheek.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Fifty years of frustration.
March 17, 19S9
6698	COMMONS DEBATES
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections


Stanley Howard Knowles: thought that would bring applause from hon. members opposite but the ones sitting there-


An hon. Member:: They are ashamed of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Either they are ashamed or they have forgotten about it. Some of them are so young they would not remember it. It was a great convention, Mr. Speaker. Some people at that convention had some very progressive ideas. Those in attendance included Mackenzie King, W. S. Fielding and Arthur Roebuck. We can have political kibitzing if we want, but that convention was the first at which any national political party in this country made basic proposals for a welfare state in Canada.
An important resolution of that convention with regard to setting up an insurance program against unemployment, sickness and old age became the basis for parliament over the years to build up a social security program for which we can express some gratitude. It is not all it should be but we have done a lot in those 50 years. I say "we"; I do not say the Liberal party because they took an awful lot of prodding. They know that if it had not been for the C.C.F. and the N.D.P. pushing them for the last 30 or 40 years we would not have achieved the things we have accomplished. I now plead with the government: Do not dismantle it all. Do not, in the name of selectivity or in the name of some different kind of expenditure of money, abandon this whole program. Do not be taken in by the silly notion that there has been enough of this free stuff. Those Liberals of 1919 had ideas that still have merit, and Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and others have through the years in parliament been both correct and responsible in trying to focus on the rights of our older people and the rights of people in our society generally.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to call my attention to the time. May I say that you can relax because I will finish in another 30 seconds.
I plead, therefore, that instead of turning back we go forward to a new approach to retirement based on an absolute recognition of the rights of our older people, based also on pensions of a sufficient amount to enable them to live as they should, and including also the automatic escalation of pensions in line with the increases that take place in wages and salaries and the gross national product, so that our older people will be able

to enjoy their retirement years in the dignity which is their right.


Hon. J. W. Monleith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party welcome the opportunity to discuss the problems of our senior citizens. The motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is quite comprehensive. I do not intend to deal with all the elements in it as there will be other speakers from my party. However, in this debate today I wish to put myself and my party squarely on the side of our older citizens.
I feel that the record of the Conservative government between 1957 and 1963, and in fact of our party since that date, bears out my contention that we have always been concerned about the welfare of those no longer in a position to take care of themselves. I believe that what we need is a rational overhaul of our present welfare system.
The present program of social assistance in Canada has grown piecemeal over many years and has been put together by several different administrations. These administrations probably may have had somewhat different goals. It has now developed into a patchwork quilt and, while undoubtedly it has done much to alleviate suffering, too often it fails to cover those most in need. It just does not make sense to have a social assistance program which does not adequately serve those who need help. To my mind there is a case for revision of our welfare concept, and the initiative must come from the federal government. But what has happened, Mr. Speaker?
The government, though preaching the just society during the election campaign, has got itself into a terrible predicament chiefly because of its inability to control inflation and by its inept handling of the country's finances. I suggest that the government by its inability to conduct the financial affairs of Canada in such a way as to contain inflation has further caused great hardship, particularly to our older citizens.
I recall the time the amendment to the Old Age Security Act was passed, having to do with an escalation clause related to the increase in the cost of living. The then Liberal administration tried to imply that it would never allow the increase in the cost of living to be more than 2 per cent per year. What has been the record? We have had a succession of yearly increases of far more than 2 per cent. Who suffers? It is our older citizens, those on old age security and living on fixed
March 17, 19G9

incomes. Our older people have more at stake than any other class of citizen as a result of the continuing inability of the government to contain inflation.
We must recognize the principle that our older citizens should not have to bear the brunt of the deterioration of our dollar. Certainly I favour an escalator clause in the Old Age Security Act and related acts to keep pensions in line with the increase in the cost of living.
In general terms those Canadians who require government assistance can be divided into two broad groups. The first is made up of people who, for one reason or another, are not part of the active labour force. They are elderly or injured or handicapped in some other way. They share the characteristic of being unable to earn an income of their own. The second group is made up of people who would be able to earn for themselves if jobs or training or incentives were available. This second group needs help in terms of opportunity. Today we are discussing primarily the plight of the elderly, the injured and the handicapped. How long must these citizens of Canada wait to have the government recognize its responsibility and act on their behalf?
I feel that if all the terms of the motion before us were implemented we might only further complicate our social assistance system. Earlier in my remarks I said that in my opinion there is a case for revision of the welfare concept and that we need a rational overhaul of our present program. I suggest that there is a strong case for some form of consolidation of our present varied assistance programs.
Some advocates suggest a guaranteed annual income. Others suggest a negative income tax. No matter what it may be called, immediate steps should be taken to consider these possibilities, keeping in mind all the various advantages and disadvantages. There are many factors to be considered. We must not detract from incentives to work or fail to take advantage of opportunities to work.
The government has now been long enough in office to provide some concrete proof of its desire to implement the so-called just society. Let it act immediately to give relief to those Canadians on pensions who have suffered so much by reason of the inflation permitted by the government. It should provide at once for the escalation of pensions in proportion to the actual increase in the cost of living. The government should also undertake to present a
DEBATES	6699
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections white paper or a statement of some kind showing how our present varied social assist-tance programs might be integrated.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, every measure aimed at improving the situation of our senior citizens will certainly obtain our approval. We must not take exclusively into account the political benefits that could be derived from increasing the old age pension, but we must also, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did, explain and understand the need to give our citizens who are 65 and over, the vital minimum amount based on the real cost of living and not upon considerations out of date in 1969.
Even if there has been some improvement, the old age security pension is still inadequate. We should consider, for instance, the numerous cases in our constituencies where many couples aged 70, 75 or 80, have been unable, in spite a whole life of hard work and because of the inadequacy of the economic system in which we live today, to put aside enough money to live comfortably during their old age. But of course with a pension of $109.20 each, they cannot afford any luxury or even some comfort, and this shows the need to correct this situation.
I want to illustrate what I have in mind by way of one example. Recently in my constituency, I met a 75 year-old man whose wife was 72. They both received the old age security pension, plus the maximum guaranteed income supplement, i.e. a total of $218.40 per month. However, as it sometimes happens, the wife dies. What happen to her husband? Now, since he is a widower, he is considered as a bachelor and since he can occasionally earn some money from his trade as a blacksmith, his pension is reduced suddenly from $218.40 to $78.20.
In my opinion, there is a certain anomaly there. Two people living together live better with $218.40 than one person living alone on $78.20. Furthermore, if a person has a dependent, a boy or a girl, living with him, the situation is even more complicated.
There should be a striking improvement there. Let us not be stingy. A single person is allowed an income of only $768, that is the maximum amount, that he is allowed to earn. He will therefore, receive $78.20 and no supplement. I suggest that this is perhaps a little
March 17, 1969
6700	COMMONS DEBATES
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections stingy to reduce, by all means, this income supplement.
Other cases have been called to my attention since the month of January 1969. For instance, I have been told of people aged 80 or 85, on the last leg of their lives, who, with great difficulty and because they have the good fortune of living still with relatives, a daughter or a son, have saved a small capital of $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 that they keep in the bank, very carefully, to cover their burial expenses. Now, under the pretence that they have accumulated a small sum of money in the bank, though almost insignificant, the government decreases or curtails their guaranteed income supplement.
There again, in my opinion, we find only stinginess. The government takes away from them something essential, in fact, barely a vital minimum. Such action shows only stinginess and is, I believe, shameful.
As members of parliament we are of course very often called upon the make decisions. Therefore we should remove from the Pension Act as well as from the Old Age Security Act any ambiguity and stinginess, in short anything liable to sadden, so to speak, the last years of our senior citizens.
On the contrary, the pensioners should then feel happy to have lived in a country which has succeeded in setting off their worth. So, we should not have citizens who at the end of their life are having difficulties with the government of their own country regarding the old age security pension. Then, let us not be mean and let us give them what falls to them by right. As for the ones who have worked all their life, no matter what they have accumulated, the services they have rendered are priceless and we must therefore be extremely grateful to them.
Since an escalator clause is to be found everywhere, it is obvious that it should also be included in the Old Age Security Act. There is a similar anomaly with respect to family allowances, for instance, which have remained fixed, but even this is not a fair word, because, following the increase in the cost-of-living index and the relative value of money today, these allowances are worth substantially less in terms of purchasing power.
Consequently, provision for an increase is quite normal and proper. All legislation of this kind should normally provide for an increase in pensions each year or at regular intervals in accordance with the increase in
	*
the cost of living. This is a very logical provision, even an elementary one, and, consequently, we give it our complete support.
Naturally, if the ideal to which members of the Ralliement Creditiste aspire could be reached, we would probably not have so many problems to face in the pension field, because money would then be truly at the service of the citizen. But we have to face up to the facts, and since this is part of the system we live in, we shall support this motion under the circumstances.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has given the house an opportunity to discuss the important issue of income support for our senior citizens and others. If I were to hazard any criticism of the definition set out by the hon. member in his motion it would be that, if anything, its focus is too narrow.
The government is giving serious and continuing consideration to the importance of income support measures, not only to those on social allowances and pensions but to all those receiving any form of income support at all. It is also considering whether the present structure of programs reaches all those in need of such support or if entirely new structures should be developed. I hope that the statements today from various parts of the house will be directed to this broad question rather than restricting themselves to the narrow definitions. There is in the world today a great dynamic to the debate about income support, not just in Canada but throughout the industrial world. I hope the discussion in the house this afternoon will make an important contribution to that debate in Canada.
I think it will be helpful to begin by setting out something of the background of our present situation in regard to income support programs. Measures designed for the benefit of our old people have been introduced or acted upon in each year since 1963. In 1963 the old age security pension was raised from $65 to $75 a month for all those 70 years of age or over. In 1964 the Canada Pension Plan was introduced and a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons was set up to study this proposal in detail and make any necessary improvements. This plan provided retired contributors with pensions up to $104
March 17, 1969	COMMONS
a month in addition to their basic old age security pension.
In 1965 the Canada Pension Plan was adopted and at the same time the Old Age Security Act was amended to reduce the age at which benefits might be paid to 65, by one year in age at a time between 1966 and 1970. By 1970 this will have added to the old age security rolls an additional 645,000 persons- more than the 643,000 persons originally covered by the old age security program when it began in 1952. In terms of the expenditures thus committed, this measure was the equivalent of a whole new social security program for aged persons in Canada, covering an extra 645,000 people at an annual cost by 1970 of an extra $580 million, apart even from its escalation feature.
With regard to escalation, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) and others mentioned today, it was in 1965 also that we introduced escalating benefits for aged persons automatically as the cost of living rose. Both old age security and Canada Pension Plan benefits were tied to the pension index to help them keep pace with increases in the cost of living. We felt, however, that these benefits should not be decreased in periods when there might be decreases in the cost of living.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What Utopia is that?


John Carr Munro: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
at all; not at all.


John Carr Munro: Well, I think it is. A guaranteed annual income for all Canadians would be an income test program which covered all of the Canadian society.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a negative income tax.


John Carr Munro: Even on my hon. friend's definition of the difference between a guaranteed annual income and a negative income tax, you still have an income test. The guaranteed income supplement is a guaranteed annual income program which covers only that part of the Canadian society over the age of 66. On January 1 of next year it will be extended to cover all those over the age of 65. Are we being urged to abandon this form of program or are we being urged to extend it?
One of the arguments long advanced in support of such a comprehensive program is that it would do away with the rigid definitions of eligibility for inclusion in the various categories involved in a network of categorical programs. But this motion urges us to build higher the walls of the present categories in order to move toward an elimination of categories. Again, I cannot see how the one will lead us to the other. Which is it that we are being urged to do?
I said that much of the earlier debate and the present one on the future of income support measures revolves around the concepts of universality and selectivity. Selectivity was the essence of welfare in its infancy. Selectivity meant that those who sought welfare came hat in hand as supplicants. Selectivity meant proving need, often at a price of degrading, personal humilation in order to qualify. I agree with the hon. member when he criticizes selectivity in that connotation.
Against this background the demands for universal programs which would apply equally to all and degrade none were developed. While universality in income support programs provided money to those who did not need it, it seemed the only way to get money to those who did need it without forcing them through a process of humiliation to get it. Clearly, I think the ideal form of program was one which concentrated its resources on those in need and did this without subjecting anyone to the humiliation of hat-in-hand supplication.
DEBATES	6703
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This issue was clearly confronted in 1966 and the result was a guaranteed income supplement. At that time many were urging an increase in the flat rate of old age security payments from $75 a month to $100 a month, The cost of this would have been $369 million and it would still have left several hundred thousand Canadian senior citizens with only $100 on which to live. A guaranteed income supplement, on the other hand, at a cost of only $235 million, was able to ensure that none of Canada's aged had less than $105 a month on which to support themselves. In other words, the universal approach at a cost 50 per cent greater would have gotten less to those whose need was greatest and whose need had been the very reason for the increase in the first place.
We were able to achieve this selective effect without the traditional form of needs or means test, because it was possible to employ a negative income tax approach. Applicants simply fill out forms similar to income tax forms, but instead of sending the government a sum of money calculated in relation to their income they receive from it a sum of money calculated in relation to their income.
This is the first negative income tax program in existence in North America and it is being closely watched in many parts of the world. To suggest that its income test feature be dropped is to argue for a 50 per cent increase in its cost without adding one cent to what is received by those who have no other source of income. Since I know the great concern of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for those in our society who have least, I cannot imagine this to have been his intention.
I believe the figures show that in the past few years the government has greatly expanded its income support, not only to those on allowances but to many segments of our society. As the Canada Pension Plan continues to mature and the age of eligibility for the old age security and guaranteed income supplement continues to drop, this support will grow.
The motion suggests that there are anomalies in our tax structure, and clearly there are. As we all know, the question of revisions to our tax laws is one which has been receiving a great deal of attention from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in recent months, and the ending of such anomalies is one of the concerns of his present review.
March 17, 1969

Suggested Pension Payment Corrections


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear. I shall hold you to that.


John Carr Munro: We are continuing to assess the effectiveness of our present programs and to examine proposals for their supplementation and consolidation. The suggestions offered in the course of this afternoon's debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) and the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) are helpful and will, I assure the house, be taken into consideration.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak this afternoon on pensions and on the poverty which often arises as a consequence of inadequate pensions a quotation from Oliver Goldsmith's poem, "The Deserted Village", comes to mind:
111 fares the land to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.
Those words are as true today as they were when they were written many years ago. I welcome this opportunity to speak on the subject of pensions and poverty as it affects many Canadians. It is one which should be of deep concern to everybody. All Canadians should be asking why there is so much poverty and hardship in a country as rich as ours. They should be asking why such a situation is allowed to continue. They should ask why governments have been so ineffective in dealing with the situation. They should ask whether the solutions so far proposed are adequate and, if the answer is yes, why these solutions have not been applied.
I ask these questions, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we can obtain from the government today an explanation for the lengthy delay in dealing adequately with the state of affairs I have described. We have just heard from the minister. He has sketched briefly the activities of the government in this field; I felt he was defending the present Canadian pensions system. It is true he said consideration would be given to the ideas put forward by previous speakers-and I certainly hope this will be the case-but despite this assurance I remind hon. members that we still have with us in Canada today a major problem involving all those who are in receipt of pensions income. As my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned earlier, these people fall into a number of groups-old age pensioners, those in receipt of war veterans allowances, and so on.

I do not think there is a member of this house who does not have in his office a thick file of letters dealing with pension matters. I have one, and I am certain other members receive similar letters from constituents and from organizations asking that something be done to ease the situation of those who are obliged to live on fixed incomes. When I consider some of the hardships that these people face I find myself wondering how governments can remain in power as long as they do. Remember, this problem has been with us for a long time. It is still here, and in my opinion it will remain with us until a basic change is made in the concept of pensions and the manner in which they should be granted to citizens.


Mr. Alexander:: Or until there is new leadership.


Randolph Harding: I shall refer now to a question which has concerned me a great deal since I came to the House of Commons-the fact that though provision is made for pensions to vary year by year if the cost of living rises, the amount of the increase is not related to anything which is logical or sensible. We have on the statute books at the present time a provision which states that 2 per cent a year is the maximum increase which an old age pensioner may receive, even if the increase in the cost of living amounts to double the 2 per cent figure or more. I raised this issue in the house some time ago and I intend to bring it up again. We, the politicians who are elected by the men and women across Canada who go to the polls, make the laws. We can also change the laws. If 2 per cent is inadequate-and I suggest it certainly is-all that is required is for a majority of the elected members of this house to make up their minds that a change will be made and that change will be written into the statute.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
One party in this house has a clear majority, the Liberal party. If the 2 per cent is to be changed it is the Liberal party that must change it. The opposition groups are willing to go along with such a change; all we need is some assistance from the backbenchers of the Liberal party.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What a hope!


Randolph Harding: That is what I say. I do not think they dare make such a move. However, their constituents know they are not willing to make this move. The power is in their
March 17, 1969

hands, and they need not shove the responsibility off on to the executive and say that the executive has to do the job. If these members stand up and insist upon a change being made, a change will come about. I urge them to take that step this afternoon.
I should like to go back a couple of years to show the house what has been happening to the cheques received by old age pensioners. The 2 per cent increase given those in receipt of the old age pension amounted to $1.50 a month. In the government publication that I hold in my hand the statement is made that last year the average cost of living in this nation increased by 4.1 per cent. I do not know what that means to hon. members opposite, but let me tell them what it means to the old age pensioner. It means that his standard of living and his spending power has decreased by more than $1.50 every month. It has been cut by that amount.
The year before, 1967, saw an average increase in the cost of living over the length and breadth of this nation of 4 per cent. Again the old age pensioners had a reduction that year in their basic pension of $1.50. True, we have increased their pensions by 2 per cent each year, but over this two year period there has been an 8.1 increase in the over-all cost of living.
This is what we are asking the government to correct; indeed it is just one of the inequities that exist. Old age pension organizations all across the country are asking that the standard of living of these pensioners should at least not be eroded. We have the voting power in this house to correct the situation, and we plead with the government and with Liberal members to help us correct this injustice.
Members of parliament are pretty well paid by other standards, but do they know what it means to an old age pensioner to have the equivalent of $1.50 knocked off his pension cheque? It means disaster. In this regard I should like to refer to a letter I have received and which I am prepared to table, Mr. Speaker, if the house desires. It is the sort of letter that all members receive and is written by a chap in receipt of a pension. He receives a small pension in addition to the old age pension plus a small portion of the supplement. Every time his pension is increased $2 or $3 the supplement is reduced by a like amount, and he is no better off now than he was several years ago. In fact, he is worse off because the increase that has taken place in
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections the cost of living has gradually eroded his standard of living.
What worries the pensioners are these small increases, certainly small by our standards. According to this pensioner's letter his milk bill has gone up 24 cents a month-I agree not very much. His bread bill has gone up 16 cents a month, his daily newspaper has gone up 40 cents a month and his rent has risen $10 a month. Yet he receives the same pension. Therefore, do hon. members wonder that these people have cause to come to members of parliament and demand that something be done?
We have also received correspondence from senior citizens groups. The other day I received some correspondence from the senior citizens group in Trail which is in my riding of Kootenay West. This group is asking that the 2 per cent figure be increased because of the factors I have just outlined. It is also asking for higher income tax exemptions. In all common sense, can anybody justify the taxation of people in dire need who have no or extremely low incomes? I suggest that this just does not make sense.
If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) were in the house I know he would say that we cannot afford to lose the taxes collected from those in the lower income brackets. But we in this party say that there are other sources of taxation, and Mr. Carter, in his proposals for a just taxation system for Canada, has shown the government where it can raise the money to increase pensions while at the same time raising the income tax exemptions. The income tax exemptions of $1,000 for a single man and $2,000 for a married man were instituted donkeys years ago and bear no relevance to the earning power of today. They should be revised, and it is this government that should revise them. This is another way of providing some relief to pensioners and others on extremely low incomes. Again I suggest that the government take a good look at the Carter commission report and ascertain how the incomes of those in the low salary or wages brackets can be supplemented without harm to anybody.
I see that time is drifting along and I have several other matters I should like to raise in connection with this very interesting problem. In Canada today there are over 1,500,000 men and women receiving old age security pensions. I do not have the exact figure but it is somewhere over the one and a half million mark. About 780,000 of these receive part or all of the guaranteed income supplement. Currently, the income supplement with the 2
6706	COMMONS
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections per cent increase amounts to $31.20, if they receive it all, but a large number of pensioners are not in that fortunate category.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
What is an adequate pension for people who have retired? Actually, I am not in a position to quote exact figures. Depending on where they live, they need varying amounts. Some need less to get by on while others need more. But to say that a single pension today plus a supplement is adequate is sheer and utter nonsense. That has been one of our problems in Canada. We have not made a concerted attack on the problem of retirement pensions. Some countries have. I have raised this point before and will be raising it again.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, it is utter stupidity to condemn retired people to live on an income which will remained fixed for the rest of their lives. I feel, and other hon. members have spoken about this, that as the gross national product increases every individual ought to have the right to share in the over-all increase. Sweden has worked out a better pension system than almost any other country in the world. They share in that country and we in this country should also share.
We must remember that many of us are approaching retirement age. We ought to remember the pioneers who went before us and laid the foundations for the economy of this country. They are entitled to share in the increased efficiency and productivity of those coming after them. This is not asking too much. We can work out a formula to make certain that every pensioner in this country has a better standard of living as the years go on. To begin with, we ought to include cost of living increase clauses in our pension schemes to make sure that our senior citizens' pensions will not be eroded any further. Yet our main objective must be-and this must be the objective of the just society about which the Liberal party talks so glibly-to make certain that our pensioners enjoy an increasing standard of living as time goes on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

DEBATES	March 17. 1969


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say a number of other things but I will confine my remarks to a minute or two. I thank the house for its courtesy. There is one thought I should like to leave with hon. members before sitting down. It has to do not only with pensions but with poverty in general. To follow my trend of thought all one has to do is examine the figures in the latest Economic Council of Canada report. They should be of concern to every thinking Canadian. We find that the report has separated our people into five economic groups, beginning with the lowest 20 per cent and going up to the 20 per cent segment of our population with the highest earning capacity. In the lowest income group, of course, come the pensioners and those who are in trouble in poverty areas. We find that the workers in the lowest 20 per cent segment receive only 6.7 per cent of our total income. That is almost unbelievable. Those in the next highest group of 20 per cent receive only 13.4 per cent of our total income. The next group of 20 per cent receives only 18 per cent of our gross national product. We find that the top 20 per cent of our population has an income greater than that of the lowest 60 per cent of our working population. This demonstrates the poverty picture in Canada, and this is where adjustments must be made. This shows where the problem must be tackled. I hope and trust that before the present session of parliament ends we shall have begun tackling some of the gross inequities I have just outlined. May I thank hon. members for permitting me to continue speaking a little longer.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is that the house discuss a matter of urgent national importance. Although the motion does not fall exactly with the confines of rule 26, we nevertheless welcome it.
I think it is very important at this time that we should discuss the question of underprivileged Canadians and a rational approach to solving the problem facing them. I believe that Canada is still in the midst of a welfare jungle. Many pension and welfare schemes exist and to find one's way through them requires a great deal of experience, time and knowledge of various pieces of welfare legislation on the statute books, rules and regulations and accepted standards of various kinds. The average person is completely lost in this maze of old age supplements, war veterans allowances, the Canada Pension Plan, disability pensions and other types of pension, many
March 17. 1969	COMMONS
of which are related to other welfare programs.
Some pensions, like disability pensions for war veterans and war veterans allowances, are fixed. The maximum paid under them does not rise or fall in keeping with the cost of living. Usually they are set at the maximum. Others, like the old age pension which I will comment on in a moment, and the guaranteed income supplement, are permitted to keep pace with increases in the cost of living to the extent that they are increased by a maximum of 2 per cent each year. The Canada Pension Plan is tied to the cost of living to a degree. Although increases in these programs are tied to increases in the cost of living, they bear no relation to inflation.
Some pension programs are adjusted annually in accordance with the person's income and need. These pensions may not only be reduced but are subject to a retroactive reduction. I think some of the most tragic cases hon. members have come across have had to do with those whose allowance have been unwittingly overpaid. The cheques keep coming month after month and those receiving them think that if the government is sending them everything must be all right and therefore they spend the money. If at the end of the year when the social worker is conducting his interview he finds that the amount of income is greater than what was estimated at the first of the year and the person has been overpaid $200 or $300, the overpayment must be refunded. Not only is the current year's pension then reduced by $10 or $15 a month but the overpayment is recovered by monthly payments. It is very tragic when this happens. Unfortunately it seems to happen mostly to widows, mothers and others required to support someone. What I have just referred to, Mr. Speaker, is a welfare jungle with various schemes set up in different manners tied to different types of income needs or to the cost of living.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I see that the min ster who was responsible for the Canada Assistance Plan is in the house today. At the time that plan was introduced a move was made with the co-operation of the provinces to cut back on these various welfare schemes and try to consolidate them. It was successful to some degree in that it consolidated three or four welfare programs into one. At the same time the old age pens.on supplement was introduced, which was a different type tied to the means
DEBATES	6707
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections of the person receiving it, and also the Canada Pension Plan which is a contributory plan. To that extent the whole system was not really improved.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) today promised a program to consider a rational and over-all approach to welfare. I presume there is a task force working on this problem. I must say that it is not something new. The people who are suffering most under the present delay in setting up some sort of rational approach are those on fixed pensions. They are the people most affected by inflation.
There must be a new concept in approaching welfare problems, first, to assist those who cannot help themselves and permit them to share in Canada's prosperity and second, to provide incentive for those in the labour force to support themselves. When the Canada Pension Plan and old age security were introduced on an escalating basis, the government set the figure of 2 per cent as the maximum by which a pension could increase in accordance with an increase in the cost of living. The situation as it now exists should have been foreseen at the time. We must realize that the 2 per cent figure is not really tied to the cost of living because the cost of living and wage index are many times higher than this figure.
We have today been given figures which show that the 2 per cent limit is unreal in the context of today's inflation. This limit must be removed in order to make old age pensions and the supplement more realistic. Why should the disadvantaged people of Canada be the ones to carry the burden of inflation which has not been kept under control? I suggest it would be fairly easy to amend the three separate provisions, the Old Age Security Act, the old age supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan.
The government has not been able to restrain the inflationary trends. I do not need to go any farther than what the minister himself pointed out today, namely, that the government grossly underestimated the increase in the cost of living. They have been absolutely unable to restrain it. The minister said that the 1966 figure of 2 per cent sounded fairly reasonable at that time because the increase in the cost of living before then had always been less than 2 per cent. We are well aware the increase in the cost of living has now almost doubled. This shows effectively that the minister and his colleagues have been unable to control inflation.
March 17, 1989
6708	COMMONS DEBATES
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections
There is another matter which I would like to discuss, Mr. Speaker, which relates to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am glad he is in his seat at the moment. This motion gives me an opportunity to talk about the interplay of the public with government in the performance of its legislative duties. I want to mention a matter which I feel was grossly unfair to the person involved. I raise it because of the insistence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that his legislative items should be discussed with the people in order to have their views. He is of the opinion the government can act best when they know what the people want.
While legislation respecting welfare and pensions may be beneficial to some people, it is not to others. Those who feel that legislation and invasions into the private sector have harmed them should have the opportunity to raise the matter. Last week I asked a number of questions of the minister and of the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) concerning an individual who went to the minister's office to raise some complaints about his livelihood in connection with his duties as life insurance underwriter. As the minister and the Solicitor General pointed out, this man had complained that some of the legislation that was being introduced, such as the Canada Pension Plan a couple of years ago and now federal medicare, were cutting into his livelihood as an underwriter, and he wanted to know from the minister what was going to be done to compensate him.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I do not want to go into the details if I can avoid it but I have statements from people involved. Very briefly, the fact is that this man went to the minister's office to raise a question about welfare legislation such as we are discussing today. He outlined his objections and shortly thereafter, in fact the same day, the R.C.M.P. were sent to interview him at his home. I do not want to reveal the man's name-not because the police will find out; they already know-but I do want to take this opportunity of protesting the haste with which the R.C.M.P. were sent to interview a person who had a dissent from the government. There have been other instances-


John Carr Munro: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I object to this type of blatant distortion regarding the way the government expresses its reaction to dissent. It is totally

erroneous and totally contrary to the explanations given both to this house and to the public. We have had lots of dissent expressed with respect to our programs in the department. We expect it and many times we appreciate it. This man did dissent and did so many times1. No one took exception. I would point out that the report was made as a result of a threat. Maybe the people in my office over-reacted to the threat which was made against me. The hon. member knows about this, and he should stop this type of thing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I was listening very closely to the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka because I know of his interest and concern in this matter. I have some misgivings about this line of debate on this motion and I would invite him, with his knowledge of the rules, to try to confine his remarks to the particular motion before the house at the present time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had laid the groundwork for it. If I did not, then I failed. My contention is that this is strictly on the point we are now discussing, the question of welfare legislation. The public ought to have the right to dissent when legislation is being discussed, and I think that members of the public should not have to suffer the R.C.M.P. being sent to interview them when they have dissented. As I say, I have signed statements in my file. They may be different from what the minister has. The fact of the matter is that neither the minister nor I were in the office when this incident happened. I have one view of what the discussion was-


John Carr Munro: Why don't you table the documents then?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: -and the minister has another. I am merely saying that there was no justification for sending the police after this person. He did not make any threats against the minister at all, none at all-


John Carr Munro: How do you know?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: -and furthermore-


John Carr Munro: Were you there?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: -and furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) had a one hour interview with this man last fall on the same subject. There was the same discussion in November. This man happens to be a constituent of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice did not send the police after him.
March 17, 1969	COMMONS


John Carr Munro: Maybe he did not threaten the Minister of Justice.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: He did not threaten the Minister of National Health and Welfare either.


John Carr Munro: How do you know?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, as I said before, I have grave doubts about this line of debate on this motion and I would invite the hon. member to revert to the subject matter before the house.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: All right, Mr. Speaker. I had merely hoped that the minister would make the gesture, and perhaps he will complete it, of stating that perhaps his office was a little hasty in this instance. That is all I want. Here you have a man who has suffered the indignity of a visit from the police, and his wife is very much concerned. I raised it only for this one point. The minister did say that perhaps his office over-reacted, and if he can accept that there was over-reaction then I will discontinue-


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order this time. Previously I raised a question of privilege, which apparently had no effect because the hon. member kept on with the same thing. But as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what possible relevance has that man visiting my office got to the motion before us today? Does the hon. member have anything constructive to contribute toward how we can better present our programs in the old age pension field or not?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think my position on this matter has been stated twice, and has been very clear. I invited the cooperation of the hon. member on this matter. I have expressed my grave misgivings about this line of debate on this motion. I know the hon. member is probably much more experienced in the rules than I am, and he knows the reasons that I have expressed this point of view. In any event, it is five o'clock and it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, there is no private members' hour today.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is the late show.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.
DEBATES	6709
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

["Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous estimates both in French and English.\n[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]\nMarch 17, 1969\n6718\tCOMMONS\nSuggested Pension Payment Corrections [English\\"]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)- Labour Conditions-alternative to compensate for cancelled winter works program; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) Post Office Department-Referral of outstanding issues to mediation procedures; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)- Post Office Department-effect of casual employees on position of inside workers.



[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58 (4) (a)-SUGGESTIONS TO CORRECT ANOMALIES IN PAYMENT OF PENSIONS
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Oliawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in this house we have had a number of motions quite similar to the one which is before us. As recently as Friday last a major debate took place on the Public Service Superannuation Act and a number of hon. members, myself included, expressed our views on what should be done to assist in the difficulties in which superannuated civil servants find themselves. The matter raised by the mover of this motion has frequently been debated on the late show and on other resolutions of his, and I must give him full credit for being absolutely persistent.
The business of the government of this country is not only to be concerned with aspects of social welfare and generally the distribution of the benefits of our affluent society, but also to be concerned with the broader problems of its responsibilities in other fields and priorities. This afternoon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) outlined what has been done. Hon. members on the other side, particularly in the party of the mover of the motion, referred to the 1919 resolution of the Liberal party. They usually do so with a little derision in their minds.
March 17, 1969
6710	COMMONS DEBATES
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections


Stanley Howard Knowles: No,
no.
[DOT] (5:00 n.m.)


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There is no question, however, that a long term program of social welfare benefits was unfolded with the vision of Mackenzie King, the prime mover of the motion. Over a period of years social welfare in Canada developed following this outline of priorities, although sometimes without as much haste as some of us would have liked to see. This has been a platform, however, which I think has been unique in terms of the length and breadth of its concept and implementation by the party which put it forward in its original form. Certainly at this stage when we are getting 10.4 per cent of the gross national product, the official estimate the minister placed on the record in 1967, in terms of welfare and security benefits we stand high among the states of the world in these priorities.
I am sure hon. members were quite impressed when the minister pointed out that in 1962-63 we were spending $3.9 billion in this field and within five years there had been a 57 per cent increase in total expenditures. In the five year period since the Liberal government came to office in 1963 we have seen the Canada Pension Plan, the guaranteed income supplement, the progressive reduction of age in respect of old age security from 70 to 66 this year and next year to 65, and we have seen the principle of escalation. We have seen a major program every year. There is no question but that we can confidently predict more to come.
Having said that, we come back to certain fundamental things which must be weighed. I listened to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) who said the pension is not adequate and that a person cannot live on $109 a month even if this were the full supplement. We admit this is so. No one has ever defended the old age security program in terms of adequacy. What we are endeavouring to do, however, is to build certain features into the program which still leave room for other things that must be supplied. There is no question that what is adequate in some parts of Canada and for certain standards of living which have been developed is inadequate in other parts of the country. There is no question that there are regional disparities and that the approach on the basis of uniformity still leaves major problems in terms of selectivity. This was stated earlier in the debate.

It is necessary that the priorities be considered in relation to other things. The standard of living of those who are retired in Canada will not depend purely and simply on how many dollars are channelled into their pockets via a pension program and cash benefit. It will also depend on things such as the housing program. The government has a major responsibility to look at housing in terms of its priorities. We have had the report of the task force and this is just the beginning of a national attack on the problem. We must also review our priorities in respect of medicare which is now coming into effect and which certainly will be a charge on the budget of this country as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) are well aware.
In addition to these things we have our escalated commitments in aid to higher education. While we build priorities at one end of the scale we must always keep in mind that if we make a social investment in the labour force there will be more people contributing at the working levels. We must think also of the tremendous need for capital in respect of resource development and elimination of regional disparity in the depressed areas. Last but not least is the big question of a responsible fiscal policy.
I have had many differences before on this question with the hon. member who introduced this motion. I listened to him early in the session when he brought forward a motion during private members' hour to increase the pension payments to $125 a month and to have this paid immediately to everyone without regard to an income or needs test at the age of 65. I said then in arguing against his motion that this would be an inflationary move and that I could not accept his argument which he has put forward on many occasions to the effect that investment in this area somehow is generated in income and is not inflationary because there is an investment in the people of Canada.
Many times when I listened to the hon. member along this line I found it difficult to distinguish him from the people a little farther down on the other side of the house who seem to think that all that need happen is for the Bank of Canada to print a few more dollars. We cannot produce money effortlessly in the amounts required to meet the demands which are made upon the government. There is no magic formula by which the addition of another $400 million or $500 million to our
March 17, 1969

welfare or pension bill would not have to be followed by a hard bite of taxes.
The government has a responsibility and the mover of the motion would, I think, wish us to pursue those fiscal and monetary policies which will halt the inflation. If we do not do that, there is no safe way by which we can build a policy of escalation into our pension program, do this or that, or spend more money in this or that direction. Responsible fiscal policy at this stage of the business cycle and resource development in Canada must have a high priority. This is the kind of thing the government must do.
This is not the kind of thing which easily wins elections but I hope we have got over this business of trying to outpromise each other at election time in respect of what we will do for our older people. A more cynical approach could hardly be built into a democratic society. We are saying now to our older people what we have said before, that is, that the record to a considerable extent speaks for itself. The record is that which the minister placed before us this afternoon. Every year not only in terms of concept, not only in terms of programs and not only in terms of proposals that go before this house, it is hard cash that is spent on pensions. The improvement has been there. The proportion of our national resources devoted to this sector has been consistently increasing over the period. The government has the over-all responsibility of balancing not only the claims of those who are retired, however just, however meritorious and however sympathetic we are to their claims-no one can say we are not- but also the priorities for the development of Canada and the policies that the treasury must pursue, however difficult they may be to apply, to restrain the inflation which has been so erosive and so destructive to those on fixed incomes.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly. I think it would be unfair to utilize all the time available to me since this debate is of one day's duration I find myself applauding the initiative of the veteran, honourable, learned and compassionate member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Other adjectives I shall leave to those who know him better. Since I have been here I have often found myself in general agreement with some of the policies of the New Democratic Party. However, many of their suggestions strike me as being utter or nearly utter nonsense. Quite often they come up with some very good
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections ideas, although in the last few years they have struck me as becoming so conservative that a progressive like myself feels a little ill at ease in their intellectual company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member realize that maybe because he is sitting so close to us he has absorbed more than he realizes?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It is quite possible, Mr. Speaker, that the force of osmosis is stronger than the declining force of their philosophy. I just want to say that this is one of those subjects which should certainly transcend politics.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I am glad the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) stayed only a short time with Mackenzie King. Many things could be said about Mackenzie King and his successors with regard to which we could find a lot of room for argument but which would do very little good for people on fixed incomes and with inadequate resources. I would only say to the hon. member for Ottawa West that inflation is very much in the minds of those who are supporting this suggestion. As I understand it, what the hon. member has in mind is that the chief victims of inflation are the people to whom we are turning our attention. It is not the case that in a moment of fiscal irresponsibility we are forgetting inflation, it is because there are sectors in our society which cannot forget inflation, those who are walled-in victims of inflation, those on fixed and inadequate incomes, that we are asking that something be done and done on a basis of priority.
The hon. member for Ottawa West referred to some of the plans; he mentioned the Canada Assistance Plan and other measures which have been introduced. He might also have mentioned the last report of the Economic Council of Canada which indicated the prevalence of poverty in this country. One would think sometimes from hearing public statements by public men that this is a country in which only affluence prevails. There are many people in this land with incomes below the poverty level. It is a terrible thing that people are walled and fenced in by incomes which were perhaps not even adequate in the days when they were set but have become painfully inadequate as the value of the dollar has deteriorated and the rate of inflation has progressed rapidly, almost beyond control. I think the eminently sensible suggestions which have been made in reference to
6712	COMMONS
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections the increase in pensions being tied absolutely to the cost of living rather than being fixed at a 2 per cent figure are so sound that they should not run into resistance intellectually, politically or of any other kind.
I should like to say also that I listened carefully to the thoughtful speech of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), a man who came to this house as I did, in 1957. I should like it known that in my opinion he is one of the most conscientious, most thoughtful and most highly qualified members of this house, and it ill behooves anyone on the treasury benches or elsewhere to question his motives or the purpose of his interventions on behalf of the people whom he represents. If Cardinal Newman's definition of a gentleman, that he is never mean nor little in his disputes, can be applied to any man in this house, I would say it can be applied to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I therefore listened with no great pleasure to the innuendo hurled across the floor by the minister, perhaps in a moment of self-defence. I trust that the minister, being a gentleman, will regret that he did so.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to speak on the notice of motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I shall not take too much of the time of the house but I have a few remarks to make which, I think, are very important if we want to keep in the eyes of the pensioners our reputation as a government which knows how to take its responsibilities.
I should like to refer in the first place to the people who receive the old age pensions, especially those who have helped build our country. If today we experience some success, it is due to a great degree to the role played by the Canadians who came before us and who made Canada a country where it is good to live.
We should recognize that these citizens have a strict right to the old age pension because they have had no reason to be satisfied with the way they have been treated in the last five or seven years when the cost of living skyrocketted. Everyone will agree that we cannot buy today with $1 what we could buy ten years ago with about 75 cents.
Pensioners too have to buy clothes, to provide for their accommodations and to buy medicine; in short, they too have a right to live.
DEBATES	March 17, 1969
I feel that we have somehow overlooked these people who cannot complain because they have no choice; indeed we never hear from them except for the odd letter they send now and then to their member.
If we want to be considered as a civilized people, we must recognize that we owe them a lot.
It is unfortunate that the government should have been unable in the last seven or eight years to control the cost of living index. If that situation cannot be controlled, why then can ,the government not pass a law, once and for all, to bring the income of our pensioners in line with the cost of living, so that the cheque they get every month will correspond automatically in value to what can be bought, that is to the cost of living index.
I noticed that the minister replied in a few words for which I congratulate him because he understands the problem. I know he will discuss it with his colleagues. This act should provide for an income that corresponds with the cost of living index, so that all Canadian citizens can live decently in this beautiful country we all love.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for South Western Nova.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You really caught me by surprise. I thought the hon. member would speak longer than he did. I wish to speak on this motion for the simple reason that it is of great interest to many of my constituents and many people across Canada. This debate centres around the subject we discussed last Friday.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and others have referred to many statistics to indicate the increased amounts paid to old age and other pensioners during the past five years. It is easy to refer to these figures. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that assistance has been increased in the past five years. It should also be remembered that even during the Tory years from 1957 to 1962 social assistance was increased. So hon. members can see that everybody is concerned about this question. I include the New Democratic Party since they have talked about it on many occasions. But the fact that we are concerned is no excuse for not increasing benefits further.

March 17, 1969

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As I have said, it is easy to bring forward figures to show that an increase has taken place. This is true. It is also true that most pensions have in them an adjustment clause providing for a 2 per cent increase each year to cover the rise in the cost of living. But as has already been stated, the cost of living has risen over 4 per cent each year for the past two years, and there is no indication that this trend will not continue.
So what are we going to do about this problem? If we sit down for a minute, relax and think about it and what is happening to some people in this country, we must come to the conclusion that we should be doing something about it. For a number of years now it has been the same story; the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. I include the many pensioners in that statement. This fact applies not only to pensioners but to many honest, sincere and hard-working citizens. It includes many people in the low income groups who because of the rising cost of living are getting poorer every year. The cost of living rises faster than incomes.
I am not an economist and am not experienced in this field, but you do not need too much intelligence and experience to know that when your cheque is increased by $1 and it costs you $4 more to live there is a gap and you are being gypped somewhere. This is what is happening to our pensioners; this is what is happening to many of our good, sincere and hard-working citizens. We can stop it. Let us stop fooling ourselves in this regard. Let us stop this inflation. We can do it if we really want to, if enough people are concerned about it and want to do something to correct the situation.
We can all stand up and say that we want to do something about it, but it is not enough simply to stand up and tell those who elected us that we want to do something about it, if we do not do so. We can convince the government; there are enough members here to do that. So let us stop the rising cost of living, since it appears that we are unable to do anything about increasing the incomes of our low wage earners and pensioners. Let us stop this business of fooling people with their income cheques. Let us stop fooling the pensioners, the poor and low income groups.
Everybody talks about disparity. This word has been used many times in the past couple of years. Disparity was the main topic of the
DEBATES	6713
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections last election campaign. But I ask: Do we really mean it? Are we really sincere? Many people do not know what is going on. Why do those who govern this country not take a sabbatical leave and visit some parts of the country to see for themselves the difference in the standard of living. That there is disparity is a fact. We must do something about it. It is not good enough simply to talk about it.
I am not talking only of the Atlantic area because there are some sections of northern Ontario, the northern parts of the prairie provinces and other parts of the country where disparity exists. So let us do something about it. Let us also do something to improve the situation of our pensioners because there is disparity in this field.
The fact is that disparity exists simply because the cost of living is relatively the same across the country. There is not too much difference across the country in the price of a can of beans or the price of meat or vegetables. But incomes are much lower in some parts of the country than others. We must do something at all levels of government to improve the situation. We must do something about our pensioners who, although they may receive increases in their pensions, find that the cost of living is rising much faster than their incomes.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baitleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments in this debate regarding the pension program. I would like the house to consider that our pensioners are for the most part those older people who were the pioneers of this country. These are the people who in many cases have lived through two world wars, and some of them fought in both. These are the people who went through one of the greatest depressions this country has known. These are the people who have raised children, many of whom are now contributing a great deal to the economy and wellbeing of our country. Now, in the twilight years of their lives, in a period when they are no longer able to make any money, no longer able to keep up with the rising cost of living, no longer able to move into the affluent age, we as a society are either rejecting them or not giving them adequate consideration.
This country was built initially by the efforts of these people. It might be true to say that the contribution they made in the form of money was not as adequate as the contributions made in the machine age in which we live. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that these people supplied much of the capital base
March 17, 1969
6714	COMMONS DEBATES
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections upon which you and I were able to build a better society and in which we are now able to obtain larger returns for ourselves.
In this connection I could refer to my own family but I do not think it would be correct to do so. However, I would like to refer to the agricultural industry of western Canada at the time when many of our pioneers moved into that part of the country. It was at that time raw land. Many of these people had no money when they went to the west. They broke the land by the sweat of their brow and the labour of their muscles and established small farms or businesses. But when they died or grew old they had not accumulated the large estates that people have in this day and age. They did not save too much money because of the small incomes earned in those days. But I know from my own experience and that of those around me that these people built something on which others could build further.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
What reward are we giving them for their efforts? They endured hardships the like of which you and I never experienced. They suffered much and did without much so that they could put capital into the country. What reward do they get? A pension which is inadequate, which is grudgingly given. Today, in the twilight of their lives they are trying to get by under awkward conditions in many cases.
I should like to tell hon. members about something I saw one day this year in the City of Saskatoon. I remember an old lady living by herself in a small one-room apartment. She was not well. Her clothes were hung on the back of the door. All she had to live on was her pension. I ask hon. members: would you want to live like this? Would you want your own parents to live under such conditions? My own wish, and I am sure it is shared by others here, is that these people should receive pensions sufficient to enable them to live in dignity and decency for the rest of their lives. I suggest we have enough wealth in Canada today to enable us to look after these people properly.
I could become quite indignant about the situation in which some people find themselves in the absence of adequate incomes. I am thinking of people who for one reason or another are unable to make it, often people with no family to care about them, in a country which does not care enough. I believe we should do something in a constructive fashion to see that at least in a financial sense these

people are adequately rewarded. We should recognize the effort they have put into the country in times past by doing our best to ensure that the pensions they receive are adequate to meet the cost of living.


Mr. Barney Danson (York-North):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to speak in this debate but I was moved by the remarks of the two previous speakers, and perhaps with good reason. The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) mentioned that those who run this country, the people from Upper Canada, should see the rest of the country. I was tempted to rise there and then on a question of privilege, but I did not.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you?


Barnett Jerome Danson: First, because so far I am not running the country. But I do think it is unfortunate to suggest that people who come from what was once called Upper Canada are not concerned. Indeed, I think it is unfortunate that people who come from central Canada should be referred to, today, as Upper Canadians, unless they went to a particular school.
I have lived in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and British Columbia as well as Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Why did you leave British Columbia?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I have asked myself that question. It is a most beautiful part of the country. I almost went back there after the war, but things did' not pan out. I always enjoy visiting there. We should make it our business to travel. It is true disparities exist. They are not pleasant for anyone to face. But I must say I also have a letter here from the Chairman of the Corporation of Metropolitan Toronto who said we were not doing enough for our own area. Of course, he was not suggesting for a moment that we should not do things for other areas. We all benefit by this. If the people of Nova Scotia or of New Brunswick are not prosperous, then neither are we in Upper Canada. Not only are they our market but they are our people and our brothers. We, as Canadians, have a great interest in seeing that prosperity spreads across the country. I agree the answers are not easy. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) mentioned the contribution the older people have made to the development of this country. This concerns me, because as I go through an election campaign or, indeed, through my own riding, I hear
March 17, 1969

people say: Our taxes are too high; what are you doing for us now? In my view, the maturity of a society can be judged to a large extent by the way in which it looks after its older people. In my sense of priorities in this job I put the older people, combined with those others who cannot look after themselves, at the top of the totem pole because of the contribution some of them have made to the development of this country.
I take this attitude having in mind all they have done for this country, as the hon. member who has just spoken so eloquently reminded us, and because we are not bound to do these things. There is nothing in it for us. I think we reflect honour upon ourselves and upon our country if we forget considerations of our own advantage and take measures to look after those who have contributed to the building up of this' country but who can do so little for themselves. Only we can help them.
My second priority is youth. This, I suppose, amounts to selfishness because we always try to manifest our best aspirations through our children. We try to give them the best possible education and the best standard of living we can. As for those of us who have reached, so to speak, a menopausal state-


Some hon. Members:: Speak for yourself.


Barnett Jerome Danson: -we have our problems in the shape of high taxes, the high cost of living, inflation. These are with us and they will not go away. However, from generation to generation difficulties of one kind or another have always existed. We solve some of them, but not all of them, and as some are disposed of, new ones arise.
The young generation criticizes us for making mistakes, and indeed we have made a great many. The new generation will make mistakes, too. But we can only roll with the times as we see them and do our best. If we are doing less than our best, we ought to be criticized. As far as improving the lot of senior citizens is concerned, people are always willing to do this as long as they are not called upon personally to meet increased taxation. The approach commonly taken is to say: Let us see greater efficiency in Ottawa; let us try to same money and cut down expenditures. I could not agree more. However, in my brief experience of examining estimates for visiting departments, I have found the degree of efficiency or inefficiency is comparable with that to be found in most large corporations. Some departments are more 29180-425
DEBATES	6715
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections efficient than others. This is the case in large corporations, too. There is always room for improvement, but I suggest the main savings to be made, if they are to be made, lie in the field of government programs-things we are doing and which we ought not to be doing, or things we are failing to do but which we should be doing.
I wish it were possible to save enough money to meet all our urgent needs without recourse to further taxation. Then, as I go home at weekends and as I pass the liquor stores with their line-ups, I am absolutely amazed. It is as though it were Christmas. This is in an area where people are making good incomes and complaining about high taxes. Our problems are the problems of prosperity. We have too much going for us in this country to be "snowed" by talk of great inefficiences, that we cannot afford to do this or we cannot afford to do that. We should be ashamed if we cannot do those human things in a civilized society that should be done; and we must help those who cannot help themselves.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is what we are talking about today. We must look seriously at the problems we face and the problems other people have. I have mentioned before decisions that are made, such as whether to get a colour television set or an extra one for the bedroom; whether to get an extra car or a Ski-doo, or whether to have a Ski-doo for him and a Ski-doo for her. Although these decisions do not confront everybody, they do confront those who pay taxes. It is very easy for me to speak in this way because I do not have a pat solution. But we must face this situation honestly, and not take it out of the hides of older people who cannot defend themselves.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy indeed to associate myself with the motion and to state unequivocally that I am wholeheartedly behind it. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is to be congratulated for introducing this motion before the house.
I did intend to speak in this debate though I thought I would make my appearance after the supper adjournment. However, I must say I am considerably surprised to note that so far in this debate, in addition to the minister himself, only two members on the government side of the house have seen fit to stand up and support this worth-while
March 17, 1969
6716	COMMONS
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections motion. The hon. member for York North. (Mr. Danson), who has just resumed his seat, is also apparently, at least to a degree, in favour of the principle behind the motion. We on this side of the house hope he will go to his caucus and try to convince the members who sit on the government side of the house that they should do something about this very serious and pressing problem.
I refer, of course, to the problem facing many of our senior citizens today, many of whom are trying to exist on an old age security pension that is very much less than sufficient to allow them to maintain a reasonable standard of living. I agree with the members who have advocated that our old age pensions should not be tied to the cost of living, though this is not necessarily the criterion by which the pension should be judged. I take very serious exception to the fact that our old age pensioners who are in receipt, perhaps, of $108, $106 or $105 a month, with wives who receive the same, are classed for income tax purposes as single people.
For example, supposing these pensioners have no income other than their pension. In many cases they fall into a category that puts their income over $1,500, and consequently they have to file an income tax return as a single person. This is a real hardship because in many cases such people have very little income in excess of their pension. There may be a little interest coming in that brings their taxable earnings above the $1,500 ceiling, and this makes them liable for payment of tax.
I suggest that some relief should be given to such a couple. A regulation could be passed under which the old age pension received would not be counted as taxable income unless the over-all income exceeded a certain amount. I can assure the house, though I do not think the house needs any assurance, that in many cases this works a very definite hardship on our old age security recipients.
I am happy to say that the government in my province realized the $75 basic pension was not enough. As a result the Conservative government of Prince Edward Island, and let it be said to their credit, the Liberal government that followed them, passed an order in council which guaranteed old age pensioners above the age of 68 a basic old age pension of $100 a month. For example, if a pensioner's regular old age security pension plus the supplement amounted, say, to only $78, the province pays the additional $22. No person, therefore over the age of 68 resident in my


province will receive a pension of less than $100 a month.
Even that is not sufficient. We all know how the cost of living has increased during the last few years. We know how much it has increased since the basic amount of $75 a month was fixed by the government. Surely, the government should take some notice of this and grant relief to people who, in many cases, are struggling very hard but are not able to make ends meet on the $107 or $108 a month they are now receiving.
I also suggest that, while we are on this subject of taxation, some consideration should be given by the government immediately to revising the archaic and outmoded exemptions allowed taxpayers. The amount of $1,000 exemption for a single man today is absolutely ridiculous, as is the exemption of $2,000 for a married couple. These were the exemptions in 1919. We all know how much the dollar is worth today compared with what it was worth in 1919. We all know how much more it costs to raise and educate a family today compared to 1919. As I say, these exemptions are outdated and outmoded. In all fairness to the people of Canada, the government should give some consideration to increasing them.
I realize it will probably mean a loss of revenue if these exemptions are raised, but I suggest to the government that this loss of revenue could very well be overcome by eliminating waste and extravagance in many departments of government. This is where a great deal of our taxpayers' money today is swallowed up. Government departments are not properly supervising the spending of money. On all sides you can see waste of government money.
I am happy to go along with the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that some consideration must be given to those in receipt of war veterans allowance. They are very definitely worthy of consideration. I think it is high time that something was done to correct the situation. Our pensioners are trying to get along with inadequate incomes. It is absolutely unfair to our war veterans, who have served their country well, that we confine them to receiving small pensions. Often our veterans have to fight with the authorities to receive even the pitiful war veterans allowances that are granted. I submit that something should be done at once to correct this situation. For many years our veterans have not been getting a square deal from the government, and any government correcting the present inequitable situation
March 17, 19S9	COMMONS
will do well. The people ol Canada will approve its action. I, therefore, hope that the motion before the house will receive favourable consideration by the government.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Let us not make this day's debate another exercise in futility. Much in this motion is very worth while. I trust that the government will not consider that what has been said has been said as a matter of course, just because the New Democratic Party has been assigned an opposition day. I hope the government will listen to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had to say and to what others following him said. I know he is sincere in presenting his motion before the house. He has presented it in the hope that other hon. members will join him in convincing the government that something should be done to correct the injustices from which our pensioners and old people in this country suffer. I, therefore, implore government backbenchers to try to persuade those sitting on the treasury benches, who control our purse strings, to do something to correct the injustice being perpetrated against our senior citizens, war veterans, retired civil servants and other pensioners. It is very difficult for these people to live at the standard to which they are entitled. All Canadians are entitled to live at a high standard. Surely, a country as rich as Canada, with an abundance of natural resources can give its pensioners and old people a better break than they are now receiving. I earnestly recommend this motion to the government and hope that steps will be taken without further delay to correct the inequitable situation facing our pensioners and old people.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time being six o'clock, this sitting stands adjourned, until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, would the house allow me to revert to motions, in order to present the fifth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous
estimates?
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Does the house agree to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous estimates both in French and English.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
March 17, 1969
6718	COMMONS
Suggested Pension Payment Corrections [English\