1970-12-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a round of important discussions in Europe. These included talks with government leaders in Britain, Belgium and The Netherlands, with senior officers of the European Economic Community and participation in the December NATO ministerial meeting. I took advantage of the NATO meeting to have a further talk with Mr. Schumann, the French Foreign Minister.
On this occasion I should like to report to the House particularly on western Europe, where events are moving so rapidly.
The six nations that today make up the Common Market are expected soon to be joined by another four. Varying forms of association will bind other European countries to the Community. Preferential arrangements have been and will be made for a number of Mediterranean countries and some developing countries in Africa.
The mood in Europe is one of buoyancy and confidence. The horizons of the Common Market are broadening at a time when the will to bring about a deepening of the relationships within it is increasing.
The government has been following these developments with the closest attention for some time. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has recently tabled in the House a paper outlining their implications for Canada in the light of his own findings in European capitals. I made it the main purpose of my bilateral talks with the governments I visited and with the Community to emphasize certain concerns that Canada has in the face of these developments. My first concern was with the disruption and shifts in Canada's trading patterns which would necessarily arise from Britain joining the Common Market. The second was to make the Community and individual members aware that Canada intends to take increasing advantage of the enlarged
EEC as a major market not only for our raw and semi-processed materials but for the finished products of our secondary industries. My third purpose was to impress upon those I visited the political as well as economic dangers inherent in any tendency toward trade polarization between the United States and the European Community.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
It will be recalled that the formation of the European Economic Community was accomplished by the negotiation of the Kennedy Round. At that time Europe and the world moved together in harmony in what was a most impressive advance toward freer trade. Today there is little evidence of this kind of harmonious relationship, indeed quite the contrary.
My discussions in Europe came as a logical consequence to the meetings we had in Ottawa two weeks ago with the senior members of the American administration, led by Secretary Rogers. The same points were made to the United States representatives here in Ottawa, to the British government in London and to those I met on the continent.
The timing of my visit to Europe was determined by the NATO December ministerial meeting. In the course of my statement there, I said that the developments in the last year suggest that we may have reached a turning point in east-west relationships in Europe. The sterile confrontation that has characterized these relationships since the end of the second world war is beginning to give way to a real effort to solve many of the intractable problems presented by the division of Europe. Interlocking negotiations with the Soviet Union are taking place on a broad front.
There can be no doubt that the conclusion of the treaties between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union and Poland constitute progress. These are historic developments that could make a major contribution to a healthier situation in central Europe. The resumption of intra-German talks is another encouraging move even though these talks are beset with difficulties. The question remains, however, whether the Moscow and Warsaw treaties-as yet unratified-in themselves constitute sufficient progress to justify moving toward a general conference on European security in which Canada would be involved.
There was virtually unanimous agreement that the progress to date was insufficient, largely because no satisfactory arrangement for Berlin has yet been reached. Canada concurred in this view but in my intervention I suggested the Alliance should not be negative about the conference idea. I proposed that in our communique we note the useful negotiations currently under way, indicate our satisfaction that some progress had been

December 9, 1970
External Affairs
achieved and express the hope for further progress in the near future.
You will note that in the communique, which I shall table at the end of my statement, Mr. Speaker, the member governments confirmed their readiness, as soon as talks on Berlin had reached a satisfactory conclusion and in so far as other ongoing talks were proceeding satisfactorily, to enter into multilateral talks to explore when it would be possible to convene a conference or series of conferences on security and co-operation in Europe.
The question of mutual and balanced force reductions is one NATO has been pursuing actively in recent years and is of particular concern to Canada. In Brussels the NATO ministers renewed their earlier invitation to interested states to hold exploratory talks on the possibility of negotiations on force reductions and indicated a readiness within this framework to examine different aspects of the question, including the idea of foreign force reductions which was publicly advanced by the Warsaw Pact countries last summer.
In the course of the foreign ministers' meeting, I expressed Canada's satisfaction with the results of the recent NATO sponsored colloquium on oil spills, which recommended that the governments should work through IMCO to eliminate by 1975, if possible, all intentional discharges of oil in the sea as well as to minimize accidental spills. This could be a breakthrough in one area of maritime pollution, particularly since the undertaking involves countries representing a high proportion of the world's oil carriers. It is an excellent example of NATO's ability to contribute in a practical way to the solution of problems of current concern to its members.
On the defence side, the decisions taken helped to place the respective roles of North America and Europe with n the Alliance on a more equitable basis and to ensure that in the period of negotiation ahead the Alliance will be able to proceed with confidence.
Turning to my bilateral discussions with European leaders, I was struck by their determination to make progress toward integration. I have already spoken about enlargement. Discussions are taking place about an economic and monetary union and, perhaps more remotely, a common foreign policy. These internal preoccupations have overshadowed the problems enlargement presents to third countries and for multilateral trading arrangements.
I sensed, however, a growing recognition of the wider responsibilities that an enlarged Community must shoulder, resulting from its sheer size and wealth as the world's largest trading unit. I found as well an awareness of the dangerous deterioration in international trading relations which would arise from a confrontation between a protectionist United States and a Europe bent on consolidating its own economic progress.
In my discussions I expressed the positive Canadian view of the movement toward greater European unity, while stressing that EEC enlargement should not and need not be brought about at the expense of third countries like Canada. I impressed upon my European colleagues the need for a renewed dialogue between the Community and North America to avert the very real danger of trade confrontation apprehended by qualified observers on both sides of the Atlantic. In this connection, I am encouraged by the fact that Signor Malfatti, President of the European Economic Community, has accepted my invitation to come to Canada next spring.
At the NATO meet ng I called attention to the impact of such a confrontation on the solidarity of the Alliance and suggested that NATO governments should be thinking of how best they could contribute to the continuing dialogue needed to avert the dangers foreseen.
While in Europe, as hon. members may recall, I had the unexpected pleasure and privilege of welcoming Mr. James Cross back to England in good health and spirits. I am sure that all members of this House would gladly have shared this privilege with me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: On a procedural point, Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised when ministerial statements arrive in opposition offices so late in the day. I am troubled because I cannot believe ministers are so ill organized that these statements are not ready, or that they would want to make it difficult for the opposition. Therefore I think this is a matter which must be turned over to Information Canada.
I should like to welcome the minister back; we are always glad to have him back. As I read his statement I thought that perhaps it was obvious that the M nister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) had been there ahead of him, and if there is to be a marriage of these departments I fear the minister will not be the senior partner.
I note, too, that he had an extra talk with the French Foreign Minister. I remember the days when this would indeed be news.
I quite agree that events in Europe are moving rapidly, as the minister states. This is still a dynamic and important area of the world which must not be, as I fear at times it has been, downgraded by this government. I favour, as the minister does, the enlargement and the rapidly accelerated moves toward integration of that very important part of the world. I think the European leaders and people are moving forward with imagination and vigour, and I think that Canadians can do nothing but salute them for their forwardness.
I note, too, that the m'nister found in Europe buoyancy and confidence. I wish he could have reported the same about Canada. I wish we did not have such problems as unemployment and a sluggish economy to dampen our own desire for the buoyancy which every forward-looking country should have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I note that the minister says Canada is and has been for some time following the developments in Europe with the closest of attention. I submit
IMr. Sharp.!
December 9, 1970

we have not been following them with sufficient closeness of attention, and that this is part of our problem. European developments have overtaken our concern, interest and awareness and it is only belatedly that the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, have rushed in to make a late assessment of what is going on. We have been far too late in showing sufficient attention to this tremendously important development on the world scene. I believe many in Europe in the chanceries of power and those whom they govern have been wondering in recent months if Canada's seeming playing down of its military and political interest in Europe was being accompanied by a downgrading of its concern for economic developments in Europe. Of course the minister is right in pointing out, as he says he did, the dangers of trade polarization, and it is high time that we became concerned and awakened to the dangers of this situation.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I read with interest the minister's statement on developments in respect of intra-German affairs and relations and developments between the Federal German Republic and Poland and the Soviet Union. I agree with him that for too long there has been in Europe a sterile confrontation on these very important matters. The world and certainly the German people have too long rested with a situation which surely was but an ad hoc arrangement after the end of a war.
While I welcome the events, the talks between Warsaw and Bonn and between Moscow and Bonn, I think we still have to look with clarity and concern at the situation in Berlin which I believe remains today, as it has stood for many years, one of the focal points of all the tension confrontations in the world in so far as diplomatic, political and military concerns may be appraised. We dare not forget Berlin. It is still an area of vital concern, still an area of po'.ential danger, and the dangers are of explosive capacities. I notice that the minister, it seemed to me, gave a little lecture to some of the Europeans that they should not be too negative about the prospects of conciliation. I ask myself, does distance enhance our capacity for self-righteousness in these matters?
With the minister's reference to the colloquium on oil spills I find no fault. I go along with him completely and slide into agreement with him on that.
I notice there is no word in this document about Greece and nary a mention of Portugal. I wonder. Another problem which surely should concern NATO and Canada as a member of NATO is Cyprus, and there is not a word about that. For how many years do the United Nations and the world plan merely to retain the status quo in Cyprus? When are we to move toward mediation of that problem? Is it to be forever a military holding operation?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, because I respect the tradition that these statements be brief and because I did not have a copy of the minister's statement until a minute or two ago, I will close my remarks by echoing with sincerity and heartiness the minister's reference to Mr. James
External Affairs
Cross whose courage, whose dignity and, indeed, whose charm under tremendous stress and strain have earned for him the eternal respect and affection of all the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) seemed to be unhappy about having received a copy of the minister's statement somewhat late. I can tell him he is lucky that it was not sent to him by mail.
I welcome the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) back to the House; we always miss him when he is away. His statement to the House deals mainly with two matters, the first of which concerns the problems that arise out of the enlargement of the European Economic Community. I must say that his statement does not give us very much information. This government has been completely ignoring for the last eight or nine years the fact that Great Britain and the other members of EFTA were moving steadily toward some relationship with the European Common Market, either as full-fledged members or as associate members. It is only in recent months that the government has become aware of what this could do to Canadian trade, particularly to Canadian agriculture.
When we recognize that side by side with the enlargement of the European Economic Community we now have a very strong protectionist element gaining control in the United States, we see the distinct possibility that Canada could become completely isolated or absorbed into the United States economy. At the present time the U.S. Congress is concerned with the trade act which would put very heavy tariffs against the import of certain commodities and which contains a trigger clause that would allow the President to apply additional tariffs at any time. The United States Congress is now discussing the setting up of a corporation which would rebate to companies exporting goods all the taxes they have paid, thus subsidizing the export of goods. This, of course, would make it quite possible for the Americans to enjoy a very advantageous competitive position in shipping into the Canadian market.
I hope we are going to have a definitive statement from the government fairly soon as to what position the government is going to take. It is all very well for the minister to come here and tell us, as he did today, that Canada intends to take increasing advantage of the enlarged EEC as a major market not only for our raw and semi-processed materials but also for the finished products of our secondary industries. But how?


Mitchell William Sharp: By selling.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What
position will the government take with reference to the quotas and the tariffs that will be imposed not only by the present European Common Market but those which will be applied if and when Great Britain and the other

December 9, 1970
External Affairs
members of EFTA are accepted into membership in the EEC?
The second matter which the minister has dealt with has to do with the NATO ministers' meeting in Brussels. Certainly no one will disagree with him when he talks about the sterile confrontation that has characterized east-west relationships, but I think there will be considerable disappointment when the minister tells us that the ministers' conference in Brussels threw cold water on the holding in the near future of a European security conference. The minister said:
There was virtually unanimous agreement that the progress to date was insufficient, largely because no satisfactory arrangement for Berlin has yet been reached.
Certainly, there can be no doubt about the fact that the situation in Berlin is fundamental and that it is the key to some type of rapprochement in Europe. But surely this is part of a great many other tensions, and nothing could be lost by a European security conference at which Berlin and many other questions could be dealt with. Chancellor Willie Brandt of Germany is making valiant attempts to establish a detente with Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. It seems to me that this is the opportune time for a European conference in an attempt to bring the east-west confrontation to an end, or at least to ameliorate it to a very considerable extent.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The minister makes reference to the discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions as proposed by the Warsaw Pact countries. Again there is no explicit commitment to holding a conference on this matter. It seems to me that there has been a good deal of foot dragging, and the longer this is delayed the longer the tremendous burden of military commitments will fall upon the nations of the world. A world that is spending $200 billion a year on military commitments is a world that is not able to devote its resources to the needs of people.
May I say finally, Mr. Speaker, that the minister made no mention of any discussions with respect to Portugal. If the newspapers are correct the minister, along with the representatives from Norway and Denmark, took some exception to holding the next NATO ministers conference in Lisbon. If that is correct I want to commend him for it, but I would have hoped that the minister would raise the much more fundamental question of whether or not Portugal, which a task force of the United Nations has found to be guilty of using its military forces to commit acts of aggression against a free and independent country, ought to continue to be a member of an alliance which is supposedly dedicated to stopping aggression and preserving the democratic way of life.
I think the minister would have also helped a great deal if he had told the House what position Canada took with respect to continuing Greece's membership in NATO, a country which has now abolished almost all the democratic institutions upon which a free country depends. An hon. member says that we may not have many members left in the alliance. Mr. Speaker, the alliance was formed of free nations dedicated to the

preservation of freedom. You cannot preserve freedom by destroying it in your own backyard.


Mr. Rene Matle (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, we regret that the minister's statement was provided at the last minute and, moreover, exclusively in English.
The apologies we got today are part of a practice which has been going on for years of considering as secondary the contribution of the French-speaking population. It is too easy to always apologize. When will the necessary measures be taken to instate real linguistic equality in this government administration?
To come back to the minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, we consider that any effort by Canada to promote international trade obviously deserves our support. However, we must point out that our country never suggests any innovation or takes initiatives in international organizations. This is perhaps due to the fact that we do not really make the necessary efforts to be truly original in the fields of trade and economy and as the Creditistes have been saying for a long time if Canada took some steps to establish the special kind of economy which they advocate, it would be sufficient to impress international opinion. We could perhaps succeed in establishing real exchanges which would give rise to more prosperity not only in Canada, but also in other countries.
The difficulties experienced in that field-as far as the Common Market is concerned for instance-would be lessened, if we would carry out a policy meant to put the economy at the service of all citizens, as it should be. Thus we would in a much more realistic way promote brotherhood throughout the world.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that might assist the Table in the disposition of this bill. It has been agreed that the government organization bill to which we have given first reading be dealt with at the committee stage in the Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
December 9, 1970



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-208, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board Act authorizes separate accounts or pools for wheat, oats and barley. However, there are four distinct types of western Canadian wheat, namely, hard red spring wheat, hard red winter wheat, soft white spring wheat and Durum wheat.
These four types of wheat are as different from each other as are oats and barley. Therefore it is in the interests of equity that the producers of these various types of wheat be dealt with separately, which is the purpose this bill is intended to achieve.


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

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

Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Were tenders called for the work being carried out on the main doors to the Post Office in the Federal Building in Halifax and, if so, when and what were the amounts?
2.	When did the work start?
3.	What is the total cost of the work?
4.	When will the job be completed?
5 What is the nature of the work?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes
on February 26, 1970, for alterations to the main entrance of the Federal Building. The amounts of the tenders were: $16,750; $19,750; $21,760; $21,898; $22,485; $24,868.
2.	April 20, 1970.
3.	$17,500, which included some work additional to the original contract.
4.	Before the end of the present calender year.
5.	Answered by Part 1.


ADMINISTRATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BRANCH
Mr. Aiken: 1.	With regard to the joint administration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Canadian Government Annuities Branch, do envelopes containing annuities, correspond-
Questions
ence or annuities cheques bear the name of the Unemployment Insurance Commission on the outside and, if so, what is the reason for making it appear that those who have voluntarily provided for their retirement years by contributions are receiving or involved in the receipt of Unemployment Insurance?
2.	When the present stock of stationery is depleted, does the government intend to use envelopes and correspondence paper bearing only the name of the Canadian Government Annuities Branch?
3.	Are funds held to the credit of the Annuities Branch available for payment of Unemployment Insurance?
4.	Have any funds been loaned, credited or otherwise transferred from the Annuities Branch to the Unemployment Insurance Fund since the two funds have been jointly administered?
5.	Is there any fusion of the records of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Annuities Branch, with relation to identification numbers, recording of receipts and payments out or any similar joint administration?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1. Yes.
Annuity cheques are sent out in envelopes bearing the following inscription in both official languages: "Unemployment Insurance Commission Annuities Branch". This is in accordance with the custom of indicating the departmental agency on government envelopes, although in this case the particular service, namely, Annuities Branch, is also included so that it will be clear that the payment or correspondence relates to government annuities.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.


HILLSBOROUGH CONSTITUENCY-HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	In 1970, what improvements were made in the wharf facilities at the Covehead Harbour and what was the total cost of these improvements?
2.	What other harbour improvements in the constituency of Hillsborough have been made in the same period?
3.	What further improvements are planned for these harbours?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works)* 1
Paving, $6,424.68; dredging, $3,249.
2- Stanhope-Provision of small boat launchway, $2,87 5.
3.	No further improvements are planned at the present time.


&quot;ATLANTIC MANPOWER REVUE'' PUBLICATION
Mr. Crossman: 1.	What is the cost of publication of "Atlantic Manpower Revue'' published by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	How many copies are (a) published (b) distributed?
3.	How many copies are distributed (a) in each of the four Atlantic Provinces (b) elsewhere?
4.	How many full-time employees work at the editing and the distribution of this revue?

December 9, 1970
Questions
5.	How long has this publication been bilingual?
6.	When was it first published?
7.	Has the Department received complaints concerning the publication itself or its contents and, if so, how many?


Hon. Oiio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Approximately $12,000 per annum.
2.	(a) 2,100; (b) 1,803.
3.	(a) Newfoundland and Labrador: 118; Prince Edward Island: 58; Nova Scotia: 493; New Brunswick: 456; (b) 678.
4.	Three, each in addition to other duties.
5. The first bilingual issue was that of January-February 1970, however, separate French versions had been published previously.
6.	June 1968.
7.	No.


CANADIAN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many persons will be hired to undertake the survey of historic buildings recently announced by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	How many will be hired in each province?
3.	Is it the intention to hire persons through Canada Manpower Centers?
4.	Is it the intention to hire persons who are unemployed?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. A total of 43 university students were employed between June and August, 1970 on the Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings. At present 40 students are employed for the period between October
1970	and March 1971. It is expected that some 114 students will be hired for the summer of 1971. The hiring of students for this phase of the Inventory will continue to the early fall of 1972, by which time the requirement for their services will diminish sharply?
2.	(a) For the summer of 1970 figures were as follows: British Columbia, 6; Alberta, 4; Saskatchewan, 3; Manitoba, 2; Ontario, 7; Quebec, 8; New Brunswick, 5; Nova Scotia, 5; Prince Edward Island, 1; Newfoundland 2. Total: 43.
(b)	Those now employed for the October 1970-March
1971	originate as follows: British Columbia, 6; Alberta, 4; Saskatchewan, 2; Manitoba, 3; Ontario, 7; Quebec, 7; New Brunswick, 5; Nova Scotia, 4; Newfoundland, 2. Total: 40.
(c)	For the summer of 1971: British Columbia, 9; Alberta, 7; Saskatchewan, 5; Manitoba, 5; Ontario, 13; Quebec, 52; New Brunswick, 7; Nova Scotia, 10; Prince Edward Island, 3; Newfoundland, 3. Total: 114.
3.	Yes, using the liaison which the Manpower Centers have with university placement offices.
4.	Yes.


NATIONAL PARKS-WATER QUALITY CHECKS
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Does the National and Historic Parks Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development maintain water quality checks on the waters within the national parks?
2.	Do hotels in Banff National Park discharge raw sewage at any time of the year into Lake Louise and Moraine Lake and (a) if so, what action is being taken to eliminate the discharge of pollutants (b) if not, what was the source of pollutants found in these lakes during the summer of 1970?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2. No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Fifty-nine streams and rivers were checked, 15 contained slight contamination and one heavy, this latter was posted. Wild animals are suspect as a contamination source. Louise Creek, outlet of Lake Louise suffered an oil spill from Chateau Lake Louise this past summer. A double trap system has been installed as a control measure. An old septic system and the Chateau Lake Louise Laundry are suspect as sewage and phosphate sources affecting Louise Creek. There is an algae which forms near the shoreline of Lake Louise during late summer. This algae turns brown and somewhat foul in time. An inadequate leaching pit of Moraine Lake Lodge caused pollution of Moraine Lake until September 1969. Two new leaching pits were installed in series. There was no observed pollution in 1970. There is a water bleeder pipe 1" in diameter near Moraine Lake boat dock. This has not been used for six years and will be removed this winter. The Moraine Lake campground septic disposal system was inoperative for several weeks this summer. It is possible that campers may have emptied chamber pots into Moraine Creek during this time. Also, a septic tank pumpout service vehicle was apprehended this summer for depositing sewage into a creek a mile from Moraine Lake.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is the estimated launching date for the domestic satellite ANIK?
2.	What is the estimated total cost of (a) construction of satellite (b) launching (c) construction of ground stations (d) other items essential to the provision of service as provided for in the legislation establishing Telesat Canada?
3.	When is it intended to commence construction of ground receiving stations and, where are these to be located?
4 Will tenders be called and, if so, when and by whom?
5.	What steps has the Government of Canada taken to obtain international agreement to obtaining a "parking space" for its domestic satellite?
6.	What is the estimate of the Government of Canada as to time necessary to develop a system of direct broadcast satellites for the benefit of the people of Canada?
7.	What is the projected cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for its role in domestic satellite system?
Return tabled.
December 9, 1970

 (2:40 p.m.)



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 20 is acceptable to the government.



EVALUATION REPORT ON ACTIVITIES OF JOINT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE, MANITOBA ROLLING MILLS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by H. C. Pentland, Winnipeg, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Evaluation report on the activities of the Joint Consultative Committee, Manitoba Rolling Mills, Selkirk, Manitoba".
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to *call notices of motions Nos. 31, 36, 38, 40, 50, 55, 56, 62, 64, 71, 72, 103, 104, 113 and 139.



ANALYSIS OF MANPOWER UTILIZATION OF THE MANITOBA GARMENT INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Summerour and Associates Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis of the Manpower Utilization of the Manitoba Garment Industry".
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for the production of a confidential report prepared by a firm of private consultants under contract to the department and a number of other sponsoring organizations, on the understanding that it would be available only to the sponsors. Because of this understanding, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



STUDY BY REGINALD J. ROY REGARDING THE ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONAL REPORTS AND COURSES FOR THE OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING OF ADULTS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Reginald J. Roy, Montreal, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis of opera-
Motions for Papers
tional reports and courses for the Occupational Training of Adults Program".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reginald Roy was employed on a contract basis by the Department to conduct an analysis of contractual arrangements between the provinces and the department under the Occupational Training of Adults Program. The progress reports prepared were for the internal use of officials of the department and as such are considered confidential and cannot be tabled. In the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



STUDY BY F. J. TOMLINSON REGARDING ANALYSIS OF COST ESTIMATES ON PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by F. J. Tomlinson, Ottawa, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis of cost estimates on projects".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tomlinson was engaged as a consultant to provide specifications and programming services for computer work being carried out in the department. There was no written report produced which could be tabled as such. In the circumstances, the member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



STUDY BY DAVID WILLIAMSON FOR DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by David Williamson, Ottawa, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis to determine skill digit levels for all of the occupations listed in the Occupational Demand Guide".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member. '


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 9, 1970
Motions jor Papers
David Williamson was employed on a contract basis in the summer of 1969 to assist in assessing the skill ratings of occupations classified in the Occupational and Area Demand Report. His material formed part of the work of the department and as such is for their exclusive use. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



WHEAT CONTRACT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE USSR. JUNE 20, 1966

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Gleave:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the wheat contract between the Government of Canada and the Government of the USSR signed on June 20, 1966, on the sale of 336 million bushels of Canadian wheat to the USSR.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, it is not the
practice of the government or the Canadian Wheat Board to make public wheat sales contracts as such information might be prejudicial to the board's marketing operations. In view of this the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board would ask the hon. member if he would not reconsider and withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gleave:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the plan of the special task force to study the question of summer jobs for students as stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his address to the Canadian Vocational Association on May 23, 1969.
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, the documents called for in this motion are internal working papers used by departmental officials to formulate the student summer employment program for 1969. As such they are considered confidential.
In view of this, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Broadbent:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



STUDY OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE TRADE PROMOTION POLICIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce trade promotion policies showing a 12:1 cost-sales ratio as stated by Mr. P. Schutte, Chief of the Trade Fairs Abroad Division of the Department.
Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the particular promotion program referred to has been completed since the date of the member's last inquiry and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce feels he can now table a detailed statistical summary on the ratio requested without prejudicing commercial interests in the market. The summary will still not, of course, reveal names of individual company participants. If this is acceptable to the member, I shall be pleased to table the document.


John Edward Broadbent: That is a very unusual and acceptable statement, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 56 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Canadian Facts Company Limited, on a public opinion survey undertaken for the Department of Labour in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
Mr. Ray Perraulf (Parliamentary Secretary fo Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the public opinion survey, made for the Department of Labour by Canadian Facts Company, Limited, was prepared for internal, confidential use. Under the circumstances we would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, I think we should know what Canadian Facts Company, Limited really has to say about the public.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
FEASIBILITY STUDY ON MARGINAL DAIRY FARMING Motion No. 64-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility study on marginal dairy farming undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament excluding confidential references to individuals or individual firms.
December 9, 1970


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secrelary lo Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the study requested was research undertaken for use by officials in programs planning and was intended solely for internal use. I would, therefore, request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I call for the vote, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Some hon. Members:: Chicken!


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CONSULTANT REPORT ON GUIDANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF THE CANADIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 71-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by the Economist Intelligent Unit on guidance and assessment of the Canadian textile industry, undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st session of this Parliament.
Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had indicated to the hon. member in previous responses this study is of a confidential nature, the release of which would be detrimental to the future relationship between the department, the consultant and the industry concerned. In view of this, the minister would ask the hon. member if he would not reconsider and withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is detrimental to the public of Canada not to know this and I call for the vote.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CONSULTANT REPORT ON THE CANADIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 72-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Gherzi Textile Organization on the Canadian textile industry undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st session of this Parliament.
Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, this study is of a confidential nature, the release of which would be detrimental to the future relationship between the department, the consultant and the industry concerned. In view of this, the minister would ask the member to kindly reconsider and withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: The same explanation, Mr. Speaker. I call for the vote.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers
PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE REPORTS REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF INFORMATION CANADA Motion No. 103-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all memoranda, studies, reports, correspondence, etc., prepared by the officials in the Privy Council Office regarding the establishment of Information Canada and related matters thereto.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secrelary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are part of the internal functions of the Privy Council office. In view of the long established principle of the House that such documents are privileged, perhaps the hon. member would agree to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the commitment of this government to participatory democracy and the giving of full information, I trust we can have a vote on this important question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND WHITE

[Stage Direction]
PASS AND YUKON RAILWAY COMPANY REGARDING HIGHWAY FACILITIES Motion No. 104-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof, and the White Pass and Yukon Railway Company since January 1, 1969 regarding highway facilities and transportation of oil or oil products.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, a search of departmental files has revealed that there exists no correspondence under the purview of this motion. The motion is therefore not acceptable to the government and it is hoped that the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that but it seems passing strange that the Minister of Public Works at one time said there was.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
HEALTH AND WELFARE-PROGRAM ON FAMILY PLANNING AND BIRTH-CONTROL CLINICS Motion No. 113-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the federal government and the provincial governments regarding the Department of National Health and Welfare's program on family planning and birth-control clinics.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the provinces have not unanimously agreed to the publication of such correspondence, the Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot table the documents requested.

December 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw her motion.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: If the Parliamentary Secretary can assure me that the provinces have refused to give their consent I will be glad to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion withdrawn?


Donald MacInnis: Did I understand correctly that they have refused to give their consent?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



STUDY ON TEXTILES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 139-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on textiles as reported in the Annual Report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968, on pages 51-52.
Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had indicated to the hon. member in previous responses, this study contains information provided in confidence to the department on the understanding that it not be disclosed. Such disclosure would prejudice the department's ability to obtain similar information in the future. In view of this, the minister would ask the member if he would not reconsider and kindly withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the public would like the information and I would therefore ask for the vote.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what the policy of the government is with regard to the issuance of passports to the terrorists who kidnapped James Cross and who have left this country for Cuba?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the kidnappers did not leave Canada with passports.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not say that.


Mitchell William Sharp: They left with documents entitling them to-travel. They have no passports.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not suggest they had. I asked the minister what the policy of the government would be with regard to the issuance of passports to these people?


Mitchell William Sharp: I imagine they would be turned down, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs can give no answer except to draw on his imagination?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to intervene at this moment. I would think that the further supplementary is hypothetical.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Yesterday I directed a question to the Prime Minister concerning Canada's relationship with Cuba and Algeria with regard to the FLQ. Inasmuch as the question involves several departments, specifically the Department of External Affairs and that of the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister indicated that if the question were directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs he would have an answer. I wonder if the minister has an answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: If the hon. member will ask his question, Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of Canada's full diplomatic relations with the Republic of Cuba and the Republic of Algeria and the repeated allegations in the media that terrorists from Quebec are being trained in these countries and returning to Canada-in the latest instance they have returned to Cuba-and as many questions are being asked in this regard by the Canadian people, will the minister clearly state whether these allegations that terrorists are being trained in these countries are true? If not true-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this occasion to express the gratitude of the government of Canada to the government of Cuba for the way they have co-operated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I say this because there have been suggestions that the actions of the government of Cuba were somehow reprehensible. I want to make it clear that they acted on our request and on our request only. I have every reason to believe that this friendly country would not act in such a way as to be hostile to Canada.

December 9, 1970


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That does not answer the question at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously many members wish to ask supplementary questions. The hon. member for Oxford will be given the first opportunity.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Have members of terrorist organizations in Quebec and other parts of Canada been trained in Algeria or Cuba? Surely the minister can answer that question.


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that they have not told us. I really do not know.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: In view of the answer just given by the minister, I suggest that he communicate with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who had full information in this regard and told the Canadian people so several weeks ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: A few days ago I directed a question to the Minister of Justice. He is in the House today. I asked him to advise the House whether there were any extradition arrangements between Cuba and Canada for crimes of this nature similar to the arrangements between Canada and the United States.
Hen. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, a treaty was entered into by the United Kingdom and the government of Cuba on October 3, 1904, providing for extradition arrangements between Canada and Cuba. The government of Canada takes the position that this treaty between Canada and Cuba is still in force.


An hon. Member:: Then bring them back.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know what deal was made, but has any thought been given to negotiations with Cuba for extradition of these three people in particular or any
others?


Mr. Turner (Otiawa-Carleton):: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, there are no such arrangements. If the government of Canada guaranteed safe passage of the men concerned to Cuba, I take it the government would have no intention of applying for extradition under that treaty.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Justice says he takes it that the government has no intention. I ask him if the government has any intention of making such an application?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I d rected a question to the government. Because it is difficult to follow the ministers in their meanderings from portfolio to portfolio, I mentioned the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when I meant the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister not aware that there were broadcasts from Radio Havana-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I will be more specific in my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada made any arrangements to pay for the upkeep of the kidnappers who went to Cuba?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize one last supplementary on this subject.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he say whether there was an agreement between the Cuban and Canadian governments on the length of time the terrorists will have to spend in Cuba, and whether the Canadian government made quite sure that Cuban authorities would not be able to bring them back to Canada or to let them go to another place from which they would come back to this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: If these kidnappers return to Canada, Mr. Speaker, they will be prosecuted for kidnapping, a very serious crime. It is our hope that they will never return.


Mr. McCleave:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps we might return to him after the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has asked his question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a question of privilege, I think I have as much right to be recognized by the Chair as any other member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants will recognize that according to the rules the Chair has the discretion to decide when we should go on to another subject. We have had quite a few supple-mentaries. I suggest that an opportunity be given to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and a member of the Creditiste party to ask their questions. If it is the wish of a number of other members of the Official Opposition, we will return to this subject.

December 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



POSSIBLE ENTRY OF BRITAIN AND OTHER COUNTRIES


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 1
wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of his recent visit to Europe. Will the minister tell the House whether he has been able to secure any assurance from Britain and other members of EFTA with regard to Canada being able to gain entry into the markets of those countries, particularly for grain, lumber and various agricultural products?


Mitchell William Sharp: In general, Mr. Speaker, the tariffs around the European Economic Community are among the lowest in the world. They are certainly a lot lower than the tariffs around Canada and the United States. In general, we have access to the market in Europe for industrial products and we have taken great advantage of it. Last year our exports to the Common Market were up by 40 per cent, an extremely good record. There are, however, difficulties with regard to agriculture. This is one of the principal reasons why the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and myself have been presenting the case for consideration of the position of third countries. This is very well understood. How much success we shall achieve, I do not know, because we do not even know yet whether Britain will succeed in getting into the Community.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think what concerns those who are exporting primary products is not tariffs so much as quotas. Are Britain and the other nations which are seeking entry into the Common Market prepared to negotiate for a special status for Canada and the other Commonwealth countries, so that we may continue to enjoy a measure of preferred access to the British market?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it goes without saying that Britain could not get into the Common Market and still maintain preferential arrangements with other countries; that would be contrary to the underlying principle of the Common Market. However, the British government has been urging the need for a longer period of transition; they have been urging that the quotas and tariffs of the Common Market should be changed to facilitate their entry, and this might result in some beneficial effects for us. We, of course, have been joining in these efforts.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the minister tell the House whether it is his impression that the countries of the European Common Market and those countries which propose to join are still disposed to take part in the round of negotiations proposed as a means of establishing a new international wheat agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I raised this question when I was in Europe. We also raised it with the Americans when they were in Ottawa. We have been urging support for this course, and when I was in Europe I felt that the results were at least promising.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to explain very briefly just how the longer transitional period for which Britain is asking would help the export of Canadian agricultural products?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you would wish me to enter into a technical discussion. The situation, simply, is that at the present time Britain operates a tariff system of its own, with preferences for us. If a long period of transition were provided, the tariff structure would change gradually from that which now exists to the new tariffs within the Common Market. So our preferential position could be retained for a somewhat longer time in diminishing degree.



POSSIBLE BRITISH ENTRY INTO EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET-REVIEW OF CANADIAN ECONOMIC COMMITMENTS UNDER NATO

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the opinion expressed by the minister at the NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels, that there should be a constant dialogue between the United States and Europe to avoid a trade confrontation, does the minister or the government intend to press for a complete review of our NATO commitments and responsibilities, especially in connection with economic matters, in the hope of offsetting any economic losses which may occur to Canada if Britain joins the Common Market?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External
Affairs): Not specifically. My purpose in raising this question in the NATO context was related to Article II under which we are supposed to be co-operating in economic matters. When I was pursuing this point I was not speaking only for Canada; I was speaking for Europe, the United States and Canada. I believe it is very much in the interest of all members of the alliance that there should be co-operation. If we fail to co-operate we shall all suffer, not only Canada.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister without Portfolio who answers for Information Canada. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about the appointment by Information Canada of a chief of attitudinal surveys at a salary of almost $23,000 a year. As the right hon. gentleman was not able to cope with the question, I ask the minister whether he will make a statement on motions shortly indicating the government's intentions, whether it is intended to set up an arm of the Public Service to take public opinion polls, bearing in mind the dangers which might arise from slanting, distorting or influencing these polls?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding of the hon. member's question is that he asked whether the

December 9, 1970

minister would make a statement on motions. The question would be acceptable in those terms.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: In
those terms, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, because a statement has already been made by the Prime Minister explaining this matter. It has also been explained to the parliamentary committee in which the estimates of Information Canada were examined. Unfortunately, the members of the hon. gentleman's party have apparently not conveyed this information to him.


An hon. Member:: There is an information gap.



PENITENTIARIES


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. About a week ago, my hon. friend from Regina East asked the President of the Privy Council whether he was prepared to introduce a motion in the House authorizing the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to conduct an inquiry into the riot and other disturbances at the Prince Albert penitentiary. The minister replied that he would confer with the chairman of the committee about this matter and give his answer later. Is he now in a position to make a statement about the intentions of the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not able to reply directly today; I want to talk to the Solicitor General and consider this possible reference and any other reference which might be made to the standing committee dealing with such matters.



PRINCE ALBERT-RESULTS OF INQUIRY INTO ESCAPES

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice, or whoever is in charge of the Solicitor General's department, care to make a statement to the House on the situation at the Prince Albert penitentiary regarding the escapes and, as I understand it, a hanging-a suicide-there and other troubles in penitentiaries in British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to be asking for an extensive statement and I would think a general statement of this kind ought to be made on motions, unless the minister can answer very briefly.


John Napier Turner: I think
I can answer the question very briefly, Mr. Speaker, as it applies to the Prince Albert penitentiary. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley put this question to me, as Acting Solicitor General, on Friday last, as did the hon. member for Skeena.
The proceedings of the board of inquiry convened to inquire into the escape of 11 inmates from the Saskatchewan penitentiary during the early evening hours of November 25 have now been completed. Following these
Inquiries of the Ministry
proceedings, six staff members on duty at the time of the escape have been found negligent in the pursuit of their duties. The inquiry found also that their negligence contributed directly to the undetected escape of the 11 inmates. As a result of these findings, the six staff members have been suspended from duty and appropriate disciplinary measures are to be taken. All 11 of the escapees have been recaptured.
The proceedings of the board of inquiry into the fires at the penitentiary, which were referred to by the Solicitor General when he was in the House, are still in progress and consequently I am not yet in a position to make a statement or reply to questions as to the origin or cause of these fires.


Mr. John Burlon (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Solicitor General tell us whether any further action has been taken as the result of a suicide in the form of hanging which took place, I understand, at the penitentiary on Monday last?


John Napier Turner: I think I had better wait for the report before making any statement to the House.


Frank Howard: Would the minister be prepared to table the report of the board of inquiry into the escapes and consider tabling the report of the board of inquiry into the riot itself when he receives it?


John Napier Turner: I should like to look at
all aspects of that request, Mr. Speaker.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Since the facts which the Prices and Incomes Commission will be recording in the future as its main reason for continuing to exist are either being recorded at the present time by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics or can be added to its list at very little extra cost, is the hon. gentleman giving consideration to having this job done in the future by the Bureau of Statistics, thereby enabling the government to end the existence of this commission and save Canadian taxpayers several million dollars a year?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, knowing the hon. member's
interest in facts, I am sure he will be glad to learn that in fact the Bureau of Statistics does not carry on any such inquiries as are envisaged by the Prices and Incomes Commission. Therefore, the premise upon which his question is based is quite incorrect.


George Harris Hees: Is it not a fact that the job that will be done is a fact-recording one and that the Bureau of Statistics already does this work in connection with the prices of all products? If the government is unwilling to take the action I have proposed, is it not evident that economy is

December 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
ior industry but not for the government? Why does the minister not admit his colossal failure and fold up this organization?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question has evolved into a speech and I would not think that is in order.


George Harris Hees: It was a search for information, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that in fairness the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Joliette. I interrupted him on a supplementary a little while ago, on the understanding that I would return to him eventually. The hon. member for Joliette.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
During negotiations between Cuba and Canada for the safe-conduct of Mr. Cross' kidnappers, have the governments come to any conclusion with regard to the length of time the Cuban government would be committed to protect these kidnappers on Cuban soil? Further, can we consider that this exile or this punishment prohibits the kidnappers from ever coming back to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the
question may I say there is no time limit. The Cuban government agreed to receive the kidnappers under safe conduct from us. With regard to the question about whether they can return, if they do return they will be prosecuted for the crime of kidnapping, and perhaps for other crimes. I do not know how I can say that they will never return, but if they do they will be prosecuted.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice assure the House that if these alleged kidnappers or terrorists now in Cuba return to Canada in 10 or 15 years there will be evidence available upon which to base a successful prosecution?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that there is no statute of limitations applying to the offence of kidnapping. I cannot say whether evidence would still be available after a hypothetical period of time. However, I am discussing with the attorney General of Quebec the
(Mr. Hees.)
Inquiries of the Ministry
possibility of laying charges so that they will remain in effect if and when these gentlemen should ever return to Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Minister of Justice explain why the government is giving the assurance that if the terrorists do return to Canada they will be prosecuted when the minister is unable to give an assurance that evidence will be available?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MEASURES TO PREVENT MURDERERS OF PIERRE LAPORTE LEAVING CANADA-EXTENT OF WARRANTS FOR ARREST
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. Minister of Justice.
Since Canadian border guards have received specific instructions as well as photographs and detailed descriptions of the seven persons who obtained safe-conduct for Cuba, to cope with the possibility of Mr. James Richard Cross kidnappers returning, can the minister tell us whether he has also taken steps to prevent the murderers of Mr. Laporte from leaving Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is somewhat difficult to give a precise reply to the hon. member's question.
At any rate, replying to the question on the same situation previously put by the hon. member for Calgary North-

Warrants for the arrest of Paul Rose, Jacques Rose and Frangois Simard have been issued by the proper authorities in the province of Quebec. Charges have been laid against Paul Rose for kidnapping, against Jacques Rose for conspiracy to kidnap and against Frangois Simard for conspiracy to kidnap. The existence of these warrants has been made known to police forces across Canada, any of which is empowered to effect the arrest of these persons. All police forces in this country will do their best to apprehend these three men.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of this new information-and I am not making anything of that-and in light of the answer of the minister, was there something about not seeking to extradite in the deal that was made? If there was not, I do not see any reason why the minister would not say so and why extradition would not be used. If there was nothing to this effect in the deal, I would ask the minister to take a look at it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the question put to me by the hon. member for Compton related to the murder of Pierre Laporte. There was nothing in the negotiations involving safe passage of the people who are now in Cuba that related to the alleged murderers of Pierre Laporte, and nothing in that

:



.
December 9, 1970

arrangement would protect anyone who was concerned with the murder of Pierre Laporte.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister say, in relation to those who were given safe passage to Cuba, whether any reward has been paid out in respect of their apprehension?


John Napier Turner: To the best of my knowledge at the moment, Mr. Speaker, no reward has been paid out.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the statements made by the Canadian Mental Health Association that the proposed Young Offenders Act is, in fact, a Criminal Code for children which is distasteful in its terminology, legalistic in its approach and punitive in its effect, would the minister consider withdrawing the bill and bringing forth a bill that is more in keeping with the reformative and rehabilitative approaches that the government should take?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon.
member's question is defective on two grounds. First, it is argumentative and, second, it anticipates an order of the House.




John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave a very comprehensive report on his trip to Europe, but there were one or two matters with which he did not deal. May I first ask him whether or not there was agreement on behalf of Canada that the policy that it had been intended to follow, namely, of reducing our armed forces personnel from 5,000 to 2,500, has now been departed from and that the 5,000 armed force members will be provided?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question of the level of our
armed forces did not arise in that connection. We did join with the United States in saying to our NATO partners that there would be no further reductions in our forces in Europe in the foreseeable future.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether or not it was decided that Canada would once more return to the 5,000 personnel who were previously in Europe? There is another question that arises, with which the minister might deal when he replies. Can he give the assurance that, at a time when unity is so necessary,
Inquiries of the Ministry
Canada will not take or has not taken any part in moving to eject Greece and Portugal from NATO?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps a little confusion in the right hon. gentleman's mind about the level of our forces in Europe.


John George Diefenbaker: No, there is no confusion.


Mitchell William Sharp: All I want to say is that there was no discussion at these NATO meetings about the level of our forces in Europe, except for the statement made by my colleague the Minister of National Defence that there would be no change in our force structure in Europe in the foreseeable future. On the second point, no country in NATO made any move to eject Greece.


MILITARY INTERVENTION BY PORTUGAL IN GUINEA
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did
the ministers' NATO conference in Brussels have at its disposal the information from the fact-finding committee of the United Nations which alleged there had been serious military intervention by Portugal. Was this matter taken up with Portugal by the ministers present, and did the Secretary of State for External Affairs, representing Canada, raise this question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the House will be interested to know that a vote was taken last night for the first time in the United Nations Security Council approving by a vote of 11 to zero, with four countries abstaining, a resolution strongly condemning Portugal for its invasion of the Republic of Guinea. At the time of the NATO meeting we did not have any such report before us. I did raise, on behalf of Canada, the question of the site of the next meeting. This is a routine matter generally, but it seemed to me that in light of the developments at the United Nations it might be more appropriate to have the meeting elsewhere on this occasion. However, in the end there was an almost unanimous view that the best course would be to consider the question of the site of the NATO spring meeting as a procedural matter without political significance, and that is what happened.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the information the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just given to the House regarding the motion of condemnation passed by the Security Council of the United Nations, does Canada intend to take any steps with reference to the membership of Portugal in NATO?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the question of membership of Portugal in NATO is, as in the case of Greece, one to be decided on the basis of two considerations: would the departure from NATO of Portugal or Greece strengthen the alliance, and would it do anything to promote the kind of policies we favour? As hon. members know, I supported in this House the findings of the Council of Europe in respect of Greece. We have condemned the policies of Portugal in Africa, but I do not think this means that Portugal should be expelled from NATO.

December 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS


PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL, PROTOCOL-EFFECT OF CANADIAN COMMITMENTS ON LE DAIN COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, I see that the minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are absent, so perhaps I should direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is scheduled to be in the House for only three more days before the Christmas recess, will the Prime Minister tell the House precisely when the minister intends to make a statement on motions about the commitments the government could enter into on the Geneva protocol on psychotropic drugs, and the effect of these commitments on the recommendations of the Le Dain commission report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House should perhaps know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is today attending a provincial health ministers' conference in Ottawa and that is the reason he is not in the House. The acting minister, the Minister of Labour, is present. I have no knowledge of this matter, but if the Minister of National Health and Welfare undertook to make such a statement to the House I am sure he will make it on one of the days he is here.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a supplementary question. Is Parliament to be denied the right to make comments and give advice as to what the delegates to the Geneva conference should do, and how they should act? Are they going to Geneva as delegates to do just what the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Liberal party tells them to do?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, certainly the House should not be denied that right. As the hon. member knows, under the Standing Orders there are many occasions upon which opposition members can express their feelings and give leadership in these matters. There is, of course, the budget debate which has been going on-


An hon. Member:: It is continuing after Christmas.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and there are opposition days next week.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
As he answered questions asked by the hon. members for Compton and Calgary North, he said that specific charges would be laid against three persons. On what specific grounds does he feel that charges will be limited to three individuals and does he have definite indications that other charges will be brought against other persons and, if so, against how many?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the procedure which I follow consistently is never to say anything about investigations being carried out but only about charges brought against accused persons. Therefore, I am not in a position to answer the questions asked by the hon. member.


UNITED NATIONS
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister was absent from the country, however, perhaps his parliamentary secretary will be in a better position to answer.
In view of protests issued by the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations with regard to the treatment given to the French language at the United Nations, could the minister or his parliamentary secretary tell us whether Canada has been given assurance that the situation will be corrected?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my Parliamentary Secretary has an advantage over me in that he has just returned from New York. He assures me that in response to a very eloquent appeal by our ambassador, which I supported very strongly, for greater use of the French language at the United Nations, he received a positive answer.

[hater:1


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary to the question put to the Minister of External Affairs by the member for Charlevoix.
Has the minister been informed by his parliamentary secretary whether France had supported Canada's representations for greater use of French at the United Nations?


NAVIGATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. In light of factual reports that the Mackenzie River transportation route is the most effective for supplying the north slope of both Alaska and Canada, would he advise the House whether any preliminary plans have been made to survey the Mackenzie River in respect of improvements to navigation?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, a number of suggestions have been made and a number of studies are under way. My colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has announced a change in a program under which considerable sums of money were to be spent on one highway

December 9, 1970

which have now been allotted to the north. I think- that adequate preparation is being made in respect of requirements for a route to coincide with the time the route will be needed. I have every confidence that developments will occur there, and I know my hon. friend shares this view. I think we are in a position to accommodate requirements for the movement of a very great deal of freight in that area.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleion-Charloile):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. Can he indicate whether the government intends to present a bill creating a regional marketing board for potatoes in the Maritimes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker.


CONSIDERATION OF ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN ATLANTIC PROVINCES AND NEW ENGLAND STATES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It concerns a speech he made last evening in Saint John, New Brunswick, in which he referred to the important role the Atlantic provinces would have to play in continuing or increasing Canada-U.S. trade. Is the government prepared to give consideration to trade arrangements between the Atlantic provinces and the New England states?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
* *
*


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. As the motor vehicle manufacturers continue to limit the number of their suppliers in Canada, and in some cases are now manufacturing parts themselves, what is happening to the former employees of the plants that are closed down?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question but I do not know whether it is addressed to the right minister. They are either employed at other plants or they are unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If the hon. member is talking about the broader problem of plant closings in Canada as a result
Inquiries of the Ministry
of decisions made outside the country, I think this is one of the areas that the appropriate minister should study and in fact this question is being studied in great detail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will realize I am trying to limit the number of supplementaries in the hope that we can accommodate as many members as possible before the question period ends. I apologize to hon. members who have not had a chance to ask their supplementaries.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises from a situation in the United States whereby automobile tires of substandard manufacture which are classified by the industry as rejects and are marketed for agricultural use only are finding their way into the automobile tire market. Is there any evidence that the same situation exists in Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will consult my colleague, the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the administration of the automobile safety legislation.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who is replying for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the report on the status of women expresses concern regarding the need to decentralize women's correctional institutions, is the government reconsidering its decision to close the Matsqui institution in British Columbia and transfer the female inmates to Kingston?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question should be placed on the order paper or debated at the time of adjournment.
* [DOT] [DOT]


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Acting Solicitor General. Has the government been able to locate any of the guerrilla training camps supposedly located in the Quebec interior and, if so, what action has been taken and were any arrests made in this connection?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Apparently the minister is not prepared to reply to the question. The question period expired a few minutes ago. Orders of the day.

December 9, 1970
Old Age Security



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-202, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services.
Mr. Thomas S. Barneti (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, since the era of the Trudeau administration of a Liberal government we have been treated, with some interesting variations, to the old Liberal party technique of handing out crumbs from the rich man's table to the poor. In the days of the Pearson regime, or that of Mr. St. Laurent or Mackenzie King, the crumbs were simply tossed from the table without any great fanfare whenever it appeared that pressures were building up in the country to the point that it seemed necessary to do this in order to retain themselves in power. But under the present order we have had some interesting variations of that practice.
It may perhaps be that there is a mood in this country that will no longer tolerate simply the old hand-out, charity philosophy and therefore the crumbs have to be wrapped in new techniques. I suggest we have been treated to an exhibition of this in the tabling in the House of the white paper. Now, instead of simply tossing the crumbs on the floor they have been nicely gift-wrapped in pretty white paper with a blue cover in order to make them a little more palatable. They have had added to them an interesting new spice called "demo-grant". That is the order of things in this debate. We have a fancy, gift-wrapped package called "Income security for Canadians". It of course contains some 60 pages of rather high-sounding phrases, statistical tables and the sort of thing we generally associate with white papers. I should like to make one or two brief references to the words of the white paper as I commence these remarks on second reading of Bill C-202. The white paper begins with these words:
As Canadians strive for a better social and physical environment, one of their goals is to ensure that everyone has an adequate income on which to live.
Following through on that, the white paper suggests that the main thrust of the government's proposed policy for the coming years is the development of a guaranteed income technique as a major anti-poverty policy. Mr. Speaker, having read those high-sounding phrases in the white paper I was quite interested in the speech of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) the last time we discussed this measure. I think he took his lead from those opening words. As recorded at page 1772 of Hansard of December 4, the hon. member had this to say with reference to the general terms in which the old age security amendments are before us:
It is my opinion that a guaranteed income in Canada in this technological age that we have entered, and in which we are destined to live for some time, is inevitable. Sooner or later we will have to have a total, integrated plan for a guaranteed income that is applied across the board.

That, I may say, is a good Liberal phrase.
A little later in his speech he said:
I think if we are going to talk about this we have to recognize that our culture, as it is today, still has a kind of hangover or legacy from the day when it was accepted that it was good to work and bad to be unemployed or shiftiest and not to work.
He then referred to the thrust of government policy toward a guaranteed annual income as a major technique in overcoming poverty and said:
If we provide a guaranteed income across the board we must again ask how high we are prepared to go? If we put it too high, we are going to be in the position of literally changing our culture. I am not afraid of turning the culture around. It might well be that the time has come, again in a modern age, when we ought to turn the culture around and look at it from the other side.
Having introduced his remarks with this reference to the opening sections of the white paper, and having lauded the idea that we should consider changing our cultural attitudes toward the whole question of work as it relates to income, the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton turned completely about-face, just as I submit the government has done, and went right back to the old hand-out philosophy. I say this because the white paper, after referring to the main thrust of policy being the guaranteed income technique, goes on to say that from this development will follow a shift in policy of universal payments involving changes in the Old Age Security Act. That, of course, is the subject matter of the bill now before us.
When we look at this bill, we see that it does not come in any fancy gift-wrapping and is not spiced-up in any way. It is just a plain, ordinary bill printed in ordinary black and white type with none of the fancy trimmings of the blue-covered paper which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) tabled in this House and which the people of Canada have been awaiting with almost bated breath since the beginning of the Trudeau era. The feeling one has all too often in this Parliament is that when we are faced with the reality of having the Liberal party in power, we find ourselves suddenly coming down to earth with a thud and having to face the simple facts of the type of propositions the Liberal party places before us.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton said that the principle of this bill is good. Of course, I think one should immediately ask oneself, why does he think it is good? I would again refer to his remarks the other day in regard to the principle of the bill being a good one and would point to the fact that after talking about changes in our cultural attitudes toward work and it being a necessary part of living, he said that the principle of the bill is good because we in society have an obligation to help those who are poor and who cannot help themselves.
I suppose no member of the House would quarrel with the idea that we have a responsibility as individuals and as groups of citizens from time to time to do something to help those who cannot help themselves. We recognize this philosophy with regard to the very young and people
December 9, 1970

who are infirm and suffer the accidents of life but, more to the point and related to the bill before us, the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton thinks the bill is good because we are going to recognize this principle in respect of the aged.
In expanding upon his support of the principle of the bill he referred to experiences he had had in a profession which he followed before entering this chamber. He talked at some length about his experience in northern Ontario where in his first parish, before having been in residence for two hours, 20 transients knocked on his door. He went on to talk about having to decide whether it is in the best interest of these people to help them so they may continue, as the hon. member said, to live the life of a bum, or whether he should deny that help in order to give them the necessary stamina and vigour to go back to work and do some hard living for themselves. So far as I have been able to follow the hon. member's argument, that is the basic reason for his thinking the principle of this bill is a good one.
I suggest that this is a rather classic example of the muddled thinking that is so characteristic of members opposite when they come to this old question of dealing with social security. Who was the hon. member talking about? He was not talking about the aged; he was talking about young men. What we have before us is a bill dealing with amendments to the Old Age Security Act. In discussing the question of an income guarantee and how it should be provided, we are discussing people who are no longer in the labour force of the country. We are considering the situation of people whom we are encouraging to retire from the labour force by various measures that have been adopted by this Parliament. They are the people for whom, under the Canada Pension Plan, we provided incentives to retire from the work force. I suggest that we are not talking about transient bums as we consider this bill, but about the older people of Canada whom we no longer want to see having to work for a living.
While it was argued in this chamber many times years ago before I was here-but I have followed some of these debates-that it would be demoralizing if through some form of public enactment older people were given means on which to live, nevertheless I thought we had reached the point where generally speaking we rejected that concept. The Old Age Security Act is, up to a point, a rejection of that principle. This is a principle to which I have never subscribed so far as I can recall. I am referring to the idea that there is something morally wrong or degrading in ensuring that elderly people may live in decency and in dignity.
What does this bill do? Among other things, it freezes at $80 the level of the old age pension. The bill is, in effect, a complete denial of what the government in its white paper says is to be the main thrust of its proposed policy, which is that of developing guaranteed income techniques. The proposal in the bill means that if one is talking in the context of a guaranteed annual income, so far as the Old Age Security Act is concerned the elderly
Old Age Security
citizens of this country will be denied for ever any right of access to the increased wealth produced as a result of the technology of our modern society.
The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton who discussed the question of the inevitability of the coming of a guaranteed annual income, presumably having in mind its general application, cannot logically say that those who are retired should have no part of it. I suggest that the bill flies in the face of the announced policy of the government. This is an aspect of the bill which is not part of an anti-poverty program but is, rather, part of a program for perpetuating poverty.
I suggest that this bill is a denial of the government's stated policy in respect of developing guaranteed income techniques in keeping with industrialization and trends toward automation in our society, because another aspect of the bill perpetuates the 2 per cent freeze on the cost of living index formula which gives no recognition, as does the present act, to the undenied fact that the cost of living has been rising by at least 4 per cent per annum ever since the 2 per cent was granted. I find it rather ironic, particularly since over this period of months we have been listening to pious exhortations about 6 per cent guidelines from people such as the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, guidelines which are directed at people in the work force and which apply to their increased income. We are told we should have a 6 per cent guideline for all those who are living out their active years, but a 2 per cent guideline for those who are retired-and no guideline for the banks and finance companies.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if this bill had suggested a maximum cost of living index formula of 6 per cent, it would have been more in keeping with the general policies the government has been announcing and the things the Prices and Incomes Commission has been talking about. So, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the bill we come back to the inevitable fact that really all that is being done, all that is left from this fancy package which the government has introduced with such fanfare, is the old, unadorned policy of tossing the crumbs from the rich man's table to help the poor and the aged.
Indeed, I would suggest in this case it is not even a matter of tossing the crumbs from the rich man's table; it is a matter of tossing crumbs from the poor man's table to the people who are even poorer, because we are talking about money to be paid out of the old age security fund. So long as the upper ceiling on tax contributions into that fund remains fixed at $240 instead of following the normal income tax formula of escalating for higher incomes, the poor among the retired elements of our society will be supplementing the incomes of people who may be poorer.
I readily agree that the guaranteed income supplement increases will be welcomed by the people who are to receive them. Nobody can deny that. If you are poor at the level at which people have nothing to rely upon other

December 9, 1970
Old Age Security
than the old age security pension, then your pride will not be strong enough for you to turn away crumbs which might give you a full stomach. Therefore, undeniably, the changes in this aspect of the bill will be welcomed by quite a large number of people in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that even those people should remember that in many cases the benefits they are to receive will come from the pockets of people even poorer than them. I am thinking of people who are retired on a small pension to which there is not attached even a 2 per cent increase in the cost of living index, retired teachers, retired industrial workers who are in receipt of a pension from a group pension plan to which they contributed and who also during their working years contributed to the old age security fund. Under this legislation they will not be entitled to a 2 per cent cost of living increase to their private pensions.
They will be denied an increase of 2 per cent on their old age security, which means that as far as this bill is concerned their income will be frozen for as long as they live. No matter what may happen to the cost of living, whether it goes up 2 per cent, 4 per cent, 6 per cent or 8 per cent per year, they will be frozen forever at that level of income. Mr. Speaker, I think in considering this question we should realize that if they have an income in addition to their old age security, if they are single of $110 a month or more, or an income of $190 a month or more from a pension or other source, they will not benefit by one penny from the guaranteed income supplement.
So when we talk about pensioners and freezing incomes that will not be adjusted in relation to the cost of living, we are talking about people getting $190 a month if they are single, or $350 if they are a married couple both on the old age security pension. No one can suggest, by any stretch of the imagination, that they are rich. That is what I mean when I say that even those who will get this increase in the guaranteed income supplement, welcome us undoubtedly it will be to them, should remember that by this legislation they are being put into a preferred position in relation to many of their fellow citizens who are living in retirement.
This, Mr. Speaker, is evidence so far as I am concerned that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was not in any way stretching things when he said at the outset of the debate that this was a bad bill. It is the kind of bill that makes me cringe because it has come as a poor substitute for all the high hopes held out since this Liberal administration began. This is the legislation introduced, despite all the high hopes that were built up by replies to questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about bringing forth his white paper, when it was going to come, and the hints dropped that we were moving into an era in which we would be thinking in terms of implementing guaranteed income security in the sense that we understand its possibility in our technologically advanced society. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton said this was the sort of thing we should be thinking about; yet in his muddled-thinking way-I cannot help saying that-he apparently
is quite happy with the kind of bill the government has brought forward. He is apparently quite happy that we should retain the philosophy of handing out crumbs to the poor.
It is increasingly difficult to accept those crumbs. The time has passed when one should be in any way grateful for those crumbs, because anyone who knows about the potential production of goods and services in Canada knows it is completely unnecessary that today anyone should be living at the kinds of levels that will be set under this bill in the combination of old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-202, to amend the Old Age Security Act, is now before the House.
This bill, tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), is the result of the tabling of the white paper on income security in Canada which, after a fashion, stands as an admission of the liberal government's sins for having remained inactive in the field of income security.
For a long time now, the Ralliement creditiste has been asking that a guaranteed minimum income be made available to every Canadian citizen, regardless of his language, race, religion or social status.
Taking its inspiration in the white paper in which it hastily discards the minimum guaranteed income, the government now proposes to increase old age security to a certain level. On December 2, 1970, the minister said:
In 1967, the combined benefits were $105 if single and $210 for couples. At the rate prices have been increasing since then, the corresponding values for these amounts in January 1971 would be $122 and $245. Our proposed rates of $135 and $255 more than restore what their pensions would have been had there been no limiting of escalation.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of income security is to give social protection to counterbalance the inability to earn a living. Therefore, the income must not only be guaranteed but stabilized. I think that in this connection the white paper is based on that principle and is consequently praiseworthy.
However, old people in Canada have always been considered as poor to whom a measly monthly allowance of $79 is granted. If they do not succeed in making ends meet with $79 and a few cents per month, a lot of investigators intervene to give them reluctantly what is called the guranteed income supplement.
This is perhaps what we dread most, the reluctant payment of a certain amount on the ground that the needs of the recipient have increased.
Mr. Speaker, we must not be prompted today by gratefulness to old people but it is our duty to recognize their rights. The elderly are really entitled to a decent living in Canada.

December 9, 1970

This is why we rejoice that, in his budget speech of December 2, the minister anticipates an increase in old age pensions. However, I should like to make some remarks as well as some proper representations.
The minister brings no change to the provision setting at age 65 the eligibility for this pension. As far as I am concerned, and through the force of circumstances, eligibility for old age pension has been reached well before 65, because very often, 50-, 55- or 60-year-old people cannot find employment anymore, nor can they undergo retraining. In fact, they are like derelicts in society and they cannot draw any social security payment.
The 55- or 60-year old who is ill or unemployed, even if he has managed to make the final payment on a little home and accumulate a few savings, is in a precarious position as he is not covered by any federal government program.
And if he applies for old age security pension, the answer will be: "Wait till you are 65." All that is left is to apply for welfare benefits. Then he will be told: "Begin by spending your savings and when they are exhausted you can come to us."
This is the type of reasoning used day in and day out by provincial civil servants in charge of welfare benefits. "When you are at the end of your rope, then we may perhaps help you." And my hon. colleagues are aware of the situation.
Should this 55- or 60-year-old person, who is not eligible either for the old age security pension or for social security benefits, apply to the Manpower Centre for a job or, being uneducated, should he ask to receive some training which would enable him to make a living, he will be told: Your chances of obtaining a job when you have completed the course are very dim. At any rate, should we allow you to hold a job, we would feel that we were giving you a bare minimum of social security and you would be taking the place of younger people. So, it is impossible for us to help you.
So, what is to be done with such a person? My colleagues of all parties will grant me that no government program takes into account the group of people whose ages range from 50 to 65.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
When citizens reach the age of 65, the federal government begins to take care of them, but at 50, most of the time, the provincial government does not provide for them any longer because these persons have put a little money aside. Very often, they fall ill and have to be hospitalized. The medical expenses incurred then pile up and they find themselves in dire straits.
You will tell me that there is medicare but the fact is that I know scores of persons in my riding who have spent today whatever money they had put aside because there was no government program to help them.
Therefore, I want to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the minimum age which he sets
Old Age Security
at 65 is too high and that it should be brought down to 60. Any person of 60 should receive the old age security pension, because at that age, 90 per cent of the people are jobless, or without any income to live on and discharge their family responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I feel this is an important point and I deeply regret that in this review in depth of the income security programs in Canada, the eligible age has not been reduced to 60.
I want to make this appeal to the minister and tell him that Canadians between 50 and 65 years of age, when they hold no job and do not get any income say to themselves: If I can only live long enough to get my old age pension. It is almost ridiculous:
I am in the office I maintain in my riding every week end, as many of my colleagues do, and out of 20 persons who come to see me, I would say quite frankly-and I could prove it-that 12 of them are in that situation.
These are unemployed pepople who cannot follow a refresher course, cannot receive welfare payments because they have small savings of $400 or $500 and who are waiting for their old age security pension.
It is sad to see that the white paper does not deal with the problems of people caught between two age groups: the age when one can work and the age when one receives the old age security pension.
I most sincerely hope the minister will consider this proposal and I am sure that if he calls for the support of all hon. members he will get it. In this respect, I hope the committee to which the bill will be referred will give the matter very serious consideration.
I would like to insist on another point. It is a matter of principle.
It seems to me that when the government grants an old age pension to one of the spouses it should be understood that the other spouse will automatically get the same pension. For instance when a senior citizen of 65 gets his old age security pension his wife should get it automatically too.
I think that we should not make distinctions in that matter. In his speech of December 2, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has clearly stated that the provisions of this bill are inadequate. His argumentation is very weak. When one examines it carefully, one sees that the government has simply brushed aside that proposal.
In my opinion, it seems logical for the government to consider most seriously my second proposal to the effect that in all cases, whenever one spouse gets its old age security pension, the other one should get it also, automatically, and without any investigation.
The third point which I would like to raise before this House-and this may be the most significant-is the following: from now on the government will hand out to

December 9, 1970
Old Age Security
our older citizens 42 cents more every month. What an increase!
Through the same provision the government is going to tax this old age security pension. Before this bill, the income of two aged people was not taxable but now, what the government gives them with one hand-the fantastic increase of 42 cents a month-it takes away with the other hand by collecting $3 or $4 in taxes. I figured it out for myself and came to the conclusion that by the end of the year the government will have collected more that it will have given.
Mr. Speaker, such is the ostrich policy that proves that the government cannot get anywhere with the present financial system. It empties the pockets of the taxpayers through taxes and surtaxes and gives back only bits of what it has managed to extract from them.
If the government is short of money, as it alleges, the reason is that administration eats up all revenues. It could be ascertained that old age security administration costs exceed the amount spent for pensions.
When needy single persons or married couples ask for the guaranteed income supplement, the government orders an investigation and the accompanying paper work confuses the older person, who often has no education. In fact, such red tape annoys and tires that person and even deprives him of sleep. He is so nervous that he makes mistakes while filling out the forms to be returned to the government. Officials claim that he has made false statements and that his application cannot be considered. The applicant experiences anguish, being isolated from the remainder of the society and unable to meet his needs.
This is what we call the government's "rub-a-dub plans", this socializing system which annoys everybody while failing to recognize individual rights, as Social Credit philosophy recommends, to guaranteed minimum income without government interference or tests.
Mr. Speaker, I insist on urging the government to abolish the guaranteed supplement income and ensure instead an equivalent income, the amount of which would be fixed by statute, to any 60 year old senior citizen. Such a suggestion would illustrate the legitimate and commendable wish of the government to assist people and give them the possibility of a better life. However, the government refuses to do so and says: we luck money. Of course the government lacks money, but it is simply because it takes money from taxpayers and gives it to somebody else.
For instance, on page 15 of the white paper on income security, this short extract which tells and reflects the spirit of the whole document:
majority of people who enjoy greater security and affluence have been sharing their gains with the less affluent. They are undoubtedly prepared to do more in. this direction provided they can be assured that their contributions are used humanely and efficiently.
Now, what does the government do? They publish a white paper, make noisy publicity and say to the people: We will increase old age security pensions because the
government understands old people. They make this publicity in order to earn votes and to look like humanitarians so that people will swallow the pill. Once it is swallowed, the bill is passed. If we do not pay attention, we will be caught unaware because the government will tax the more affluent to give to the poor. This is called the concept of socialization, of egalitarianism.
We Creditistes oppose this system because we believe in individual freedom. If a person who is better-off has been clever enough or very often lucky enough to live more comfortably than his neighbor, so much the better for him and he must not be penalized for that.
As for the poor, they must not be penalized either because they are poor. There is no need to take from the rich to give to the poor since this is another injustice.
Here is what is advocated by Social Credit: Instead of taking money from the taxpayers to give it to other people, quite often by using complicated plans and formulas, after investigation a statutory amount of money should be granted to each Canadian from new credit coming from the Bank of Canada and based on the value of production, in proportion to the total buying power that is to say the consumption forces.
Thus the government would not be responsible for poverty and misery by taking the money it needs from the taxpayers but on the contrary it would give prosperity and freedom to our citizens while guaranteeing their economic security.
Mr. Speaker, so long as we keep fooling around with the current system, reform is far off. We are happy about this increase in pensions even though it is not sufficient. We are sorry to see that the government is letting down all the people aged from 50 to 60. I ask them once more that this age be lowered to 60 because I challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro )to tell me that even one program exists for this category of people who are too old for retraining and too young to get their old age pension.
In view of what I have just said, I ask the minister to revise his position and to lower the age limit to 60, so as to allow the spouse of an old age pensioner to receive the same benefits and, finally, to consider the proposals of the Creditistes so that our contribution to the relative ease and income security of old people will not be the direct cause of greater poverty in other areas.
Indeed, the government is well aware of this. In fact, when the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) commented the last budget speech over television, he recognized that although the government economic policies were designed to fight galloping inflation, to use the words of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), and to eliminate poverty in Quebec, and although he had approved them, they were effectively generating poverty in the province of Quebec.
Why? Because the whole thing merely amounts to a shift in taxes which increases the administrative costs which, in turn, absorb all these taxes.
[Mr. Fortin.1
December 9, 1970

Mr. Speaker, once again I demand an old age security pension with a fixed amount, payable without any investigation to every senior citizen in Canada. Indeed, every old people in Canada has equal rights, including the right to a guaranteed minimum income. And it is the duty of any government to guarantee this minimum income through the old age security pension, not by taxation which boosts poverty but rather by issuing credits according to the ratio between the productive potential of Canada and the constant state of equilibrium it should enjoy between consumption and production. That is the only way, according to us of the Ralliement creditiste, to straighten out the system and to really help the needy.
Mr. Speaker, what upsets me most as a member of Parliament, is the fact that the government, which is reputed to have good intentions, is in fact the real cause of poverty and hardship in Canada, because of its system of taxes and going into debt.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to suggest that the principle of the guaranteed income supplement be dropped, and that instead an amount equal to the sum of the pension and the guaranteed income supplement be paid all our old people. There would then be no need for investigations, forms to be filled out, red tape, all those things that annoy people and give no results.
Administration costs would thus be reduced by almost half and the surplus could be given to old people.
Basically, the government must review thoroughly its economic policy because that is where the problem lies.
Today, the provisions of the white paper seem the ideal solution to some members of Parliament but five years from now those members will ask to re-examine the problem because the amount of the proposed pensions will then prove to be insufficient, on account of the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, everything would have to be started over again. We must not delude ourselves and suggest that the white paper or Bill C-202 contains a marvelous solution. It is false! The problem will only be temporarily solved because the proposed solution is not based on the value of production and consumption in Canada, but rather on some superficial needs of old people. This solution is evidently not based also on an extensive economic reform.
This is why as long as the basic problem is not solved, that is the economic problem, such solutions as Bill C-202 will only be superficial answers which will only worsen the issue or delay the settlement. The more we wait, the more it will be difficult to solve the problem.
An example of this is that the debts accumulated by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, due to interest on bonds and loans for supporting programs of one sort or another, are increasing steadily.
Mr. Speaker, if Canada's senior citizens are under the impression of getting a little more money, in fact they will get less as this new measure will contribute to increase the national debt in view of our wrong taxation system.
Old Age Security
Mr. Speaker, we should rather resort to the issuing of new credits from the Bank of Canada, based on Canada's resources and on its productive value being at par with consumption, and not to promises as the ones that are being made at the present time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand-Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a few brief remarks to make on Bill C-202, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. The recent white paper on income security claims the government wants to fight poverty. Bearing in mind the inconsistencies I have seen recently in government white papers and legislation, I cannot help wondering whether this was really the objective of hon. members opposite. It appears to me they are more preoccupied with measures calculated by the computers to have greater voter appeal. At times there seems to be an almost callous disregard on their part for certain segments of our society which are in a minority.
A case in point is the government's suggestion that everyone who earns more than $10,000, even if it is only $10,001, is rich, and therefore not entitled to receive family allowances. This, we are told, is a valid conclusion. If a man has ten children and earns $10,000 a year, this beneficent government has decided that it will reduce his $75 or $80 family allowance to $50 per month and make that $50 taxable. If he has ten children and earns $10,001 per year, they intend to remove him from the family allowance rolls altogether. Earning the extra dollar puts him out of the picture entirely, and under the new scheme the family income would be reduced by $1,000 a year. Surely, everyone will agree with me that this is a ridiculous concept and one which will have to be adjusted.
Having said this, let me make it clear that I do not disagree with the principle that above a certain point people should not receive these social assistance payments. I do not agree in the particular case to which I have referred; the effect, as I have pointed out, is somewhat ridiculous and I mention it only to emphasize what I regard as a great inconsistency in this bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. The inconsistency lies in regarding a man who earns $10,000 a year as being rich and taking the benefit of family allowances away from him while continuing to pay $80 a month to paupers and millionaires alike. I know the government argues that the latter program is almost in the nature of a separate social contract between the state and the citizens; they say it has been financed since 1952 by a highly visible earmarked personal income tax. This may be true, but I do not accept the argument. Contributions to other social security programs may not be so clearly marked-I include the family allowance among them-but everybody knows that these things are paid for out of taxation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The point I want to make is that there is inconsistency in the government's thinking. They will continue to pay
23568-49^

December 9, 1970
Old Age Security
$80 a month to all because they contend there is a contract and these people expect this payment. I maintain there are many people in this country making $10,000 a year, which is by no means a magic figure, who have been led to expect over the years that their family allowance payment would continue. When the minister speaks again, perhaps he will try to clear up this point without resorting to the old argument that there is a contract, because I do not buy that argument. People who have been receiving family allowance have just as much right to look forward to its continuation, and I am sure there are many more cases of need in that group than in the case of some people who will continue to receive $80 a month in old age security.
If the government adopts the position that there will be no cut-off point, then you cannot make chalk of one and cheese of the other. Obviously, many hundreds of thousands of people in this country do not need this $80, and if this is going to be the philosophy of the government, let it be so. I do not know whether if this payment is cut out, the minister is worried about getting the measure through the other chamber, because I imagine that the majority of its members have reached the age to qualify for this benefit. Nevertheless, there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who do not need this payment. We had an example of this yesterday from an hon. member who will not hear of any increase in pay for Members of Parliament. Obviously he does not need it, though he has reached the age where he receives it. I am also sure the former Prime Minister does not need it. However, I am not pinpointing these people; my point is that there are numerous people who do not need it.
Perhaps the minister would use his research facilities to tell me whether this payment of $80 would be made even if there were a reasonable break-off po nt. Perhaps having $50,000 or $70,000 in the bank would be a reasonable break-off point. I am not suggesting that ordinary people should be excluded, but I should like to know how much saving there would be if people who did not need it were not given this benefit.
There are many inconsistencies in this regard. For example, some mothers will receive under the new proposal almost three times the family allowance that they received hitherto; the payment is being increased from $6 to $16 a month. I know these youngsters have their whole voting life ahead of them but I do not think this should be a factor. On the other hand, we give our elderly people a big deal-an increase of from $111.41 to $135, whis is $24 or, about 20 per cent. On the other side of the coin, in some cases family allowance payments are increased by almost 300 per cent. As I say, there is no consistency.
I think ways and means should be devised to give our elderly citizens a real break, and again I emphasize that it should be given to those who really need it. Married pensioners may have to maintain a family. Many must maintain a home. They have all sorts of extra payments to meet that younger people do not have, such as special drug preparations for which they have to pay the same price as anybody else. We should forget that they will

not be around to bother us much longer, and give them a real break now.
In its white paper, the government recognizes that a simple pensioner should not receive just half what a married pensioner receives; proportionately he is paid a little more. Although the government recognize that a single pensioner is single they made no recognition of the fact that a married pensioner is married, unless his spouse also is a pensioner. In other words, a married pensioner under this proposal will receive the same as a single pensioner if his wife is, say, only 62 or 63.
I am aware that under the old age assistance and social assistance schemes people in various provinces can apply for special assistance. As the minister has mentioned, the federal government wishes at the earliest opportunity to enter into discussions with the provincial government with a view to securing improvements in social assistance programs. I do not know whether this would be possible, but I should like the minister to give us some kind of assurance that in cases where pensioners have wives who are beyond the age where they can earn money, say 62 or 63, but below the qualifying age of 65, a provincial supplement will be paid that will bring the income of this married couple up to $255 a month. Otherwise, I think the minister and the government would be creating an unjust situation.
If the provincial governments agreed only to bring cases of this sort up to an income level of, say, $198 a month, I think this too would be unfair. There must be recognition of the fact that a married pensioner is married and is responsible for maintaining a wife and perhaps children or other dependants. There is no recognition of this in the white paper or in this bill. In the interest of such cases as these, I should like to have an assurance from the minister that a formula will be worked out along the line I have suggested.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few moments to comment briefly on Bill C-202 which is now before the House and to bring a few points to the attention of those who will be on the committee studying the bill after it receives second reading. I am at a loss to know why the government delayed so long before introducing this measure. There does not seem to have been any very just cause for this. I am also at a loss to know why the bill is not broader and more comprehensive in its outline. We were looking forward to something of much broader scope, a measure that would include not only welfare adjustments but perhaps an incentive to work program.
It is also difficult to understand why people aged 65 and over with a small income of just over $110 a month should have their old age security payments frozen at $80 a month. This brings to mind a very good cartoon that appeared in the Guelph Daily Mercury. It shows a senior citizen at a stamp wicket in a post office. In one hand he is holding a newspaper in which there is the headline "Old age pensions to be increased by forty-two cents". He is turning to the person in charge of the wicket and
December 9, 1970

saying, "Easy come, easy go-gimme seven sixes''. This cartoon brings out the point that the increase would be only 42 cents with the pension frozen at $80. This is a very serious matter. It is most unfair to these people. When we consider that inflation in the last few years has increased at about 4 per cent per year, it means that $80 six years from now, with this inflation factor built in, will only have a purchasing value of about $60.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There are many people in this class who even with the pension plus the allowable of $110 per month are living very close to the poverty line. This does not give them much more than an existence income. These people have paid into the fund at the rate of 4 per cent, if they have paid any income tax at all. These are the builders and the pioneers of this country who have played an important part in the development of Canada. It seems unfair that their pensions should be frozen.
I cannot help thinking of the debate on this act which took place in the House a few years ago. Along with other members of my party, I felt at that time it would have been more equitable to pay everybody a suitable and reasonable income across the board. There were great arguments both pro and con in this regard. I am broadminded enough to appreciate both sides of the argument. I still think it is discriminatory that those who have worked and saved during their lives to put something away for their retirement will not receive the supplementary benefit. This seems morally wrong. Many of these people have done without the things they wanted. This bill discourages a person from working and saving.
A person who is now eligible for the supplement is discouraged to go out and do light work because for every $2 he earns, $1 is deducted from the supplement. Many people like to help members of the elderly class by offering them odd jobs. Because of the provisions of this bill, elderly people will decide to sit at home on their verandas and read books, which is detrimental to their health. It is good for a person aged 65 to do light work and earn a little extra income.
Another feature of this measure to which I shall refer briefly is the cost of administration. We learned a few years ago, when we discussed this matter, that a very large part of the fund was used for administrative purposes. Perhaps we could cut the administrative staff and thereby save enough to allow an increase in pensions to $125 or $150 per month. The administrative costs are fantastically high. I must also add there are tremendous administrative difficulties. I find it necessary, and I am pleased to do so, to help many senior citizens in my area apply for supplementary benefits. In January I set aside a day or two to assist these people in filling out their application forms. Many people in the age group of 65 to 80 have difficulty with these forms. In many cases they do not have a member of their family to assist them. On occasions they make errors and understate their incomes, and on other occasions the department makes errors.
Old Age Security
In some instances, as a result of errors made, a pensioner might find he has been overpaid. Often it is six or eight months before the overpayment is discovered. The pensioner then has to pay back a certain amount each month. This amount is deducted from his pension cheque, and because the money has been spent a real problem exists. In some cases the error was not made by the pensioner but by the department. I think it would be fan-in such case that the pensioner should be liable for only half the overpayment, and the department which made the error should be liable for the other half.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
These are some of the matters which have come to my attention since the supplementary payment has been in operation. When this bill is before the committee I hope the members of the committee will take a close look at some of its clauses. In clause 7 for example, the time for repayment should be specified; repayment of overpayment caused by administrative errors may bring about great hardship. This provision should be amended so that the cost of overpayment through administrative error is at least partially borne by the administration.
Clause 8 gives the governor in council power of regulation to determine the month in which an applicant or his spouse has ceased to hold office or employment, carry on business, or suffers loss or reduction of private pension income. These matters should not be made subject to regulation but should be determined by a third party-a board, administration or tribunal, but not by the governor in council. Briefly, those are clauses which I believe should be reconsidered by the members of the committee when they examine the bill.
The whole question of welfare would seem to be a hodge-podge. It has grown up like Topsy. I think it is time we had a much better system than that which exists today. I had hoped this would be the case when the minister tabled this bill, but it would appear that we are to continue in the same topsyturvy way of administering and distributing welfare. I cannot understand why the minister did not explain to the House and to the public the reason the people whose pension is to be frozen at $80 are not to have the 2 per cent increase each year, the same as those who receive the pension plus the supplement.
This government has instituted a plan whereby the 2 per cent inflationary factor is built into the Canada Pension Plan. It is also built into some civil service pensions and the RCMP pension. It would seem that this has been the policy all along. Here, however, they penalize the senior citizens of our country by not allowing them to have this built-in escalation which in my opinion they have the same right to receive as anyone else. As I mentioned earlier, the $80 will be worth only $60 in about six years from now because the yearly inflation factor is 4 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few observations in respect of this very comprehensive and important bill dealing with our senior citizens, who

December 9, 1970
Old Age Security
are worthy of better treatment than they are receiving in the measure now before us.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-202 may I say that I think the first thing all Canadians and all Members of Parliament should realize is that the greatness of this country naturally stems from our senior citizens. I believe that too often in the past some of our young people in society, including myself, have not really looked the way they should upon the senior citizen and particularly the message they Eire trying to get across to us in respect of their rights in society.
President Nyerere of Tanzania made very clear in some of his essays on Socialism the contribution the senior people in his country are making and will be making. I believe that we are not living up to the meaning contained in the words of President Nyerere in respect of the part our senior citizens have played. We seem to have a situation in which we deliberately try to divide and conquer this group in our society.
This bill provides a basic $80 a month with no consideration for escalation, and yet we see that the government is proposing an escalation clause in respect of the supplements. In our society it is not right that one group of people should be treated differently from others. If the payment of $80 is included in the bill, an escalation clause should be included to bring it into line with other portions of the bill. It is difficult to understand why the government consider? that $80 a month should be the basic amount, when the Economic Council of Canada has stated that the minimum should be $150 a month.
If we expect to have an equitable distribution of wealth in this country, these people should have part of it. We do not seem to realize what is entailed in a planned economy, although we do realize that we should have such an economy. There is no reason to suggest that it is not necessary to take money from a particular segment of society in order to provide for our senior citizens.
In this bill a provision has been deliberately made whereby some people in society will receive only the $80 a month basic pension and will not be entitled to any type of increase. These people will look upon those who will receive the supplement as being in a different situation. I suggest it is not too late for the government to at least make the bill a little more palatable by including an escalation clause in respect of the small amount of $80 which has been suggested. I am certain that before the bill leaves the committee, consideration will be given to this suggestion. If the government indicates that it is prepared to do something about this matter right now, the length of time the bill will be considered by the Standing Committee will be greatly reduced.
There is a realization of the state of poverty which becomes more acute as time goes on. We should realize that these people who have set aside a small amount of money are entitled to recognition. We must realize that the people who will receive only the basic amount of $80
a month will be faced with property taxes which are increasing by 50 per cent in some areas. We know, for example, that some property taxes in Ottawa have risen by 25 per cent in the last year.
With the system of taxation we have at this time, we know that costs will not go down and that people who own property will be obligated, and rightfully so, to pay the property tax. I suggest that if we are to give any consideration to our senior citizens who wish to retain their homes, the property tax must be paid in some other way. I know of many cases throughout the country and in my constituency where people have had to give up their homes because they have been unable to pay the property taxes. I am certain that this 14-cent increase will not enhance their financial position in so far as their home is concerned.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It seems to me that we must accept some kind of equality. I do not think the bill before us can possibly be called the rule of law and equality for this nation. At the present time the law of this nation is dictated by the Liberal government and they will have to stand trial for subjecting these people to such a low basic old age pension. I am sure there is a method whereby the government and this House could redistribute the wealth in this country to bring equality to the citizens of Canada so they can be proud of being Canadian. I am sure we have all seen situations in the past where wage increases have been based on a certain percentage. This, again, accentuates the difference between the haves and the have-nots.
I think departments of government should consider the escalator clause, as they have with regard to other increases which were based on the cost of living. Surely the government can accept this principle and include in the basic amount an escalator provision which would make the assistance more consistent with the cost of living. Also, the 2 per cent provided by the government is far from sufficient. I am sure that the DBS figures reflect the situation as it exists so far as the equitable distribution of wealth is concerned.
We know that people living on old age assistance, and even those subsisting on the basic amount, continue to be confronted by the same situation as everyone else in the country; but they have no way of stretching their dollar to offset the high cost of medicines, for example. They have no means of taking in some of the entertainment to which they should be entitled, unless there is an escalation in the basic amount of pension which they receive. If the government is suggesting that there should not be a basic pension-in effect that is what they are saying in the bill before us-they should come out and say so, instead of saying they are going to divide our society into two groups and give some people a little increase while others will not be considered.
I hope that when this bill goes to committee, senior citizens and their organizations will be heard and the government will pay attention to their representations. I hope all Members of Parliament will realize that we must recognize these people as being members of the

December 9, 1970

Canadian society. If the government does that, surely it will make amendments to the bill so that everyone in our society will be treated equally. Surely it is not asking too much at this time to consider the 510,000 people who would be affected if they were included under this bill. These people have been included in other types of settlement that have been made. There is no reason why these people cannot be included in this bill.
I am sure that more observations will be made on this subject, because there are millions of poor in Canada. People in other countries have a planned economy, while we have everything that is needed to bring about a planned economy but cannot achieve it. I am certain that if we had a planned economy the distribution of wealth and income of this country could be adjusted to take into consideration those people who have played a great part in the making of Canada.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to take part in the debate on second reading of this bill because many of my constituents who are having a very difficult time know that this measure will affect them. The bill before the House is an odd phenomenon and reflects the ineptness of the white paper on income security for Canadians. The white paper on income security claims that the government wants to fight poverty. If this is so, this bill is a pretty poor weapon and the poverty line is secure.
Let us state now that a full adjustment for the rising cost of living should be given to all recipients whether or not they receive the guaranteed income supplement. This adjustment should be consistent with the annual cost of living index. Money is currently available for this purpose. The fund has had large and steady surpluses for several years, and the balance at the end of the 1969-70 fiscal year was about $725 million. For the majority of those who receive welfare payments there is no real incentive built into the current program which would encourage them to work and be independent.
I should like to comment on clause 7. The time for repayment should be specified in clause 7 (a). With regard to clause 7 (b), repayment of overpayment caused by administrative error may cause great hardship. This arrangement should be amended so that the cost of overpayment caused by administrative error is at least partially borne by the administration. The recipient should not have to pay for administration errors. Clause 8 gives the governor in council power of regulation to determine the month in which an applicant or his spouse ceased to hold office or employment or carry on business, or suffered loss or reduction of private pension income. These matters should not be made subject to regulation but should be determined at least by a third party-a board or administrative tribunal, but not by governor in council.
I should like to refer hon. members to the research office paper on statutory instruments. Criticism of the powers and use of regulation by the governor in council is relevant in this context. In October of 1970, 1,704,068 people received old age pensions. The present flat rate
Old Age Security
for old age pensions is $79.58 per month. The proposed flat rate increase amounts to 42 cents a month. The poverty line in 1968 for single persons was fixed at $1,800 and for married couples at $3,000. More than 50 per cent of Canadians 65 years of age and over live below the poverty line. The present guaranteed income supplement pays a total of $25.75 a week. Under the bill, guaranteed income supplement benefits are increased to $95 a month for married couples and to $55 for qualified single persons.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Changes in the old age pension would become effective on January 1, 1971. Changes in the guaranteed income supplement would be effective as of April 1, 1971. Transitional rates regarding guaranteed income supplements would be as follows: Between January 1 and March 31, 1971, the guaranteed income supplement would be $33.61 monthly for an individual and $67.22 per couple. These amounts would have been payable to guaranteed income supplement recipients in January through normal escalation under existing legislation. Income supplements could assist pensioners in the poverty group who are facing increased costs during the winter months.
On the economic front, the fight against inflation seems to be waged on a "victory at any cost" basis and the old age pensioners are the scapegoats. The old age pensioners are in a special category in our society and are undeniably suffering from the effects of inflation. With ever-increasing unemployment throughout Canada there is virtually no hope for an able pensioner to augment his meagre income. This situation is worsened during the winter months. Steps should be taken to assist the pensioner just existing at the poverty level to meet the higher running costs of the winter months. The increases to be implemented will just serve to allow the pensioners to catch up for the time they have been frozen at a 2 per cent annual increase. The cost of living has risen more than twice that amount.
Surely this country is not so hard-up, surely times are not so desperate that we must further penalize our old people in order to come to grips with inflation, and surely this should not be done by a government that professes to be taking us into an age of greatness. We have mass unemployment. Pensioners, both old age pensioners and war pensioners, are among the unemployed. With the present recommendations there is no incentive for them to get out and help themselves. I know of many elderly couples where one spouse is in receipt of a pension but the other cannot find work, and because of pride they do not want to plead their case. They are struggling along, trying to live on a single pension. I know of many cases where a couple is receiving a pension and is attempting to struggle along on a smallholding in districts where even well-equipped farms are meeting difficulty under present conditions. In many cases these people receive no supplementary allowance; all they receive is $79.58 per month.
These people have not drawn their plight to the attention of the authorities, but I know the hardship they are

December 9, 1970
Old Age Security
suffering. Surely greater attention should be paid to these senior citizens by the authorities. I have drawn a number of these cases to the attention of municipal authorities. We all know how much the cost of living has risen. I believe our senior citizens should be treated much better than they are, particularly when there is so much unemployment affecting our young, able-bodied people. I appreciate that the government has finally started to come to grips with this problem, but we have much catching up to do. Many of our senior citizens are in dire need.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to make some comments on this bill. I think it is a very important bill. It affects over one and a half million Canadians. It affects those Canadians to which all of us owe so much. I know that in my constituency many of the people who first settled the area are still there. Now they are senior citizens. These are the people who laid the foundations of my province and, of course, of our country. Many of these people who laid the basic foundation of our country are today faced with many injustices and inequities that are perpetuated because of government policies, or should I say lack of policies, where the government does not really care about them. Many of the elderly people who first settled the country now live in poverty, and as a result of this bill they will continue to live in poverty.
This is the main reason why I consider this bill is a bad bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a typical Liberal bill. It is something that appeases a few people. It is something that would clear the conscience of a few middle-class Liberals. It may clear the conscience of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) but it does not do much for the people who are living out in the country, for the old people and for those who are living in houses that are unfit for people to live in, people who will still be living below the poverty line. It does not mean much to them.
I suggest that this bill is not really fundamental. It does not change anything. It does not redistribute the wealth of the country. What it does is redistribute poverty. For this reason I think the bill should be opposed vigorously by all of us who are concerned about this problem, and I do hope the minister will seriously re-evaluate his position and introduce two or three basic fundamental amendments to the bill.
I have said that this bill is really redistributing poverty among old people. It will not be much of a Christmas gift for our senior citizens. I suggest that the basic rate should be much higher. We in this party are suggesting a basic rate of $150 per month, along with an escalator clause. Under the bill we are to have a flat rate of $80 a month. This is 42 cents more than pensioners are receiving this month. We also find that the minimum income of pensioners will be going up slightly. Under the bill, the minimum income for a single pensioner is going up to $1,600 per year and for a married couple it is going up to $3,060 per year.
We all welcome these small increases because I think we all realize that, even psychologically, if someone is
[Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake) .1
tramping on your foot and he gets off your foot a little, you feel better. So we are happy that there is a small increase. But if we tend to be satisfied with this increase we are only fooling ourselves. Those of us who are satisfied are just hiding in the smug complacency of Parliament; we do not know what our older people are facing.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
All I have to do to prove my point is refer to the studies made by the Economic Council of Canada and by Senator Croll on the matter of poverty in Canada. In 1968 the poverty level for a single person in Canada was set at $1,800 a year. According to Senator Croll, who considered the increase in the cost of living, in 1970 this figure should be raised to $1,944. If this bill passes it will raise the minimum pension for a person with no other income to $1,600. But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. The person with a "tremendous" income of $1,600 will have to pay income tax because our government believes he is making two much money and does not need it all. For this reason I think we need some basic and fundamental changes in this bill. Let's not fool ourselves. I hear the minister saying that we need more money. It seems to me that in Canada we have a great deal of money for other things. We have money to subsidize certain sectors of private industry. We have all kinds of money to spend on things that really are not important when it comes down to people who are not as privileged as others. Yet all of a sudden we run out of money.
I suggest that we should make amendments to this bill in reference to the escalator clause. Under the new requirements the escalator clause will not apply to the flat rate of $80 a month, but it applies to the flat rate today. The 2 per cent applicable to the supplement is not adequate, and I think the minister is fooling himself if he thinks the cost of living is going to increase by only 2 per cent next year and the year after. Why does he set $80 a month as the basic fiat rate for the old age pension? This figure is ridiculous. Many older people who are without other means will find this amount far from adequate in order to live in Canada at today's high cost of living.
Under this bill only 60 per cent of the people now receiving the old age security pension will be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. That is, 60 per cent of 1,700,000 pensioners will receive the supplement and the remainder, 510,000, will not receive it. But many of these pensioners also need extra help. I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that those people receiving the old age pension today will not be exempt from income tax, and this seems rather ridiculous. When the basic exemption for income tax was set in this country, the cost of living was not as high as it is today. We could get around this problem by doubling the exemption for old people, making it $2,000 instead of $1,000 for single people and $4,000 for a married couple.
I should like to ask the minister why we must delay the implementation of these benefits, small as they may be, until April 1, 1971. Why not make these provisions applicable at the beginning of next year, or even sooner? We have known for a long time that there is need for an
December 9, 1970

increase in old age pensions. The problem of the pensioner in Canada is similar to problems faced by many other groups in this country, many of them powerless or underprivileged. These are the working poor, the unemployed and those on fixed incomes of one sort or another. If we are to give all these people an equal opportunity, we must have changes. The pensioner should not have to worry about money; he should have an income that enables him to live in dignity and to have all the services that are necessary in today's society.
We do not give these things top priority in Canada; that rating seems to fall to money, profits and the interests of our corporate society. In this country we seem to follow the philosophy of survival of the fittest. This means that the weak person, the older person, the person who for some reason or other may not have a skill or education, is pushed aside and trampled upon. This bill reinforces that philosophy. This bill does not redistribute wealth; it redistributes poverty. It takes from some of the poor who are a little more affluent, to give to the really poor. This might clear the conscience of a few people in the Liberal party or a few of the privileged people in Canada, but it will not put much buying power into the pockets of the old people.
There are a number of reasons why we have to take this question more seriously. As I said before, our old people laid the foundations of this country. The country is only 103 years old and many of those receiving the old age pension today are first generation Canadians. They came from all around the world to look for greater opportunity, and indeed many of them found it. But now that they are old they find themselves faced with living in conditions of absolute and abject poverty, when they have a right to dignity and comfort. They are not asking for a pension that is extravagant or that will allow them to live in luxury; all they are asking is that they receive the basics to enable them to live in dignity.
It is the duty of members of this House to convince the government that it must do these things; and if we cannot, we must change the government. We know the resources of this country. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and we have the technology and scientific know-how to make that wealth work for the people. We can transplant hearts and we can go to the moon, but still 20 per cent of our people live below the poverty line. The whole thing does not make much sense to me, Mr. Speaker, and it makes even less sense to the old person who has to live on hand-outs in a house that is cold and not fit for habitation. I again appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to reconsider this bill and to come down, on the side of the people, with sound legislation that will make us all proud of him.


Mr. Mark Smerchanski (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on Bill C-202. It has been said that the increase is 42 cents a month. Of course, that is not so, because with the pension supplement a single person will receive $135 a month and a married couple will receive $255 a month. Perhaps the pension supplement should be higher, but on the other
Old Age Security
hand I think the government should be congratulated on the proposals contained in this bill. Based on a 40-hour week, the government has increased the pension rate for a married person to $1.50 an hour. That is an excellent proposition and is, I think, a major step in the right direction.
Many times in this chamber we have heard members state that they would like to get industry into their areas. The workers in their areas would be happy to receive $1.50 per hour. The pension supplement, based on $255 per month, works out to $1.50 per hour. The only unfair part of this proposal is that the recipients will be taxed under the present income tax arrangement. When the proposals in the white paper on taxation are implemented next year, single persons receiving $135 a month, and married couples receiving $255 per month, will not be taxed. As with any program, everyone would like a little more money to spend. However, there must be a reasonable equivalent between the tax proceeds of the government and what it has to pay out. Some people in our society have a very heavy tax burden. It is not fair to require these people to pay additional taxes in order to hand out this money to others.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The program proposed in Bill C-202 will assist the senior citizens. We must bear in mind that there are also other programs for these people, such as medicare. The provinces have a well-integrated and well-planned system by which some senior citizens enjoy additional benfits. I repeat that if the pension supplement is worked out on an hourly basis, it averages $1.50 per hour. If all employed Canadians received $1.50 per hour, taxes could be reduced in this country. It is only one side of the coin to state that this increase works out to 42 cents per hour. It should be brought to the attention of our senior citizens that they are receiving fair and equitable treatment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark G. Smerchanski: The pension supplement for single people will be increased to $135 per month, and $255 per month for married couples. We must also consider the places in which our retired senior citizens live. Those living in a rural area may have a garden, chickens and possibly cows which provide their milk and butter. If they receive $1.50 an hour, this is a good income. The opposition is being unfair when they say that the government is not providing enough. The assistance proposed in this bill is fair and equitable. I agree that more can be done. Possibly in another year or two we will have to reconsider this whole matter. In the meantime, the government should be complimented for having introduced this good program. The senior citizens of Canada will be in a much better position as a result of it.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: When we think of some of our elderly people on pension, Mr. Speaker, we are sometimes inclined to think of an old
1908
December 9, 1970

Old Age Security
lady living in the suburbs of a city, a small town or on a farm in a genteel or decent form of poverty. Our senior citizens should have an adequate income with which to meet and cover their needs; their income should not only be adequate for their bread and butter. These people have worked hard to build our society and they did not receive very much income for so doing. We received the benefits. Our senior citizens are not given the proper credit for their basic pioneering in this country.
We often take these things for granted. We feel that because we live in a modem, affluent age we deserve all these things. We sometimes feel that because our older people did not earn very much in their working days, they do not deserve a good pension. I take issue with those who hold that view and do not want to provide an adequate pension for senior citizens. Those who built the basic framework for our society have a claim on us. That claim should not be equated to a dollar value on what they put into society. Anyone in business realizes that the basic capital invested in a community increases once the society is in gear. We must give recognition to these people in an economic sense. They should have adequate incomes to enable them to live with a feeling of decency and worth. We disagree with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). He does not recognize the basic fact that our citizens have contributed more than is recorded in dollars and cents.
I wish to spend a few moments speaking of some of the individuals in my constituency. I feel it is better to talk about individuals than to quote statistics. We must consider the problems of those people who have farmed for most of their lives, moved into a small village adjacent to their farm and turned over the operation of the farm to their son. They may have an adequate house in the village, and possibly a little money. In addition, they may have an old car. Their life is not too bad so long as they are able to drive that car. But times are changing in Canada. Perhaps the villages no longer have a store. Many do not have a doctor, druggist or hospital. People must go elsewhere for these services. As long as they are able to drive, the situation is not too bad. If they become incapacitated and are no longer able to drive, they are in trouble. They may decide that the village is not adequate and decide to move to a larger town.
When they try to purchase a home in the larger town, they find it is beyond their resources to do so. Because they are not able to sell their house in the small village at a good price, they do not have the capital with which to purchase a house in a larger village. Therefore, they decide to rent an apartment. They find that rents are out of all reason compared with the income on which they have been used to managing. Inflation has cut into their savings. Now they are faced with an extremely difficult problem. They need to be near medical services and they want to be close to older people like themselves. Yet when they try to move, their resources prove inadequate.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The increases which have been announced are not sufficient to take care of these needs. In some cases, it is

true, there may be children capable of assisting their parents. This is all to the good; perhaps today we pass too many of our family responsibilities on to the state. But in other cases children will not accept this responsibility or, possibly, they do not have the necessary means. When these old people move into a community where rents are high, they find that when they have paid their rent they are left with insufficient money to take care of other necessities.
I recall talking with elderly people who are extremely conscious of transportation costs. They were used to getting 20 tickets for a dollar. Now, in Ottawa, it costs 25 cents or 30 cents to travel on a bus, and most elderly people travel by bus. Expenses such as these-minor expenses to most of us-are important to elderly people, especially if they wish to take part in such activities for older people as our society provides.
I think of some railroaders in the town of Biggar near my home who were hardworking, industrious people. They saved money and bought a house. They receive a pension. But the pension is nowhere near adequate to their needs today. They were saving money back in the thirties and forties when a dollar went quite a long way. That is not the case today. Their taxes have gone up; the cost of food has risen and the cost of new articles, when they have to buy them, bears no relation to the provision they were able to make for themselves. So they are caught in a squeeze. I am not talking about people who, like the grasshopper in the fable, preferred to be idle. I am talking about industrious people who saved and used their resources with care but who, because of the changing times, are not able to meet the problems which surround them today.
When I look at these people and see the arrangements they have tried to make, I cannot but feel we ought to consider them a little more as individuals and a little less as statistics. I am sure that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare were to go out and talk to these people, he would also relate to them in this way. He is no more heartless than the rest of us. Sometimes, here in Ottawa, dealing with millions of dollars and problems of statistics we forget that somewhere out there is a person. We must look at this question less impersonally.
I do not wish to belabour the subject. I feel we can do better than we have done. I liked the suggestion made by one hon. member who preceded me that we ought to consider this subject again in a year or two. I do not think we are dealing with it adequately now. If this is all we can do at the moment, we had better not wait too long before we take another look at this problem, because inflation is constantly with us and unless we do something about bringing rents into line with the ability of people to afford them, the problem will become more acute rather than less. It behoves us to look after elderly people in a better fashion than we have done so far.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must speak up in this debate in defence of the elderly people in my constituency of Regina East and in defence of elderly people wherever they may live in Canada. In
December 9, 1970

my constituency there are many elderly people who are watching events very closely at the present time to see what is likely to happen. They know what their situation is. They know very well that they cannot make ends meet on present pensions and sources of income available to them. They see things happening around them which are completely beyond their control; nevertheless, they are affected by economic and social developments which have a definite impact upon their day-to-day living, upon their pocketbooks and upon the small amount of money available to them in their remaining years.
I should like to refer briefly to some of the past history of old age pensions. While I am a relatively new member of this House, I have had some contact with events of the past. I have watched from the galleries on many occasions as subjects such as this were debated. I have heard many spokesmen for the Liberal party in past years brag about their record in connection with welfare policies and declare how constantly they kept the interests of the small people of this country in mind and how well they were looking after their welfare. Really, it was a great day for Canada, as was pointed out earlier in this debate by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when the Liberal government of the day decided to do away with the means test in relation to old age pensions and move to the principle of a universal pension.
A great proponent of Liberal policy of that day, Hon. Paul Martin, now government leader in the Senate, was the leading apostle of the government's philosophy in this area. He, along with other Liberal spokesmen, took advantage of every opportunity to draw attention to the great thing they had done by doing away with the means test, by abolishing the differentiation which had existed amongst the old people and making a universal pension available with all its advantages.
It seems, now, that the government is ignoring some of the statements which were made by government spokesmen years ago in defence of the move made at that time toward a universal pension. A significant step was taken a number of years ago when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced, together with the guaranteed income supplement and the universal old age security pension. These measures were, of course, the subject of protracted debate in the House. People such as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre deserve great credit for the efforts they put forth then, as well as on many other occasions throughout the years, on behalf of the elderly people of this country in an effort to ensure them a fair deal.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It is quite clear, as already stated by some of my colleagues, that the effect of legislation such as that now before the House is to create two classes of citizens in this country-the haves and the have-nots. In this connection an injustice is being done to both groups. On the one hand, those who will have to resort to applying for the guaranteed income supplement will have to go through the humiliating procedures involved in filing 23568-50J
Old Age Security
their applications and taking what amounts to a means test in order to qualify.
I am sure all members of the House have had occasion to deal with some of the very difficult cases that arise. One is amazed at the complexities of administration and the myriad figures that are produced just in dealing with a single case. Multiplied many times over in terms of the number of people who are drawing the guaranteed income supplement, we see something of the monstrosity that has been created and which is created when we have to deal with methods of this sort and programs of this type that distinguish between one group of people and another.
On the other hand, we must also recognize that there is discrimination against those people who, under the present program or under the new program, will qualify only for the universal old age pension which is now $79.58 a month and which, if this measure is passed by Parliament, will be increased to $80. Their first grievance has to be with the reduction of their pension at the start of the new year. These people had every right and reason to expect that as of January 1 their pension would increase to $81.17 from the present figure of $79.58. But it has been decreed by certain circles across the way that this will not be the case.
I am sure the minister is aware that there are many people in this country who are just above the level of income that would otherwise qualify them for receiving the guaranteed income supplement and whose only source of supplementary income is the old age security pension. These people are being cheated out of some of the return that they had every reason and right to expect as a result of their labours in past years on behalf of the people of this country.
It seems to me that a situation such as this is contrary to trends in our pension plans. I feel we have to examine what has happened in many other areas of pensions legislation in this country. We have to consider the position of this group of people who through a little luck or by good management have accumulated a modest, small income other than that which they receive by way of pension. Possibly they have some savings on hand which earn them additional income. These people will receive $80 under the new proposal, it is true, but they will not receive their just reward compared to what other people receive under other aspects of these programs.
It seems to me that a question of elementary justice is involved here. There should be, under our program, provision for the payment of an adequate universal pension, as suggested by other speakers, of at the very minimum $100 a month. If the government continues to pay a guaranteed income supplement, then the total payment should be at least $150 a month, though we would prefer and we advocate a pension of $150 a month for all Canadians.
I suggest that if this measure is passed in its present form it will cause many Canadians to look at government and at Members of Parliament with a sceptical eye. This government, with its typical Liberal, Machiavellian approach, is perhaps saving up a further increase until

December 9, 1970
Old Age Security
just before the next election-who knows? On the basis of past experience, I am sure we can expect this to happen. Bather than give an increase now when it is needed and desired, the government will save up a further measure for granting an increase until just before the next election, timing it very propitiously. I suggest the elderly people of this country will not be fooled by a continuation of this type of tactic if, in fact, this is what the government does have in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will probably be another $6.


John Stratford Burton: It could be another $6, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It might be more than that, because the Liberal party was bitten when it made such an increase once before, though I am not sure they have learned any lessons from that. I suggest we must be concerned about the process of alienation that is manifesting itself in our society. We hear many reports of alienation today with respect to our young people, the unemployed, the low-income groups, and so on. I suggest our elderly people are also becoming alienated. If we pass this measure in the form proposed by the government it will, I suggest, contribute to the social phenomenon we have come to regard very seriously today, the alienation of people from our institutions and from the recognized processes of society.
I also suggest we must consider the whole area of poverty. I am sure the minister knows very well what happens to pensioners who have only very little more income than it is possible for them to have and still qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. Many of these people are reduced to finding ways and means of
tackling the desperate income problem they are facing at the present time. As I have said, I am sure they look with a very sceptical eye when they see that we now have higher pensions for Members of Parliament-a measure passed in the current Parliament-higher pensions for retired civil servants, higher pensions for members of the armed forces and higher pensions for the RCMP, all of which we approve.
This basic pension has been in effect since 1966-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, would someone on the government side confirm for the record what we know from private conversation, namely, that Bill C-205 dealing with regional development will be debated tomorrow?


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is to be a continuation of the debate on the bill now before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The understanding given to me was that it would be either bill C-202 or Bill C-205.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 10, 1970