1970-12-17

TRIBUTES TO DR. MAURICE OLLIVIER, JOINT LAW CLERK AND PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL, ON RETIREMENT-APPOINTMENT OF JOSEPH MAINGOT

Mr. Speaker:: May I impart to the House the sad news that effective January 1 Dr. Maurice Ollivier will retire from the office of Joint Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.
On a brighter note, I am sure that hon. members will be pleased to know that Mr. Joseph Maingot will be promoted to succeed Dr. Ollivier. In the discharge of his previous responsibilities as Assistant Counsel, Mr. Maingot has earned the respect of all who have had occasion to seek his advice and guidance. We know that he will continue to serve members well in his new position.
At the same time, I am sure hon. members would want me to express their appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Maurice Ollivier who is leaving us after serving so many years in the high office of Parliamentary Counsel and Joint Law Clerk of the House of Commons. For close to half a century, Dr. Ollivier has dispensed knowledge and wisdom to generations of Members of Parliament, to political leaders, to successive Speakers.

His constantly alert intellect, his sound judgment and his dedication to duty made it possible for Dr. Ollivier to make his profound knowledge of parliamentary and constitutional law reliably and efficiently available to Parliament. His drive and his dedication both to hon. members and to the parliamentary institution itself were never found wanting.
In the course of his long career, Dr. Ollivier was able to adjust to all new situations. He possessed the ability to renew himself and to preserve his youth of spirit. Indeed, there has long been a suspicion that Dr. Ollivier has discovered the secret of perpetual youth and is jealously keeping it to himself.
Even after he leaves the House, he will therefore be able to pursue his professional and other activities with the same zeal and vigour that marked his work in the Parliament of Canada.

On behalf of the House, I reiterate to Dr. Ollivier the assurance of our gratitude for so many years of faithful service to the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted a few words on this
occasion as one who first came to this Parliament in 1957 but before that had the experience of sitting in the Parliamentary Press Gallery as far back as 1949. I will not recall all the events that have happened since or even some of them, but I should like to pay tribute on behalf of my party to Dr. Ollivier who has been a most excellent parliamentary counsel. We wish his successor, Mr. Maingot, well.
[DOT] (2.10 p.m.)
Having known the great Dr. Ollivier over the years and having had the advantage of seeing some of his treasure house of documents concerning events that have happened in Parliament but which have not necessarily been reported, I hope that Your Honour and others will see fit to approach the Canada Council so that some of the documents that Dr. Ollivier has assembled dealing with the events of state over the past 50 years may be published in printed form. Having seen some of these documents which have never been publicized before, I am aware that among them are some of the most revealing and certainly some of the most interesting recollections pertaining to the development of Canada as a nation that one could ever hope to see.
I wish Dr. Ollivier well in his retirement and also his wife, Blanche. I wish the new parliamentary counsel well. I hope Your Honour will give some consideration to the thought I have directed to you today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour has spoken so well on behalf of all of us that nothing needs be added, but on behalf of my party, I should like to re-echo most warmly everything you have said about Dr. Ollivier.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, from this corner of the House it is difficult for us to determine Dr. Ollivier's physical size, but nevertheless we have been able in the past to size him up from the standpoint of his efficiency, which, moreover, you have very well defined in your comments.
For the information of hon. members, Dr. Ollivier is a Quebecer, and members of the Ralliement Creditiste well recall that, in 1962, those among them who had no parliamentary experience were able to benefit from his wide knowledge and experience.
Should Dr. Ollivier have kept to himself the secret of eternal youth, we hope that his retirement will give him

December 17, 1970
Tribute to Dr. Ollivier
the opportunity to write his memoirs through which we will be able to learn of his vast and varied experience as Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.
By the way, I believe that no one is better able than Dr. Ollivier to record for the enlightenment and pleasure of future generations the events which took place in Canada in the last 25 years.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to you for bringing to the attention of the House of Commons this important event and for giving us the opportunity to express our admiration to Dr. Ollivier for the many years of outstanding service that he has rendered to the House of Commons. That he has been able to withstand the vicissitudes and controversies of this place for 40 years and still retain a youthful image that might be the envy of men much younger is no mean record.
I join with you, Mr. Speaker, and with the representatives of the other parties in thanking Dr. Ollivier for his services and express the wish that he will continue his contacts with all of us in future. I also express our good wishes to the new incumbent of the office, Mr. Maingot, in the expectation that he will be here 40 years hence and that the rest of us will also be here to express appreciation to him.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Regional Development-Mr. Morison.
[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 tabled in English and French a number of international agreements concluded by Canada over the course of the last 16 months.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce following the questions I directed to him the other day with regard to Canada's trade position. In view of the lack of support by Prime Minister Heath yesterday for another general conference on the reduction of tariffs at the present time, is the government simply going to continue to push for this kind of consultation despite the lack of support from the United States, the European Common Market and Great Britain, or is a new approach being considered in view of these rejections?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is not aware of the fact that in Europe and the United States the views that I expressed the other day in answer to some of his questions have also been expressed. They are not so extraordinary as to be the exclusive property of the Canadian government. These views are shared by a number of political leaders throughout the world. I have already indicated that among many others, the Director General of GATT supports some of these same concepts. I would not like to say who first expressed these views, but they are so much in the long term interests of the world that it was quite normal that they should be shared by a great number of people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Are we to understand that the minister is not considering a different approach despite the rejection of the initiative on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if one can dignify it in that way? When the minister spoke of bargaining power in connection with these matters, particularly with relation to the Common Market, what did he mean? What is this bargaining power and when does he propose to exercise it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the minister's reply will be brief. I would not think he should give an extended explanation of what he may have said or may have wanted to say. Perhaps the minister would co-operate with the Chair by making a brief reply to the rather general question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Pepin:: It is obvious that Canada is a major world trading power, with $17 billion in exports and more than $14 billion in imports. The import market represents a market to which Europe, the Common Market, the United Kingdom and other countries are certainly not indifferent. This means something in international conferences and negotiations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since it is apparent that the minister and his associates are simply making gestures which are not leading to any response, will the minister consider asking his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to go to Europe on a speaking tour to see what he can do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
December 17, 1970



INVESTIGATION OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF CRUDE-REQUEST FOR TWO-PRICE SYSTEM-ACCESS TO UNITED STATES MARKET

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the fact that three of the leading oil companies have now increased the price of crude oil by 25 cents a barrel following the example of the oil companies in the United States. Since representatives of these oil companies have indicated that the increase is not due to any increase in costs-as a matter of fact oil company profits increased in the first nine months of this year-but is due to the fact that the oil companies are following the example of oil companies in the United States, may I ask the minister whether his department intends to take any action with respect to this increase and, in particular, whether the National Energy Board has this question under study and has made any recommendation to him regarding it?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): The hon. member may not be aware that in Canada it is the buyer who fixes the price for oil. The buyers are paying more for crude oil now and hence their profits will diminish, if anything, rather than increase. The change should, of course, increase the profits of the producers. As far as any review of this matter is concerned, there is no review under way. I might point out that with respect to crude prices there has been no increase since 1962, so I think this industry has been very responsible in showing price restraint. Any increases that have been made have been the result of taxation by provincial governments, not of increased product prices.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not
think that is so. The minister seems to have forgotten the increase in the prince of gasoline that took place only a few months ago.
In view of the fact that the oil companies will now make an additional $350,000 a day as a result of this price increase, and since the government has already set a two-price system for gas and as the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce has set a two-price system for copper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would proceed to ask his question. We are reaching the point of argument now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister give consideration to setting a two-price system for oil so that Canadian prices will not automatically be established in terms of United States prices as is apparently the case now?


Mr. Greene:: No contemplation is being given to a two-price system for oil, but I would point out to the hon. member with respect to his political claims in this regard that we would sell no oil at all in the United States market if it were a completely open market. It is a highly protected market, a market protected at the expense of
Inquiries of the Ministry
United States consumers, and access to that market is certainly a great opportunity for Canadian oil producers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister, then, precisely what are the arrangements concerning access to the United States market? Are there still to be quotas with importers of Canadian oil allowed to use their overseas allotment to buy Canadian oil, or is there to be unimpeded access to the United States market during 1971?


John James Greene: As indicated subsequent to our meetings with our United States counterparts in this regard, we are moving toward an open market. We are still under restrictions, of course, but the market has improved at the rate of some 15 per cent a year. I believe the communique issued subsequent to our meetings indicated we would be moving to the full pipeline capacity available in Canada during 1971, and I think this is evidence of a continually improving market to the benefit of Canadian producers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary question but I wonder whether we might not give some thought to trying to limit supplementaries on the first questions each day. It has been our experience in recent weeks, more so from day to day, that if there are many supplementaries on the first two or three questions most of the question period is spent on these lead-off questions. I would think it might be helpful to those hon. members not seated in the first or second rows if we were to limit supplementaries at the beginning of the question period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to attack the minister nor to defend the provincial governments but to ask him whether he would check the statement he made that there have been no increases in the retail prices of oil products, as I understood him to say, since 1962 other than those to compensate for increases in provincial taxes?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to check that statement but it is my understanding that since 1962 there have been no increases. If that is not correct, I will inform the hon. member.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can he state whether his department is aware of and inquiring about present infiltration into Canada by the American Communist party which, with the help of outstanding Canadian personalities, publishes documents tending to undermine Canadian democracy and unity?


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

December 17, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Abitibi wish to ask a supplementary?


Gérard Laprise: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has any knowledge of evidence heard by the Senate sub-committee on internal security, as well as of reports and laws concerning security in the United States which were the subject of a study under the direction of Senator James O. Easland? Does he intend to get himself acquainted with these in order to find out what does take place in Canada regarding infiltration by the Communist Party?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I shall read this report, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. The minister advised the House on October 5 that he was immediately sending some CF-5 planes to Europe for testing to see whether they would fit in with our NATO role and thus be available for use in that role. Has the minister found out as a result of his latest trip whether these planes are suitable for this role, and can he advise the House how many of them are going to be used?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minisier of Naiional Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the aircraft sent at that time were tried in the central European area and went through a number of tests. They are now at a holding base in Europe. We also plan to put them through similar tests in what is called the northern tier of the alliance, probably some time in the new year when arrangements can be made with the local authorities, and very likely when we will be having a battalion battle group exercise in the northern tier. So evaluation is taking place both with regard to their use on the central European front and in the northern tier, but this evaluation has not yet been completed.


George Harris Hees: Can the minister advise the House how many of the 115 original CF-5 planes were placed in storage as a result of the fact that the original order was not cancelled, even though our United Nations role was cancelled some two years ago? How many of these aircraft are still in storage in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As of November 15, Mr. Speaker, there were 57 in various types of operational use, there were 22 in temporary storage, and there are 36 yet to be delivered in Canada.



AIR REFUELLING CAPABILITY OF CF-5 PLANES

Mr. J. M. Forresfall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How many of these CF-5 aircraft have been converted to accept an air refuelling capability?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that none of them at this moment have been. At the present time two of the C-137's, the 707's, are in the hands of the manufacturers for conversion to air refuelling capacity.


J. Michael Forrestall: Could the minister indicate whether or not it is the policy of the department to convert these aircraft in light of the conversion program being carried out on the 707's?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, that would be the intention. I speak subject to correction, but I do not think that the CF-5 aircraft require too extensive a modification for this purpose.



METHOD OF PURCHASE OF CF-5 AIRCRAFT

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Will the Minister of National Defence say whether tenders were called for the purchase of these CF-5 aircraft from Canadair?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as has been the case in respect of the vast majority of aircraft purchased by the Department of National Defence over a number of years the purchase contract was negotiated. This has been the procedure with aircraft contracts so they can be manufactured in Canada rather than purchased abroad.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question, knowing that he is as interested as all his predecessors were in ensuring that the city of Ottawa is a capital city worthy of Canada. Will he look into the reduction of airline employees by some 33 per cent in Ottawa and the removal of certain of its facilities here? At the same time, will he give his attention to the announced intention of the CNR to downgrade the four Ottawa-Montreal runs and to discontinue the dining and parlour car services between Ottawa and Montreal effective February 1? Transportation is very material and necessary, and what is being done will result in making Ottawa a "tank town" as far as transportation facilities sue concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minisier):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to refer this matter to the Minister of Transport and discuss with him any suggestions he may have.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister take a stand on this matter in order to assure that the city of Ottawa shall not be sacrificed in respect of transportation facilities? That is what I asked but apparently he does not agree to do so.

December 17, 1970



REPORTED HAZARDS OF SHELL VAPONA INSECTICIDE STRIP

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can either minister indicate whether an inquiry or study is being made at this time into the reported health hazards of the household insecticide-killing strip produced by the Shell Oil Company, the Vapona strip?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, actually the question should have been referred to the Minister of Agriculture under whose jurisdiction the control of pesticides falls. Very extensive tests of this product are being conducted in consultation and co-operation with my department and the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Barry Mather: Can the minister indicate when the results of such tests might be available?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are sending out a press release today and I would be happy to send a copy to my hon. friend.
* *
*



AIRPORTS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should have like to put a question to the Minister of Transport, but since he is away I shall direct it to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
We have learned that as a result of land expropriation for the construction of the airport in Ste. Scholastique, a great number of farmers, that is about 600, suffer serious prejudices as their rights are being encroached upon. I have also learned that they made some representations to the government in November, but that they have not yet obtained an answer. Could the minister tell us when and how the government intends to solve their problems?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I will be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to pass on the question to the Minister of Transport.


Martial Asselin: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the urgency of the matter, could the hon. minister ask the Minister of Transport to make a clear and precise statement on motions about the government's position in that regard?


Jean Marchand: I shall also refer that question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



PRESENCE OF WEEVILS OR MITES IN WHEAT SHIPMENTS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Minister of Agriculture indicated to the House that he had received no complaints from foreign buyers in respect of rusty beetles in grain. Since he chose to be technical, has he had any complaints about weevils, mites or any other contamination in grain shipped to other countries? If he has, would he indicate which countries they are and how extensive the contamination was?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there have been some complaints and, indeed, even some claims based on these complaints. I should advise the House that this is not the first time this has happened, and indeed they have not been much greater this year than in previous years. I will be glad to give the hon. member the other details as to the countries and the number of cargoes as soon as I have them.


Stanley James Korchinski: Since it appears that the inspection is at fault here, is the government prepared to accept the responsibility?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the inspection service is not at fault.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES ON TRIP TO JAPAN

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Soulh Wesiern Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Will he soon report on motions about his trip to Japan?



Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister did not understand my question. I simply asked for a statement on motions in respect of his recent trip. Would he make such a report?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I had not contemplated making such a statement, but as the hon. member has indicated interest I will consider his proposition.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Justice received the report of le Centre de Planning Familial du Quebec which estimates that during the past 12 months between 10,000

December 17, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
and 25,000 illegal abortions took place in the province of Quebec compared with 181 legal abortions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering whether it is sufficient merely to ask whether a minister has received a report. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase her question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase it and ask a supplementary. In view of the report of le Centre de Planning Familial du Quebec to the effect that during the past 12 months there have been an estimated 10,000 to 25,000 illegal abortions in that province compared with 181 legal abortions, when does he intend to change the law to permit women to obtain legal instead of illegal abortions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression this question has been asked on a number of occasions. If the minister feels he has anything to add to his earlier answers he might be allowed to reply now.


John Napier Turner: I have nothing to add, Mr. Speaker, except to say I cannot accept the preamble to the report, which I have not read, but because of the insistence of the hon. lady I will read the report.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he tell the House whether there have been official negotiations between his department and the Quebec Roads Department with regard to the construction of East-West Expressway in Montreal?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no official negotiations. So far, there have only been unofficial talks through third parties.

[English\



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the critical importance of uninterrupted shipments of grain at this time, what steps, if any, is the Minister of Labour taking to assist in the current negotiations between the railways and the unions?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of both parties we have placed at their disposal the efforts of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Gibbons of our special mediation department. I am very encouraged that the request has come from both management and labour. This indicates that both sides are approaching collective bargaining in the right spirit.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General of Canada. In light of the searing but sensible strictures against the abolition of Saturday mail delivery made by the Davey Committee, can he advise whether steps are in progress or in contemplation to accept the findings of this careful study and to restore to Canadian people six-day mail delivery?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague will undoubtedly answer that question tomorrow.


PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOI^AUTHORITY OF CANADIAN DELEGATES TO CONVENTION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, over the past week we have asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare to clarify the relationship between Canada's participation in the Geneva protocol and the Le Dain Commission. I am afraid we have not received the assurance we would like. May I therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I will reword the question. Can the minister now state what our commitment at the conference will be, and can he assure the House that Canada will not sign the protocol?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated to the hon. member, the intention of the Canadian government is to listen and participate in the discussion and to do nothing that will prejudge its position prior to receiving the final report of the Le Dain Commission.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In honour of the Christmas season, would the Prime Minister use his good offices to settle the Lapalme issue by restoring these workers to civil service jobs with full seniority rights? It is mighty cold outside.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.
December 17, 1970


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in his conversations with the Prime Minister of Great Britain yesterday he was able to persuade the British Prime Minister to change his government's position with regard to the sale of arms to South Africa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had these very interesting discussions with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I did not demand of him an expression of what his final position would be. I just pleaded with him that it would be in the interests of all of us if we went to Singapore and had these meetings at which the representatives of all countries would be free to express their views and at which, hopefully, an accommodation could be found which would keep the Commonwealth alive and healthy.

Inquiries of the Ministry POWER


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesier North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister in a position today to indicate the action within his department concerning their studies of the power potential of the Bay of Fundy tides?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of the question yesterday and I have inquired into the matter. I find that the report of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board was made in October, 1969, and at that time the conclusions were that the tidal power did not come within economic range. The report has been under review since that date and is continually under review, but factors have not so changed, since October 1969 as to render the conclusions any different now.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that three leaders of African nations are reported to be considering whether they should attend the conference as a result of Mr. Heath's statement in Ottawa yesterday, was the question of representation at the conference discussed with Mr. Heath and has the Prime Minister found it desirable to take any steps to persuade the African leaders to come to Singapore despite Mr. Heath's statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The information we have in respect of any such statements by African leaders is purely that contained in news reports. We have no direct news that they in fact did say what they are alleged to have said. The House knows that I did have Professor Head visit them last week in order to advise them of the Canadian viewpoint. Indeed, after my meeting with Mr. Heath, last night I also communicated again with President Nyerere expressing the hope that the result would be that which I mentioned in answer to the first question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Would the Secretary of State communicate with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and request that organization to avoid in future, vicious, personal attacks on visiting dignitaries such as took place this morning, immediately following the news broadcast, with reference to the Prime Minister of Great Britain?
fTranslationf


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to look into the allegations of the hon. member and convey his concern to the administration of the CBC.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In light of the fact that at this season of the year people usually are in a more generous mood than on other occasions and in the hope that the minister is one of these people, may I ask him if he is in a position to provide an answer today to my numerous queries and representations regarding the necessity for a second television channel for Cape Breton?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I did inquire about this but I can change my answer to the hon. member only as far as this: for some time I have been telling him "in a few weeks from now". Today, I am telling him "in a few days from now".


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister is aware that I am hopefully expecting an announcement to be made on that subject this afternoon.



TELEVISION COVERAGE IN NORTHERN NOVA SCOTIA

Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Is he in a position to indicate what action will be taken in respect of television coverage for northern Nova Scotia?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker, but I can inquire about this.

December 17, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry POWER



INSTITUTION OF STABILIZATION FUND PROPOSAL ON VOLUNTARY BASIS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Seattle City Council voted last Monday to proceed with the power project which will result in the flooding of the Skagit River valley, can the minister state what federal action is contemplated to stop this project from proceeding?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the recommendation outlined in the task force report on agriculture, in which it is stated that the grain stabilization proposal should be instituted on a voluntary rather than on a compulsory basis, has the minister responsible for the Wheat Board considered proceeding with such a program on a voluntary basis?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Generally speaking, the representatives of the farmers and farm groups have not suggested a voluntary basis for the program, which would in fact make it more difficult to operate. Indeed, the representations in respect of the stabilization fund have tended to be to extend its operation so that it covers more grain for more farmers.



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to ask the Secretary of State.
Considering that he is the minister responsible to Parliament for the Canadian Film Development Corporation which subsidized the production of the motion picture entitled "Deux femmes en or", and considering that in this picture Michel Chartrand gives an outrageous portrayal of the Canadian judiciary, is the Secretary of State in a position to assert before this House that the Corporation has now paid Michel Chartrand's fees for the part he played?



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-ACCEPTANCE OF MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN WHEAT POOL PROPOSALS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the opinions expressed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Manitoba Wheat Pool and the specific changes they are requesting in the ministers' proposals, is the minister going to accept any of these proposals or make any modifications to the plan in light of these requests?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, representatives of those organizations were included in the meetings held yesterday and as a result of those meetings we are considering the development of the proposals as I indicated earlier. I am not sure I know what particular proposals the hon. member may be referring to since there a number of different sets in respect of the proposals as a whole.



RETENTION OF TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board. Now that it has become generally apparent that farmers and farm organizations insist that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act remain in effect, will the minister give the House the assurance that this in fact will be the case?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, once again the premise of the hon. member is wrong. I have had meetings with producers and producer organizations as recently as yesterday. We discussed the proposals we have put forward and their priorities in respect of the kind of things which should be done. We will be proceeding with the development of these proposals in the future.



SPREAD IN RAPESEED PRICES-UNDERTAKING BY WINNIPEG GRAIN EXCHANGE TO CORRECT SITUATION

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the statement he made in the House a few days ago and the question I asked him in respect of rapeseed futures and the manipulation that was going on in the market, can he now tell us whether he has received any undertaking by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange to correct the situation that has existed?


Otto Emil Lang: I have nothing to report to the House at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will return to the hon. member in a moment. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie.

December 17, 1970



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Could the minister tell us whether or not, as a result of the recent personal intervention of the hon. member for Hochelaga against the proposed construction of the East-West highway in Montreal, the federal government will help with the lay-out of this highway or its construction, or will the remarks of the hon. member for Hochelaga preclude the federal government from contributing to this project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question put in these terms is in order.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Communications.
In view of the meeting the minister has held over the last week-end with his Quebec counterpart, could he expose briefly the major subjects which have been discussed on that occasion and whether the ministers came to an agreement on any of them?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to be said in this regard, ecxept that it was only a meeting between two people with common interests in some areas.
$ * *



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RAPESEED FUTURES MARKET AND CEREAL GRAINS PROGRAM

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the paucity of information that we have been getting from the minister in reply to questions in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: At an early date will the minister make a statement on motions in regard to the futures market for
Inquiries of the Ministry
rapeseed and in regard to the cereal grains program which he has under way?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly continue to try to keep the House as fully informed as possible, and make a statement when I have something to add to the information I have given.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In light of the pamphlet put out by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board dealing with its new grain policy-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Is that the Gallup poll you are quoting?


Stanley James Korchinski: This is the official document-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Oh, I thought it was the Gallup poll.


Stanley James Korchinski: -in which he said that any attempt to break new land would be discouraged, has he the approval of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion for that statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I rephrase the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously the question is not acceptable and it is not possible to ask a supplementary to a question which is not in order.


Stanley James Korchinski: I asked whether I might rephrase it.


Mr. Speaker:: I will return to the hon. member before the question period is over.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that nine Liberal MP's from Ontario yesterday called for the resumption of the federal government's winter works program, is the government now giving consideration to resuming this program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is asked in the form of an argument, and when asked in this way is not in order. The hon. member might like to rephrase the question without the preamble.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the high unemployment rate in Canada, is the government now giving consideration to re-introducing the winter works program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have answered this question many times, Mr. Speaker.

December 17, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



HOUSING


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing.
Could he tell the House whether the $200 million program for the construction of low rental housing is giving satisfactory results and does he intend to renew that program for 1971 and to apply it in small towns?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the $200 million innovative program of 1970 produced many benefits and we are in the process of evaluating them. I would not claim that everything we did under that program was perfect, but I think it was generally effective. It is our intention to continue into 1971 with a comparable approach, although not necessarily identical to the one of 1970.



HOSPITALIZATION PLAN-MODIFICATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether, in view of the discussions going on with the provinces in regard to a more flexible method of financing the hospital plan, the government of Canada is now prepared to modify any of the original basic requirements laid down by the federal government? I think there were four basic essential conditions. Is the federal government now modifying any of the four essential conditions in order to promote more flexible methods of financing?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the roster system my question would normally be directed to the Minister of Finance on Monday, but because of the urgency I must now direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the government not compensate, by greater income tax exemptions per child, those people who are likely to be deprived of family allowances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government has made its views known on this in the white paper, and we are obviously open to representations from all parts of the country on this matter. If the hon. member wants to make an argument on this case and find the funds for it, we will hear him gladly.



HIGHWAYS


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works, so that it will be more in accordance with our Standing Orders and more acceptable to the Minister.
Can he say whether the government intends to change the lay-out of the East-West highway in Montreal or to have it changed, following objections raised by the Secretary of State, the hon. member for Hochelaga?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the hon. member may phrase his question in this manner. If he wants merely to put it, without the corollary, I think that it would be more in order. Anyway, the minister may want to answer it.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not particularly anxious to answer. The program for the Trans-Canada Highway closes on December 31 this year, and any projection or announcements made by the province of Quebec would be on its own responsibility. I think any question with regard to any involvement on our part should more properly be addressed to my hon. friend, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, could I avail myself of the opportunity offered by the Minister of Public Works and ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion if the lay-out suggested by the province of Quebec will definitely be accepted by the federal government?


Jean Marchand: I am not aware of what the lay-out will be, Mr. Speaker. I am going to inquire and I might be able to reply later.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of
order?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon.
member on a point of order, but we have reached the end of the question period.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, about 20 minutes ago I asked the Prime Minister to indicate whether he would do something for these poor people outside the building so they could go back home to their families for Christmas, but the Prime Minister would not indicate one way

December 17, 1970

or the other. I should like some indication. It is awfully cold out there and they really want to go home.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the men were out there last summer when it was very much warmer at a time when the government had offered them all jobs in the public service. I hope the hon. member will remember this, and perhaps talk to them and remind them of it. I can add, if the House is interested, that the subject has been under review by the government, and the Postmaster General is authorized to have a further discussion and make a final offer to them within the next few days.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



PENITENTIARIES


John George Diefenbaker: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice a question affecting the freedom and the rights of certain persons from Calgary who are in Prince Albert penitentiary pending the outcome of their appeal. The minister has been trying repeatedly to get your eye, and I understand the difficulty, but could there be an extension of the question period so he can answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister did get the eye of the Speaker but I was trying to accommodate as many hon. members as possible. The Minister of Justice has had his opportunity on a few occasions today to show his wisdom and knowledge, but if the House agrees, he might be allowed to reply to the question asked by the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, because of the point of order on which you ruled in favour of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond yesterday, I have not been able to bootleg in some answers today. However, in answer to the right hon. gentleman, I did get a report from the penitentiary service about a question he put to me yesterday. I am not satisfied with that answer, and I intend to communicate with the right hon. gentleman when I get an answer that satisfies me and, I hope, satisfies him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister find out whether an arrangement was made between the government of Alberta and the government of Canada to allocate these prisoners to the Prince Albert penitentiary while they await the result of an appeal, which in my opinion is a totally callous and unjustifiable action?
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION ON MEASURES TO BE TAKEN

Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the orderly conduct of the business of the House, I wonder if I might be permitted to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question arising out of the debate on Tuesday last respecting the alarming increase in unemployment among our young people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust a question will not be asked as a point of order. The question period expired some minutes ago. If hon. members are allowed, to use the word of the Minister of Justice, to "bootleg" questions after the question period, I think we will get into difficulty. If the hon. member has a legitimate point of order I will hear it so he may indicate what the point of order is.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if he intends to make a statement prior to the adjournment of the House respecting any positive measures to be taken by the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not, of course, a point of order. However, the member having asked the question, if the minister wishes to reply I shall then call orders of the day for the third time.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no plans for a statement on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You don't have any plans-period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Peace River is rising on what I gather will be a legitimate point of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Baldwin:: My point of order is legitimate and not bootleg, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Government House Leader about the business for today and tomorrow, and if he can divulge his Christmas plans so that we may make ours accordingly?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we intend to call the Old Age Security Act as the first item of business today. If we make good progress on that, we will also call the omnibus loan bill today and maybe ask consent to clear the report stage of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I know this depends upon the good will of my hon. friend and others.
Tomorrow, we hope to begin consideration of the Regional Incentives Act. As my hon. friend is aware, that

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
will require consent, in order to waive the notice provisions, which I shall be asking from the House at a later date. I propose to call the motion tomorrow providing that the House will adjourn when we return from the Royal Assent for the supply bill and any other measures. We will return on January 11. My expectation is that we can adjourn tomorrow as planned, and that we can clean up all the business that we had foreseen as possible earlier in the week.
In making that expectant comment I should like to express my appreciation of the co-operation received, and my expectation of further co-operation later in the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a supplementary point of order? I suggest to hon. members that actually the point of order raised by the hon. member is really a question, and perhaps we should try to have it brought in as a question during the normal question period, rather than as a point of order six or seven minutes after the question period has expired. I would think that any supplementary question and supplementary answer might give rise to a debate which would not be very helpful at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-202, to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the first motion in the report stage of the bill now up for consideration, I should like to indicate that the Chair has reservations and misgivings about the procedural acceptability of motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) and motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard).
It seems that both motions propose to introduce financial provisions which go beyond the terms of the royal recommendation. I shall be pleased to hear argument in connection with these two motions, however, before a ruling is made on this procedural standpoint.
{Translation]


Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker;: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere want to clarify for the Chair the motion of the hon. member for Portneuf?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like, as briefly as possible, on behalf of my colleague for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) to refer to his motion to amend clause 1 by deleting all the words after the word "of" in lines 10 and 11 at page 1 and substituting therefor:
"one hundred and fifty dollars to every person who has attained sixty years of age.''
Mr. Speaker, we feel the amendment is acceptable, for the following reason.
At the time the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) tabled the White Paper on Income Security, he gave some explanations about the bill he was introducing, thus starting the discussion on two main points, namely the amount of the pension and the age of eligibility for this pension.
The Ralliement Creditiste agrees that the government has the right to impose certain financial limits to this bill, but just as the government may invoke the principle that the old age pension will be paid to everyone aged 65, we feel that this bill should apply to those aged 60 and over.
In this way, it may result in the passage of additional appropriations but the bill in itself provides only for the allowance of additional appropriations, which, in fact, changes the substance of the present act so that were we unable to amend this point in clause 1, I wonder what would be the meaning of the present debate since its aim is to determine who will be entitled to old age security under Bill C-202.
Therefore, we should like to discuss this motion briefly because we believe that we should extend the scope of the legislation. In this regard, we meet the request of the minister who asked us to look further into this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: If these are the only submissions to be made for the guidance of the Chair, perhaps I might be allowed to make a ruling on both motions. I think hon. members will gather that I have to give effect to the misgivings I had about these two motions. I do not think, and I am speaking very honestly at this time, that any serious harm will be done because I gather that the motion moved by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) is very close to that moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The arguments which the hon. member for Simcoe North would have made on his motion could very well be made in support of the motion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

As regards the motion-


Gerald William Baldwin: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Were you about to deliver a ruling on both motions?


Mr. Speaker:: I was about to deliver a ruling on both motions. I had invited comments on both because, in my opinion, they were faulty in the same way and for the same reasons. I felt that the arguments advanced in support of one motion would be arguments in favour of the other, and that arguments in opposition to one would be arguments in opposition to the other. As I indicated a short while ago, the difficulty relates to the limitations of the royal recommendation.


Gerald William Baldwin: I recognize that, Your Honour. I only received a watching brief shortly

December 17, 1970

after lunch and it may well be that I may have some rather unique and unusual arguments in addition to the first rate arguments advanced by my friend from Lotbiniere. These arguments may persuade Your Honour to depart from the ruling which I feel you were going to deliver and which might not be in accordance with what would be acceptable, or at least, would not make us happy.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I think that there is a situation here which might well be considered by the Chair. Although I understand that it is not the duty of the Chair to be daringly innovative with regard to the rules, and I do not say that disparagingly, nevertheless there is a point of view that I want to put before Your Honour. It may be that you will think, on the basis of precedents and citations, it is not a valid proposition and that you cannot accept it. On the other hand, if I argue the matter, my argument may commend itself to the House for some future action.
Without question, it is increasingly difficult for hon. members these days, outside of matters that are referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, to adopt that changing and contemporary approach which to some extent is required with regard to matters such as I am about to raise. From time to time precedents are set which are not subject to an appeal in any way to the House. Consequently, when a new approach is introduced, an approach such as I suggest this is, it is no easy matter for Your Honour, no matter how well disposed you may be, to accept the new proposition. To put it shortly, the amendment which is proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) suggests a variation in the payment of the old age security allowance. I put it to Your Honour that we must look at the source from which this fund comes. Although I do not have the chapter before me, I believe a chapter in the Statutes of Canada, 1952, established the old age security fund. As a result of the terms of the pertinent legislation, as amended in 1967, that fund was established as a trust fund within the four corners of the consolidated revenue fund. That trust fund is charged with the payment of moneys to meet the old age security payments which are being varied by the legislation now before the House. To meet these, there has been 2 per cent added to the sales tax, 3 per cent to corporate income tax and a 4 per cent levy with regard to personal income tax which go into the trust fund.
My proposition is this, Mr. Speaker. When a fund of this kind is established, it is competent for a member of this House to propose variations of the scheme of payments made in legislation such as the House is now considering, provided that that proposal will not so draw upon that old age security fund as to make it essential for further taxes or levies to be imposed on the people of Canada.
It is difficult for us to know what was in the minds of those who enacted section 54 of the British North America Act. I am sure that they did not contemplate the kind of arrangements which have been worked out with
Old Age Security Act
regard to this particular fund, the unemployment insurance fund, the Canada Pension Fund, and so on. For that reason, I submit that judicial notice should be taken of the fact that there is now a surplus of $1 billion in the old age security fund. The very modest and reasonable increase proposed in the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe North is not in any way so alarming as to deplete this fund. The proposal would not in any way involve a tax or impost. It would neither change the government's revenues nor cause the Crown and the ministers involved to impose further taxation. I, therefore, submit that a trust fund of this nature, which is charged with these particular payments, may be varied in the sense that the hon. member for Simcoe North is attempting to vary it.
Before sitting down, may I add that Your Honour, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I had an interesting exchange on November 20, last year, when we were dealing with the water bill. At that time I took the position which I fear Your Honour is likely to take now. I argued that the imposition of such tolls and fines as were contemplated for certain purposes in that bill constituted such an imposition of taxation as required a variation in the royal recommendation. Your Honour held that so far as that aspect was concerned, it was not a tax which required a variation in the royal recommendation. I put that point to Your Honour in the hope that the most competent authority in the House today, Mr. Speaker, will support my proposition.


Mr. Speaker:: May I first refer to motion No. 2, which stands in the name of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin).

Motion numbered 2 in the name of the hon. member for Portneuf, it seems to me, is clearly beyond the provisions of the royal recommendation. It is in this regard and strictly from the standpoint of procedure that I take the liberty of informing the hon. member for Portneuf and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) that the motion is out of order.
The arguments which the hon. member for Lotbiniere has presented for the consideration of the hon. members and of the Chair are interesting and relevant, but they are of the kind that could be submitted during the debate in support of the motion made by the hon. member. I hope that in the course of the debate this afternoon or tonight-or perhaps tomorrow or even next week, which none of us would wish-the hon. member for Portneuf, the hon. member for Lotbiniere as well as other hon! members will nevertheless have the opportunity to bring in the arguments of which the hon. member for Lotbiniere has just advised us.
Just the same, as far as I am concerned, I must keep not to the gist of the hon. member's proposal but to his view on procedure. And in my opinion, the hon. member's proposal would establish a universal monthly payment to every person who has attained the age of sixty years. If my memory serves me right, such universal payment would amount to $150.

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
Citation 246(3) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, reads as follows:
(3) The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
In other words, it must be recognized that the royal recommendation establishes the terms and conditions of the financial liabilities which may be proposed to the House, and in this sense the motion of the hon. member for Portneuf is not in order.

I should like now to deal with the motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). Despite the very brilliant argument submitted by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I find it difficult to ignore the long standing doctrine relating to the financial initiative of the Crown. The hon. member was arguing in the House just the other day that a certain bill would require the royal consent. I think if this House were at any time desirous of changing the doctrine of the financial initiative of the Crown, the royal consent might very well be necessary on that one point. If the hon. member presented the argument that I should have to consider very seriously whether this proposal would not effectively affect one of the prerogatives of the Crown, perhaps I might need to go into the matter more deeply. Yet perhaps that is not necessary.
There are a few more points of view which I was tempted to go into; I suggest to hon. members that that is not necessary. I have expressed the basis on which I have to make the suggestion to hon. members that the motion should not be put.
Before the first motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is put by the Chair, I should like to suggest that motions 1 and 3 might be considered and voted upon as one proposition. Perhaps I might hear from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this regard.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy with Your Honour's suggestion that motions Nos. 1 and 3 be combined for one debate and one vote, unless, of course, there is unanimous approval of the proposal contained in these two motions. The reason there are two motions is that it seems necessary to make changes in clause 1 of the bill and to delete clause 2 in order to achieve the purpose I have in mind. I am quite happy with Your Honour's suggestion to combine the motions for one debate and one vote.
Earlier today I had a conversation with the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). He was hopeful but apprehensive as to whether his motion would be in order. He suggested that if his motion was not in order he would be happy to second my motion. I welcome his support, unless the President of the Privy Council (Mr. 
MacEachen) or another government member would prefer to second it.


Mr. Speaker:: I will put the motion.

I see that the hon. member for Lotbiniere wants to have the floor. He wishes perhaps to raise a point of order. With his permission I will now read the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and then ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere whether he still wants to raise a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-202, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by deleting from Clause 1 lines 4 to 11 at page 1.


Mr. Speaker:: By order of the House, motion No. 3 is being combined with motion No. 1 on the understanding that the debate can range on both motions and they will be subject to one vote. I will put motion No. 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-202 to amend the Old Age Security Act be amended by deleting Clause 2 therefrom.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I will call on the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).

Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to raise a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I did not dare interrupt you when you made your ruling, on motion No. 2, but when I made my comments to prove the validity of this amendment, I did not have the Standing Orders at hand. Now that I have them, I would like to quote Standing Order 63.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow the hon. member a few moments to make his point, but he will recognize that it is altogether out of order to have a debate on a point of order after a ruling has been made by the Chair. In any event, the hon. member will perhaps be able, with leave of the House, to briefly put forward the arguments he wanted to submit to the Chair a moment ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, what has prompted the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) to move this amendment is Standing Order 63 of the House of Commons which reads as follows:
All aids and supplies granted to Her Majesty by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, it is our duty as parliamentarians, not only to take part in this debate, but to make proposals and suggest limitations as I was saying at the beginning, according to this Standing Order, because we
December 17, 1970

feel that as legislators it is our duty to take part in the drafting of a bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for having drawn the attention of the Chair to the provisions of Standing Order 63. The hon. member will agree that even though everything in this Standing Order is correct, there is no question of expressing doubt regarding one jot of it. All this remains subject to the initiative of the Crown to introduce in the House the aids referred to, the allotment of supplies and the expenditures. Thus, it is the gift of Parliament, that is the House, once the introduction has been made, with the consent of the Crown. The hon. member is right, but to a certain extent only. The fact remains that the philosophy of financial initiatives by the Crown must, to a certain extent, take precedence over the provisions of Standing Order 63.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in commencing this debate at the report stage of Bill C-202, my purpose, motive and approach is to make to this House as earnest a plea as I possibly can. My plea is that the escalating of the basic old age pension by at least 2 per cent per year be continued.
As Your Honour is aware and, indeed, as Your Honour has often drawn to our attention, the rules relating to the report stage of a debate require that we concentrate on particular issues and points that are underlined by any amendments that we move.
The two amendments to the bill that I am seeking by motions number one and number three, which Your Honour has allowed, combine to do one thing, namely to keep in effect the provision under which the basic old age pension, even if that is all a person receives, will be escalated every year by up to 2 per cent if there is an increase in the cost of living. This is the issue in this debate.
My interest in old age pensions is well known. It is hardly necessary to make the point that there are many aspects of the matter which concern me. Like the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) who sought to move a different type of motion, I would like to see the total amount of the pension increased to $150 a month. There are other things which I would also like to see done to improve the lot of our senior citizens.
However, in this debate and the vote that will follow, we shall be dealing with one issue only. I hope that the good will and concern of hon. members for our senior citizens will lead them to think very deeply about this matter and to support the proposition that the escalation of the basic old age pension must be continued. Just to make it clear why I keep referring to the basic old age pension, let me point out that in Bill C-202 as it stands the basic old age pension is to be frozen at $80 a month effective January 1, and in the case of all those persons who draw only the basic old age pension there is to be no further escalation of that pension in response to increases in the cost of living. It is true that the principle of escalating a portion of the old age pension is to continue
Old Age Security Act
with respect to the supplement and that any person who draws any portion of the supplement will, under the terms of Bill C-202, have his total pension, his basic $80 plus his supplement, escalated according to the formula set out in the Canada Pension Plan. In making this statement at this point, I am already drawing attention to the fact that our senior citizens are being divided into two groups, one of which will benefit from the escalation of the pension while another will be entitled to no escalation of the old age pension whatsoever.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, not just because the sum of $1.17 a month is involved, not just because a certain number of people are affected, but because it concerns our whole approach to the affairs of senior citizens, and, indeed, our whole approach to society. I believe that before we call it Christmas we should reconsider what has been done in the drafting of this bill and I plead as earnestly as I can with Liberal members of this House to support these two motions in order that we may continue the escalation of the basic old age pension.
It will be no surprise to hon. members if I say, as I have said on previous occasions, that my correspondence with pensioners in this country is very heavy. I believe I can say that the letters I receive are a good barometer of what the senior citizens are thinking. I can tell this House, and I tell the government, that there is among old age pensioners today great and very bitter disappointment over this decision to freeze the basic old age pension at $80 and permit no further increase in line with the rising cost of living. I shall not take the time to go into all the figures I recited on second reading. There was some discussion about them when the bill was before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. But even if the minister and I cannot agree on the number affected, even if he wants to think in terms of 200,000 and I prefer to think in terms of 510,000, a great number of our pensioners will be receiving only the basic pension and will not get a cost of living supplement such as they have been receiving for the past two or three years, and these people feel sad, they feel let down, they feel disappointed. They just do not believe the Parliament of Canada would do this to them. I said earlier that this is not just a matter of a $1.17. I know it is a cliche to say it is not the amount of money that matters, but the principle. But this is what is being said by people who are writing letters to me at this time. They say: If the government needs my $1.17, I am a loyal Canadian and I will help them out, but why should we be separated from other old age pensioners? That is the point. Why should senior citizens be divided into two distinct groups? These people are expressing their disappointment and they have every right to express it. Parliament is extremely ill-advised to create this sadness, this feeling of being let down, this sense of disappointment which our people are feeling, and it relates not only to the amount of money involved. Small per month as $1.17 may be, as far as they are concerned, even the total saving to the treasury is terribly small as far as the federal budget is concerned. I shall return to this point in a few minutes. The point I

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
wish to emphasize at the start, and I do so because I have sufficient mail to tell me this is the way our senior citizens Eire feeling, is that there is great disappointment-not anger, perhaps; not political comment, but just heartbroken disappointment-that this is being done to them.
Some people not only write the letters directly to me; they send me copies of letters they have written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). I liked one which came to my notice the other day-maybe the minister recalls receiving it. The correspondent asks him: "How could you let anyone overrule your own heart and better judgment on this?" I have a pretty good idea who that someone was, but I cite this letter not to make that allusion but rather to emphasize the mood, the thinking, of our senior citizens.
You see, we must take into account not only the 510,000 who will not get a supplement but are in brackets where they need every extra cent they can get, but the whole group, the whole 1,700,000, as well as the younger people who are interested in their parents and grandparents. All are disappointed that this division into two groups is being made.
The second feeling I detect in the heavy correspondence I receive on this question is, perhaps, not far removed from disappointment, but I sense it as something different-it is disillusion. It is very real, and some of it is angry. They ask: How can parliament do this to us, a Parliament which entered into a social contract to provide that all future pensions would be escalated? I will provide quotations in support of this, in a moment or two. They ask: How can you break that contract?
There is another point which has been turning up in my letters, especially in the last two or three days. I shall not dwell on it, because I do not want to get off the track or annoy the very people to whom I am addressing my plea. But hon. members must know that people are saying: How can parliament ask old age pensioners to settle for one last increase of 42 cents a month and then receive a report which proposes some rather magnanimous increases as far as Members of Parliament themselves are concerned? This is in addition to what we did with respect to our own pensions only a few months ago, and remember that our pensions, like civil service pensions, will still escalate by 2 per cent a year. There is disillusionment about Parliament. Safe and secure as I believe this institution to be, Mr. Speaker, we must not press our luck too far; we must not gamble too much on the respect people have for this institution. If we do too many things which make people feel we are concerned primarily with ourselves and certain other interests, and not concerned about keeping our word to the old people of this country or with other groups which are not the subject of the debate this afternoon, this disillusionment could put Parliament in a bad way. My plea for the support of these motions is as strong and as earnest as I can make it, and I am making it now for the sake of Parliament itself. People write to me and say: You can't do this to us; the government cannot act this

way; it is not like Parliament. Let us prove to them that we do not act that way.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I know the odds I am facing today. We had two or three votes in the standing committee on the very clauses that are before the House in these two motions, and we lost those votes on a division of something like 9 to 4 in both cases. All of the Liberals present voted to go along with discontinuing the escalation of the basic old age pension; my friends in the Conservative party and my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and I, representing our party on the committee, voted of course, to continue the escalation. Unfortunately, my friends to my far left in this chamber were not present at the time, although I am sure they would have voted that way as well.
The point I want to make is this: I know this is a bill in the government's name, that the government is backing the bill. Its backbenchers backed the bill in committee. But this is still Parliament. It is still a place where speeches are made and listened to, arguments are considered and individual members make up their minds.
I say to every member of this House who is sending Christmas greetings back home wishing a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to his constituents, just don't bother if you are going to contribute to the disillusionment of people by telling them: "Oh yes, we told you a few years ago that all future pensions would be escalated, but the government has now changed its mind and so we backbench supporters of the government are going to go along with the government". As a lover of Parliament I plead that this not be done. I am sure there are just as many lovers of Parliament in the other parties as there are in mine. Let this be shown today when the vote comes on these two motions.
The third point I wish to make hinges on the word "equity". You cannot justify a scheme under which you divide our senior citizens into two groups, with one group getting the old age pension escalation when the cost of living increases, the other group not. It is no use the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) telling me that we are redirecting our money so that the poor get it. We went over this the other day. I still contend that all that we are doing is redistributing poverty. We are not imposing any new taxes on those of us still in our working years; this will all be paid for out of the old age security fund. What we are doing is taking $1.17 a month away from 510,000 people-there are more than that, but they are the ones in the middle bracket- and giving it to some other elderly people, starting in January.
There are a number of ways in which I might try to demonstrate the inequity of this. I have done some figuring, and at one point I thought of giving half a dozen examples. I have decided to give just one because I think it tells the story of inequity very clearly. I hope hon. members listen to this set of figures that I will now put on the record; they are not too involved and I am sure will be readily comprehended.
December 17, 1970

For the purpose of my illustration I give the case of a single person, because then we will not become too involved in different sets of figures. If a single person over 65 years of age has other income from any source- pension, investments or what have you-of $110 a month, that person cannot get any portion of the guaranteed income supplement. This $110 is calculated on the two-for-one basis and is regarded as $55, so he has had the full amount to which he is entitled and thus gets no guaranteed income supplement.
The minister will tell me that this person has a total Income of $190 per month. That is right. He gets his old age pension of $80 a month, and he has this other private Income of $110, for a total of $190. But consider the person whose other income amounts to $109 a month. A single person with an income of $109 a month will get a guaranteed income supplement of $1. He gets this because, according to the formula, for each full $2 you take $1 off: $109 is, for purposes of the formula, $108. In other words, the pensioner has $54, and he will get $1. He ends up with $80 basic old age pension and $1 supplement, and will receive a cheque for $81 from the old age pension people. He has his own income of $109, and his total income is precisely the same as the single person I talked about a moment ago, namely $190.
Now, the person whose $190 consists of $80 pension and $110 private income gets no escalation. But the person whose private income is $109 and who receives $81 basic pension and supplement has his $81 escalated. Hon. members can see that for the first year, 1971, these two persons will each have a total income of $190 a month. In 1972 the person who has a private income of $109, and hence a pension and supplement of $81, will have his $81 escalated by 2 per cent, and will receive an increase of about $162. As a result, in 1972 his total income would increase from $190 to $191.62. The other person's income stays put at $190.
Do you call that equity, Mr. Speaker? Not by any stretch of the imagination or any manipulation of the figures. I could take other cases but I shall not do so because more figures will just confuse the situation. What it all comes to is that if a pensioner has other income of a little less than $110, he gets a supplement. Initially he gets less than the person with the $110, but with a few years' escalation he will have more than the person who gets no supplementation at all. In this situation the people who have saved a little, who have picked up a little something else, are penalized, whereas those who did not quite make the grade get the benefit.
I have stood on my feet in this House and said a great many times during the last number of years that the finest piece of social legislation that this Parliament ever passed was the universal old age pension. It is the envy of social security officials in all western countries of the world. One of the reasons it is so good is that it created this feeling of togetherness or oneness among people who were retired. It did away with the stigma of having two groups of people. We are now bringing that stigma back. It was brought back by the guaranteed income supplement in 1966, and we are again bringing it back, and
Old Age Security Act
bringing it back with a vengeance, by making this distinction in regard to escalating the basic pension. I plead as strongly as I can that that escalation be allowed to continue for everyone who receives the pension, right across the board.
May I make one other point with regard to equity. I have cited the case of two people, one receiving $80 basic old age pension and who has enough not to receive the supplement, the other getting the supplement. In the course of ten years the cost of living will have gone up at a rate of 2 per cent a year, probably more. During that time the person with the supplement will receive more money as a result of the cost of living bonuses every year; on the other hand, the person who receives only the basic pension will find during the course of that same ten years that the value of his pension has gone down by at least 20 per cent. Twenty per cent of $80 is $16, which brings the value of his pension down to $64. I suggest that I am being conservative in that calculation, but there is no reason why I should not be "conservative" since I have a Conservative as the seconder of my amendment, but it is still spelled with a small "c".
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Equity has been thrown out the window. I think it is a sorry day for Parliament when it is doing this kind of thing. The minister says that the cost is a factor, but he admits that it would cost only $15 million in 1971 to pay the supplement to all who receive only the basic pension. I think his figures are a bit high, but I will not argue that this is not what it would cost. In terms of the federal budget, this is really nothing by contrast with what we are doing to the disappointment and disillusionment of the people and the destroying of equity.
When we argue about this increase the minister says that ten years from now this $15 million would increase to $150 million because the cost of living will continue to increase in the next ten years and that the escalation in ten years will make it ten times as high. At times he tries to tell us that the cost of living is under control. If he tells us that it is going to cost $150 million ten years from now this means the cost of living is increasing, and in turn means that a person on the basic pension only will have a pension worth not more than $64.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Ten years from now they will not be here to worry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten years from now they will not be here to worry; I quite agree with my hon. friend the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), but in the meantime it is a worry, a heartache and a disappointment to many of our senior citizens.
The fourth point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that by doing away with this escalation we are breaking a contract and a commitment. I have used this phrase several times and I should like to indicate when it was uttered first in this House. It was uttered on November 9, 1964, as recorded in Hansard at page 9899 when the Hon!

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
Judy LaMarsh was introducing the Canada Pension Plan legislation and tor the first time told us about the escalation on the basis of the cost of living. These were her words:
-all future old age security pensions will be pegged to the cost of living index and will increase automatically if living costs increase.
There was no suggestion that this was for four or five years. She said, "all future'' pensions, and in later debates that promise was repeated. A couple of years later-


Mr. Francis:: For all time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does "all future" mean?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: What does parliamentary government mean?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can see there is one Liberal over there to whom there is no use appealing, because he is satisfied that the government is going to do something that is all right. Let me say to him that in the eyes of the Canadian people, and I think I am justified in saying so in view of the extensive mail which I am receiving every day, it is the view of old age pensioners that a contract is being broken. Not only was this a commitment made by Miss LaMarsh, Mr. Pearson and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who was then the Minister of National Revenue during part of this procedure, but we must consider the question of the taxes people have paid for these benefits. Some of these taxes were increased after the escalation was added. This was done because of the escalation clause and other things that increased the benefits, and it was done because the act itself gives no leeway and no opportunity to the Minister of Finance to cut back on the payments. The only thing he can do under the act, if there is a shortage of money, is propose to Parliament ways of making up that shortage.
In the eyes of the people of this country there was a social contract to pay these escalation benefits, and taking them away at this time is, in my view and in the view of Canadians generally, a breach of contract and a breach of faith. That is why I have emphasized so strongly the words "disappointment", "disillusionment", and "destroying equity". This represents the way the people across Canada feel.
When I look at this whole proposition, and if I can make any kind of division of these remarks this is my fifth point-there are only six with one "tiger"-I am trying my best to figure out why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) did this. He is certainly not the young man I knew when he first came to this House. He was a backbench Liberal sitting over on this side with lots of ambition, and with lots of the crusader spirit. He is not the young man I knew as a parliamentary secretary-I was going to say to the late Judy LaMarsh, but she is not "the late", she is still around-as

Ed Murphy would confirm. In those days I thought the minister was going to try to take my place as the crusader for old age pensioners.


An hon. Member:: They got to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody got to him, because now he comes along with this cut-off of the escalation. He has given us arguments for this in his white paper and he tried to give us some arguments in the statement he made to the committee a few days ago. When I asked him yesterday or the day before, whenever it was, if he would give us a statement some day as to the rationale or philosophy behind all of this he said he would. I hope I am not pushing him too far when I say he has really admitted that he has not done so yet.
I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare has gone to the cabinet and said: Look, I have to get some money for old age pensions. I have to do something because Parliament is breathing down my neck, the Liberal backbenchers are breathing down my neck, the people are breathing down my neck and my neck is getting pretty hot. I have to do something. No doubt he argued for the principle in which he believed when he was the young parliamentary secretary or backbencher. He is still young but-


John Carr Munro: I am aging.


Mr. Speaker:: This might be a good time to draw to the attention of hon. members that the time allotted to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) appears to have expired, subject to the agreement that he might continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 75(9) is it not provided that the mover of a motion at this stage has 40 minutes?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair must recognize the point of order raised by the hon. member and indicate that he has another ten minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Sir. I was pretty sure of it and I had consulted the rule just
before I started.
Let me return to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who says he has aged. I hope he is feeling old and burdened, especially in his conscience, as a result of what he is doing. I suspect the best he could get from the cabinet was an agreement that it would let him push around so many millions of dollars, but he would have to find a way to do it and would have to do it within the framework of the old age security fund.
So the minister got out his pencils, sharpened them and did some figuring. One of the places he decided he could save a few dollars was in the area of this escalation factor of basic old age pensions for those who did not draw any supplement.
December 17, 1970


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: "Chiselled" is the word.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: That might be the word, but I would not be so unkind.
There is no principle, no philosophy and no rationale to this cut. It amounts simply to figuring out within the terms of so many dollars how it can be done. Whenever you abandon principles or try to resolve a social problem on the basis of expediency, you get into trouble, and if the minister feels he is aging I can quite readily understand. I urge that we get back to principles and admit that our senior citizens are entitled to equity. They are entitled to a recognition of the contract that was made with them. They are entitled to have their escalation in the basic pension continued in the terms expressed by Miss Judy LaMarsh in this House of Commons with regard to future pensions. There was no cut-off. The Liberals of those years were proud of what they had done.
Now, thanks to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which gives me another few minutes, I should like to indicate one of the things which bothers me. This is my sixth remark about this. This course of action is a further attack on the principle of universality itself. In 1950, when the Old Age Security Committee reported to Parliament, I had the great honour of being a member of that committee and of having helped to draft the report. It was one of :he finest committees on which I have ever served. The committee recommended that old age pensions be universal with no means test or needs test of any kind. I could quote from Mr. Pearson some years later, but I shall not take the time to do so, when he emphasized the fact that we had committed ourselves to a principle that old age pensions would be universal with no test at all attached to them. As a matter of fact, Mr. Pearson said that as late as 1965.
Is the minister objecting to what I am quoting?


Mitchell William Sharp: It was a private conversation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I might quote what the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said, when he was Minister of Finance, in his budget of 1966. He pointed out that he had only one course when there was a shortage of money and that was to find ways to raise money, but that he had no permission to cut back on pensions. It took many years to get the Liberals to accept the principle of universality. Once they accepted it in 1950, and put it into effect in 1951 in respect of the Old Age Security Act, which came into effect on January 1, 1952, they were as proud as peacocks about it and for years they told everybody that it was the Liberals who had brought in this tremendous plan, the best in the world. When some of us reminded them that we had prodded them into doing it they said, "yes, there was prodding from the opposition side, but we did it".
Old Age Security Act
Then along comes December 1966 when this universality was violated by the guaranteed income supplement. Now, it is being done again. Even with the guaranteed income supplement of 1966, we still remained the universal escalation according to the cost of living. Now, even that is being taken away today. This is a further attack on the principle of universality. It is a further downgrading of a principle which I assert was one of the finest ever implemented by the Parliament of Canada when it placed old age pensions on a universal basis. As I say, there was boasting about it by Liberals all over the country, especially at election time. There was boasting particularly about the cost of living supplement. There were even statements to the effect that the Old Age Security Act was now outside of politics. No one ever swallowed that, and I do not believe there is anything bad about having political issues here. Certainly, this one is political now and will be until we get it back on the rails. I suggest that the Liberals should not write off the position of Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson, Paul Martin and Judy LaMarsh. I have not often sung their praises, have I?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Very rarely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend says "very rarely", and he is probably right. But even they became converted. Sometimes we hear about the generation gap and the fact that some of us do not understand these things and today's approach. I am happy to belong to a generation that believed that, especially when people reach retirement age, what is done for them should be done as a matter of right on a universal basis without any of these tests. Even if it takes us a while to get back, in the next generation they will believe that our generation was right and that this generation of Liberals is doing the wrong thing.
Those who came before us in this part of the House, Mr. Speaker, and those of us who followed them required 20 years to persuade the Liberals to take off the means test and bring in universality in respect of old age pensions. We finally won in 1950. This victory lasted for 15 or 16 years. We lost part of it in 1966 and we are losing more of it today. We are losing a part which will hit people very hard. We are denying some of our people the right to have their pension escalated when the cost of living goes up. Remember that the cost of living goes up for everybody, not just for some.
I hope the pleas which have been made, my pleas and the pleas which will come after me, will have some effect. If not, we may lose today's battle. But this is not the end of the war. This plea for an approach to equality, and for universality in respect of our older people in particular, is sound, just, humane and Canadian. I hope the vote today will bring back universality of escalation. But if we lose it today, even if it takes us another 20 years to get it back, we will keep up the battle for another 20 years or until we win, for right is on our side.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have listened to a very effective speech in

Last year the government collected over $600 million from the 3 per cent sales tax, and also collected approximately $125 million from corporation tax to cover pension payments.
This was a fund into which trusting people paid expecting, if they lived, to get it back in the sunset years when they were unable to work any longer. Each person paying into this fund was taxed according to his income, up to a total of $240 per year. If a person earned more, he paid more. Those on low incomes paid only a little, and if people had no taxable income they did not pay anything, but all people were to receive the same amount. Now, the government has reversed the rules of the game, and those who have paid the most will find themselves with the least. Many people will find themselves with just a little more than they should have in order to qualify. They may own a home in a neighbourhood to which they have become accustomed and not wish to leave. But their expenses will have increased. These people will sit there, wondering if they should not have given away a little bit more in order to qualify.
Inflation has eroded their dollars. Inflation is abrasive to these citizens. There are around 600,000 of them. These people do not want charity. They paid into this fund, thinking they would get their money back from it. They only want what is their right. Now, they look at this fund which to date has piled up a surplus of $735 million, and they see this magnanimous government freezing then-pensions at $80 per month. Can you blame them if they are angry when they look at the 42 cents that the government offers them? But the government says, "That is all there will be. There is no more for you." Some Santa Claus, Mr. Speaker! The amount of inflation will be deducted from the pension each year, and at the same rate as erosion has taken place over the past three years. Mr. Speaker, that is nothing but a tax on the aged, and I will prove to you that it is a tax.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
If inflation continues at the pace set during the past three years, the resultant loss to a pensioner will be $4 in the first year, $3.80 in the second year and $3.68 in the third year, making a total of $11.68. Thus, inflation will have taken away from the old people of Canada over $10 of their old age pension. Those are the facts and this government must face up to them. Do the Canadian people want to see these senior citizens treated in this way? Nearly 600,000 of these people have paid into this fund and they have a right to receive benefits from it.
By next year there will be more than 1,700,000 people over the age of 65. Of these 1.1 million will have incomes of less than $1,500 for a single person or less than $3,000 for a married couple-pretty slim going. If there were no income security program, 72 per cent of single people over the age of 65, and there are 580,000 of them between 65 and 70, would have incomes of less than $1,500.
Let us look at this another way. Of those people aged 65 to 70 years, just over one-third pay income tax and some of those pay it because they receive the guaranteed income supplement. Some also pay OHSIP. Some own
Old Age Security Act
their own homes and receive the guaranteed income supplement; this year they receive a supplementary tax assistance of $50. This is a step in the right direction initiated by the Ontario provincial government. It is reasonable to assume that less than one in four have taxable incomes. Of the older married couples, 55 per cent or 300,000 of them have incomes of less than $3,000. Poverty is a fact of life among old age pensioners and this society must take the responsibility for inflation and make the necessary corrections.
Of single people 65 years of age and over, 70 per cent will have incomes of less than $1,320 and only 30 per cent will have incomes of more than $1,320. These people will pay income tax. Therefore, they will receive no supplement whatsoever but, in effect, they are also taxed by inflation each and every year.
One-third of married couples have incomes of under $1,800; half have incomes under $2,300 and two-thirds have incomes under $4,000. Half of those with incomes above $2,280 will not qualify for the supplement. The great bulk of the 600,000 find that the government is not only freezing their income from Old Age Security but is eroding it each year. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of National health and Welfare that the government is really taxing these people, and surely this is not accepted Liberal policy. Many of the 600,000 will be caught cold on fixed pensions which they rightly felt would be sufficient to keep them. Some will be able to exhaust their savings and qualify. Others will put their assets into non-revenue producing investments and qualify. This is the type of chicanery the government is foicing upon senior citizens in order that they may live in this world of inflation. I challenge the minister to tell me that is not correct.
But the inequalities, Mr. Speaker! Some will own a modest little home and receive a tax subsidy from the provincial government while others will have to rent an apartment at $100 per month. Is that equity? Another gimmick is that if the house were sold and the money invested, the return would be $1,200 or $1,500 but they would have to pay this or more, for an apartment. Before the house was sold, the person qualified but afterwards did not. These are the pitfalls in the act. Many of these people would carry on in their homes longer, but illness increases with age and is tremendously expensive. I wonder if the minister has ever thought of that, and if he has drawn it to the attention of his cabinet colleagues. There is four or five times the amount of sickness after age 65 and this results in a need for drugs, and other expenses. It is estimated that sickness increases by five times from age 40 to 70. In many cases, chronic illness requires special drugs and it is not uncommon for drug care to cost $25 and more per person. The government ^ roughtm a national medicare scheme and are proud of it, but they do nothing about drug care. For the last year I have been after the minister to do something for these people. I will say that he has never turned me down, he always promises. It is like that old song "Oh, Promise
Senior citizens often have to save money on necessities such as food, in order to buy drugs to keep going.'

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
Remember, the aged person is at the end of the road. I would remind the minister that for him this may not be so many years away; the years pass pretty quickly as I can tell him from experience.
I should like to cite a specific case and there are thousands and thousands like it all across Canada. Mr. X has lived alone since his wife died two years ago. He receives a CPR pension of $998.76 and an old age security pension of $954.96. I should like the minister to figure this out, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is here and he is good at mathematics so he can help. I know he was on the council in Ottawa before he came to Parliament and I have always respected his *airill with figures. I am not trying to be sarcastic in any way. This is only one letter, and I have received many, but it struck me as particularly interesting. There are many people in these circumstances.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate my fellow parliamentarians giving me this time and the minister has also been gracious about it.
The man paid out $35.20 to OMSIP; he has a knee injury and heart trouble so he pays $520 a year to a cleaning lady; fire insurance for his little home amounts to $30. Here is an interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, and I looked twice at it. He paid $50 to the church and 1 thought this was really something for a man who is just scraping along. Hair cuts cost $18, so I assume he got his hair cut once every six weeks; stamps, money orders, etc., $6; taxes on his home, $220; drugs, $162; taxi fares, because he could not keep a car going any more, $150-he had to go to hospital every three weeks for blood tests-$180 for fuel does not seem out of line, it is only $15 a month. Electricity cost $150 per year, and I thought was pretty cheap. The sum total is $1,557.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: What did he eat?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Nothing is said about that. Another strange omission is the fact that he would have to pay taxes to the government. If my calculation is correct, his exemption would be roughly $1,200 if he were 65. If he were 70 the exemption would be $1,600. Therefore, he would be paying income tax on $353.72. I wanted to bring this forward, because it is a human story. It is one that is typical today. That is why I am asking the minister whether he drew to the attention of the cabinet the fact

that these people are more prone to illness as they go down the road to the end. We call them the sunset years; but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not always a smooth road for these people. The figures I gave do not include income tax. The minister could find out how much tax a man like that would pay. He would know exactly how much a man like that had to live on, or whether he was being helped by his friends.
I now want to say a few words regarding the recovery of overpayments. The filling out of papers, and particularly our income tax returns, is a difficult task. I expect that between a third and half of our parliamentarians do not fill out their own income tax forms. A survey on this subject might produce some interesting results. I see the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) scratching his head. I am sure he would not fill out his own form; he would not take the chance. Do hon. members remember what Walter Gordon said? He was a nice fellow, Mr. Speaker. He came from the city of Toronto and was minister of finance. He was here some time before you were, Mr. Speaker. Although he was a chartered accountant, he told us that he would not dare to fill out his own income tax form, because he might fill it out incorrectly.
This brings me to the point I have been trying to make. We are sending old people these complicated forms that we cannot ourselves fill out. We must remember that we are dealing with a generation of people with very little education. Many of them had to go right from grade school or public school to work. When people like that make a mistake, they are denied what should by right be theirs. The same type of difficulty arises when it is discovered that they have been asking for too much. When it is discovered that these old people have filled out their forms incorrectly and been paid too much, the overpayment is recouped by monthly payments which are assessed against the old people concerned. Therefore, these people who already live in the poverty area have to make do with a little less. I will not take up the time of the House by giving details, but I have received literally hundreds of letters complaining that people who have received an overpayment have been required to pay back the overpayment. As a result, they have too little to meet their obligations from month to month. Some people in this situation have had their telephone and electricity cut off, simply because some bureaucratic, faceless civil servant, faceless because he does not know the victim of the circumstances, has said, "You have got to pay".


Mr. Thompson:: The authorities now take them to court.


Philip Bernard Rynard: As the law now stands, the government
can sue the estates of these old people. I know of an instance where the government recovered $6 from the estate of a poor lady.
In conclusion, I must say that there will be no incentive to save. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you would not contribute to your pension if you did not think you would benefit in the end. Neither you nor I would contribute money under those conditions. Yet the old age pensioner, year after year, has contributed to the fund. All he asks is what is rightfully due to him.
December 17, 1970

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to two single men, one of whom obtained $109, and the other $110. The man with the slightly larger income was worse olf because he must pay his own OHSIP fees, whereas the fellow receiving $109 does not have to pay them. That illustrates the inequalities and discriminations inherent in this bill. There are no incentives for saving. In the near future, once you reach the age of 60 you will have to rely on a magnanimous government and the money it will give you will not lift you above the poverty level. If you meet certain requirements, you will be entitled to a supplement. Will people not try to meet those requirements. Since it will not pay to save, you will either give your money away or hide it in some way so that it will not produce any income. That will be the effect of what the government is doing. It is ensuring that all our senior citizens will live on or below the poverty line.
It is true that there is to be an adjustment for the rising cost of living for those receiving the guaranteed income supplement. May I point out that there is a surplus in the old age security fund of about $725 million. At present there is just no incentive for people to provide for their old age. The government's measure, therefore, would introduce an element of inequality and discrimination for our aged population. The government should opt either for the principle of selectivity or the principle of universality. For programs such as national medicare it has opted for universality; yet, when dealing with old age pensioners it is adopting the principle of selectivity.


An hon. Member:: The poorest of the aged will obtain a supplement.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The hon. member is right. The poorest ones will get the supplement. Those who are not quite so poor must starve a little. It is hoped that the government will accept at least the modifying influence of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre so that we may do away with a little bit of the disappointment, disillusionment and sadness, and the spirit of Scrooge that has been written into this bill.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to one aspect of Bill C-202 and, for a few moments, speak on it. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) recently reminded us that the cost of living escalation feature was introduced in 1965 into the old age security scheme and the Canada Pension Plan. This was extended to the guaranteed income supplement in 1966 so that all our older citizens from that t'me on would no longer need to absorb the full brunt of the inflationary pressures in our economy. He explained that the 2 per cent maximum figure for escalation had been set in his office after taking an average of the cost of living increases over the previous ten years. Because this average had worked out to 1.5 per cent, the figure of 2 per cent had been set to provide a small margin for error. Any provision for abnormal increases was left for the government of the day; the government was to bring this before Parliament, and parliament would deal with it.
Old Age Security Act


Mr. Orlikow:: And what happened?


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the hon. member will just wait, he will hear what I have to say. Later, inflation began to take place at a much greater rate than 2 per cent for a number of reasons, as we all know; yet nothing was done to increase the cost of living escalation feature in any of the plans that we are now reviewing and amending in this bill. Nothing was done because the minister said that he felt that inflation can and will be beaten, and that the cost of living increase in the future can be held below 2 per cent. That well may be so. The latest figures support this hope, and the government must be commended for these latest figures. We could say equally well that if inflation has been licked, all will be well from this day forward in. My question is this: why not transmit this hope into legislation?
Actually, we have come close to doing just this in so far as the guaranteed income supplement is concerned. The government has argued that this cannot be done for the old age security scheme itself, which is universal in application, if sufficient money is to be found to help those who need help most by means of the guaranteed income supplement.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This is no doubt an unanswerable argument. We must not forget that this government-any government-must put up or shut up and face the people with its tax proposals. And taxing is not popular.
I suggest that if this line of reasoning must be accepted, however, it must itself suggest that the government does not believe it will be able to contain cost of living increases on a long term basis to any significant degree. For if it did manage to contain them, only a relatively small predictable amount of extra money would be needed for escalation of the old age security payments. On the other hand, if the cost of living continues to escalate, so will the amount that the government receives in tax revenues, because the gross national product will also continue to rise.
If the government means what the Minister of National of Health and Welfare has said, that we will ensure the maintenance of a guaranteed income floor for our older people, all citizens of this country must be asked to continue the good fight against inflation. But they must also be prepared to guarantee that our senior citizens, including those with some savings, but to whom the basic old age security payment is still important, are not left to bear the full brunt of the results if and when this fight is not waged as successfully as it might be. The minister stated the other day that we can do no less for those who have done so much to make our society what it is today; and I agree with him.
The minister correctly stated that nothing should happen to those who are only receiving $80 a month with no escalation under the scheme we are now considering. If they should eat up a portion of their savings in their old age, or if they should have some misfortune, they will then be able to fall back on the guaranteed supplement

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
and qualify for full escalation in line with any cost of living increases. Thank God this argument is factually correct, that it does provide a cushion. However, as an argument it is not good enough, because it misreads human nature in one crucial aspect.
Many thousands of our senior citizens are proud of the fact that they can still stand on their own feet, that they have salted away something for their old age and do not have to be a burden on anyone. The law of the land states that they are entitled to a basic old age pension which Parliament, in its wisdom, has now set at $80 a month. It is not good enough to simply state that, if we have miscalculated or if inflation catches up with us, these people can apply for the supplement. This is a degrading thought-process for them. It would be degrading in their view because it would mean that their plans had failed. If we let inflation get away from us again, it will be our fault. However, it will be the senior citizens who will feel they made a mess of things for they will be the ones who will have to apply for assistance in the management of their lives. They will have to come on their hands and knees, so to speak, to fill out forms; something they never thought they would have to do.
Although I think this is a good bill, there is one inconsistency embodied in it. We have one department or government approaching the problem of unemployment with a direct acknowledgment that the citizens of this country as a whole will have to pay for an unemployment scheme if unemployment reaches an average figure above a stated minimum. This implies that the citizens of this country have the responsibility to help the unemployed if the unemployment level reaches a certain limit. I agree with that concept. Also, we have a section of the Department of National Health and Welfare stating that if something goes wrong in the area of living costs, the citizens of this country as a whole will have to pay whatever additional amounts are required to keep those entitled to the guaranteed supplement from falling too far behind. I also agree with that principle. But, here, on the other hand, we have another section of the same department stating that the basic floor guaranteed to all old people in Canada can be left on its own to slide down to meaningless levels as a result of the same inflationary process.
Yet the complete package is good, even though there is an inconsistency which I find difficult to understand. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated that the bill is inconsistent in principle. I do not agree, I think the principle is consistent throughout, although there is this one inconsistency.


David Orlikow: That is like being slightly pregnant.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Keep quiet and you will learn something. I cannot support any amending motion or arguments dealing with this bill at this time. The minister must have support, because the measures contained in it will significantly benefit millions of Canadians. The minister stated that Parliament can change the $80 basic pension any time it wants. I beseech him to speak to his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), before the next budget is brought down, to propose to him that funds be made available for the coming fiscal year, funds that will
enable us to build an escalation into the basic pension, thereby allowing the people of this country to help all those old age pensioners who may be affected by inflation.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, the House is now considering Bill C-202, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
In introducing this bill, the government has shown once more its willingness to extend its public support of exploiters under the pretext of a fight against inflation.
This piece of legislation is more disturbing than it is impressive. Actually, it is just another repetition of the government's endless tactics to maintain its police action in order that the minimum assistance provided by law to old people is not exceeded. I am sure, however, that in our police state there are still people who have their fun.
I have in mind the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare who commissioned this Bill C-202. I am thinking also of the people who wrote this bill. In my opinion, the ones who were required to prepare the main part of it and whose fun is not over yet, are the C.A.'s, I mean the "congenial accountants".
Imagine that in the course of their work these very clever people succeeded in splitting the Canadian cent. In clause 3(1) we read:
Subject to the provisions of this Act and the regulations, a monthly pension-may be paid to every person who-
In fact, this clause is proposing an increase of $5.04 a year, or 42 cents a month, or 1.4 cent a day. Everyone who knows that it takes 100 cents to make a dollar will agree, I presume, that this is a master stroke.
In the white paper on income security for Canadians, page 15, we read:
The government considers that additional measures for the alleviation of poverty should be instituted as soon as possible as a first step in a well-defined and unified conceptual approach that will lead in time to the provision of a decent measure of security for all people.
Mr. Speaker, an increase of 1.4 cents a day as a first step is no great shakes. If this government considers the present bill as a first step, they just cannot miss. But obviously an increase of 1.4 cents in favour of elderly citizens represented the most effective measure to subject them to rationing and to insure all of them a decent security level.
It must be admitted that this bill does reflect the recommendations of the white paper on income security. No mistake can possibly be made. This is a long-term program which is far from satisfactory. By the way, we are considering a bill respecting senior citizens who contributed in developing this country, brought the land into cultivation, constructed railways, highways, plants and schools. They had to go through economic crises and wars which claimed sometimes the lives of some of their relatives, for all of which the government claims to be showing its gratitude by introducing Bill C-202, whereas all the legislation purports is an increase of 1.4 cents per day in their pension.

December 17, 1970

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the Liberal party convention which took place in November, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressed himself as follows:
I have said repeatedly that inflation is taxation's most regressive form since it strikes hardest at those who cannot defend themselves, either because they do not belong to the limited group of shareholders or great businessmen, or because they are not members of a powerful trade union.
Mr. Speaker, after that, the Prime Minister could have added: Our words are quite different from our deeds.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose that it is under the pretext of inflation that the government offers 1.4 cents per day to our senior citizens. As the Prime Minister said so well, and I quote: -because they cannot defend themselves, because they are not members of a trade union, because most of them are not either among the shareholders of big companies.
The group of people concerned by Bill C-202 deserves more than an increase of 1.4 cents a day. They have paid for their security a long time ago and they are not responsible for the increase in the cost of living. It is really ridiculous to make them share the increased cost of living, because labourers, housewives and retired people did not bring on inflation.
Inflation has been brought on by finance. It is by paying two or three times what we built once, what the government has prepared, which is the cause for inflation.
On page 88 of Hansard of September 16, 1968, concerning a question asked to the minister responsible for the National Harbours Board about the cost of Jacques-Car-tier bridge, we can read a letter from Mr. Clement, superintendent engineer of bridges addressed to a certain Mr. Chenier of Montreal, which reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
Your letter of May 9, 1968, requesting some information on Jacques-Cartier bridge, has been brought to my attention. I am pleased to supply you with the following information:
Original cost of the Jacques-Cartier bridge-$18,571,308.71 Amount of the interests paid to date-$20,198,266.53 Balance to pay for the bridge-$14,065,605.39
This Jacques-Cartier bridge phenomenon is not unique. It takes place every time a development pro jet is carried out by federal, provincial, municipal and school authorities. However, in Quebec interests on school debts collected as a whole by school boards represent every day the value of a regional school, which means that each year, we give the equivalent in interest of 365 regional schools.
It is not surprising that with such gifts, the economy of Quebec, a supposedly poor province, should be somewhat perturbed. In the present system, the province of Quebec is not the only one to be perturbed. All Canadian provinces are presently facing difficulties.
To come back to pensions, the proposition provided in the bill for those who enjoy no other additional income is $135 for 1971. With the escalation rate of 2 per cent, this pension will reach $149 a month in 1975, that is $1,788 a year. Also, as the inquiry of the Senate Committee on Poverty discloses that those whose income is less than
Old Age Security Act
$1,944 a year in 1970 are living in dire poverty, it is evident that this government bill is already out-of-date.
In short, it is because this bill is recommending measures whose application will be spread over a six-year period, which is already considered insufficient to live on today, and is within the poverty limit, that on behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste, I tried to bring in the amendment appearing in the orders of the day and which reads as follows:
That Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by deleting in Clause 1 all the words after the word "of" in lines 10 and 11 at page 1 and substituting therefor:
"one hundred and fifty dollars to every person who has attained sixty years of age."
Mr. Speaker, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, have presented this amendment because we feel that the Prime Minister, who is a bachelor and who has been a millionaire since his birth, has no idea of the financial problems and other difficulties of those who cannot work.
He gave us further proof of this in November, at the Liberal Congress, when he said, and I quote:
When the Old Age Security Act was amended, we provided an escalation of benefits of 2 per cent per year so that benefits would increase with the rise In the cost of living-
Unfortunately, for the past three or four years inflation has increased at a much higher rate than expected and consequently the intent of the legislation has been frustrated.
Mr. Speaker, those are the very words of the Prime Minister.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise)- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Invitation supposedly addressed to Frangois Girod; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Air Transport-Fares based on Canadian dollar pegged at 92 cents-payment of compensation for overcharging; the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan)-Immigration-Reasons for decrease in number of Chinese admitted to Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand there might be some willingness to dispense with Private Members' Hour and continue with the business which has been under consideration this afternoon. If that is the case, I would certainly be willing to give our consent.


Gerald William Baldwin: On our part, there is not only willingness
but eagerness, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Same here.

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed that we will dispense with Private Members' Hour for today?


Gerald William Baldwin: No vote until after eight o'clock, though.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps I might say it would be preferable if we were to postpone any vote until after eight o'clock and not take any vote during the time normally set aside as the Private Members' Hour. It has been suggested this would be a good arrangement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed that this be part of the arrangement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-202, to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
fTranslation]
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting the words of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, if an incompetent mechanic ruins the engine of my car by taking out certain wires he will not be surprised at the result. But under the present government the economy always provides disagreeable surprises.
Even if the Prime Minister is surrounded by so-called competent economists and thinkers, the members of the Economic Council make each year some forecasts which are supposed to be workable, but unfortunately the results are always different from the ones anticipated.
So, Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid more surprises to the Prime Minister as regards the old age security, I would suggest that the present escalation rate of 2 per cent be abolished and replaced by 2 yearly rate pegged to the cost of living index.
Another point I would like to raise is the case of ordinary married couples. Under the present system, married people are severely penalized. Our legislation obliges the head of the family, or the wife if she is older and has reached the pension age, to support his or her spouse in sharing the $111 received once he or she is eligible for pension. Generally the husband is older and the wife must wait until she reaches the age of 65.
But the wife may be the older. It so happens that I have in mind the case of a 63-year-old man who had withdrawn a disability pension for two years and who saw his pension cancelled last April because his wife was
eligible for old age security pension and for the guaranteed income supplement, which all in all amounted to $111. Therefore, the wife has an "obligation" toward her husband. This situation is nothing to be proud of for a so-called civilized country.
However a common law couple in the same age bracket is granted two pensions: one for the man and the other for the woman. For those who live together without any marriage contract and who have no "obligation" toward each other, this government is most generous.
Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to support couples who have no marriage contract, I feel that it would be normal to extend the same privileges to married couples.
There is no provision about it in the bill. I suggest that when the head of the family becomes eligible for the pension, his spouse who is disabled or unable to earn his living should become eligible too, whatever his age.
The hon. Minister of Health and Welfare pointed out that the new program as it is would cost $200 million more than it does now. However $200 million are nothing by comparison with the government budget of $13 billion and a national product of $80 billion in 1970.
In my opinion, no other group deserves security more than those who built our country as we know it. They have worked so much that the government is now burdened with surpluses in several sectors, such as food and clothing. *
When the $40 pension was granted, the government made believe that it was impossible to pay more. The pension was increased to $111; however, I understand that the old-age security costs now amount to $720 million.
If all manufacturers, traders and businessmen were satisfied with a minimum, bankruptcy would be close at hand for them. For that matter, ambitious businessmen simply do not aim at a minimum. They aim at a maximum.
The Canadian economy has now become ill because, for too long, the government was satisfied with granting a minimum to students, widows and older citizens. Indeed, our economy is ill. There is a slow-down in all departments. Eventually, we will have to wake up. And if the government's treasury gets empty, despite the normal levy of taxes, only one thing remains to be done; the government should meet the needs of its citizens through new credits. I shall conclude by saying that the Bank of Canada was established to serve the country, and when the fund is exhausted, the government should resort to it to obtain the necessary credits for the implementation of a maximum old-age security program. Such a program is always possible if we make use of the surpluses of the Canadian production. The policy of destruction as applied in payments granted to farmers to promote reduced production, has already lasted too long.
In the end, those who have built this country have won only hardship; consequently, this government, strong in its majority, must act by other means than the 1.4 cent premium.

December 17, 1970

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it seems to me that freezing the old age pension at $80 for those who do not qualify for the guaranteed income supplement brings forward many contradictions in the government's own white paper. It really shows that the approach to welfare in the White Paper is a mish-mash that will create as many injustices as it is intended to correct.
First of all, the freezing of the old age pension at $80 is evidence of what the government has decided on in the matter of selectivity. It is true that the belief that the principle of selectivity for all welfare payments should be adhered to is gaining credence with some people. But certainly in this instance the problem of selectivity runs slam-bang up against the fact that old age security is aimed at those people in society who, by and large, cannot earn enough money in the market to keep themselves. Therefore, the state is required to provide them with a basic income, regardless of their station during their working years. This point was accentuated by one of the illustrious Prime Ministers of the party opposite. Mr. St. Laurent, as Prime Minister at the inception of the universal old age pension, emphasized that every Canadian was entitled as of right to old age security regardless of income.
In looking at old age security as a welfare program we have to remember that it is a program for a group of citizens who have finished their working careers. No matter how much they might wish to earn their living by working, they are usually prevented by infirmity from doing so. This is not true to the same degree of family allowance recipients. The parents who are recipients are usually in the earning age group. Grants to individuals for education are again given during the recipients working years.
In other words, selectivity in the case of the old age pensioner falls down because the recipients are at an age where they have not nearly the options open to them that are open to a people who are receiving assistance from the goverment in many other forms. Old age security has been contributed to, indeed paid for, by citizens throughout their working careers. As taxpayers, they have been paying 4 per cent on their income tax, assisting the corporations to pay 3 per cent on their taxes, and they have paid a 3 per cent sales tax on goods. The old age security fund is quite solvent, carrying a balance of over $700 million.
Approximately 52 per cent of the people whose old age security is being frozen do not receive the guaranteed income supplement. These are people who managed to set aside some money in their active years and are now finding they are being penalized for their effort. Some of them may have a double grievance: if they were pensioners in January 1966 they were automatically excluded from the Canada Pension Plan. They were, of course, entitled to old age security, as stated by Mr. St. Laurent at the inception of the universal old age pension plan.
Old Age Security Act
But what has happened since 1966? They have suffered greatly from the effect of inflation, even taking the cost of living index, so dear to the hearts of the bureaucrats, as a reliable indicator. In view of the great wage-price increase over the last few years it seems a pension of at least $90 would bring them into line with what the 1966 pension rate would have brought them.
Up until now, they have been inadequately compensated by cost of living increments limited to 2 per cent. But what happens now that their pensions are being frozen at $80 and the government anticipates continuing inflation? They are to lose this slight concession of 2 per cent to which they were entitled. The minister stated that inflation was lower in the month of November but he will find, as reported in news items, that the cost of living was less because of a drastic decrease in meat prices, mainly pork. Anyone who is at all familiar with farming will realize that this is very temporary and no doubt an increase in farm prices must come about or farmers will be worse off in a short while than anyone else in the economy.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It would be a mistake to conclude from a reading of the consumer price index that the worst is finally over; it is not. A resumption of significant price increases must be expected next year. Wage level settlements are in excess of 9 per cent for the first year and increases in productivity could not make up for that.
The November price index indicated a 2.3 per cent increase for 1970 and the flattening of the increase in November can be directly related to the discount war on food prices; prices which are likely to rise again. Food is given a weighted index of 27 in preparing the index. Furthermore, the government's policy of restraint comes to an end at the end of this year. Organized labour is committed to obtaining as high an increase in wages as it can. Steel and aluminum price increases were announced a few weeks ago and they will finally reach the consumer.
The relief experienced by the rise of the consumer index cannot be counted on to be maintained in the coming year. Industry has to retain some assurance of profitability if the economy is to grow, and that in all likelihood will mean higher prices. Those whose incomes are low enough to receive guaranteed income supplement payments still continue to receive price related adjustments both for the flat rate payment and the supplement. By this means, which seems manifestly unfair, the government will make unassisted pensioners subsidize others by $15 million, increasing to $100 million in 1975-76.
Here again, the principle of selectivity in dealing with old age security runs completely contrary to the principle of universality, which the government intends to invoke in respect of the unemployment insurance fund. On the one hand, we have a defenceless group of citizens, old age pensioners, who cannot go into the market and increase their incomes, with rare exceptions. They are being singled out as the whipping boys for the government's idea of selectivity. The government intends to sweep in over a million people under unemployment insurance coverage,

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
most of whom do not want insurance, have never yet been unemployed in any significant numbers in their various occupations, but who will have to pour money into the unemployment insurance fund so that large benefits can be paid. Workers who will be affected are surely those who have strong bargaining powers in the economy, such as teachers and civil servants who know their wage negotiations will effectively gain back most of the money taken from them to pay for unemployment insurance.
It seems to me that when dealing with old age security, it is important that the principle of universality be maintained. These people have paid for this in their taxes and are entitled to some modest compensation in relation to inflation. The 2 per cent factor has been deleted, and this at least did something and is an important principle to maintain. It did not adequately reflect inflation over the past two years, but it did do something to keep the principle alive.
In addition to my remarks about inflation, I should like to present a plea on behalf of this group of people over 65 who are entitled to a share of the increased wealth of this country. There has been a slow growth in the real wealth of our Canadian economy, although it has been stagnant this year. In any event, all Canadians are entitled to share in this increase. Workers in highly unionized industries are, through wage agreements, able to achieve this share. Entrepreneurs and even non-unionized individuals are able to increase their share of the real wealth of the country as a result of automatic adjustments in the economy. Unless a citizen over 65 is unusually skilled or still has a saleable ability he is precluded from this, except perhaps through some accruement of savings which he may have accumulated. Perhaps it is difficult to assess what the real increase is in order to bring him up to the equivalent level of 1966, but I think it might well be in the neighbourhood of $10 per month. If one added the inflation factor to the 1966 rate, this would make the old age security pension close to $100.
I feel this freezing of old age security points out the great weakness of selectivity. We are dealing with an age group which can only obtain a share of the economy through the action of government and not by their own efforts or the skills they may possess. I am very unhappy that this clause has been deleted. I think it would have been more just had the guaranteed income supplement been frozen, to be reviewed by the government and Parliament at appropriate intervals. We must assume that guaranteed income supplements are for those who have little or no means of supporting themselves other than by what the guaranteed income supplement brings them. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Parliament and the government to provide these people with whatever the economy can afford at a given time.
I wholeheartedly hope that the government will retain the 2 per cent factor and see fit to adopt this amendment.


Mr.   Jean-L. Rochon@Ahuntsic: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) tabled in the House a white paper on income security in Canada.
Having studied the content of that white paper, one realizes that it proposes that all allocations directly paid by the federal government be redistributed in such a way that those who need them most will benefit more from them.
Further studying the content of that white paper, one realizes that its proposals can be considered in the context of a rationalization of income security programs, a rationalization which will go a long way toward preventing and lessening poverty in Canada by redistributing the money of the system in a more equitable manner.
It is believed that the living conditions of millions of low income people will thus be improved, thoudands of others will be prevented from becoming destitute and the basic revenue of most citizens will be given greater protection.
The more we examine that white paper, the more we see that it is a sort of challenge, consisting in a new income security policy that would enable us to help the people who need it most.
I listened very attentively to the hon. members who spoke or who, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), moved an amendment. I do not question their sincerity. I am convinced that like us, they have but one ambition, that of helping those who really need it.
The government is blamed for introducing Bill C-202, which would freeze at $80 the pension now granted to people 65 or over. We would certainly like to do more than we can at the present time. It is very well to say, in the midst of a great speech: We must give $150 or $200. If we had to give those $200, I wonder how we could administer this country's business.
We regret that we cannot do more than that. I had an opportunity to say so, in committee, when we discussed that bill. It takes courage to tell the people what we are telling them now and to make them understand that we cannot give more than $80 to older people.
We are paying only $80 because we want those who are really in need, who should get the income supplement, to get it. If we pay only $80 to those who need the income supplement, as the white paper points out, we will give the poorest a more substantial assistance. Instead of $111 this would mean a $135 pension which, within a few years, would reach almost $150. In introducing Bill C-202, the government has only one ambition which is to help those who actually need it. To those who tell us we are not doing enough we shall answer that to administer is to foresee and this should encourage us in avoiding all unjustified expenses.
We would like to keep on granting the 2 per cent increase in addition to the guaranteed supplement but this entails enormous expenditures which the government cannot afford.
To administer is to foresee. This bill aims at helping our elderly people. This is why as a government member I am proud to vote for it.

December 17, 1970

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
\ English]


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate I believe we have had about all the facts and figures that could possibly be given regarding this legislation. In speaking on second reading and when the bill was before the committee, many members outlined the reasons they believe this bill fails to meet the elementary needs of the old age pensioners in this country and the elementary standards of justice and fairness which have been built up for so long in the establishment of the principle of universality in old age pensions. This afternoon in particular my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) very thoroughly covered the ground again.
I was interested to note that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) is not at all convinced about this legislation. He appears to be very unhappy about this feature of removing the escalation clause for the people who will now be on the $80 fixed pension. He gave every evidence of this because he indicated that he trusts that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brings in his next budget, if there should be an increase in the cost of living, ways and means would be found to bring back the escalation provision. I suggest that part of the reason the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre sees this so clearly is his location vis-a-vis the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has succeeded in reaching the older people across this country in such a way that they are able to understand what has been happening. He has been able to open their eyes concerning what is happening in respect of this bill. If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre can be shaken in his belief that this bill is what it should be, I believe it would be an excellent idea if we could find ways and means to bring some of the other members of the government into much closer proximity to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
This bill contains many faults. The amount is completely inadequate. The flight from universality to selectivity has been accelerated and continued. That flight began in 1966 with the provision of the so-called guaranteed income supplement. As I said at the time in my view it was a complete prostitution of the English language to speak of it as a guaranteed income supplement. It was no such thing. This bill also increases the divisiveness among our citizens. It separates the elderly citizens into two groups, with the poor having to finance the destitute. The freezing of the amount of $80 indefinitely is indeed a very bad thing. The one comfort we have is that the "indefinitely" may not be very long when the facts concerning this matter are known by a large enough group of people across this country. It will not only be the elderly people who will face the impact of this $80 freeze in respect of the old people of the country. In my correspondence I have a great many letters in which the point is made over and over again that the sons and daughters of elderly people, hard-up as they are through trying to bring up their own families in decency and with educa-
23568-66i
Old Age Security Act
tion in today's conditions, are hard hit when they find that in addition they must help finance their elderly parents.
This is the situation we started to get away from in 1927 with the provision of old age pensions in the amount of $20 a month at age 70 with a means test. A couple of labour Members of Parliament, with a few farm members thrown in, about 15 or 16 members in all, were able to take advantage of a balance of power situation to force this old age pension legislation on a government which did not wish to have anything to do with it. The Liberal government in those days did not wish to have anything to do with such legislation. The truth that Liberals and Conservatives have no sympathy whatsoever for this type of legislation lies in the fact that this pension legislation which was enacted in 1927 was the first social security legislation to appear on the federal statute books of this country in which the two old parties had been in power since 1867. Eventually, we secured universality in the old age pension. But now we find the government is using its position of power to begin to retreat again and attempt to get rid of this legislation bit by bit.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
My next point concerns the removal of the 2 per cent escalation provision from those who are frozen at the $80 level. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) is no longer in the chamber, but I want to point out that when he spoke he was on both sides of the fence, draped half on one side and half on the other, which I might assure him was a rather ungraceful position for a person of his physical stature and looked very uncomfortable. He seemed to be undecided about which side he would flop on to before his speech was finished.
If it was a good thing, a desirable thing to remove the 2 per cent escalator provision with respect to people receiving $80 a month, why is the government not proposing legislation to eliminate that escalator feature from the Canada Pension Plan, the retired public servants legislation, the armed forces pensions, the pensions of Members of Parliament and other federal pension plans? Why does it not do this with these other pensions as well? There is only one reason, and that is that the government knows it can get away with it where old age pensions are concerned. The people receiving the Canada Pension Plan are too well organized to permit the withdrawal of that clause in their case. The retired public servants are too well organized to permit the government to withdraw that clause in their case. Likewise, the armed forces are too well organized. Members of Parliament would shriek to high heaven if anybody suggested taking the escalator clause from their pension plan.
This is a very mean thing that the government is doing to our elderly people. Our elderly people are helpless: they are not well organized; they are without friends in high places. That is why they are discriminated against. But, Mr. Speaker, the worst feature of this whole business is that we cannot turn down this legislation in spite of all the injustices and wrong things in it, simply because of the ingenious and diabolical way in which it is worked. Our old people are divided into two classes and

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
the poor are made to finance the destitute. When a man or woman is drowning, you cannot tear away the pitiful little stick that is held out even though you know the holder of the stick has a life preserver locked up somewhere that he will not bring out. I cannot vote against this legislation-


An hon. Member:: Because your party won't let you.


Winona Grace MacInnis: No, it is not because my party won't let me. I do not belong to that kind of party. It is because these elderly people, the ones in the lower group, are so hard up that you dare not take away even the little bit that is offered.


An hon. Member:: Then it is not diabolical; it is Machiavellian.


Winona Grace MacInnis: It may be Machiavellian, but those of us who know anything about Machiavelli know he was first cousin to the devil. This is what makes us so bitter about this legislation. Many old age pensioners do not have the full import of it yet, but some have. Rather than go over again our feelings about it, I will let some of the old age pensioners speak for themselves. I make no apology for telling the House what some of them are saying. I will tell hon. members about a woman in my riding, the wife of a veteran. She appealed to me some time ago before this legislation came along. Her husband had served overseas and had a pitifully small pension. They received war veterans allowance for a little time but were unable to do very well even with it.
Last summer this woman appealed to me. She asked, "As my Member of Parliament, can you help me? I have been told that my whole system is being poisoned because I have abscesses on all my upper teeth. If the teeth remain, I shall be poisoned completely. My stomach is in terrible shape now with ulcers, but if they take my teeth out my health will suffer because I cannot afford dentures." This woman had no resources. She could not participate in medicare. She was practically crying when she talked to me. She said, "I have never taken charity in my life, but can you help me?" I said, "I don't know, but I will try." I scrounged around and found a voluntary fund in Vancouver that was able to help her. Thanks to that voluntary organization her health was saved. She wrote me just the other day as follows:
My new dentures have been a godsend-no more throbbing, infected gums and the teeth look very nice.
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) whether he is proud of the situation in our country where this woman and others like her have their pensions frozen at $80 and are condemned to throbbing, infected gums and poisoned stomachs. Here is another letter from my riding:
I am writing this morning about my old age pension which isn't enough for me to live on when prices are going up all the time on everything we have to buy. So, I would like to see it raised another ten dollars. I might be able to get by on that. Hoping to hear from you soon.
What am I going to tell her, Mr. Minister-that her pension is to be frozen at $80 and that the escalator clause providing 2 per cent according to the cost of living will be cut out? That is what she will learn for Christmas. Here is another letter which I received:
I think the old age pension is away below what a normal person needs. It is an injustice for Parliament to expect the older citizens to live with dignity on this low amount. Therefore, I am asking you as the member representing us in the House that on all questions regarding this you vote to improve their miserable existence.
Here is another:
As a taxpayer for over 40 years I feel it is time that our government spent a bit of money on us senior citizens. We are finding it very difficult to live on $79 per month, and since my husband receives a small pension of $65 we are not eligible for the supplement income. Therefore, we have to pay for all our medicine-over $300 per year-pay medical insurance, etc.
Our rent has been increased and the price of food is going up -in spite of Hon. Ron Basford and his teddy bears.
I guess she forgot about Hon. Ron Basford and his peanut butter. The peanut butter has come down, it seems.
There seems to be an abundance of money for all sorts of royal commissions, salaries, etc., and we are very concerned about the small amount which we are forced to exist on.
Can you do something to help us?
Mr. Minister, is this the best you can do for this woman and thousands like her in this country? Here is another letter:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
As an old age pensioner, I would like to draw to the attention of the various levels of government of this country our desperate plight. I feel our dollar value is putting us in the "poverty bracket".
I would like to see some help such as: increase the tax exemptions for retirees over 65 to $3,000, and free health services such as free drugs and an increase in the old age pension itself to meet the ever-increasing cost of living. The dollar has eroded to the point where my small savings, which at one time seemed adequate, have long been going down to nil.
Would appreciate it if you would work for us all in your capacity as an MP toward this goal. We have a great country, and pioneers should be given some consideration.
If we can find money for commissions, boards, Members of Parliament, Senators and things like the Bona-venture, why can we not find money for these pensioners? I do not only hear from people in my own riding. Here is a letter from Montreal:
I am appealing to you on behalf of the old age pensioners. The government should give $150 a month to the pensioners. Last year the government gave them an increase of 2 per cent, when the cost of living has gone up 20 per cent to 25 per cent. No one can exist on $110 a month. My rent is $110 a month. Then I have phone and gas and electric, a charwoman once in a while. So you see how much I have left for food. In 1929, before the break in the market, I had a nice home, a country home, a car, a servant.
This writer is better off than the average.
My family used to go to Europe. I had a nice business. Three years later the bank took over and sold me out completely. I

December 17, 1970

was left struggling, with my wife and three children but I managed. I lost my wife 22 years ago and my older daughter 12 years ago, and I am going to be 91 next month so what can I do? I worked till last year, selling textiles to coat and suit and dress manufacturers, but I cannot walk much. I used to walk ten miles a day.
I hope you can do something for us.
I make no apology for reading these letters, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) could read thousands. I am reading a few today because I want the minister to know how these people are faring. Here is another one, from Kingston, Ontario:
My husband and I are old age pensioners, 82 and 76 years old. We are constantly worried about the rising cost of living with the small pensions we have to live on. My husband worked for the Canadian National Railways for 42 years continuous service and his pension has never increased from $126 since he retired at 65. Due to this pension we each receive the reduced pension of $79.58. From this monthly income we have to pay $12.50 a month hospitalization, $5.90 a month for OHSIP, $75 a year income tax. Add to this drugs, rent and food. It is impossible to live in a manner which we as Canadian citizens-
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. lady, but if she wishes to continue reading these letters she will have to get unanimous consent.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I have just a minute more?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give consent to the hon. lady to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take just two minutes. I shall omit the rest of that letter because I have one here that is particularly pertinent:
I am a widow, old age pensioner, with a small pension besides and a small $10 to $15 to draw on when things get very tight on $127.26 a month.
Because of the above, I rank with the "haves": but I wish Mr. Munro, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Benson would realize that we "haves" have to pay the same for our utilities, telephone, medical plan, not to count prescriptive medicines. Being an arthritic with very bad hips-using a cane-my monthly medicine bill runs around $12.50 to $15, so you see we have the same disbursements as the "have nots".
I do hope you will be able to bring these vital points home to officials because I am not the only one to whom the 42 cents is an insult, and the difference is very unfair.
Thank you again.
Here is another one:
I would like you to point out to Mr. Munro, the minister responsible for the paltry raise in the old age pension basic rate, that 42 cents amounts to less than two cents a day over 365 days. Personally, I am in favour of sending the 42 cents back to the government and saying that they must need it to pay the $35,000 yearly salary of the cabinet ministers.
I have not had time to read the letters from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and other places. I just want to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that in my view the very least we can do to salvage something for the people
Old Age Security Act
frozen at $80 is bring back the 2 per cent escalator clause. Are we saving that cost of living feature for the people retired from the civil service, the Canada Pension Plan people, Members of Parliament and a host of others? Why can we not give it to the people who need it so badly, the old age pensioners?
I urge all members to vote for this amendment, but I also urge the government to make the amendment unnecessary by stating that it will change the legislation and bring some small measure of justice to elderly people at this time.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Order. Is the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Kaplan:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon.
member would permit a question even though her time has expired.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Order. Because the time of the hon. lady has expired, this could only be done by unanimous consent of the House. Does the House agree to allow the hon. member for Don Valley to ask a question of the hon. lady?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 can understand that the names of the authors of these letters should not be put on the record. However, I think it would be interesting to have the name of the voluntary organization referred to which provided dentures for the lady with the abscessed gums.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Do you know why I do not want to supply that information, though I will give it to the hon. member afterwards? If I were to state the name publicly, there would be such a run on the fund that it would be dry by tomorrow morning.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Any more questions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Any more abscesses, Don?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, before commenting on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I think it only right and proper to say that while the ladies of Canada have only one representative in the House of Commons, when I hear her make pleas on behalf of worthy causes-and most of her causes are worthy-I feel that she makes up in large part for the lack of female representation. I wonder how many extra days we would be sitting if there were more like her in the House of Commons?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would get more done.

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that we would get more done. That depends upon whether the government had the women or whether the opposition had them. If the government had the women, perhaps we would get more done. I believe that if the ladies in the opposition were as effective as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), there would not be enough days in the year to listen to all the complaints, many as justifiable as this one.
[DOT] (5:50 pm.)
Mr. Speaker, on past occasions when legislation of this type was proposed I indicated that I was opposed to either a means test or a needs test. I reiterate my attitude in this regard. I believe that we ought to introduce an income ceiling or another type of system which would eliminate the investigative procedures under which people are subjected to a means or needs test by government officials, as is the case in the program with which we are now dealing. I think, Mr. Speaker, that our present system says to Canadians, "There is absolutely no value in your saving, because if you save you will merely jeopardize the kind of assistance that may be available to you from the federal government. If throughout your lifetime you contribute nothing, save nothing and become almost totally dependent upon the welfare state, you may do well. On the other hand if you work hard and contribute much, you will receive only a bare minimum from the federal government."
By giving the people of this country the great raise of 42 cents a month that is enshrined in this legislation, the government has told them, "This is your great reward. In 1957, one of the main issues in the election campaign was the two cups of coffee that the Liberal government promised if it were returned to office. At that time it did not propose increasing the old age security pension immediately from $40 a month to $46. The Liberal government of the day said, "We will do that after the election. If you elect us, we will give you $6 more per month." The people of Canada did not elect the Liberals; consequently, the people received $15 a month more. That was a fair increase.
The government is now saying to the people of Canada, "We have investigated in depth poverty in this country. We have brought down a white paper and this legislation, and on April 1 next we will act.' The government says that it realizes there is difficulty now. That fact is accepted by everyone. In spite of this, it says to our people, "Even though at present there is at least $725 million in the fund, you will have to wait until next April for any action." The people of Canada have been told that the just society which this government talks about-it talked about it a great deal during the last election campaign-will not become effective for the old age pensioners of this nation until April 1, 1971.
The need for action is evident now; it is especially necessary for many of the 1,700,000 people who are recipients of the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement. The government says that the supplement is not sufficient, that the $25.75 now available

as an income supplement ought to be increased to $95 a month for married couples and $55 a month for single persons. At the same time, it says that while there is an evident need for that increase today, our people will have to wait until April 1 before they receive any increase. This is a pretty callous and heartless approach. It is not one you would adopt if you had any true feeling for those in this country who are suffering from degradation, who are being deprived of the substance of life, who are being deprived of their dignity through having to subject themselves to a needs or means test and to investigations carried out by bureaucrats. Nevertheless, that is the situation.
The rules and regulations introduced by this government that has talked about the just society are such as to suggest to people: If you live until April 1, 1971, we will see if we can put a bone with a lot of gristle and not too much meat on your table. That is about the size of it. This is being done by a government that has endeavoured to leave with our people the impression that it is concerned about them. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not a true concern; it is a phony concern.


Mr. Bell:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: It is a concern that stopped on the day the
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) led his party to victory in the election of 1968. The slogan "just society" never is found on the lips of Liberal supporters today. It is a forgotten slogan. They do not even mention it any more. What the just society means for the old age pensioners of this country is that there will be no action before April 1, 1971. The government says to them, "In the interim you may live the best way you know, or you may die, for that matter." If a pensioner owes as little as the $6.20 the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) mentioned, the government says, "We will sue you for the money. We will collect it from you; and if you die we will sue your estate." Apparently the government is very anxious to protect the taxpayers of this nation, even to the extent of suing the estates of pensioners for tiny amounts of money. There is not much justice and there is not much of the just society in Bill C-202, so far as I am concerned.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in too much repetition; that is not my worst vice.


Mr. Hogarth:: What is your worst vice?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Tell us.


John Gilbert: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has set forth the position of our
December 17, 1970

party with regard to the amendment before us. The Liberal party is destroying the democratic process of this country. There have been two glaring examples of the cabinet arriving at a decision and imposing it on the members of this House. With regard to the War Measures Act and the temporary public order act, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), a man of fine instincts and high intellect, having been presented with this bill by the cabinet forced it upon the members of this House without accepting any reasonable amendments put forward by the opposition. Examples of the reasonable amendments put forward were those dealing with a review board and bail.
Once the cabinet decides on a particular bill, they impose it upon the members of this House because the government has the majority. This bill is another example of the government destroying the democratic process. The democratic process depends upon persuasion. If the members of the opposition can persuade the government with regard to an amendment, the government has a moral duty to at least consider it and possibly implement it. The amendment now before us would insert the escalation clause in connection with the old age security pension of $80 a month. The Government, through the cabinet, is telling the members of the Liberal party that no change will be made. I reviewed in Hansard the second reading debate on this bill. There are over 150 hon. members in the Liberal party. Only the minister and three other Liberals participated in the debate on one of the most important bills introduced this session.
I recall the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) introducing the guaranteed income supplement in 1966. He departed from the principle of universality which was implemented by the Liberal party in 1952. We had a very spirited debate in which the minister actively participated. I am rather surprised that he has not taken part in this debate. The fact that he has not strengthened my argument that once the cabinet decides upon the content of a particular bill, even though the opposition may plead and exhort it has no impact on the government. The result is destruction of the democratic process. A continuation of this attitude will make the members of the Liberal party puppets of the government. They will not be able to contribute to the debate on this bill.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has set forth our position in such an eloquent and persuasive way that I am sure hon. members opposite will be happy to adopt his amendment. Your Honour will recall that at the end of the debate on second reading when Your Honour asked whether it was the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, it was adopted subject to a few members, including myself, shouting "On division". We shouted as hard as we could because we did not like the principle that the government was imposing with regard to the bill. It is a complete departure from the principle of universality which was established in 1952. We now have the selectivity principle.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In addition, the escalation clause attached to pensions of $80 is to be removed. The more I listen to my hon.
Old Age Security Act
friend from Winnipeg North Centre expound the principle which the government is asking us to accept, the more certain I am I should join him in voting against it. I am asking that five members on this side of the House, or even on the other side, stand up on third reading and force a vote, because acceptance of this principle of departing from universality in favour of selectivity is likely to cause a good deal of damage and all Canadians should know what is being done.
The principle of selectivity was established away back in 1927 when the pension program was first introduced. A means test was thereafter applied. Between 1927 and 1952 members on all sides of the House pleaded with the government to adopt the principle of universality, and in 1952 it was adopted. When we enacted the Canada Pension Plan, Parliament added an escalator clause to provide for automatic increases in line with increases in the cost of living. This has now become a standard provision in many Canadian pension plans. When I think of the pension plans available to retired civil servants, RCMP officers, Members of Parliament and others, I have the joy of knowing there is an escalation clause in them to take care of increases in the cost of living.
In 1966, when the President of the Privy Council was responsible for this legislation we experienced the first departure from the principle of universality. Now we find this proposal for a further departure. When I consider the increase in the pension being offered, I am ashamed that as a Member of Parliament I have to take part in debate and try to persuade members on the other side that the increase is niggardly, mere flim-flam. The minister talks about the cost of the present escalation clause which I am trying to persuade hon. members opposite to retain. He says it will cost $15 million. We should all know that in the old age security fund at present there is more than $1 billion which has accumulated over the years. Surely, the retention of the escalation clause would cost nothing in comparison with that amount.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has recommended, first of all, a demogrant of $150 a month on a universal basis and inclusive of an escalation clause. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) says this would cost another billion dollars. We could find the billion dollars in the foreign exchange reserve amounting to $4 billion which is just sitting there. It would be an experiment accepted by all Canadians. In the old age security fund itself there is more than $1 billion, enough to take care of a demogrant of $150 a month.
The second proposal advanced by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is that we should make a universal grant of $100 and a $50 guaranteed income supplement to eligible Canadians in need. This would cost much less than the first recommendation. I am sure the newly-appointed whip, who probably appreciates the presence of a large number of pensioners in his riding, will agree wholeheartedly that this proposal ought to be tried and tested. After all, we have the necessary money.
It is worth repeating that a person living on old age security who receives not only the pension but the guaranteed income supplement, a total income of $1,620, is

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
still left at least 25 per cent below the poverty level. In 1968 the committee on poverty said the amount necessary for a single person to live in Canada at the poverty level as $1,800. In 1970 they said it should be $1,922. We are giving these people the princely sum of $1,620. When we deduct the income tax payable on this amount, which is approximately $75, we find that a person in these circumstances is living at 25 per cent below the poverty level. I am sure that all members opposite who have a heart and a conscience will agree to bring about the necessary changes.
If we were to accept the $150 demogrant, the annual income would amount to $1,800 and it would be necessary to add an escalation clause to bring the recipient up to the poverty level. A married couple would receive $3,020 total income for the year. In 1969 the committee on poverty said it took $3,000 for a couple to live at the poverty level and in 1970 the figure is $3,200; so hon. members can see they would be $200 below the poverty level-and they are still subject to income tax.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre looked across at the Minister of National Health and Welfare this afternoon, recalling his arrival in the House, his progressive ideas and his compassion for people. Then my hon. friend pleaded with him to make the necessary changes in this legislation. I hope that the minister, who comes from a city where there is a measure of poverty and a large number of pensioners, will not be strangled by cabinet decisions to hold the line with regard to this bill. The least he can do is accept the proposal that the escalation clause be retained as it applies to old age security pensions.
As my hon. friend said so well in his speech to the committee, the government's proposal seriously affects single people who have an income of $2,280 and married couples with an income of $3,200. These are the people who are being hurt by not getting the guaranteed income supplement. Surely, a man of his stature and background, a man of his compassion and good instincts, will agree to make the necessary changes in the bill.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I agree with some of the reasons the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) put forward for the action taken by the minister. He said that the minister was probably told by the cabinet that he had to jiggle and juggle the sum of money he had been given, and this legislation resulted. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that if we pass this bill it is but the first step toward a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians? And it is a bad first step, because I am sure all of us are able to anticipate that the second bad step will be taken in the direction of family allowances.
Surely, we in this House should have the wisdom and the courage to stay clear of the selectivity principle and to adhere to the principle of universality. I suggest that the legislation before the House will create divisiveness. I want the opportunity on third reading to vote against the bill. I want five members of this House to rise when the motion is called and to force a vote so that hon. members
are made to realize what they are voting for, namely, a redistribution of old age poverty. I think once hon. members realize this is what we are doing and that the implementation of this measure will not cost the government one penny, they will agree it is a bad bill.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre commenced his speech on second reading by saying that this was a bad bill. The hon. member said he had received letters from old age pensioners expressing disappointment and disillusionment, and I could not agree more with those pensioners. That is why I want members on both sides of the House to stand up and vote against this bill. We will have plenty of opportunity in the next few months to revamp the bill, put it in its proper perspective and take care of the senior citizens of Canada.
I notice the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is nodding his head. He participated in the second reading debate. He supported the government and spoke against our plea for a guaranteed annual income, asking where we were going to get the money. Let me tell the hon. member that there are $4 billion in the foreign exchange reserve. Surely that is a sufficient amount of money to implement the plan we have suggested.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre outlined this afternoon the breach of faith on the part of government, the breaking of a social contract that was entered into between the government and the people of Canada in regard to the escalation clause, the hon. member for Ottawa West contributed a gratuitous remark by asking, "Well, why can't we break a contract?" I ask whether he realizes what this means to all Canadians. Does the hon. member agree that we should break our agreement regarding a 2 per cent escalation for the Canada Pension Plan, or in regard to retired civil servants, the RCMP or military personnel? Surely the word of the government should be its bond. It was its bond in 1965 when the government introduced the escalation provision. It is now casting it aside. I do not think the members of the Liberal party would want it to be said that they should so callously discard the escalation clause in respect of this bill.
As I have said, the philosophy of a guaranteed income for our senior citizens is one of co-operation and consideration. When we think of the contribution that they have made over the years, not only to the productive life of this country but to the life of the family as well as to moral and spiritual life, surely the least we can do is ensure that they spend their twilight years in respect and in dignity. This bill will not produce that result. I think all hon. members of the House should realize this is the case and should vote against the bill.
The 42 cents increase in the basic pension is a disgrace, a cruel hoax perpetrated on many senior citizens at Christmas time. I hope that the President of the Privy Council, a man who comes from the Maritimes and who has seen poverty, as has his family, yet has overcome it, the man who introduced the guaranteed income supplement, will rise in his place and declare that he is opposed to the principle of selectivity and is in favour of universality. I perceive the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. 
December 17, 1970

Andras) in the House. I think he would agree that not only must we have pensions but we must have homes in which our retired people can live in respect and dignity. I hope the members of this House will accept the amendment.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, as we approach the Christmas season we will be reminded on television and from our reading of what is regarded as the greatest Christmas play of all time, "The Christmas Carol". As I listened to the debate today it seemed to me that the Scrooge of "The Christmas Carol" is found in this House in Bill C-202, and in a way that we in this enlightened age ought to think twice about. Surely, the Christmas present that we are putting together for the old age pensioners of Canada can be described as nothing more than the device of a Scrooge who is as hard-hearted as the government.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Fifty-five dollars a month supplement.


Robert Norman Thompson: The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) talks about the guaranteed income supplement. I shall have something to say about that. I would have thought his experience of bureaucracy in government would have told him that to devise a means test which for a single person might be applied in 55 different ways will do nothing but perpetuate bureaucracy and work hardship on those who really need our consideration and help. I say that kindly to the hon. member, because if this bill is implemented on the selectivity principle outlined therein, we shall be reverting to the means test system, one that will be more vicious than any we have had hitherto in our welfare legislation. It will be a retrograde form of means test that will be much more severe than the income tax reports used by some provinces to determine the premium that people in the low-income bracket should pay for health services insurance.
Much has been said in recent years about bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada. During the last election campaign the "deux nations" theory came in for a lot of discussion and heated debate. I believe that the real division in Canada has nothing to do with language, culture or politics in its most bitter form, but is the critical dividing line that cuts across all of these and separates Canada into two distinct groups. The first is the affluent Canada, the productive Canada where the majority enjoy a generally adequate standard of living, where cultural and educational facilities are readily accessible. This Canada is exemplified by the skyscrapers, high-rise apartment complexes, new subdivisions, luxurious schools and universities, a rising standard of living and new opportunities. In effect, it is the Canada where people are in the mainstream of our economic way of life. The population of this Canada is about 17 million.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
On the other hand, there is a second Canada with which very few of us are familiar. It is the Canada where more than 4.5 million Canadians are trapped in poverty.
Old Age Security Act
Their level of income is below the $3,000 a year poverty line suggested by the Economic Council of Canada. These people are not to be found in one province; they are found in every province, in every major city as well as in the rural parts of Canada. This is the have-not Canada. With this legislation we are dealing with one of the larger groups in this have-not Canada, the old age pensioners, people who are past 65 years of age. There are, as well, the working poor and the unemployed. Probably there is no group in the have-not Canada to whom we as legislators in Parliament have a greater responsibility than those in the senior citizen group. On the eve of Christmas, as we are dealing with the welfare of these people and the amount of money that is available for them to live on, certainly it is only fitting that we should be doing so with a little more compassion than this bill indicates.
Perhaps the most comprehensive study of poverty undertaken in Canada is now being conducted by the Senate Committee on Poverty. The chairman of that committee, Senator Croll, in his report to the committee on its findings on November 11 and 12 made a number of significant statements. Time does not permit one to quote all of the important parts of his report, but there are one or two passages which should be brought to the attention of the House. He said:
The low-income worker, the aged, the handicapped, the social welfare recipient, the single head of family, is becoming more and more alienated from society which each is desperately trying to rejoin. The poverty of our people, the unemployment, the 600,000 long-term welfare recipients in the province of Quebec clearly indicate, as they put it in the brief . .. that we are becoming a nation of beggars.
Those words were not spoken by anyone representing this party in the Senate. They were spoken by a distinguished Senator who belongs to the government party. He went on to say:
I think what is required is a net to catch all those who. for any number of legitimate reasons, are unable to provide themselves with an adequate income. These people are our poor Their numbers are a disgrace. They are the elderly, who helped to build this society, the handicapped who are unable to compete, through no fault of their own, and the working poor, who strive and aspire, like all of us, to a decent way of life, but regardless of how hard they try they are unable to catch up They are forever losers under our present system. Up to now we have always said that the fault is with the individual. I think it is time that we looked around at the system and let it share some of the responsibility. For those who fall into this net we must provide, as a matter of right, a decent living and access to quality services which are easily obtainable.
The amendment to the legislation, which we will be voting on later this evening, seeks to deal with one segment of our society about whom Senator Croll was talking, our senior citizens. I think it is a downright disgrace and a travesty of justice that we should be making available, as the bill does, this pittance compared with what the Senate committee had in mind.
Senator Croll continued in the following words. I realize this is a general statement but it does relate to our legislation in a most acute way:
Those appearing before us were unanimous in the view that the public welfare system has broken down, mired in bureaucracy

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
and suffering from lack of leadership. It has failed in its ability to achieve humanitarian ends, and the public capacity to finance it in its present form is in question. The welfare system has failed for another reason; that is because it was considered a supplement to the economic system to provide for marginal people. It was never designed to supply basic needs for a large number of Canadians. I have been quoted as saying that the welfare system is a mess. That was some months ago, and now on reconsideration I think it is an impossible mess! It is too late for reform-it is beyond reform. It is too late to apply poultices or bandages or even to attempt to modify it. It is useless to try to make changes in the system because of citizen hostility and recipient anger. Its situation is now such that efforts to change it, even if such efforts should result in its betterment, are no longer possible and just would not be believed. It has infected generations of Canadians and plagues our society.
Bill C-202 does nothing more than perpetuate a system which is recognized to be wrong. And what is even worse, it takes a retrograde, backward step in eliminating the universality approach as far as our senior citizens are concerned and substitutes the selectivity approach which will further degrade people at the senior citizen level who should have our respect and to whom we certainly have responsibility. It has long been my political philosophy, as a student of political policy and science, that we have a special responsibility to our senior citizens and that each of us shares that responsibility individually and collectively because when we were young, they looked after us.
In the same way we have a very special responsibility to the youth of our nation, because when we reach the senior citizen stage they will be taking care of us. We are failing in our responsibility because the provisions of this bill are such that we are moving backward instead of forward. We are refusing to recognize what is the fact and reality before us. It is a tragedy that we do not take a more positive viewpoint. The National Council of Welfare feels strongly that the provisions of income support by way of needs-tested public assistance programs is inherently degrading, stigmatizing and destructive of self-respect, having a debilitating effect upon the recipient and upon the children of the recipient families, in this case upon our senior citizens. Can we not understand the logic and the truth of a statement such as this? Senator Croll went on to say:
I think we ought to be able to scrap the system completely. We could actually repeal every one of our social measures, with the exception of the Canada Assistance Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the unemployment insurance plan, and meet every requirement under the basic definition of "need" in the Canada Assistance Act, modifying it to some slight extent so it would all fit under an umbrella rather than as now under a tent with 200 or so measures.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Another paradox about this legislation is that we are dealing with it at a time when we have in our hands and have been studying with great interest the recent white paper on income security for Canadians. This legislation does implement some of the recommendations in the white paper so far as our senior citizens are concerned, but it completely rejects the basic concept of the white paper. It jumps the gun, so to speak, and brings in a type of legislation that negates or rejects the basic principle involved in the white paper on income security.
To return specifically to the amendments about which we are concerned tonight, we find that a single person is pegged, on the guaranteed income principle, over and above the old age assistance which is $80 a month, to an additional $55 a month which is available to those in need as supplementary income. Suppose such a person has no other income and is eligible as a single person for the $55 in addition to the $80: he would receive $135. Last week I met with a group of senior citizens in my home city. I asked them if it was possible for anyone to live on an income of $135 a month. Various persons at this meeting gave me statistics on their cost of living. With the inflationary costs we have today, it is impossible for a single person to maintain a respectable standard of living, especially if he must supply his own living accommodation.
As has already been said tonight, it is not necessary to take the word of the senior citizens. What does the Economic Council of Canada say? It states that a person needs at least $1,900 a year to barely exist. This was in 1969. The Economic Council went on to say that $3,000 a year was the poverty line. Here we are offering $1,620 to these people, knowing very well that it does not even come up to the existence level. On top of that, to add insult to injury we make that level of income subject to income tax. In other words, the senior citizen will not even receive $1,620; we will take some of it back.
We go still further and deny what has been a niggardly increase in respect of the cost of living. We deny these people the 2 per cent cost of living increase both in respect of the supplement and the basic pension. We know that the 2 per cent figure represents less than half the actual increase in the cost of living, but for some reason we are so poverty-stricken in our own attitude toward the needs of our senior citizens that we take away the 2 per cent and besides that make their income subject to income tax.
For these reasons this bill does not make sense. Not only is it bad legislation but it is completely unjustified and unwarranted in so far as our responsibility is concerned. By taking away this 2 per cent in respect of the cost of living we are placing an additional burden on old age pensioners, because when the cost of living escalates, as it will, through inflation-which the government has said, and which it is generally recognized increases year by year-the $80 will have less purchasing power each year because it is pegged in this legislation. It would seem that whoever thought this legislation through must have been completely ignorant of the facts. The government in nationalizing leaving the universality aspect and replacing it with the process of selectivity really has neither accepted nor rejected either principle. It seems to me the government should opt for one or the other and not short-circuit on both, because that will be the effect of the legislation.
An appeal procedure should be introduced as well. The ceiling on earned income should be raised to $3 or $4 for each dollar deduction of allocation. Surely the normal $1,100 tax deduction is completely unjustified in dealing with senior citizens who are receiving old age assistance

December 17, 1970

or who are entitled to the supplementary payment. The selectivity principle will mean an increase in administrative processing. Has the government estimated the cost of administering this program? I wager that government administration and bureaucray which will be necessary under this program, if it follows the present pattern, will involve a cost greater than giving the 2 per cent escalation to senior citizens and including the universality principle at least in respect of the basic pension which is set at $80. This selectivity principle means that money is to be taken from some pensioners and given to others. Is this the type of war on poverty the government says it is carrying on? I urge someone over there to consider this question before the final vote is taken.
We might go back to "The Christmas Carol", when Tiny Tim reached the heart of Scrooge. We may not have a Tiny Tim here, but we hope that somehow the spirit that moved Scrooge will move the hearts of whoever devised this legislation, because it is not the type of legislation with which we should be concerned at this time. There are one or two points I should like to make in closing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has said he is closing his remarks. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: I thank the House. First, the cost of living increase should be attached to the actual cost of living, instead of being fixed at 2 per cent. However, at least that which has been the practice should continue both in respect of the supplement and the basic pension. Second, the deduction allowed in respect of income tax ought to be increased. At the very least it should be increased to the amount the Economic Council has said is the basic income one requires for existence. I believe the amount is $1,920 a year. It would be much better if it were increased, for the old age pensioner, to the poverty line of $3,000. No one could have very much objection to that.
It is wrong to penalize people over age 65 who would like to supplement their income a little, by taking it away in taxes. I will give an example from my home city. A man who is over 70 years of age, who a year ago did not pay any income tax because his income was not up to that level, overlooked the fact that his wife had reached pensionable age. He could not afford to have an accountant make out his income tax form. He did this himself, but forgot that his wife had received pension and so did not properly calculate the amount that he and his wife received as income. Therefore, he did not calculate any tax payment as he had not paid tax in previous years. He was later assessed for this in the amount of $157.17. When the first assessments notice arrived, he was amazed that he was being taxed. As he was not accustomed to paying tax, he neglected to do anything about it. He received another notice stating that if a payment was not made immediately, legal action would be taken to collect the amount owing.
Old Age Security Act
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
This poor old man panicked. He did not read all the fine print on the form. He thought he might go to jail. He borrowed the money and paid the tax, because he knew that if his pension was reduced this year because of the unpaid tax he just would not be able to live on what he received. The tragedy of it all is that he does not have the money to pay back what he borrowed. I am sure this situation is duplicated tens of thousands of times across Canada. To tax our senior citizens at the present levels is a disgrace. Surely, the income tax deduction for people receiving old age assistance should be raised, so that if they have a little money of their own they may raise their standard of living at least to what the Economic Council has said is the poverty line.
At this last minute of the debate on this legislation I hope the spirit of Christmas may prevail in the hardened heart of the Scrooge responsible for the drafting of this legislation, so that the amendments put forward will be accepted and we may go home with the satisfaction of knowing that we have made this Christmas a little better for the most needy and worthy people in our country.
[Translation\


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured at being given this opportunity of speaking on Bill C-202 which provides for an increase in old age pensions. It would be rather more appropriate to use the word "decrease" for this bill, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, is a bad bill. Indeed, it does not take into account any of the present economic conditions which border on general chaos and for which nothing but ad hoc solutions are resorted to, the ineffectiveness of which is obvious. With this kind of action, the disease gets worse since, in any case, people are sinking deeper and deeper into misery.
How is it that we have reached a point where a host of aged people, and even young people, who are not even able any more to find what they need in our fair Canada? They are not even able any more to find a decent place to live in, not able to have their three meals a day guaranteed in a country swarming with resources.
So, there is certainly something the matter, and since our aged people are reduced to begging, as we can see now, our economic system must be reformed from its very bases. No one in this House, however, dares apply the remedies needed to rebalance our economy so as to enable every individual to benefit from progress and science.
Canadians are deprived of necessities. Many live in alarming conditions, and this is why we are trying to increase old age security pensions. The government is trying to find money where there is none, to take money from those who already have not enough in order to give it to others, in an effort to rebalance our economy a little. This unbalance is ever increasing and so is discontent throughout our fair Canada.
Here we are again discussing problems pertaining to elderly citizens, within an over-all national economy

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
which is disrupted, confused, in short, unbalanced through and through. Let us keep on, if we enjoy it, wasting our time on trifles when the whole structure is falling apart.
A while ago, I listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). He made a sensible speech and put his finger on the cause of our current economic problems. Furthermore, he proposed certain solutions to get our economy moving again.
Other members also described the difficult economic circumstances which affect us one and all. Every day I receive letters which indicate that there is general discomfort and dissatisfaction. I will confine myself to deal with the indispensable economic reforms.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Our national economy is off balance because of the lamentable purchasing power of senior citizens. The Canadian government which exercises the supreme command and has a right of supervision and direction on the economic, monetary and political activities of citizens cannot correct the situation.
I must recall something fundamental that can help correct any economy which has been disrupted as a result of the attitude of the government and of the country's most important institutions.
The principle implied in the speeches of all government members, but which in no way corresponds to their economic concerns is their pretended unawareness of the daily realities of the Canadian economy which is necessarily personal and family-oriented, as well as social and corporate. It is needless to speak of administration, of economic policy whether national provincial, municipal or international, unless this principle is recognized from the start. Not only from the philosophical point of view, but from the practical point of view as well.
Mr. Speaker, having forgotten this first principle of any public administration, we now have an imbalanced economy. Nobody can live without money in any civilized country, be it capitalist, socialist or communist. To consume and produce goods and services, one must have money. Everywhere money is needed in any phase of the economic life, whether a child is being born, an adolescent growing up, an adult feeling he is in perfect fit, or an older citizen living his last days.
Any social life is entirely monetary, economic and political.
Because it is monetary, we need a purchasing power based on the basic needs of each human being.
Because it is economic, it is necessary that production should meet the daily consumption needs of each human being before being used for capitalizing for the future.
Because it is political, we have to control, through wise policies, all currency circulation according to the economic capabilities of the actual or possible production and according to the needs of all the human beings who compose the population of Canada, whether they are

children, students or adult producers on unemployed. Whether they are pensioners, old citizens, sick or disabled persons, they have a right to live.
There is talk about giving something to old people once they have been unclothed, once they have been thrown out on the street. Action is needed to enable them to live. In order to keep them alive governments must intervene and to do it, they must rob well-off people and give their money to the others. Harm, even great harm, is done to some, to many, in order to ensure some happiness, some right to live to others in this country.
Instead of increasing the cost of living, of allowing interest rates to rise, or of enriching only the rich, society must be served. We should use our resources to serve our people. By this I mean that, instead of redistributing our riches, we are trying to redistribute what is in scarce supply.
According to statistics, our capitalization this year amounts to $34 billion. Surely, we could take one billion out of this to give a monthly pension of $150 to our older people without submitting them to any means test.
All Canada's senior citizens should receive $150 per month and I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is possible. It is easy to make such a distribution in our beautiful country. If we do not know where to get the money from, instead of robbing some to give to others-as I have said before in this House-we could use capitalization surpluses as well as excess profits. We could also grant a compensated discount and establish new credits to distribute production surpluses so as to procure a decent living to our senior citizens. Older people are not clothed or housed with bits of paper. What they need is a decent house to live in, a sufficient quantity of healthy food to meet their requirements.
This is what we have to accomplish through concrete, positive and social means.
It is through social consciousness and determination to achieve our objective that we will be able to satisfy these requirements.
Canada's production is plentiful, and here is the proof. Presently, 37 per cent of all Canadians are unemployed. Several citizens who do not enjoy the benefits of unemployment insurance, receive social welfare allowances. Thousands of people live at the expense of others who have not yet a sufficient income. Instead of distributing the tremendous wealth made of $34 billion in capital, to satisfy the needs of Canadians, people live in scarcity, and we find nothing more to say than: There is no money. To raise funds, we will have to take money from other people.
I wonder when the government members will take note of the facts which would enable us to distribute to all needy individuals the wealth which is plentiful in this country.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the entire economy, on account of our faulty financial system, no longer meets human needs. The pursuit of money has become the essential purpose of all.
December 17, 1970

Much could be said on this question and on the other consequences of a financial system that proves dictatorial when it should be a servant. The system has become a mechanical device and a robbing scheme when it should liberate men and distribute the benefits of progress. It engenders and promotes laxity among men instead of brotherhood and generosity that could shine in this world where physical hindrances have almost disappeared.
In such deprivation can always be found impoverished families, dispossessed small businessmen, important industries buried or swallowed by the monsters to which austerity gave the occasion to extend their tentacles and increase their power. Such monsters will enjoy the government's favour as large job providers. While they welcome workers from all quarters, cities and rural areas, on the other hand, they make them into robots, at the service of Mammon.
Mr. Speaker, I could give many more details on the basic question of old age pensions, and even if all the hon. members who spoke on this measure have explained the pension terms, the methods of payment and the amount to be paid, I still submit that we should get rid of the deceiving and anti-democratic system of the guaranteed income subject to a means test.
Gailbraith, an economist, had this to say on the matter:
Today, we ensure an income to the have-nots, but through various means that are costly in their application and an outrage to human dignity.
Indeed, we insult our older citizens through inquiries to find out whether or not they are entitled to this or that.
Whenever someone has put something aside, there are some people who say: he is better off than I am, he is not entitled to that for I have nothing.
This is discrimination, Mr. Speaker, and in 1966, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States organized a forum on the best methods of providing a decent standard of living for everyone. Robert Theobald, James Tobin, Milton Friedman, all of them economic advisers, approved the principle of guaranteed income and negative tax, on which I should like to say a few words.
We should have enough sense, once the inquiries to find out whether older people need assistance are abolished, to determine a decent tax basis, so as to leave our older people with what they need to live decently.
The Ontario Labour Association, in a brief submitted on February 28, 1967, to the Special Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Consumer Credit, No. 39, shows that we have taken the wrong road. Inquiries on old age security should be done away with. We should be able to ensure old people of easy circumstances in a country bursting with wealth.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a very few words in support of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I take this opportunity to commend him on his appeal
Old Age Security Act
today on behalf of the aged citizens of this country. I also commend my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) who placed before the government a realistic assessment of the weaknesses in the bill before us.
The lack of human consideration by this government for the segment of society that falls in this category, as well as for other disadvantaged Canadians, becomes more and more obvious each day, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the blind, the disabled, the mentally retarded and others whom they help by lip service and to whom they throw a few pennies. In this case it is 42 pennies, to be exact. That is how much they have thrown these people out of the government's protective coffers. And, Mr. Speaker, it is ever more difficult for me to realize how they can continue, in conscience, to camouflage this attitude from most Canadians.
Again, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the overflow in government offices of experts who advise on the passing of what is supposed to be just legislation, there remain many weaknesses. This legislation exemplifies nothing but sheer, automatic consideration of disadvantaged Canadians as numbers, or holes in a punch-card, rather than as humans to whom we as a state owe at least some responsibility-the responsibility for their care; that they may continue to live in a reasonable state of existence in their remaining years.
One important segment of our senior citizens whom they have forgotten, Mr. Speaker, is the aged pensioner who suffers from exceptional incapacity. I am referring to that group of citizens who in their thousands are either left alone or suffer from a degree of disability which is such that they are unable to look after themselves. I can tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others in this House that I, too, have been getting many letters indicating disappointment, frustration, disillusionment, bewilderment and lack of faith in those who govern.
Let me quote an example of what I mean by those who are suffering from exceptional incapacities, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of months ago I visited a lady 70 years of age who was blind, who had just had her second leg removed and who was suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure. Her husband, who was a war veteran, left her with a small widow's pension under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Because she was alone, she left her deteriorated home and, luckily, was able to move in next door with her son, who was also blind. He had eight children and was existing on social assistance. His wife has to 'try to take care of his mother. This lady's income, with old age security, totalled $111.41, plus her $40. The son borrowed $600 to repair the home. He rented it out, which meant that the rental income was eventually charged against the mother's income, which was reduced by a like amount. Luckily, I visited this lady and brought the case to the attention of the authorities. She is now getting a few more dollars because she happens to be blind.
The regulations do not make allowances for those suffering from exceptional incapacity such as in the case I

December 17, 1970
Old Age Security Act
have just quoted, Mr. Speaker. I submit that this, again, indicates a lack of human consideration. Another case I would like to mention is that of a citizen on old age assistance who made the mistake of trying to supplement his income. He earned some $240 by selling newspapers over a year and found that he had to repay part of this amount. While I realize, Mr. Speaker, that regulations as to limits have to be laid down, there should be some responsibility on the state to become cognizant of exceptional cases of extreme hardship. Money does not do everything. I submit that the government should consider very seriously staffing the various district offices with responsible people who are capable of looking into these cases, and the regulations should be broadened to allow for human consideration and discretion where the need is evident.


Mr. McGrath:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: It is difficult for me to understand, also, why couples are discriminated against. With the increase, the amount available for single old age pensioners will rise to $135 per month, whereas a couple will lose $15 a month if a man is living with his wife.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Jack Marshall: There is not much point in repeating many of the other failings in the bill, Mr. Speaker, because many of my colleagues have already pointed these out. I hope the minister will take note of the very important human consideration that should apply to those receiving old age pension who suffer from exceptional incapacity. I hope that something will be done to look after this serious problem. I can only say that I am disappointed that other disadvantaged citizens, particularly the blind and the disabled, will have to wait for discussions to take place between the minister and the provinces. This could have been an ongoing process over the past two years and the results could have been announced at this time. I hope, therefore, that the minister will do his utmost to speed up these discussions so that those who suffer from blindness or any other disability-this applies especially to those who are mentally incapacitated-will receive increases in benefits which are so urgently needed.
Another weakness, Mr. Speaker, is in the federal-provincial relationship concerning old age security and the Canada Assistance Plan. May I quote as an example a couple in the province of Newfoundland who are allowed, under social assistance, the grand amount of $130. The husband receiving old age assistance gets $111.41 and, under the maximum allowable, the province pays the wife $18.59. This means, Mr. Speaker, that with the increase in old age security, the husband will now receive $135 but that the $18.59 will now be denied to the wife, giving them in total an increase of only $5. This will go a long way in the fight to help our aged, Mr. Speaker! I am sure the government will agree that this will help that aged couple a great deal.
I also go along with some of my colleagues who stated today that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is not altogether to blame for the callousness of the cabinet. I remember well reading a few months ago in the local newspaper about the disagreement in the cabinet which turned down by 50 per cent the increases that the minister recommended. The article related that six members of the cabinet fought vigorously against the recommended increases: I am sure that the many aged and disadvantaged citizens of this country would like to know who the six ministers were. I do not think one has to be very smart to guess who they were. Fortunately, this is a time of good will and I would not want to spoil the festive season by venturing to guess who the nasty six were who turned down the increase that had been recommended by the minister.
There are many thousands of disappointed Canadians in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Many of them had faith and hope that their need would be relieved. They had this faith because of the loud and clear proclamations of our debt to that segment of society which needs our help. The proclamations came from many sources, from throne speeches, from white papers, from poverty committees, and very soon it is to come from the $7.5 million bookstore called Information Canada.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I hope the minister will try and impress upon his colleagues the shortcomings that exist in the bill, in order to provide some relief for our aged citizens. I hope the government will have a change of heart with regard to the 2 per cent escalation clause.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make at the time of the study of this very important bill which particularly concerns one class of our society, the old people who hope to live a few more years with a little security.
The amendment proposed by our colleague from Win-nipeg-North-Centre (Mr. Knowles) to change clause 1 by deleting lines 4 to 11 means that we do not approve restricting the pension to the amount established in Bill C-202.
I entirely agree with this motion because in 1970, the very people who propose the limit at the amount stipulated in clause 1 would not want to live with such a low pension.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that Canada would gain if it gave a pension higher than the amount established in the bill in order to increase the purchasing power of each group of people who are suffering from a lack of purchasing power to meet their essential needs.
As it must be the case for other hon. members, I receive each week from people 65 and over complaints to the effect that their income is too low to live decently at home.
Mr. Speaker, the old age security should be paid at 60. The proof is a Christmas card which I have received

December 17, 1970

today from a married couple in my riding. They tell me. that they hope that in 1971 people will qualify for the old age pension at 60 since at 48 or 50 they can no longer work. They are too old to get a job.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunately true! It quite often happens that people lose jobs that they have held for 20 or 30 years, get fired because of mechanization. They are not responsible for mechanization but since machines are more and more replacing men, automatically those people who had jobs find themselves without an income and are unable to support themselves. When they go looking for another job they are simply asked the question: "How old are you?" "I am 50, I am 52, I am 55." They then get the following reply: "You are too old to work here." Then they are too old to work for industry and too young to get the old age security pension and they find themselves in a very difficult situation.
A few years back, when we were advocating that the pensionable age be brought down from 70 to 65 years, we were considered people with too advanced ideas. It was not normal that the eligibility age for the pension be brought down, because it did not reflect the thinking of those who were responsible for the administration.
Now, in some provinces which I will not name, provincial governments moved to ensure a little more security to senior citizens, and they started to give them a form of pension which could supplement that given by the central government, and at a less advanced age, namely at 65.
After a few years, the central government came to the conclusion that it was normal to bring the eligibility age for the pension down to 65, and that has been accepted by the whole population and by all hon. members.
In my opinion, it would be desirable in 1970 to bring down to 60 the eligibility age for the old age pension, so that young people who come each year on the labour market could let society take advantage of their knowledge. Indeed, they are in a better position than older people to render services to society and society would benefit from it if those young people took the place of older people and if persons 60 and over were allowed to leave their jobs and at the same time be assured of their security for the remaining years of their life.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that mankind, and especially members, should remember: man does not change. It is easier for an elderly person to remain idle, without being subject to all kinds of whims and wishes, than for a younger person.
A youngblood is dynamic and if time is not spent on doing good things, energy will be consumed on not-so-good things.
As for senior citizens, they have matured and learned to be more deliberate. They can quietly and without fearing for their fate remain inactive and our society will not be the worse off.
Old Age Security Act
There remains one point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Even at 60 years of age, all the inhabitants of our towns or cities who are not completely worn out by work could keep busy beautifying properties.
In my riding, I have known people to whom I suggested that they leave their farm to their sons before the latter took off to go and live in town. I suggested that they buy a property and take care of it to brighten up the village and make it attractive for those who visited it or lived there.
I could give many instances of people who have taken our advice and who are now happy to live in an environment where they are not inactive but give to others the will to be of service in their milieu, to keep their home in order, with a small garden and flowers; they are an example for our youth; they show that everybody can lead a meaningful life, whatever his age.
It would be wise to alter this old age security legislation in some way so as to give our senior citizens an income which would not be partially taken away by taxes which actually prevent them from satisfying their needs.
I agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) to whom I listened attentively a few moments ago and who said that Canadians should not have to pay tax on an income of less than $3,000. In fact, if one considers the cost of maintaining a home and leading a decent life in 1970 this amount of $3,000 is far from excessive.
Secondly, people who must live in homes for the aged should be able to live without having to depend on welfare. Every week I visit old people. I have the opportunity to go and say hello, to talk to them since I think it is my duty to do so. The sole comfort that many have is to be visited by a member of Parliament who is really going to look into their problems so as to get better acquainted with their situation and make the necessary representations.
Tomorrow when people see in their newspapers the representations made by some hon. members, including myself, some will say: The M.P.'s worried only about the old age security while young people have also needs. They will wonder how it is that they are being ignored.
In October 1970, during the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, we showed concern for young families when we proposed an amendment asking for an increase in family allowances in order to provide them with some additional income with which to fulfil their obligations.
Furthermore, in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, there are isolated people who may suffer because we neglect to speak on their behalf. I am referring to widows aged 60 or 65 who have family responsibilities and who need some income to carry out their obligations.
Those people write us from time to time, asking us to bear their plight in mind so that Canada may grant them
December 17, 1970

Old Age Security Act
a minimum income in keeping with the possibilities the country can afford.
As Bill C-202 applies to the situation of old people, I do not want to forget the others.
I deeply regret that Bill C-202 does not extend eligibility for old age security pensions to those who have reached the age of 60 and also grant them a tax exemption on incomes below a ceiling of $3,000. This does not mean that we are opposed to the principle of the bill or to the application of better legislation, but we want Canada to better realize the fact that people who were born before us deserve more, because we can inherit from them advantages from which they should benefit in 1970.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to listen to various members of the opposition parties talk on this motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The essence of it is that we should not remove the escalation feature from the $80 universal pension. In the course of the discussion about this particular issue the government has been characterized as Scrooges who are letting down a lot of the old age pensioners.


Some hon. Members:: Correct.


John Carr Munro: I cannot help wondering whether any of those critics have analysed what we are doing of a positive nature for senior citizens. I ask the House to look at page 40 of the white paper to which many hon. members have referred. One passage which appears there is of some significance.
There will be 1.7 million people over 65 in Canada in 1971. Oi these almost 1.1 million, or 64 per cent, would have incomes of less than $1,500 (or $3,000 for a couple) were it not for the income security programs already in operation.
Even with the existing income security measures, it is anticipated that 711,000 people, or 42 per cent of aged persons, will still have incomes below these levels in 1971. The proposals in this paper would raise the incomes of all aged persons above these levels; no single aged person would have less than $1,620, and no aged couple would have less than $3,060.
This is why the rates proposed, commencing April 1 next, are, for single persons receiving guaranteed income supplements, $135, and for couples, $255. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) talked about the poverty line, and I think I know his source. The type of pension we are now offering under the guaranteed income supplement would raise the income of the couple he was talking about to above the poverty line. I do not think he was aware of that, at least not from the way he was talking in his speech.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
When the senior citizens of this country who are in desperate need of assistance receive $55 g.i.s. over and above the $80 o.a.s., for a total of $135, or $95 g.i.s. for a

couple with each getting the $80 flate rate o.a.s., bringing the total up to $255 a month, I suggest this is a very significant increase indeed over what they are receiving today. A single person today receives $111.41. Therefore,
I think it can be said that we are giving a very significant increase to a very significant majority of our senior citizens.
In essence, this is not very different from what every Canadian who files an income tax return does once a year. On this return Canadians indicate what their income is, and it is on this basis that their tax is calculated. If there ever was a system or a technique that removed the demeaning aspect of the old welfare systems we heard so much about today, certainly this is it. Canada was one of the first countries in the world to bring in a guaranteed income supplement for the aged. In fact, I think we were the only country with an income-tested program of this nature when we introduced it four years ago. It is a program that has worked well. Surely, it had its problems, but I do not think there is one member in this House who has not found that those who receive this needed benefit are happy about it and reasonably happy about the way it is administered. They see a real difference between this type of income-tested benefit and the old means-testing programs of years past.
When honourable members extol the virtues of a guaranteed annual income and condemn this program, they are contradicting themselves. What, in essence, a guaranteed annual income is all about is that it is some kind of income test. It does not matter whether the payment is a universal one and you tax back that payment at the rate of 100 per cent in the higher income brackets, or whether individuals make applications that are income-tested once a year, as is the case here. In essence, it is an income test and I think it is the kind of technique that would be used in any guaranteed annual income proposal.
I should like to deal with a couple of other matters. We have heard suggestions for making pensions universal. The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated that he was very disappointed at the fact that we seem to be moving away from the concept of universality-and indeed we are moving away from it. There is no question that we must move away from this concept. If, as he suggested, we granted our senior citizens a universal pension of $150 a month it would cost, in addition to what we are already spending on pensions, $1,100 million. As indicated in the white paper honourable members have received, we could almost institute a guaranteed annual income for the whole population at a cost of between $2 billion and $2.6 billion.
If honourable members think that this is within the capacity of the present government or of any government in today's context, they are being totally unrealistic. In adopting the concept of universality, what honourable members are talking about is giving each of our senior citizens an increase of $10 a month. Instead of receiving $135, or $255 in the case of a couple, if we raise their pension from $80 to $90 it will cost over $200 million. This would not do the old age pensioners who really
December 17, 1970

need an increase any good at all. It the pension were raised to $100 it would still be inadequate and would cost over $400 million.
When hon. members criticize programs in this way, I think at the same time there is an obligation upon them, if they are interested in getting money to those who need it under an administration as least offensive as possible, to put forward concrete suggestions about how the money required to meet the increase is to be raised. In all the debate I have listened to today, I do not think I heard one member of the opposition suggest how the money could be raised or in what manner he or the party he represented would raise it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: ,Get the economy moving again.


John Carr Munro: Do they propose to impose an additional tax on those middle-income groups that they indicated they were so concerned about? If not, where would the additional money be raised? All hon. members have indicated their concern for the senior citizens, but I do not think our senior citizens are easily fooled either. They know what these programs cost, and those who really need the money realize that this is probably the most effective and meaningful way of seeing that they get it. Indeed, we all agree they are in desperate need.
Hon. members have indicated they are concerned with poverty in this country. The hon. member for Red Deer mentioned the Croll committee. We have heard that four million Canadians are living below the poverty line, and this figure is probably accurate. Unless we start to make our programs more selective, as suggested by many committees, and try to redistribute the money we have in terms of supplemental income for low-income groups, we will never really be able to tackle the problem of poverty. Approximately 1.1 million senior citizens are living below the poverty line. We have produced a program that will realistically deal with their need and in this respect the government of Canada and hon. members on this side of the House have not anything to be apologetic about.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the minister resumes his seat I wonder whether he would entertain a question. Did he forget to speak about the motion that is before the House, which calls for the retention of the cost of living escalation on the basic pension, rather than freezing it at $80 per month?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer that question. I was thinking in terms of the general program involved here. The part mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is only one part. He did not restrict his comments and he did not talk about-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I beg to differ. I did.


John Carr Munro: I thought the hon. member was tying it into the whole proposal of selectivity. I am saying that when the hon. member talks about selectivity he is talk-
Old Age Security Act
ing about removing the escalation feature for those people above the poverty line, and I thought I made that clear.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit another question? By taking the initiative away from those Canadian citizens who feel they should save a little money for their old age, jeopardizing them because of their inability to receive the supplement, does he not realize that in the very near future no one will save money? Where will he get the money then?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated that I did try to deal with this adequately before the committee, and I think that if the hon. member attended he would have heard the answer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Before the question is put to the House, the Chair feels it should remind hon. members of the suggestion made by Mr. Speaker to the effect that the two motions in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) are closely related, to the point, that the motion which appears as No. 3 on the Order Paper of today is consequential upon the provisions of motion No. 1. Accordingly, it might be understood that the vote on motion No. 1 will, in fact, resolve the question on the second motion which appears as No. 3 on the Order Paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as follows:
That Bill C-202, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by deleting from clause 1 lines 4 to 11 at page 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before ringing the bells I wonder if I might ask whether the House would agree to

December 17, 1970
Division
continue this evening until we give the bill third reading. I think it would be desirable if we had consent to dispose of third reading, and if we could agree on this matter before ringing the bells, it would be helpful.


An hon. Member:: No; ring the bells.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We can hardly dispose of third reading before we take a vote on the report stage. If the minister would ask after the vote that we continue to deal with third reading, as far as my colleagues and I are concerned we would have no objection.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree that the hour of sitting shall be extended in order to complete third reading of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, if we could agree that the House will not automatically rise immediately after this vote is taken, perhaps we could continue to sit for a period following the vote and then we could decide what to do.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is there unanimous consent that the House will continue this sitting for a short time after the vote is taken until there is agreement in respect of the conclusion of this debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Since there has been a vote in the negative on motion No. 1, it will not be necessary to vote on motion No. 3.


John Carr Munro: That Bill C-202, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perih-Wilmoi):: Mr. Speaker, just before ten o'clock I was somewhat frightened, as I believe the leader of the House was, that the minister was going to talk out his own bill. Then I heard a whisper between him and one of his colleagues.
The minister, in his remarks, drew attention to what the government was doing for one class of old age pension recipients. We axe not denying this, Mr. Speaker. We favour increasing the income supplement. What we have been complaining about is that the basic pension would no longer carry provision for an automatic 2 per cent increase in line with increases in the cost of living. The minister said that those who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement will as of right receive the additional amount after reporting their income. This will hold true for a certain category of pensioners as of April 1 next, but it will not be true for pensioners in other categories. Those who are receiving the basic pension will not receive as of right the 2 per cent increment which other pension recipients will be receiving. This is the point the minister did not answer when my honourable friend from Huron (Mr. McKinley) posed his question. Members of this House have pleaded with the minister to give consideration to pensioners who will receive $80 as is proposed.
These pensioners are being discriminated against in another way. The fact is, as was pointed out by the minister in committee, that any shortfall due to an increase in the cost of living will be picked up by the
Old Age Security Act
recipients of the guaranteed income supplement. This is not so in the case of recipients of the basic pension. The minister, in his comments at the report stage, indicated that all kinds of money would be required.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair invites honourable members who wish to carry on conversations to do so outside the House, in order to permit interested members to follow the speech of the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Monteith).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Jay Waldo Monteith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I found myself yelling pretty loudly in order to be heard above the turmoil in the House. However, I appreciate that the hour is late. I simply point out that apart from one small contribution from across the way in defence of the minister, which I do not think was too important, all the members who have spoken from the opposition benches today have pleaded with the minister that he reconsider our thoughts on the matter as well as the rights of the recipients of the basic pension. As a consequence, I propose to give the minister one more opportunity for a second thought about this very serious step that he is taking. This bill departs from the principle of universality that the old age pension has carried with it since its inception in 1950 or 1952, a principle that was the unanimous recommendation of an all-party committee. I suggest such departure is a very dangerous one.
I appreciate this principle was departed from when the guaranteed income supplement was originally brought in, but we are here taking a further discriminatory step by putting these people into a certain class which will not receive the cost of living increment. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted:
"Bill C-202, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be
not now read the third time as this House is opposed to a bill
which fails to include any adequate cost of living provision in
respect of the basic amount of the monthly pension".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.
Having read the amendment put by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot, the Chair feels it should consider it procedurally. The motion would postpone third reading of the bill and at the same time seems to impose a condition thereon. Consequently, the Chair might want to do some reading on the matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in case the Chair intends to dream on this amendment tonight. We are simply declaring a principle adverse to the bill. The bill does not contain this aspect that we feel is essential. We are not attaching a condition to the bill; we are simply declaring that the bill is to this extent repugnant to us, not in its entirety but simply because it fails to contain this provision. I think this is the basis upon which the hon. member has moved his very sensible

December 17, 1970
Division
amendment, which the minister might be prepared to accept.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to waive any doubts that may exist as to the regularity of the motion, and have it put. From our point of view, we will accept the motion that the motion be put, waiving any doubts we may have about its regularity.
Seme hon. Members: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Under those circumstances, the Chair feels that the question can be put. The Chair will put the question if hon. members agree unanimously that it be put.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Some hon. members have called it ten o'clock, or eleven o'clock as the case may be. At this point the question is whether we should proceed to the adjournment debate. My interpretation of Standing Order 40 (7) is that we cannot have the adjournment proceedings unless there is consent of hon. members. Is there unanimous consent for this purpose?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a little difficult for the Chair to decide whether there is unanimous agreement. Perhaps I should hear from the Government House Leader.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think if hon. members have questions that they wish to speak to, we ought to hear them tonight and allow the House to extend the sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression for a moment that the House would adjourn this debate, but I am happy to discuss this matter while the minister is in the Chamber.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
On November 23 last, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) if, as usual, the CBC was going to rush an invitation to the revolutionary Frangois Girod, alias Giroux, who made some inflammatory statements in Algeria in connection with the FLQ and security in Quebec?
I also asked the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) whether Girod's visit to Canada would be watched closely and whether he would be declared a member of the FLQ on entering Canada, under the Public Order Act, 1970.
The statements of this revolutionary made me very anxious, and while it is normal that our borders should be closed to James Cross's kidnappers, because people of this sort are considered as undesirable, I think that it should the same for those who visit communist countries in order to learn how to destroy democracy and practice terrorism.
As it happened Giroux was in Algeria to obtain that this country recognize the Canadian FLQ and, in an interview published in Express, he declared among other things, and I quote:
Having maintained disorder, kidnapped other people who will want to harm us, we shall launch such a powerful attack that Trudeau will have to call the Americans. The latter will rather give us our independance.
Before that time, according to him, the FLQ will have a representative in Cuba-
Well, they already have seven.
I continue the quotation:
-another one in old Ireland, and a third, underground this one, in France who after having been concerned with Palestinians could very well think of his far away cousins.
Giroux mentions that he is going back to Canada but with great misgivings.
Canada has been flooded for ten years with revolutionaries like Giroux and we can now see the results. The CBC has always welcomed them and allowed them to inject their venom into the people, often paying them with funds coming from the taxes of all the citizens.
The programs "Telejournal" and "Aujourd'hui" have often been parading gounds for a great number of Marxist revolutionaries preaching hatred. I have here a lengthy list of separatists who have poured their bitterness against the established order.
The leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) has protested in the House against the attitude of the CBC about left-wing separatists of any stripe.
I shall quote part of a speech he gave in the House on June 13, 1969:
I have often blamed the C.B.C. in connection with the separatist movement. The C.B.C. is responsible for the upsurge and the image the people have in Canada of the separatist movement in the province of Quebec. Every time there is a small demonstration of protest, C.B.C. cameramen are on the spot.
But for the centennial celebration of confederation, the C.B.C. was absent. Why? Because there are avowed separatists among C.B.C. officials. I have no objection to their being separatists, but I object to the fact that they want the general public to believe that all the people are saparatists. That is bad. That they have a right to express their opinion, very well, but those with different political opinions should be able to express them.

December 17, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice to be very careful about people whose only aim is to destroy for the benefit of international communism.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I am allowed to answer the hon. member's question, obviously I cannot separate the true from the false, or the doubtful, in the allegations he has just made.
I shall therefore limit myself to answering the question itself, and say that in the light of available information, Mr. Girod or Giroux is not known at the CBC, no one knows who he is, or has ever heard of him, and there has never been any question of his being invited to Canada.
fEnglish]



AIR TRANSPORT-FARES BASED ON CANADIAN DOLLAR PEGGED AT 92 CENTS-PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR OVERCHARGING

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, since November 25 I have been pursuing the question of the discriminatory charging practices applied against Canadians paying international air fares in Canadian currency. I have been informed that the Canadian Transport Commission has taken action. The front page of today's Ottawa Citizen carries a report to this effect. It reads:
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
The Canadian Transport Commission announced today it will impose an exchange rate on the American dollar in terms of Canadian currency for use by all airlines in Canada, effective immediately.
This, of course, is the sort of response we wanted from the government and the CTC. It is unfortunate that the discriminatory practice was allowed to continue so long, because there is in the AITA manual on traffic conference resolutions the procedures for immediately removing this discrimination. The same procedures are set forth in the commercial air regulations. It would appear that the government's own carrier, Air Canada, has been the worst offender in this regard. Some of the publicity which it has issued indicates that the AITA has precluded the possibility of action on the matter before April, 1971. The news story, of course, refutes this. This does not settle the decision which has come almost eight months after the beginning of a discriminatory practice which began last June 1. That is when the Canadian dollar was unpegged. Since that time, Canadian passengers on international air services have been overcharged by an average of 5.63 per cent compared with passengers using American funds. If we calculate the total amount of international airline passenger revenues from May 31 to December 1, we arrive at a figure of $110 million. This represents a loss of approximately $4.5 million to Canadian consumers.
Yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). As he has done on several occasions when this matter has been brought to his attention, he passed the buck to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). The Minister of Transport has accepted his responsibility in this matter and obviously, through the order of the CTC, did what was necessary to remove the discriminatory practice. I suggest it is up to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has been very long on talk and very short on action, to assume his responsibilities in these matters.
Canadian consumers have been bilked out of a substantial sum of money. In many cases they have been older citizens who have saved all their lives for a trip back to the old country. They paid $30 or $40 more than necessary had the legitimate rate of exchange been applied to their fare. This matter concerns Canadian consumers. I maintain they should be compensated for the amount they have been overcharged. This also involves misleading advertising, because the air carriers, particularly Air Canada, have indicated that there is no redress under the procedures that are available. It should be pointed out that airline tickets stipulate that prices are "subject to change prior to the commencement of travel".
By the same token, air travel consumers should have countervailing protection when international currencies fluctuate. If the fluctuation in the exchange rate had meant a loss of revenue to the air carriers, they would have been the first to change their regulations accordingly. Obviously there has been collusion. It is the responsibility of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to protect the interests of consumers in this regard. I trust that the minister and the government will assume their responsibility in these matters.
[Trans lotion]


Mr. Gerard Duquei (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, let me first apologize to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) who could not be here tonight to answer the hon. member's question.
Obviously, this question is of considerable import and I trust the hon. member will recognize, as he has just said, that the minister's answers have been followed by substantial action.
Representations in this regard have been made to the Minister of Transport who asked that this matter be seriously investigated. This investigation is now under way and I can assure the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that as soon as it is concluded and that the minister has received detailed information, he will immediately refer this information to the House and point out what action has been taken on this matter.



IMMIGRATION-REASONS FOR DECREASE IN NUMBER OF CHINESE ADMITTED TO CANADA

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I, and not my hon. friend from Parry-Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) as reported in the Canadian Press, asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) whether he would explain to the House the reason for the drastic decrease in Chinese immigration to Canada, as shown by the figures for this year and last

December 17, 1970

year which are published quarterly by the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
The most recent quarterly immigration bulletin, that for the period ended September 30, shows Chinese immigration from Asia as down by 2,423 landed immigrant admissions. I ask hon. members to compare the picture for the first nine months of 1969 with that for the first nine months of 1970. The number admitted in the first nine months of 1969 was 6,655, whereas the number admitted in the first nine months of this year was 4,232. Having regard to the thousands of refugees in Hong Kong who are desirous of coming to Canada, the trickle admitted to this country during the whole of 1969-the figure is 8,272-is being cut to less than two-thirds in the present year. There was also a decline in 1968 as compared with 1969, but it was only by 110.
The minister may tell us that the points system is in part responsible for the dramatic decrease I have indicated, but I do not really think so since there are thousands of Chinese who could easily pass the points test if they were given a positive opportunity to apply, be interviewed and be screened. But the attitude of the department is one of negation and brush-off for the most part.
Virtually every Canadian is aware nowadays that one of the best possible types of immigrant to Canada is a refugee of Chinese origin from Hong Kong. He may bring little or much with him, but in either event he fits easily into the Canadian pattern. He is welcomed into the already established Chinese communities and is able to integrate his customs smoothly with Canadian ways and customs. Whether he is skilled or unskilled, it is seldom you will find him unemployed no matter what the economic difficulties of Canada may be at any given time. The current recession is thus no excuse for processing fewer applicants in Hong Kong. These immigrants, if anything, lend momentum toward overcoming a recession.
I know our immigration office in Hong Kong claims it has no Canadian method of screening applicants for security; that it has to rely on the Hong Kong police force, and that this force will only process so many applicants per month. I hope the minister or his Parliamentary Secretary are not going to claim that the quota to our Canadian office by the Hong Kong police force has been diminished by that authority. If so, the minister should be soundly condemned for not making the necessary contract with the Hong Kong police so that they could employ extra police officers for the sole purpose of checking out prospective immigrants to Canada and obtaining more of them. The minister's department could always have greatly increased the flow to Canada by the simple device of making such a contract.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
It is my understanding that the Hong Kong police force has always been ready, willing and able to help their surplus population emigrate to Canada but that they can only do so much for nothing, particularly for the Canadian immigration office. The Immigration Act and its regulations speak, in theory, of non-discrimination, but in reality there are many means of practising discrimination. The apparent chop-off of Chinese immigration is prima facie evidence of discrimination in practice. Let the minister explain the reason or reasons, if he can. The question demands an immediate answer.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has done some homework before rising to his feet in the House tonight, he would have discovered that the pattern of decline in immigration during the first nine months of the year is not a peculiarity of Chinese immigration but a characteristic in the immigration pattern of a number of countries, particularly European countries. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Chinese immigration per se; it is an established fact that is beyond the control of the department.
If the hon. member had proceeded further with his homework before raising the question of discrimination, as he did, he might have discovered that the Chinese communities of Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton, Sarnia, Burlington, Orillia and Peterborough, in a memorandum submitted to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) in June, 1969, had this to say:
-we more than welcomed the coming into force of the new immigration regulations on October 1, 1967. The new regulations took away the last vestige of discrimination against Asians and Africans on the face of the law as the former special sponsoring privileges given to Europeans were revoked-This is a positive step towards an objective standard and a far cry from the days of head taxes and the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Liberal government should be commended for this achievement.
As every student of our immigration policy knows, the regulations of 1967 have broadened considerably the categories of persons eligible to be called forward by their relatives in Canada. The upsurge in applications for previously excluded relatives is now levelling off and this process is beginning to become evident. The fact is that there is no increase in the number of applications awaiting processing in Hong Kong.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have six waiting.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.16 p.m.

Friday, December 18, 1970