1970-12-03

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa, 3 December, 1970
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, December 3, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Louis-Fremont Trudeau
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43.
The clear and pressing necessity for this motion is very direct and can be stated in a sentence or two. Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board was quoted as saying outside the House that in order for Bill C-190 to be withdrawn it would be necessary for the House to give unanimous consent and he thought this would not be forthcoming from the opposition. Believing that it would, and hoping that the government agrees, all I need to do' seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr.' Lewis), is to move:
That this House gives consent to the President of the Treasury Board to withdraw from the order paper government order No. 38, namely the order for the second reading of Bill C-190 an Act respecting the Auditor General of Canada.


Mr. Hees:: Now what are you going to do?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As is well known by now, hon. members realize
23568-37J
that the unanimous consent of the House is required for this motion to be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Trudeau:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent? It is very difficult, I must say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether a voice vote is appropriate in such circumstances. I must say that I could not hear any nays or dissenting voices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is-


Mr. Fairwealher:: Where is Drury?


Some hon. Members:: Where is he?


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the motion is now to be put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, had I been given the opportunity a little earlier I could have saved the House some time.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come off it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like now to do what 1 intended to do when I got to my feet-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and that is to ask, on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board, for the withdrawal of Bill C-190 from the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. From a procedural standpoint I doubt whether the motion proposed by the minister is in order. My understanding is that the motion under Standing Order 43 has been put and agreed to by the House. I would not think that anything further is required at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Fire him!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will realize that this is a very novel situation. There are few precedents that I know of and I would certainly like to hear the

December 3, 1970
Auditor General
opinions of hon. members on the procedural aspect of the matter, whether we can at this point by discussing the matter further reflect in this way on a vote or whether it is required, the vote having been taken, that the President of the Treasury Board be given the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the President of the Privy Council might like to attempt to enlighten the Chair on this point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I read the first adopted motion, the House gives consent to the President of the Treasury Board to withdraw the bill. Presumably there is then required an action on the part of the President of the Treasury Board, that of asking to withdraw the bill. In other words, the motion gives consent, but there is a requirement to be fulfilled on the part of the President of the Treasury Board in order to withdraw the bill. That is my view-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -procedurally, and that is why I ask on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -for consent to withdraw the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that it is necessary to hear further argument. I agree with the point of view of the President of the Privy Council. The motion is that this House gives consent to the President of the Treasury Board to withdraw. He has to be given an opportunity to withdraw, the House having given unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I suggest that the House has given its consent to this ex post facto request.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Woolliams:: Apparently the minister does not know what he is doing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I never expected such co-operation from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I gather now, Mr. Speaker, that from a procedural point of view I may ask on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board to withdraw the bill affecting the Auditor General of Canada which is on the order paper at present.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point is quite clear. Has the President of the Privy Council leave to withdraw the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-204, to establish a Canada Development Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to mobilize private and public funds and to channel them into investment serving the public interest of Canada as a whole, and to expand the public sector of the economy where necessary for the growth of the economy, for national planning and for increasing Canada's independence.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House about Mr. James Cross?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. During the course of last night, police forces undertook an intensive search in order to locate Mr. Cross and his kidnappers as well as the killers of Mr. Laporte.
Following this action, the police received a note from the presumed kidnappers of Mr. Cross calling for discussions between a person designated by them and a representative of the governments. This morning, the representative of the federal and Quebec governments, Mr. Robert Demers, initiated such discussions.
The House will remember that several weeks ago the governments offered those holding Mr. Cross as a hostage a safe-conduct in exchange for his release. The offer still stands, and representatives of the Department of External Affairs are now in Montreal to make arrangements in connection with this safe-conduct, if necessary. The House will understand that, as discussions are now in progress, I cannot give more information at the present time.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Justice Minister (Mr. Turner) or myself will report to the House on any important new development.

December 3, 1970



AUDITOR GENERAL


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Government House Leader. Does the authority he is exercising for the President of the Treasury Board in the House today include the authority to indicate to the House that the red circling of the senior staff in the office of the Auditor General will now be discontinued?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, my authority does not extend that far, but it does extend far enough to ask the hon. member to co-operate with me in cleaning up the other items on the order paper as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, ohi


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: You are a poor loser.



DOWNGRADING OF POSITIONS OF SENIOR OFFICERS- RECONSTITUTING OF COMMITTEE

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: As it appears quite certain that the efficiency and effectiveness of the staff of the Auditor General are being greatly impaired, will the government review the entire situation with a view to reconstituting the government committee which was examining this matter?


An hon. Member:: Will you come?


Gerald William Baldwin: My question is, in view of the fact-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To whom are you directing the question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am directing my supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council who apparently is answering today for the President of the Treasury Board. Will the minister discuss with the President of the Treasury Board the immediate necessity of reconstituting the government committee which was dealing with this matter so that at the earliest possible time the order downgrading the staff of the Auditor General can be revoked and proper arrangements made so that his staff will receive recognition?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to convey this representation to the President of the Treasury Board. I hasten to add that I was acting for the President of the Treasury Board with respect to the matter which related to the business of the House. I am not acting for him in any other respect.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister who seemed quite interested in this matter a little while ago.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What do you want to ask me?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the position of one of his ministers in this whole matter and, if necessary, ask for his resignation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As a
result of this whole episode, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will advise my ministers that if there are any unanimous recommendations from standing committees over which the opposition has control, we should not automatically give implementation or credence to those recommendations from a committee which the opposition controls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister consider implementing the unanimous recommendation made last year by the Public Accounts Committee dealing with the Bona-venture, which the government apparently did not like?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
* * -



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
A few moments ago he told us that the counsel for the governments, Mr. Demers, had negotiated the release of Mr. James Cross. Could he say who was the other representative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I cannot answer the question, all the less as I did not understand it.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to discussions which are now under way in the automobile industry, does the government support the use of United States cost of living indices as a means of calculating wage increases in connection with Canadian wage agreements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement which I suggest is much too general in nature. I do not think a question in those terms is acceptable at this point.

December 3, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH



EFFECT OF CERTAIN BRANDS OF TOOTHPASTE ON TOOTH ENAMEL

['I will ask the ministers to consider that suggestion.']
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based upon a recent study by the American Dental Association which found that some brands of toothpaste were of such abrasive quality as to be harmful to tooth enamel. Can the minister advise whether similar studies are being conducted in Canada and, if so, what measures are being taken to safeguard Canadian users from any harmful effects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know how urgent this question is either to the minister or to the hon. member, but I doubt very much whether there is sufficient urgency at this time to enable the Chair to accept it. If there is urgency which is not apparent to the Chair, the matter can be discussed at the time of the adjournment, but I suggest that the question is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint at this time.



Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of National Defence expressing the official view of the Canadian government when, as has been reported, he criticized the study of NATO's outlook for the seventies which calls for an improvement in the conventional armed strength of that organization, by describing it at the NATO ministerial meeting as not imaginative enough?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
know whether the question refers to a policy statement of NATO itself or a government policy statement.


John Angus MacLean: Both, Mr. Speaker. My question refers to the reported criticism by the Minister of National Defence of this NATO study. I was inquiring whether this criticism had the authority of the Canadian government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To the extent that the NATO study departs from our own policy statements it does, of course, have the authority of the government. The policy of the government in this regard has been made known. To the extent that it does not depart, it concerns something with regard to which the government has made no policy statement as yet.


John Angus MacLean: May I ask whether, on their return from Europe, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence will make a statement to the House on motions reporting on the meetings so that the House may be fully aware of Canada's stance at these meetings?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will ask the ministers to consider that suggestion.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice who I assume is also Acting Solicitor General today. Can the minister tell us whether the six staff members at Prince Albert Penitentiary who have been suspended were suspended as a result of the investigations of the board of inquiry which, at least a few days ago, was looking into the riot and fire which occurred at the penitentiary?


Hon. John N. Turner (Acting Solicitor General):: I have not yet received a report on this particular aspect of the affair but I shall be in touch with the hon. member.


Frank Howard: Am I to assume from that reply that the minister has received some reports on some aspects of the affair?


John Napier Turner: All I meant to say was
that I have been briefed by the Deputy Solicitor General on this matter but that I have not received the information which the hon. member is seeking.



PRINCE ALBERT-INVESTIGATION OF CONDITIONS BY STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I should like to address a question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the serious situation which appears to have developed at Prince Albert Penitentiary, and the fact that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs does not have a heavy workload before it, would the government consider giving this committee terms of reference which would enable it to visit the penitentiary to examine the conditions there at first hand?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be happy to discuss that suggestion with the chairman of the committee.



AGRICULTURE-REASONS FOR 1969 DEFICIT-PROSPECTS FOR 1970

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is for the
Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that in 1969, one year after this government came to power, and for the first time in the history of Canada, there was a trade deficit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he has the floor for the purpose of asking a question.


Paul Yewchuk: I was just coming to it, Mr. Speaker. 1 was about to say that there was a trade deficit of approximately $36 million in the agricultural industry. Would the minister indicate now or make a statement on motions as to what the reasons for this may be and what the prospects are in this area for 1970?
December 3, 1970


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons, which is well known to all members of the House, is that for that particular year there was a very sharp decline in exports of grain. The predictions of my colleague are to the effect that this will be corrected, and that correction is already under way.



ADDITIONAL SALES-MOVEMENT INTO EXPORT POSITION

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The minister has talked about sales of grain, yet grain is still piled up on farms and the country elevators are plugged. If there have been all these sales made, why is the grain not moving?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: It is certainly true, Mr. Speaker, that a large quantity of grain is on hand, and this is the reason for certain action that we took last year, which was not necessarily supported by the hon. member opposite. Grain is moving very rapidly out of the country elevators. The country elevators were congested at the beginning of this crop year, but it is my hope that we need not operate them in that fashion in the future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the sarcastic answer of the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -would the minister now be more practical and tell the House when quotas will be increased in order to move the grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, quotas have been increasing steadily as grain is required in the movement. The hon. member may not be aware of the fact that there is a ten bushel quota for barley, a three bushel quota for Durum, a two bushel quota for wheat generally, a five bushel quota for rye, and an eight bushel quota for rapeseed, and so on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will allow one more supplementary to the hon. member for Calgary North but we will go on with another subject after that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I put this supplementary question to the minister. There may be the quotas he describes, but will he tell the House why grain is not moving off the farms to the country elevators in line with these quotas? That is my question, and I say to the minister he should stop misrepresenting the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the quota on rye now is eight bushels rather than the five bushels he mentioned a few moments ago?
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY



WAR MEASURES ACT-REQUEST FOR COPY OF STATEMENT BY QUEBEC MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON SEARCHES, ARRESTS, ETC.

Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Would he be good enough to obtain a copy of the statement made yesterday by the Quebec Minister of Justice in the National Assembly of that province giving details of the searches and arrests and other matters since the proclamation of the War Measures Act, and table that statement in the House?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that. I checked the figures myself and they agree with the figures I delivered on behalf of the RCMP as of November 24, 1970. 1 will be glad to get those figures.


David Lewis: I understand from press reports that the Minister of Justice of Quebec did not merely give the figures that the Minister of Justice gave us here but also gave other breakdowns. This is the information that I hope the minister will agree to table.


John Napier Turner: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice of Quebec tabled in the National Assembly in response to a written question details somewhat more full than those that have been required of me here. But so far as they relate to the figures I have given the House, they do correspond.



WAR MEASURES ACT-INVESTIGATION OF BEATING OF PERSONS ARRESTED

David Lewis: Has the Minister of
Justice been in touch with the Minister of Justice of Quebec regarding the inquiry into the alleged mistreatment of some of those who were imprisoned under the War Measures Act regulations, and has the minister any report he can make to the House, either briefly now or on motions at an appropriate time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my last conversation with the Attorney General of Quebec on that particular subject was on Monday, and I did report to the House at that time. I have nothing further to add at the moment.



WAR MEASURES ACT-PAYMENT BY QUEBEC FOR SERVICES OF ARMED FORCES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Can he tell us whether the statement of the Quebec Minister of Justice, to the effect that the services of the armed forces in Quebec are costing $500,000 a day, is correct?


John Napier Turner: There is no reason why I should confirm that, Mr. Speaker. That is the responsibility of the Quebec National Assembly.

December 3, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that Bill C-181 has been passed, could the Prime Minister tell us who, in due course, will pay the cost of the services of the Canadian armed forces in Quebec?
Right Kon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already answered that question four or five times.
When an agreement has been reached between the province of Quebec and the federal government, I shall be pleased to give further details.



SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF WHEAT BOARD FOR 1968-69 CROP YEAR-POOL ACCOUNTS DEFICITS

Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Can the minister inform the House when the supplementary report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the crop year 1968-69 will be available?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this report is in the hands of the printers and should be available perhaps in a couple of weeks for tabling. May I add that contrary to the indication given in the committee yesterday the order in council in connection with the wheat pool was passed on September 23.


Albert B. Douglas: Can the minister inform the House of the deficits in each of the pool accounts for wheat, oats and barley for the same year, 1968-69, which the federal treasury has been obliged to underwrite in recent months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that that question is of a statistical nature. My limited understanding of these complicated matters would lead me to believe that this is the kind of question that should be asked in writing on the order paper.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for housing. In order to give further recognition of and sympathy toward the housing problems faced by our senior citizens and people on low incomes, and in light of recent proposals contained in the government white paper on income security for Canadians announced by his colleague, can the minister assure the House that the government will take steps to prevent immediate increases in rent for senior citizens or families living in public housing developments where rents are geared to income?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, to the degree possible we will do so. In fact, the rent to income scale which I suggested in the public housing guidelines last year is pertinent and those guidelines are generally moving toward implementation by the provinces; but the fact of the matter is that that kind of decision is primarily one for provincial exercise.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the minister pass on the information I have given him this afternoon in order that we may have some consensus in regard to the plight of our senior citizens and those on lower incomes?



CHANGE IN INTEREST RATE ON LOANS TO SOCIETIES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS' ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister in charge of housing whether the government is giving any consideration to changing the interest rate on loans to societies to be used for financing senior citizens' housing, which loans at the present time are paid back over a 50-year period at approximately two and a half times the principal?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the interest rate on directed social housing programs has an immediate relationship to the cost of borrowing to the government, a matter constantly subject to examination, always with the desire of bringing the rate down.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister tell the House whether he has yet received a report from the task force appointed by him some time ago to investigate the economic plight of people living in the Argentia area of Newfoundland caused by the closing down of the United States naval station in that region?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire if I have received a report lately.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of National Defence; I gave notice of the question last week. On May 15, 1970, as reported at page 7011 of Hansard, in an exchange between the minister and myself the minister indicated that any employees whose employment would be ter-
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1
December 3, 1970

minated as a result of Canadian Forces base closures would receive six months' notice. I should like to ask whether this policy is still in effect and, if so, has the minister investigated whether civilian employees at the Canadian Forces base at Gimli and other bases subject to closure are being declared surplus to requirements and having their employment terminated in a lesser period than six months?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have been given a folder today from the Minister of National Defence but there is no reference to this question in it. The best I can assure my hon. friend is that I will bring it to his attention or, if he is delayed in returning to Canada, we will try to obtain an answer for the hon. member.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In light of the fact that the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works did not study the estimates of that department last year, will the minister agree to table his estimates at an early date so that committee may make an early start and thoroughly discuss the matter of wharf and harbour facilities particularly in the Atlantic area?


Arthur Laing: I would be agreeable, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister give consideration to undertaking a special manpower training program for the hundreds of Nova Scotians who have been forced out of their jobs by the new Liberal government in that province?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



WHEAT-IMMEDIATE INCREASE IN DELIVERY QUOTA

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Would the minister give immediate consideration to increasing the quota on wheat from two bushels in order to provide badly needed cash to the farmers and to fill the half empty elevators on the Prairies, as requested by the Manitoba wheat pool?
2356S-38
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of raising quotas is in the hands of the Wheat Board which has been studying carefully both the requirements for grain and also the handling efficiency of the elevator system. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that it is in fact a wise move to plug the elevators to the hilt so they are incapable of handling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the minister's comment is argumentative.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the expanded exports and before the severity of winter sets in, would the minister instruct the Wheat Board to increase the quotas?



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON TIMETABLE AND POSITION OF FARM LEADERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: May I ask the
minister whether, in view of the severe and specific criticism levelled at the minister's proposed cereal grain policy by the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other farm leaders, and in view of the indication by the minister that this program will be finalized before the year's end, he will make a statement on motions to the House early next week setting out the government's time-table and his program for consultations with farm leaders?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that a statement next week on a timetable would be useful. I ask the hon. member to refer back to the comments of the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. His comments have in fact been very constructive and helpful in our consideration of these proposals.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, would the minister then consider setting before the House the considered opinions of the farm leaders and others who have considered this policy in order that the House might be informed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the farm leaders and others have this issue under very serious consideration. They have not yet given me any final view on their positions, but we anticipate having further discussions with them within the next ten days or so.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-FARM CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Now that the proceedings of the Canadian Agricultural Congress have been completed, can the minister indicate to the House when he will be in a position to elaborate on the proposed policy of farm unit consolidation as outlined in the grains policy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a general reference in the grains policy to programs which are being actively reviewed by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture.

December 3, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-INQUIRY AS TO	[English]



STATEMENT BEFORE CHRISTMAS


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether, after the consultations are completed as referred to by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and the government has reached a decision, the minister will be in a position to make a statement on motions before the Christmas recess outlining the final program position of the government in respect of the grains policy proposal?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect it will be possible to do that before the Christmas recess.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to give any further information concerning Mr. Cross in view of the news reports that have been issued in this regard? I do not wish to press for any disclosure the Prime Minister might consider improper, but is there any further information he can give the House now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course 1 have not left the House since I last answered the question and I have no further information, although I too am receiving press reports to the effect that a car is on the way to St. Helen's Island. I have no information at this moment as to who is in the car.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to put my question to his Parliamentary Secretary.
Considering the significant Canadian contribution to the food program in under-developed countries, through the United Nations, could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether there are some agronomists in the Canadian mission to the United Nations?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation to the United Nations is quite capably headed by the Ambassador Yvon Beaulne and in addition to the permanent staff which is assisting him, the government sends each year a certain number of experts who take part in the proceedings of the United Nations committees. However, the Canadian International Development Agency regularly uses the services of agronomists and farm experts.



SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF SO-CALLED PRICE WAR AMONG GROCERY CHAINS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising out of a question I asked about a week ago concerning the alleged price discount war among the major grocery chains of the country. Further to the question I asked on that occasion, has the minister requested members of his department to look into what might appear to be a fraudulent advertising campaign advising people that prices are being cut when in some cases they appear to be increasing? Has the minister requested officials of the Combines Investigation Branch of his department to look into this price war to ascertain if any pricing agreements or arrangements are being made among these major grocery chains?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my officials have been instructed for quite some time to make sure that the Combines Investigation Act is observed.



QUEBEC-MEASURES TO ASSURE REASONABLE LEVEL OF MEDICAL SERVICES

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As no agreement has yet been entered into between the government of the province of Quebec and the( medical specialists, could the minister tell us what measures he intends taking to ensure decent health service standards?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe will admit with me that his question is of a rather general nature. It seems to me that the minister can only answer such an important question by way of a statement on motions unless he is in a position to reply to it briefly and quickly.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minisler of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can explain briefly that the discussions I have had with my counterpart in the province of Quebec have indicated to me that health standards are not going to be prejudiced at all and that there is nothing in their legislation which is contrary to medicare.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of what may be

December 3, 1970

happening today in Montreal, will the minister immediately close, or cause to be much more selective, the entry into our country of persons from Cuba and other communist countries which support subversive activities in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there is a great deal of relevance between the two parts of the question put by the hon. member. There are, of course, rules in the Immigration Act and regulations to which I might refer him which deal with certain classes of persons whose entry into Canada is not desired, and I think these rules are fairly adequate. But I would be glad to receive any specific representations if the hon. member has some specific change in mind.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I am sure the minister understands the purport of my question. If these subversive persons are moved from Montreal to Cuba today, according to certain agreements that have been made, we do not want them back. That is why I ask him to close immigration from Cuba.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
* [DOT]* *



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the Prime Minister with respect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Security. Has the Prime Minister or the government made a decision to implement any more of its recommendations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There has been further consideration of some of the recommendations in that report, and the government will announce any change in policy in due course.



SAFETY DEVICES TO CONTROL EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM PROPOSED NUCLEAR REACTORS

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouth-Halifax East):: My
question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister indicate to the House whether or not his department or any agency of the government has been in touch with United States authorities with respect to proposals to build a large number of nuclear reactors around the Great Lakes, and particularly with respect to the safety devices which would control the emissions from the exhaust stacks of such nuclear plants?


John Carr Munro: I will have to take notice of that question.
23568-38*
Inquiries of the Ministry REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION



NEWFOUNDLAND WHITE PAPER DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would the minister advise us whether his department has accepted the white paper proposals submitted by the province of Newfoundland for the development of the west coast, including all-weather highways, three national parks and two airports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me to be a very wide question. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly.


Jean Marchand: We are considering this white paper in the same way as we consider other documents.



DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES ON LEGISLATIVE CHANGES RELATED TO VARYING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

John Stratford Burton: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the government currently carrying on discussions with the provinces concerning possible changes in regional development legislation as they relate to current economic conditions in various parts of Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant contact with the provinces on the subject of insufficiently developed areas and we are now making particular efforts to solve the problems that arise.


John Stratford Burton: Is the government considering extending the scope of regional development incentive grants beyond secondary industry, or is it also considering the establishment of more special areas where-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is inviting the minister to make a very general statement which normally should be made on motions.



INFORMATION CANADA


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a question for the minister in charge of Information Canada further to my efforts to obtain information on Information Canada. Would the minister now like to revise his answer of yesterday when he stated there would be no digest of comments on government announcements as referred to in my question?

December 3, 1970


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: In
the way the question was phrased there seemed to be some idea in the hon. member's mind that there would be a digest of responses to government announcements. I know of no such digest. In trying to search my mind for what he might be talking about I thought it might be a report on the feedback of comments, concerns, expressions of opinions or inquiries that come through the inquiry centre from time to time. If that is what he has in mind, we hope to issue a report of that kind once a month. Since the inquiry centre just opened, probably the first one might be at the end of the year and then once a month after that. Of course members of all parties would receive those reports at the same time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Now that we understand each other, may I be assured that we will receive these reports in Parliament in the same way that other persons will outside Parliament and that they will tell us how the latest reaction to government announcements have fared in public print, to use the exact words of one of his departmental officials?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The reports, as I have just mentioned, will go to all Members of Parliament at the same time.


Thomas Miller Bell: And they will not be selective?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the minister responsible for Information Canada.
Since several requests have been made by some colleges or CEGEPs in order to get better information in respect of Canadian politics, would the minister be in favour that his department distributes to junior colleges or CEGEPs in Canada, or at least in my riding,-since the question originated there-some information coming directly from Information Canada?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, Information Canada's budget does not allow this service, but I am willing to discuss it with the hon. member and my colleagues.
In my view, the suggestion to provide colleges with as much information as possible concerning the federal government is excellent.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council about the business for the rest of this week and for next week and whether he has any indication now of the target date for the recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for his question. Today we hope to continue with the debate on the Old Age Security Act. It is understood that the debate will adjourn at 5 p.m. today so that the budget presenta-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion can be made at 8 p.m. tonight. If it is necessary, I would like that to be put in the form of a House order.
Tomorrow we will resume the second reading of the Old Age Security Act if it is not completed today. If that is completed tomorrow, we will go on to Bill S-2, the Statistics Act, Bill C-184, the Export Development Act and Bill S-4, the Canada-New Zealand Trade Agreement. Tomorrow we can consult with regard to further business following these items, if necessary.
On Monday I would propose to call the budget debate. I do not wish to make any further announcement regarding the business next week until I have had an opportunity to meet the house leaders tomorrow morning following the budget presentation to discuss our plans.
With respect to the target date for adjournment, it had been the plan of the government to adjourn on December 18. I hope that it will be possible to reach an orderly arrangement to complete all the necessary business. I am not saying this in any way to create a controversy or confrontation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No threat?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No threat. We must keep in mind that it may be necessary to sit beyond that date, but I think with co-operation on all sides we can adjourn on December 18 or near that date.


Gerald William Baldwin: Now that the bill dealing with the Auditor General is out of the way, does that not help the hon. gentleman in fixing a target date?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PRIVILEGE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: During the course of the oral question period the Prime Minister made reference to a committee of this House of which he said the opposition has control. It seems to me that it is a point of privilege to put on the record the fact that the Public Accounts Committee consists of 20 members, 10 Liberals and a total of 10 from the opposition side of the House-six, two, and two. The Chairman is a member of an opposition party. This means that when he is in the chair the votes are ten to nine in favour of the government. So it is the government which controls that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 3, 1970

lLater:1


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to this question of privilege. I should like to indicate that there is obviously a disagreement on the matter of control between the hon. member and myself in view of the statement that I made. It was my impression, Mr. Speaker, that the party that named or appointed the chairman was in some degree in control.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If this is incorrect I do ask to withdraw my statement, but in exchange I suggest it might be better perhaps if in the future the chairman were from the government side and this would give the opposition control. We would be prepared to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that ihe Prime Minister may wish to correct his words when he says that a certain party names the chairman. The chairman is named by the entire committee and does not represent a party.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Also on the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the chairmen of committees were supposed to preside over the committees in an impartial way rather than try to control them. I must say that the Prime Minister's statement was rather shocking to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is dead right, and that is why I suggest that in the future the chairmen should be a member from the Liberal party.



MR. NIELSEN-INFORMATION CANADA-REPLY TO QUESTION BY MINISTER

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises out of the answer given by the minister responsible for Information Canada to the hon. member for Saint John-Lan-caster. Here I am referring to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, issue No. 25, the minutes of May 21, 1970, at page 25:47, where Mr. Phillips, Executive Assistant, Information Canada, was reported as saying:
In other words. Information Canada will be providing analysis of public information media, clipping services, which will automatically go to all members of parliament, to the government, both sides of the House and to officials. But in addition to that, it will make media analysis digests on specific subjects where a department needs it for its own internal uses.
I want to ask the minister if that, indeed, is what is going to happen in the department?
Old Age Security Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member might have asked this as a question but the question period expired four minutes ago.


Erik Nielsen: On the question of privilege, Mr
Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he is not respecting well known rules of the House. This has nothing at all to do with privilege and I hope he keeps that in mind. I will hear the hon. member now.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I want to press the question of privilege because it appears manifest that the minister's reply is different from the published evidence of a committee of this House. Either the minister is incorrect or was unintentionally misleading this House today or this evidence is incorrect, and the minister should be allowed to clarify the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This could be done during the question period. I suggest to the hon. member that, as is well known to all members, debate as to facts cannot be termed or considered privilege. The hon. member cannot raise this matter as a question of privilege, and that is my ruling. Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-202,' to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services.
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the government took office it has led the elderly people of this country to hope for great things. We members know this because we have been receiving delegations, messages and letters from elderly people across the country asking to have their pensions upgraded, pointing out the gap between the cost of living and their pensions, and urging that something be done. Every time delegations came to Ottawa to meet the government they returned home with full hearts and empty hands. They were led to believe that relief was just around the corner, that the government was taking time to make a survey of their needs, what it would cost them to live in a modern way, and that when the package deal was ready they would be everlastingly grateful for having a government which was so considerate of elderly people.
December 3, 1970

everybody else on low pensions, he is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Yet when it was pointed out to the minister that the 510,000 old age pensioners who will lose this supplement were still in the poverty bracket, he just did not believe it until the member proved it with figures from the government's own white paper. The minister had spoken with approval of the fact that, by cutting off the 2 per cent escalator from the people who would not get the supplement, the government this year would save $15 million and by 1975 would save $100 million in handling old age pensions. In other words, they would use this money to help finance the really destitute among old age pensioners.
No wonder my colleague referred to this as the rationing of old age poverty. It is exactly that. It is simply saying to the whole group of old age pensioners and elderly people in this country at age 65, "We are not going to go near the people who have the real money in this country in order to help finance a pension in line with the cost of living; we cure going to get the money from those of you who are better fixed in order to meet the needs of the completely destitute." That is what the government is saying. As a matter of fact, the minister spoke with pride as though he were a Robin Hood robbing the rich to help the poor, instead of a comfortably insulated cabinet minister compelling poor old age pensioners to finance those who are even poorer.
Why not get this money from the rich? Something else that happened yesterday struck me vividly. When this suggestion was made to the minister I remember the sort of hopeless shrug he gave. He probably has been keeping track of what has been happening to the white paper on taxation. We know the response the white paper on tax reform has invoked. Rich corporations and better off groups of citizens have come here and utterly refused to accept a fair taxation system for this country. I am glad the minister has returned to the House. I am sorry he did not have the intestinal fortitude to say, "We are going to bring in a good pension, a modern pension, that will allow the older people of this country to live decently, and we are not going to do that by taxing other old age pensioners. We shall tax those people who are capable of bearing on their shoulders those who have given of their best to this country."
c (3:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: I wish he had done that. In many ways the minister is courageous, but I suspect that in this case he allowed himself to be dominated either by other members of the cabinet. I see that he shook his head when I mentioned the cabinet. Well, certain sections of the public must have influenced him. I do not know which is worse, being dominated by the cabinet or by the public.


David Lewis: The minister shook his head because he was in pain.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Maybe he has a headache.
Old Age Security Act


David Lewis: Perhaps he was not suffering very much before this.


Winona Grace MacInnis: If he has a headache now, I can only say that it will get much worse when the elderly people of this country find out what is being done to them not for them, but to them. Perhaps the elderly did not organize too well in times gone by; but I predict that they will organize now, and they will have the support of other sections of the community which know what a very mean and dastardly thing has been done to these pensioners.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Another thing that surprises me about the minister is this. One of his reasons for denying the
510,000	people involved the benefit of the 2 per cent escalator clause is that he believes the cost of living will not go up this year. What on earth gives him that idea, I do not know.


Mr. Gilbert:: He must be on drugs.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I do not know what kind of drugs he is on, but I suspect he became intoxicated with his own rhetoric yesterday. I see no other reason for his attitude. As Senator Croll and others have ascertained, the cost of living in the last two years has gone up 8 per cent. But suddenly the minister predicts that those increases are all in the past, and that living costs will not rise this year. Why should they not, particularly since just a day or two ago the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission decided to forego moral suasion. The commission, which has been the tool the government has used to persuade the rich and suggest economic controls for the poor, has given up any hope of persuading the rich to keep the cost of living within bounds. The commission cannot do that, as we said from the beginning. Until such time as we put all incomes into the pot and determine the proper relationship between different kinds of incomes, we shall not be able to control the cost of living.
One of the bad features of this bill to which we have drawn attention, and I think this is very bad, is this. It will divide old age pensioners into two groups. One group will be compelled to finance the other, and I think that is very bad.


John Carr Munro: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Go ahead.


John Carr Munro: I was wondering whether you are one of those in the NDP who advocates the guaranteed annual income?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes.


John Carr Munro: Then, do you feel that there is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has permission to ask a question, but he ought to direct it to the Chair.

December 3, 1970
Old Age Security Act


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I asked the hon. member whether she advocates the guaranteed annual income. Implicit in that position is there not this: that that will divide the whole population into those who qualify for it and those who do not?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I cannot see that.


John Carr Munro: What is the difference between that principle and the one we are debating here?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I cannot see that the guaranteed annual income concept would divide our people any more than our income tax laws at present divide our people. I cannot see the minister's point. It is not valid, I submit. Yet, we are dividing the old age pensioners into two groups and saying to one group, "You must finance the other." We are taking money from one group in order to finance the other. I cannot see any other explanation for it. In other words, the minister here is creating, if I might use the term, the poor poor and the rich poor.


John Carr Munro: Where are we to obtain the $194 million, if we allow this 2 per cent to all?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I was talking about 510,000 people. The government says that it cannot raise this money, because there is none available. Yet it is not ashamed to go to our old age pensioners, who have a hard enough job as it is keeping their heads above water, and say, "We are going to make it impossible for some of you to obtain the supplement, and we are going to cut off, for some of you, the 2 per cent escalation benefit." The government knows perfectly well that by doing this to the better-off old age pensioners, the rich poor, it will lower their standard of living and increase their insecurity. The minister knows that full well. The "rich poor" pensioners are still below the poverty level. Nevertheless, the government has decided that these people do not need help and they have therefore been excluded from the benefits of the 2 per cent escalator clause.
In addition, these pensioners cannot obtain the supplement. These 510,000 people are below the $4,000 a year income mark. Many of them live in very precarious circumstances indeed. First, they have no hope of obtaining the supplement. Second, the escalator provision is denied to them. Third, some of them are worrying right now as to what will happen to their rents. In times gone by, whenever pensioners received even a small pension increase, landlords raised their rent. What will the minister do about that? I know perfectly well what he will do. He will hide behind the excuse that he and his colleagues have always used that rent controls are a provincial matter and that they have no intention of talking to provincial governments in order to obtain some kind of rent control system. What is the sense of increasing a pension at all if every time you increase it the increase is gobbled up by the landlord? That has been happening to many of our elderly people.
And what happens if they have other income? They will not be allowed the supplement on account of that other income. Many of these elderly people have pitifully

small pensions from other sources. I know that many women teachers have bombarded me and the minister too, I have no doubt, with letters pointing out that they contributed to their pensions when pensions were much, much lower, and that these small pensions have shrunk in purchasing power. Now, their means are very slender. If they were to get the supplement, their pension might be big enough. But its purchasing power is shrinking all the time. However, under the new regulations, the $80 a month basic pension is to be frozen in perpetuity or until such time as this government either changes its mind or is dismissed.


An hon. Member:: Then, it will be continued in perpetuity.


Mr. Monieilh:: No. The government will be changed.


John Gilbert: That is quite right.


Winona Grace MacInnis: What about the question of income security? The white paper was to deal with the quesiion of income security for Canadians. Only one thing is clear and only one thing is guaranteed under the white paper so far as old age pensioners are concerned. The poverty of our elderly people is to be maintained. They will not be lifted out of poverty. Sure, the government will give them a few more coppers, and they will be glad to get those few more coppers.


An hon. Member:: It's a little bit of silver.


Winona Grace MacInnis: You can buy a shin plaster, if you like, with the increase of 42 cents. You could break it down into a quarter, a dime, a nickel and a couple of coppers, if you prefer it that way. That is what our elderly will be getting. I think that this policy is all wrong.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Unfortunately, we have to deal with policies presented by the government. This is not a good policy for the elderly people of this country. This policy of handouts and hope is far too reminiscent of the old policy of hampers at Christmas and charity for the less fortunate. These "less fortunate" people are those who built the foundations for today's technology. They pioneered this country. As a result, we have automobiles, television sets and all the other advantages of this modern age. They have lived insecure and hard lives. What they are being given today is not enough to live on but too much to die on. If they were not such a hardy breed, they would not survive. This does not say much for us who do this to them.
If the minister would raise his sights he could do more, even under the whip of some sections of public opinion, such as those who are too well off, or under the whip of some sections of the cabinet. A whole new approach of recognition and gratitude is needed for those who built this country. These people need social justice, not handouts. There should be a package policy which, in addition to a money income should include housing for the elderly. I know that homes are being built for the elderly,
December 3, 1970

but it is only a fraction of what is needed. The only time an elderly person can move into a modern home in my city of Vancouver is when another elderly person dies. That is not good enough, in addition to a housing policy, there should be a policy with respect to hospitals for the chronically ill. Yesterday the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) urged the minister to include hospitals for the chronically ill in the legislation dealing with medicare. Such hospitals could look after many of our elderly people. I understand that the minister's colleague in charge of housing has made funds available for one home for elderly people which will include nursing care. I congratulate him for this breakthrough. But this is only a small oasis in a vast desert of need.
The minister should recognize the need for paramedical services being included in medicare. Many elderly people require medical attention for their feet and eyes as well as chiropractors or osteopaths. The elderly desperately need paramedical services, but the minister is hiding behind powerful interests who do not want these services provided. I suspect that powerful medical interests want a monopoly with respect to people requiring paramedical services. I suspect it is this group which makes the decisions. I ask the minister to consult with the provinces in connection with legislation passed in this House in 1966 which gives the minister the power to make an agreement with one or more provinces with regard to paramedical services. This agreement can be made under existing legislation. Why is the minister not doing this? I know one province that I feel sure would be in agreement. They would provide the necessary agreement within a short time.
Our elderly people require community activities such as the Jewish people provide in their Golden Age Club very close to their community centre in Vancouver. This centre provides activity and friendship for the elderly people in that area. I know similar centres exist in other parts of Canada. The minister should provide leadership for such programs.
It is time that the accent was put on maturity in this country. Elderly people cannot be discarded like old boots or swept under the rug. These people deserve our recognition and gratitude. They should be provided with a quality of living that is worthy of them and which reflects favourably on the community. These people are experienced. If we encourage them, we will be repaid many times over.
I appeal to the minister to consider carefully the proposal made by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to provide a universal old age pension of $150 a month. Of course this cannot be done by scraping the backs of some old age pensioners to finance others. We must have a fair taxation system. The government should implement some recommendations of the- Carter report, such as spreading the burden of taxation fairly across this country and on the shoulders of the taxpayers. If the minister will not accept this proposal, he should accept the proposal providing $100 a month pension with a $50 supplement. We owe that to the elderly people of this country. I dread the thought of
Old Age Security Act
returning home at Christmas to find only a few crumbs thrown from the rich man's table to those people on old age pension. There should be a decent type of pension package for the elderly people of this country.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend this afternoon to make a grandiloquent speech packed with statistics and which might be beyond some hon. members' understanding.
I just want to say that in my opinion the white paper is a masterpiece, all the more so as we have been expecting reforms in social security in Canada for several years.
We need only recall that in November 1962 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked for a reform of social security in Canada. He also asked that old age pensions be increased.
The white paper is a working document and it will be discussed at length at future federal-provincial conferences. It is a reflection of the comprehensive philosophy that is the trade-mark of a forward-looking government which has since 1919 always been ahead of all others in the field of social security.
A short while ago, I heard the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) state that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was suffering from headaches. Those have been caused by the incredible amount of work he has been doing and, for the most part, they are due to the numerous congratulations that have been extended to him.
I spoke with older people last night and this morning, and they are all very happy with this new measure. Not one member, I think, received any phone calls from these people expressing discontent.
I could give you a great deal of statistics, but I shall simply say to support my point that 52 per cent of older people receive a supplement ranging between $1 and $31.83. But of these, 475,000, or 28 per cent, receive the full amount of $31.83.
The underlying principle is fantastic. It is a fairer distribution of wealth. That is why the 2 per cent supplement for the high cost of living was suppressed.
I heard the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) recently say that we will never in this way solve the problem of increasing poverty among the masses. This is true. Surely, when we draft laws, certain boundaries are not easy to determine. Still one must agree that the measure now under consideration will certainly help a great number of people, including those who have served Canada well, as has been so often repeated in this House. I feel that the elderly are satisfied with their lot and that they will send us letters of congratulations. Indeed this bill is not perfect, but it is at least an answer to a certain wish of the people.

December 3, 1970
Old Age Security Act
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
And to come back to the principle of universality, the hon. members for Winnipeg-North-Centre and Vancouv-eir-Kingsway would grant $150 to every aged person, but as in democracy a choice must be made, we have opted for selectively because it is fairer. Pension universality would lead to socialism and entail enormous expenditures.
Those who are not in office may say what they want, and it is a pity because in the process they often show irresponsability.
As for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) he said the program was too modest and not generous enough. He spoke as if he had felt the obligation to say something in the House so that later on he will be able to say that when the bill was introduced, he expressed some criticisms. But I am sure that deep in his heart-and he is a great-hearted man-he supports the measure. He cannot say so openly, because he is the Leader of the official Opposition.
As for our friends of the New Democratic Party who surely show some socialistic tendencies, they cannot understand our attitude and we cannot agree on the administration of the legislation, baceuse their principles are opposite to ours. Indeed, legislating in such a field is not as easy at it is believed. We must not forget also that the funds which we can take out of the taxpayers' pocket are limited. Between two evils, one must choose the lesser. This is why the principle of selectivity rather universality has been chosen.
When we see sick persons, as I do every day, we note that they want to show their gratefulness to governments which thought about them. That is why I am convinced the people of Canada will approve this bill, as well of course as the principles of the white paper, and especially the provisions with regard to family allowances and old age pensions; and also the study that will be made of this document which, to my mind, is a masterpiece.
We are told that we should mind our own business, in the federal government, and leave such programs as that on old age security to the provinces. Yet, it will be remembered that, in 1951, the Canadian government, implementing the recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on old age pensions, proposed to the provinces a constitutional amendment expressly granting Parliament the power to set up a national old age security pension plan to be administered by the government of Canada. The provinces agreed to it and, in 1951, the Constitution was amended accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I believe what we are doing will be welcomed by the elderly people of Canada, even those who are sitting at home looking at television with nothing else to do but think, eat, rake over their past and look a little toward the future. When we give them more money, they are very happy, not caring about the constitution and the legal problems which might come up when such a bill is introduced. They are concerned with concrete things. When you give a child candy, it appreciates the candy, not because it is made in China, in Russia, in Montreal or in England, but because it is good.
From the practical point of view, discussions should be limited as much as possible to approve such a clever and rational legislation the aim of which is to allow older citizens to become first class citizens who will be able to afford some luxury.
Last Tuesday, that is on December 1st, a woman who had just received her pension cheque, told me that even with the supplement, she had only $13 left at the end of the month. Thanks to the new legislation, she will obtain a great deal more. She will appreciate all the more those who had a thought for her and the other old people who are facing daily problems. As much as possible, we should speed up the process in order to consider other more important matters. Regardless of the amendments made or what is said about this legislation, basically the bill is very good. Once again, the government has demonstrated, without any doubt, that it is forward-looking as far as social security is concerned, as it has always been since 1919.
No other government has done as much in the field of social security as this one. No other government that could succeed it will ever be able to do better. Besides, if it had not been for the federal government, I am wondering where social security would be today? The federal government is often criticized in various quarters, but yet, it is the federal government that has given the breath of life to all Canadians.
It is for that reason that we carrying on our work, regardless of any criticism. Whatever we do, I am sure that we are on the right road. It took many months to prepare this legislation. By adopting it, we shall be of great service to those who look to us, not for discussions, but for bread and butter and a small measure of comfort, in order to spend their last years in comparative well-being.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, could I have permission of the House to revert to motions to report on the matter I discussed earlier?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister permission to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did undertake to report later to the House as soon as I had some further and confirmed information. I am very happy to announce that I did speak to Mr. Cross in the last little while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

December 3, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Cross is presently on Terre des Hommes, technically in the hands of the Cuban government. Negotiations are being pursued and are being completed for his final liberation. Negotiations are along the line of our undertaking to offer safe conduct to those who were his alleged kidnappers, and these negotiations are proceeding.
I must say that my first reaction is one of joy and relief at these events, and I am sure that all hon. members of this House and the Canadian public share this reaction. In the name of all Canadians I want to congratulate Mr. Cross for his fortitude and his family for their great patience.
I would also add that we are very thankful for the co-operation that existed at all levels between the government of Quebec and our government with regard to this matter. I want to commend the police for their coolness, especially in the final stages of this nightmare. I also thank the Canadian public for their patience throughout.
I believe there is nothing I can usefully add at this stage. I have, as I say, talked to Mr. Cross, and also to the British High Commissioner. I am trying to establish contact with Prime Minister Heath of Great Britain. I repeat that at this stage negotiations are well along toward a useful and final solution to this ghastly nightmare.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we are all very pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) confirm the story which has been circulating among the press for some time. We are very pleased that the Prime Minister is now in a position to confirm that Mr. Cross is, shall we say, in safe hands. We hope that he is as well as one can expect, or even better than one could reasonably expect, after having been a captive for so many weeks.
I knew Mr. Cross and his wife in Halifax. I knew him as a very fine person indeed, and his wife too. They both have shown very special qualities during these weeks. We have all been feeling very much for them. I sincerely hope that their sufferings are over and that they may be able to join each other very soon.
I do not know whether this would be a proper question, but the Prime Minister indicated negotiations were going on with a view presumably to granting safe conduct for the kidnappers of Mr. Cross. Do these negotiations in any way involve also the kidnappers of Mr. Laporte?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to tell the House what I know about that. My understanding is that three men, or three people rather, were in the House where Mr. Cross was being held. Our arrangement was to assure safe conduct for the people who were holding Mr. Cross in return for the delivery of Mr. Cross alive and well, which is the case; also for immediate members of the families of the alleged kidnappers. I understand the negotiations involve, apart from the three found with Mr. Cross, four other people, two being the wife and child of one of the people found on the premises, the two others
Release of James Cross
also having immediate links with those who were on the premises.
I cannot at this stage give any further details of the exact number and quality of the people involved as the negotiations are being pursued. I repeat that my information is that a maximum of seven people are involved.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Might I ask one further question for the greatest possible clarification. Do the negotiations include the alleged murderers of Pierre Laporte?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Our position on this had been quite firm, that safe conduct would be offered those who were responsible for the kidnapping of Mr. Cross and his being held to ransom, but not for those involved in the death of the late Pierre Laporte. It is our firm information that these negotiations do not cover any of the known or suspected people involved in the death of Mr. Laporte.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will take but half a minute to say that no matter what differences there may have been with regard to various questions previously, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), the Prime Minister of Quebec and all others who have been involved in this nightmare, as the Prime Minister properly described it, and to express on behalf of my colleagues and myself our relief and joy that Mr. Cross is free.
May I also express to Mr. Cross our admiration for his behaviour, and to his wife and family our hopes that on their reunion they will never again have to undergo what they have undergone until now. It seems to me that this is a moment for universal joy in this country at the end of this nightmare; and I merely want to add my words to those that have been expressed by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to learn a moment ago the goods news announced by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that Mr. Cross is now at Man and His World, that he had spoken to him and that Mr. Cross was now in the hands of the Cuban government.
The Prime Minister said that negotiations were under way, that they were progressing and that this news is bound to reassure a great number of Canadians.
I am happy mostly because Mr. Cross' life has been spared. It is comforting that it is still possible to negotiate between people in order to save a human life. It helps us to understand better the value of life and I am convinced that all Canadians now watching television or listening to the radio are very happy to hear the good news that Mr. Cross is still alive and that his release is imminent.
As Mrs. Cross and her children, all Canadians are pleased to hear that at last Mr. Cross has been found. Indeed Mrs. Cross and her children, who were so long in anxiety, must be very happy to hear what the right hon. Prime Minister has just said.

December 3, 1970
Old Age Security Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro, that Bill C-202, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just prior to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Parliamentary Secretary had spoken in the debate. I attempted to get Your Honour's attention in order to ask a question. I wonder if I might ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview has a question for the Parliamentary Secretary.


John Gilbert: The Parliamentary Secretary said he had received many messages congratulating him and the government in respect of the increase in pensions. I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that as of January 1, 1971, some 510,000 people will be receiving pensions of $80 if this bill passes prior to our Christmas recess, but that if it does not pass before then the same people will be receiving $81.17? Is he aware that there will be a shortage of $1.17, and is it his intention to so advise those people who have commended the government on this legislation?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned the point referred to by the hon. member. I did so in my speech. As I said, this same principle applies for those people who were going to receive only $1.21 or something of that nature. I am sure that those people who are now receiving only $1 as a supplement will be satisfied to share this with those who have not got enough. In addition to the messages, I have received telephone calls and if the hon. member would like to know the number he might call my office and I will give him the information.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we heard two speeches on Bill C-202, the first by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). It was an eloquent plea on behalf of our elderly citizens. She pointed out many avenues along which elderly people could be assisted. I should like to commend her for this.
Let me refer to the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am afraid it reminded me of speeches made in this House by the gentleman who preceded me as the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When he sat on this side of the House as the hon. member for Essex East, he made simply ridiculous claims in respect of the efforts of the Liberal government in the field of social welfare. I am now wondering whether this parliamentary secretary

may also be looking for a call to the other place. Certainly, he has endeared himself to the government by his laudatory remarks, ill-founded though they may be.


Gerald William Baldwin: You mean to Hull?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Bill C-202 is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services and certainly I am not going to speak at any length as I wish to see its reference facilitated.
Yesterday my leader and the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) both voiced some doubts and some concerns about this legislation. I intend to voice some doubts and concerns. Before emphasizing one or two of my personal concerns in this respect, let me recall a statement made yesterday by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) whom I see standing behind the curtain listening very intently. He said that in his opinion there had been some hair-splitting by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He went on to say that some of the statements made by members on this side of the House did not make sense and he accused people over here of a certain amount of irresponsibility. I should like to read one sentence of the hon. member's speech made yesterday:
II I were a member of a party that had very little or no chance of ever forming the government, of ever being responsible, I would offer them $1,000 a month.
I think that statement is the height of irresponsibility. It is an indication of how much can be said for the hon. member's arguments concerning universality versus selectivity. This is something I should like to discuss for a moment.
We should consider the different approaches in respect of universality versus selectivity. Perhaps I am thinking out loud at the moment, but back in 1950-51 there was a joint committee of this House and the other place which met for a considerable period of time. The four parties in the House at that time were represented on that committee as well as two parties from the other place. This joint committee brought in a unanimous recommendation as to how we should assist our elderly citizens. Perhaps that was the first time in the history of this country that such a unanimous recommendation was brought forward by such a committee.
That recommendation was to the effect that everybody should receive $40 per month upon attaining age 70 as a right, without any means or needs test. There were certain residence rules, that is agreed. But I repeat that that recommendation was unanimous and I think it was sound. Since then, there have been some upward revisions in the amount paid and there have been some changes in residence rules, some lowering of the age when the payment commenced. As the minister of that department for a period of time, I had the responsibility and the pleasure of sponsoring some of the amendments for consideration in the House. Incidentally, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned what a God given gift to Canada the Liberal party has been in the field of social welfare. I suggest that our government of that day had
December 3, 1970

an enviable record in the field of social welfare. I suggest also that the claims of the Parliamentary Secretary can simply be labelled outrageous.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
That universality of approach which was recommended back in 1950-51-I think the act came into force on January 1, 1951-continued until very recent times. I think it was a sound approach. Everybody was free to apply for and receive old age security without any stigma attached to it and without any suggestion that it was not their right to receive these funds. Incidentally, I have known individuals in the early days of the Old Age Security Act who would not apply for the pension, even though they were entitled to it. They were too proud to do so. I think, however, that as time went on and people realized they were being taxed through the corporation tax, the sales tax and the personal income tax to pay for old age security, everybody pretty well agreed that this was a sound approach. The receipt of old age security was theirs as of right. A fund was established which, at the end of the last fiscal year, was in the neighbourhood of $725 million.
The guaranteed income supplement came into being in 1966. At that time I recall moving an amendment in this House that all old age security recipients receive $100 a month. I still think that that would have been the right step to take at that time. However, the guaranteed income supplement was chosen, and it does seem to me that Canadians as a whole have now pretty well accepted the principle that those who show need for it should be able to receive monthly payments over and above the basic old age security payment. We all remember the 2 per cent cost of living annual increase in basic pensions, as well as the guaranteed income supplement. But even that was completely inadequate. It was a maximum figure. Since that time the cost of living has increased immeasurably more than that. Most years the increase was double that amount.
Primarily I want to say a few words about the basic pension which is now to be fixed at $80 a month and frozen at that figure. The minister intimated that in 1967 position with regard to comparable return would be restored. This is absolutely incorrect. The minister also, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) pointed out, seemed to want to leave the impression that there will not be any further increases in the cost of living. I say again, that is utter nonsense. The basic figure-if there is going to be a basic figure, and I am not arguing with that-should be at least $85 and more to restore recipients to a comparable position to that of 1967. Instead of that, the minister is making the figure $80. It is 42 cents more than the recipient is receiving as the basic pension this year. But if the pension had kept step with the increase cost of living, it would have been a great deal higher.
Yesterday the minister referred to an abnormal increase in the cost of living over the past few years. It is not abnormal to recipients of old age security. I suggest it is disastrous. Now, that basic figure is to be frozen at $80
Old Age Security Act
a month. I think this is wrong. To be comparable with 1967, it should be considerably higher. There is to be no further escalation on this basic rate due to the increases in the cost of living. The basic pension is going to be frozen forever or, as was indicated earlier, unless there is a change of heart in the government. I suggest there should be a change of government because certainly this is not an adequate figure. Recipients have been taxed to build up this fund. It is their fund, it is their money, and the money is available. There was $725 million odd in the fund at the end of the last fiscal year. If recipients have other income, they will be taxed in the future.
I am concerned about the departure from the principle of universality. I have always felt that the wealthy who receive old age security pensions pay a huge percentage of them back in income tax, but they have paid into the fund originally. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) yesterday outlined the position in which various groups of retired Canadians will find themselves. This was a very interesting and accurate analysis. At the moment, I am concerned with the group of people about whom mention was made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, those 510,000 Canadians who have some other income and who, as a consequence, will not be receiving the guaranteed income supplement because they will not qualify for it. However, their total income will be very small.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
They are going to be limited to the $80 per month. They are not going to be allowed any escalation of that $80 to off-set increases in the cost of living. Mr. Speaker, I think this is wrong. It is wrong to penalize our elder citizens who, over the years, tried to save a little for their retirement, as well as pay taxes, and who are now singled out as not being eligible to receive a cost of living increase.
The government has not fulfilled its promise of a just society. While I agree with some of the provisions in Bill C-202, I point out that it should have been introduced two years ago. As has been so eloquently mentioned today by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, our elder citizens have been suffering untold hardships. They have not been receiving proper attention from governing bodies throughout the country.
Despite huge increases in the cost of living, some 500,000 of our elder citizens will still be penalized. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of some of the provisions in the bill. Despite my reservations, I urge its rapid consideration on second reading so that it may go to committee and be returned to the House, even though 500,000 people whose pensions are to be frozen at $80 per month would be receiving $81.17 if the legislation were not passed by the first of the new year. Despite this fact, I believe the bill should receive rapid passage simply because of the guaranteed income supplement which is so necessary, and which will mean so much to so many of our elder citizens who are in dire circumstances.

December 3, 1970
Old Age Security Act


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to express my opinion about the treatment of our older people in Canada.
We are trying at the present time to improve the Old Age Security Act, but this bill will give older people less security than before. We disagree will the white paper's recommendations and we certainly do not agree with those who say that older people are given a fair treatment, that they receive more than anywhere else, that they can do nothing else but congratulate the government and all the administrators in this country.
I say it is far from being the case, contrary to the claims of certain members or observers.
Every day, like other members, I meet a number of old age pensioners from all over Canada and they ask me whether it would be possible, through discussion with the responsible people, to obtain pension increases, for they cannot make both ends meet. As a matter of fact, 90 per cent of the older people complain that they are in need due to an overly rapid increase in the cost of living. Yet, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) said a while ago that older people were satisfied with their lot and were thanking the present government for being so generous to them.
The government is far from generous. Indeed, it is the older people themselves who built this country, who left us the heritage of progress. In return, they certainly deserve some consideration from the administration.
Mr. Speaker, if we compare what older people receive in Canada with the income other Canadian pensioners get from the government, such as veterans, who receive pensions reasonable enough to allow them to face the cost of living, we find that the old age security pension is far from being equal to that of veterans, for instance.
The pensions paid to widows or orphans and other dependents of ordinary citizens and to older people should be as high as those granted to orphans and widows and other dependents of veterans.
Those who worked to build the country should get the same consideration as those who died on the battlefields to save it.
The pension of veterans' widows is being increased by $240 to $2,640 per annum or $220 per month. But why should not all other citizens be given the same treatment?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, whether a citizen dies at work, on the battlefield or in any other field of social activity, his widow, his children or his dependents remain Canadian citizens, and their social, economic or political needs are still the same. So why not grant the same pensions to the dependents of a deceased ordinary Canadian citizen as those granted to the dependents of a soldier who died in the war or after?
Is the citizen responsible for building houses, manufacturing furniture or tilling the land not as deserving as a
[Mr. Monteith.l
policeman, a seaman, an airman, or a soldier who looks after the security of the Canadian people? Then why not treat in the same manner all the Canadians who look to the government for the bare minimum?
Why does the old age security pension of a veteran amount to $2,640 a year, or $220 a month, while that of an old worker is only $110 a month? I want to know the reason and I want us to discuss it. It is essential to reach logical and specific conclusions and to remove once and for all these differences in income which go against the government's commitments towards our citizens who are entitled to live out of our national production for 1970 and 1971.
Each year our production should help our people to live before being used as a reserve.
That is why this bill which provides $80 per month for older people is illogical. As for us, we see the situation as follows: since the government claims to have found some solutions to check the rising cost of living, it should actually stop increasing. But did the government actually find a truly effective formula to prevent the cost of living from increasing? If they have found one, they should freeze the old age pensions at $80 per month without paying attention any longer to the rising cost of living. But I presume the government is far from having found this magic formula and it is therefore illogical to set the old age pension increase at $80 per month.
The hon. member for Hull stated a moment ago that pensioners will get more generous pensions, that this bill will be beneficial and welcome because inadequate pensions by $30, $32, $33 or $35 a month are being raised. I do not know exactly the amount of this increase, but if the pensions were increased by $20 a month, it would still not be enough since the cost of living has increased four fold in the last few years and keeps on increasing.
Those who now receive benefits are subject to a needs test. All those who get a supplement claim it is not enough. They come and ask us to urge on their behalf the Department of National Health and Welfare to make up the difference. Needs are great because the cost of living is too high. If it keeps on increasing pensions would have to be raised, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, to $150 a month for all older people and this, without a needs test.
In this manner, the government would save on administration costs and we would no longer have old people ask for a supplement, claiming that they are as poor as their neighbours, their fellow-citizens, who also receive a pension. Why punish those who told the truth? Those people have no right to receive a supplement and every day, there is some argument as to whether such and such a pension is entitled to the supplement.
If we want to be logical, we should put an end to such discrimination against older people. If we are fighting to achieve justice then we should hand out every month, without a means test, a sum of $150 to each and every older citizen and, through income taxation, we could take away from the rich whatever surplus they have and distribute it to those who are not so well-to-do.
December 3, 1970

The government should improve on this legislation. In due course, we intend to introduce an amendment to this act, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, aimed at increasing the pension to $150 per month, which definitely would not be too much in a country as rich as ours.
This year, our surplus amounts to $34 million. We pay western farmers not to grow grain. We penalize eastern farmers to prevent them from producing milk and other foodstuffs. In spite of it all, we tolerate that citizens should go hungry because they do not have the necessary slip of paper to buy all what they need.
We can treat our senior citizens equitably: it only calls for a spirit of social solidarity. Through taxation, we could set up a fund to assist our older people.
We could go further and say that it is as illogical to take money from such places, when other solutions would be possible. Nobody ever thought about that.
Never have we looked into excess profits; never have we looked into the resources of big financial institutions, of large companies, and of hidden reserves which amount to billions of dollars. We could take a few hundred million from these sources to ensure decent security for the aged.
We shall never put enough money in circulation to make our economy viable. Whenever we place money into the hands of people, we do boost the economy; we are exerting pressure on the economy so as to make it increasingly effective. The economy needs transfusions because it is depressed and in the need of injections, a way of placing pressure on the economy to make it operative.
Mr. Speaker, though not a socialist, I strongly support the measures put forward by NDP members. We could however raise pensions without falling into socialism.
The existing capitalist structure revolves around profits and expenses.
Sufficient returns are needed so that, once expenditures are deducted, we are left with profits. This is the formula that we must apply. Then, we will be able to pay everyone what he is entitled to. Aged people will then enjoy a reasonable standard of living in a country which is overflowing with resources. I hope that this formula will be understood by our administrators.
Once this put in practice, we will not have anymore problems, and it will be easy to increase pensions to $150 without any means test, because this is a terrible trial for aged people. Some spend sleepless nights, for months in certain cases, worrying about this means test that they must put up with. They are forced to accept those ill-famed and illogical inquiries which in most cases are half-done because investigators do not have all the required competency nor all the information they should have.
Mr. Speaker, it would be better to abolish those inquiries and to apply the income tax formula. If some people do receive too much, the excess will go in to taxes.
Old Age Security Act
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the
measure before us is very important and marks a significant point in the development of Canada's social welfare and social-


John Gilbert: Insecurity.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: -security policies. I wanted to comment today largely on the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whom I see in the House. As I listened to him yesterday, I recalled the various stages in the development of Canada's programs in this area and it seemed to me that one had to take stock, in a manner that the hon. member was not doing as he addressed this House.
The classic image of Canada's programs that has developed I think was very well exemplified by the hon. member. I think he took some justifiable pride in the development of the demogrant or universal benefit programs. He indicated that he was solidly committed to that principle and at this stage was not prepared to reconsider it, even in a faint way. Indeed his first choice, as he said to this House, would be to raise the old age security pension to $150 a month on the same basis as it is now paid. His second choice would have been to raise it to $100 a month, and pay the supplement of $50 a month on a guaranteed income basis. The party which he represents, Mr. Speaker, has an excessive concern, in my opinion, with the problems of distribution of wealth. This is highly commendable, but the problem of the government is to balance the policies for distributing wealth with those policies that go towards creating it. In other parts of the world we have seen the philosophy of the new left in our time expressed. Men like Servan-Schreiber have written very, very ably showing that in contemporary society we must carefully balance policies dealing with the distribution of wealth with policies that go to creating the incentive that will bring about the wealth that is to be distributed.
The basic issue placed before us in the white paper which we must face and which the hon. member did not face, is this. On page 3 the white paper indicates that there are now about four million low income people in this country despite an annual outlay of about $4.5 billion on income security programs. The demogrant approach involves immense sums of money. We are introducing at this stage the principle of selectivity.
In response to the question, is this the best allocation of our resources in the attack on poverty in our country, it is not enough to say that this is retrograde; that this measure violates the principle of paying everybody; and that it is not consistent with the kinds of programs that Canada pioneered. Let us look for a moment at the cost of giving everyone $150 a month. That is a fair question to ask. The minister in this House said that for every $10 a month paid additionally with the old age security pension, the cost increase would be $206 million. The total

December 3, 1970
Old Age Security Act
aggregate figure for some 1,800,000 recipients at $120 a year comes to over $200 million. The cost of raising the amount from $80 a month, as proposed in this bill, to $150 a month for everybody would be $1,442 million, according to that estimate. That estimate is based on current case loads. There is no question at all but that there would be an increase in that sum. The cost of going to the $100 a month pension and giving the $50 a month supplement equals about $900 million.
We are not talking in terms of trifling sums of money, Mr. Speaker; nor can members in this House say that we can ignore the inflationary aspect and that somehow it is reactionary to think about price effects or the possible effects of incentives in industry, and that all you must do is increase your taxes by that amount to cope with the problem. Mr. Speaker, I am as concerned as any member of the House is about this matter and members on this side of the House are concerned, because we are thinking here of introducing the principle involving the limitation of the programs that have been available on a demogrant basis under which we have been giving assistance to everybody regardless of income, so long as the people involved have met certain very simple criteria of eligibility, age and residence.
We are simply saying, "How can our resources be placed most effectively in the hands of those who are in that group that the white paper refers to as the 4 million low income people?" I know that the hon. member in his presentation before the House argued that those who will not receive the supplement are not rich. He said that roughly 60 per cent would receive the supplement and 40 per cent would not receive it under the proposals. He then attempted to give a projection of the incomes of that other 40 per cent and indicated to us that in his opinion we were doing something which was very, very wrong.
The art of government is the art of the possible, Mr. Speaker. It always involves compromise. There is always the difficulty of placing the resources available in such a way as to achieve the purposes you have in mind. I submit that what the government has been doing with the demogrant approach will not cure poverty. It will lead to an excessive strain on the resources of this country if we attempt to cure poverty on this basis. Such action would be inconsistent with price stability and the creation of those incentives essential for the creation of additional wealth that is so necessary. Hon. members on the other side of the House say that we can do this, that we can afford to do it, and so on. They have not proven their case; they have simply assumed that case. There are difficulties in our trying to raise all benefits to a level that comes close to that generally recognized as the poverty level. There would be difficulties if we were also to try to achieve other objectives in our program.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
One of the areas in which the hon. member quite properly concentrates his attention is the area in which people who receive the supplement could thereby become liable for income tax. This seems quite wrong. To the

person who is in difficult circumstance and receiving a supplement, the payment of even a small amount of income tax is a burden. Our tax exemptions are certainly in need of reform. There is no question about it. On another front, the white paper on taxation did suggest an improvement in basic exemptions. We have not yet arrived at the stage when the basic tax exemption can be equal to a presumed level of poverty.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It is fine to ask "why not", but it is necessary to cost the implications. The contention of members of the New Democratic Party is that the democratic approach is the means by which they want to eliminate poverty with a minimum of supplementation related to income or resources. The members of that party have the obligation to show where the funds are to come from and how such funds can be consistent with price stability and incentives to industry, the main source of wealth. They do not look at that side of it. They just say that the pensions should be raised to $150 a month and that the $1,442 million will be found. It will not come like manna from heaven.
There is only one source for that kind of money, the taxpayers, or there will be the terrible burden of inflation. Hon. members opposite smile, but the burden is on them to demonstrate that alternatives can be found. There is no way in which a society can spend its way into wealth. There is no way in which it can print money so that everyone will be better off. It cannot impose crushing burdens of taxation and still have the kind of developing society that we take for granted at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware of the fact that the arguments he has been making for the past ten or fifteen minutes are the same arguments we were given in the late 1940's and 1950's against having a demogrant approach as far as old age security is concerned?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: At this stage the hon. member is trying to be on both sides. He says that in his opinion demogrants work and that poverty can be eliminated. In this area $4.5 billion are being spent and there are four million people in the low income level. The hon. member should look at the results of the approach he is advocating. He has to demonstrate something better. He should not approach the matter through the eyes of the Fabian socialists of three generations ago, but through the eyes of the younger generation, the new left, which not only looks at the means of distributing wealth but the very important incentives which create it. I suggest that the hon. member read what Jacques Servan-Schreiber and others speaking for the new generation have to say about the needs of contemporary society.
We have heard the same story from every member of the New Democratic Party. Their formula is immensely simple, raise the benefits and spend more. Mr. Speaker, that is not the answer. The members of that party, some of whom held responsible positions in industry and other
December 3, 1970

places, should ponder the fact that the program they are suggesting is purely and simply a program of guaranteed inflation. There are no other consequences that can flow from the measures that they suggest.
Having given that sharp difference of opinion, I wish to state that we recognize the contribution of members of that party, their concern with pensions and the principles of continuous improvement. We in this party are equally concerned. The party which I have the honour to represent has pioneered the basic measures of social security in Canada, including the Old Age Security Act. However, this does not cloud our minds from asking the question asked in the white paper, having spent this sum of money and having made this commitment, what are the measures we have to take now to ensure that those in the poverty level have a greater claim on the scarce resources in our country?


Mr. Peters:: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order please, in doing so, I presume the hon. member will move the adjournment of the debate because of the special sitting tonight.


William Arnold Peters: That this debate be now adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Private Members' Notice of Motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Winona Grace MacInnis: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the findings of the survey team which, under the direction of Dr. H. C. Rowsell, inspected university research laboratories across the country earlier this year and made an assessment of the conditions surrounding the use of animals for experimental purposes.
She said: Mr. Speaker, for years a growing number of Canadians have been deeply concerned about conditions surrounding the experimentation on animals for medical and scientific purposes. Members of Parliament have been trying to get action on this matter. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), myself and others have been trying to get the subject of animal welfare sent to a committee. I am still waiting for a reply
Use of Animals for Research
to a letter I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 8. I received an acknowledgement from his secretary, but I am still waiting for an answer.
Other countries are far ahead of Canada in their legislation in this regard. Britain first acted on this matter in 1876 and there has been a recent survey. The United States has had legislation dealing with this matter since 1965 and Denmark since either 1953 or 1954. The legislation of those countries provides protection for the animals used for experiments. What about Canada?
For the last three sessions, 1968, 1969 and this session, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) has had a bill on the order paper dealing with the desirability of legislation and regulations surrounding experiments on animals. His bills have always been too far down on the order paper to be reached. I had a bill last session and again this session which is supplementary to the hon. member's, with more detailed regulations.
What has the Canadian government done with respect to this matter? In 1969, animal care association panels appointed by the Canada Council on Animal Care visited over 200 animal facilities at 37 universities across Canada. Their survey was very thorough and their report on the conditions they found is frank. In some instances, genuine efforts have been made by universities to operate better facilities since the preliminary survey was carried out two or three years ago. In a good many other cases, however, conditions still left much to be desired.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This is from the famous Rowsell Report for which I have been asking for a couple of years. Mr. Speaker, people need this information if we are to keep up with the progress which has been made in this field by Great Britain and, more recently, by Denmark and the United States. The Littlewood report brought out in Britain in 1965 emphasized the desirability of keeping the public informed as to the facts of animal experimentation and the efficacy of controls designed to reduce suffering to a minimum. One of the means recommended to this end was the annual publication of informative returns by the Home Office. Yet, when I ask for the Rowsell Report, what answer do I get? On October 28, the Parliamentary Secretary requested me to withdraw my motion. I quote this sentence from what he said:
It is an understanding among the scientific community that details pertaining to scientific research projects are a matter of confidence between the researcher and the donor organization. For this reason the Department of National Health and Welfare does not make public the findings of researchers.
I believe this to be an indefensible position. After all, these reports are not the property of the federal government; they are the property of the people of this country who have provided, through taxation, the funds which enabled the research to be done. In my view it is wrong for the federal government to act as though these reports were its own property. Refusal to produce these documents is wrong not only on that ground; it is wrong, as the Littlewood Report points out, because the public ought not to be kept in the dark about these things.
December 3, 1970

democracy, then it should be glad that there are pockets of people in this country who very badly want to see legislation put on the statute books of Canada laying down rules controlling experiments conducted with live animals. I cannot for the life of me see what the government is trying to hide or cover up. As I say, we should have openness with full information to the public. We should also have the full co-operation of the public in securing this much needed legislation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare took up much of the time of the House today. We apologize for doing so, but I trust it is for the greater good of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, the motion for publication of the report of the findings of the survey team, which under the direction of Dr. H. C. Rowsell inspected university research laboratories across the country and made an assessment of the conditions surrounding the use of animals for experimental purposes was rejected. In fact, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, during the last session, asked the hon. member to withdraw her motion.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot produce the briefs requested by the hon. member because Dr. Rowsell's inquiry was done on behalf of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, a body organized as a standing committee of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. The Association is an entirely independent organization, not a Crown agency. Moreover, the report prepared by Dr. Rowsell is confidential and to divulge its contents would betray the Council's confidence and hinder its relations with research institutions.
I would also like to remind the House of the recent debate on the bill introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). The government does not avoid its obligations to ensure that laboratory animals are treated, kept and taken care of in a decent way.
I would like at this stage to point out to the House a recent measure passed by the Ontario Legislature and which deals with the care to be given to animals used for research purposes. This legislation eliminates the dealer in laboratory animals which has been mainly responsible for abuses in that field. I would like to add that with few exceptions, all Ontario humane societies have approved the safeguards prescribed by the Ontario legislation which will put an end to most of the inhuman treatments of animals in the past.
We can hope, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will serve as example to the other provinces. In Ontario, breeders of laboratory animals and research establishments must obtain a licence and their premises will be inspected. If they do not comply with the regulation, their licence could be repealed. In addition, experimentalise of Animals for Research
tion, breeding and distribution will be submitted to legislative control. Under the act, anesthetics are to be used in all experiments which may cause pain and analgesics have to be administered in the course of post-operational care. The act also requires the creation of committees responsible to see that all necessary care is given animals in research establishments, as was recommended by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. These committees are responsible for coordinating all activities connected with research animal establishments, including care standards, personnel training and steps to be taken to prevent pain. These research projects on animals will have to be supervised by this committee so that the latter can insure that the provisions of the law have been strictly complied with.
Let us now examine briefly the activities of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. At the national level, the Council functions as a sort of external consultant agency to insure that guidelines on care and use of animals in laboratories are uniformly applied. After its setting up in 1968 one of its first initiatives was to punish the handbook entitled Care of Experimental Animals, A guide for Canada. In order to prepare that handbook Dr. Rowsell, former executive director of the Council, made a first assessment of 39 universities, 24 federal government branches or research centres and 17 pharmaceutical laboratories.
The guide was used to evaluate the facilities and techniques employed in research and teaching establishments in Canada.
The care given to animals in those establishments was evaluated by professional groups with experience in the various fields of research, breeding of domestic animals and veterinary science concerned with laboratory animals, including members of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. Members of such groups provided their services voluntarily.
The Council also attempts to determine the need for professional and technical specialists in veterinary science concerned with laboratory animals, and intends to make recommendations in this regard, if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Council on Animal Care puts its services at the disposal of government organizations, institutions and persons directly interested in the care and use of laboratory animals. Requests for advice, on the rise because of our close relationship with other national and international associations dealing with animal sciences and animal care have constantly increased.
Progress made up to date by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, through a voluntary system of control, is satisfactory. Not only is such a system bringing in improvements in research and teaching but it also makes sure that public concern and interest for the welfare and ethical use of laboratory animals are dealt with in an efficient and responsible manner by the scientific community.

December 3, 1970
Use of Animals for Research
Mr. Speaker, the fact that people have been more concerned about the care of laboratory animals these last few years, is perfectly commendable. However, in order to understand correctly this greater concern, it is necessary to recognize the existence of several causes and objectives. Among these, it is to be noticed that researchers are concerned about animal care and ways to improve it because they realize that the use of animals in bad condition often alters the results of experiments. Researchers want also to establish a uniform type of animal for the whole range of biological and medical research. In every type of research, the common denominator is good health, in the general sense of the term, and therefore, it is clear that for research purposes, it is necessary to have animals in good shape.
The reports submitted by the assessment groups are considered by a resource group of the Council and discussed and accepted by the Council before being submitted to the designated administrative board of the establishment involved. These reports that the hon. member would like to be made public are confidential. Their findings have always been approved by the directors and the scholars concerned and have led in almost all establishments to the creation of local committees concerned with the experiments and animal care.
The basic principles of the use of animals by first year medical students have been reviewed to encourage the use of less sophisticated animals. The principles specify that no experiments shall be conducted on vertebrates if they injure the normal health of the animals or if they cause them any pains or troubles. These principles were approved by the Foundation of Young Scientists which sponsors scientific exhibitions. Moreover, this Foundation has accepted to ensure a higher degree of supervision on students who use animals for these scientific exhibitions. Projects using animals must be approved, and a responsible supervisor must be assigned to them.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Council on Animal care is also concerned with increasing the availability and improving the quality of animals to cope with the needs of research and dissemination of information on animal sources in Canada. The needs of regional supply centres, the means to control and licence commercial suppliers, and the compilation and inventory of all types of animals raised in various establishments in Canada have been considered.
The question of the use of laboratory animals raises in the mind of scientific researchers the question of ethics, a question which has been often raised and has been studied for a long time. Ethical pressures on the individual scientist come from his colleagues, from local committees, from a provincial advisory committee or from a national council, to mention only a few of the groups which supply him with money for research and which publish papers.
Therefore, controls already exist to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals, and they are applied according to the best democratic tradition of this country.
Mr. Speaker, during the last half of this century, many research fields have been suggested, including chemotherapy, virology, endocrinology, radiobiology and medical genetics, while others that were only in their infancy at the beginning of this period, namely immunology, nutrition, biochemistry and applied pharmacology have evolved to such an extent that they are almost unrecognizable.
Before 1900, it was thought that the specific causes for illnesses were foreign to the human body. Today, illness is considered as a functional disorder to which many factors contribute, especially bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms as well as the receptivity of the system, the nutritional state and professional risks.
Such a new concept of disease has greatly enlarged the scope of biological sciences and therefore greatly expanded the field of biological research and experimentation, the object of which is to prevent or relieve suffering in man and animals.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of the last 50 years in the field of medicine is the progress made in chemotherapy, the treatment of infections by means of drugs. In 1935, the discovery of sulpha drugs made possible for the first time the efficient treatment of bacterial infections. A few years later, a wide and growing field of research on antibiotics was open, due to the evidence of the therapeutic effectiveness of penicillin in bacterial infections. Since the discovery of penicillin, not so long ago, many new types of therapeutic and chemical products have been discovered and used, for instance, for the treatment of such illnesses as diabetes and high blood pressure.
In the field of immunology, science has reached a level of development far above that of the study of defence mechanisms. Today, we are trying to understand body reactions to the invasion of any kind of foreign proteins as well as the problems posed by allergic reactions which seem to be the result of an unfavourable reaction of the body towards its own organs and, more recently, the unfavourable reactions resulting from the grafting of complete organs such as the heart and liver.
In the field of surgery, many breakthroughs over the last few years are a direct result of experiments made on animals. Many of the main achievements in the field of chest, heart or brain surgery are the result of studies on the physiological effects of similar operations performed on animals. The successful use of artificial materials for reconditioning body structures are also based on preliminary experiments made on the performance of those materials in the body of an animal.
Mr. Speaker, we should remember the experiments of Professors Vineberg and Selye of Montreal, who have contributed much to science in Canada through experiments on animals.
These are but a few examples of the fields of medical science which have, as I just said, benefited by research on animals, demonstrating that each step forward in science has been accompanied by an increase in the scope of experiments and the number of specialists qualified to carry them out and therefore of the number of laborato-

December 3, 1970

ries equipped with the necessary research facilities. The need for animals to be used in scientific research is therefore a direct implication of research for scientific knowledge.
When research is geared toward potential applications to humans, the need to use a living animal is subject to fundamental principles of medical ethics. No doctor will proceed with a new method of treating a patient unless he is reasonably satisfied that this new process is or seems to be adequate for relieving his patient, nor unless he is perfectly aware of any potential side effects that he may have to assess professionally as against the benefits of the operation. The information which helps the doctor in making a decision is often enough based on the results of comprehensive studies of the effects of new techniques recommended for operating on animals.
Hence, our conclusion may be that the demand for laboratory animals will continue to increase in the near future and that the development of substitutes for tests on animals will not materially affect the demand for in vivo laboratory animals because in vitro tests do not allow the doctor to acquire the necessary guarantee before trying a new medicine or a new treatment on his patient. Indeed, the expansion of research will bring in more problems as regards proper supplies and care for animals. These are the reasons why the Canadian Council on Animal Care has been established.
People who are frequently required to look after and use animals for scientific research have the moral obligation and the responsibility of directing this research for the benefit of both people and animals. This responsibility consists, partly, in constantly seeking the discovery of proper solutions to the problems arising out of the anxiety or the hazards to which these animals are exposed.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I am convinced that the work of the Canadian Council on Animal Care is the answer to both the ethics and the concerns of society, so that animals used in scientific research be treated humanely. Wherever possible, inferior forms of animal life and insensitive systems are used. However, wherever it is necessary to use superior animals to better the lot of mankind and the animal world, such research is conducted, I am satisfied, in a very humane manner.
Perhaps I should say, before concluding my remarks, that it is thanks to animals that medical science has reached its current level. If animals could understand, we would extend our gratitude to them. It is said that a dog is man's best friend. I am sure that all scientists have the greatest respect for animals, and to an increasing degree, they use humane methods in their experiments.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) before the House this afternoon requests that an order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the findings of the survey team which under
Use of Animals for Research
the direction of Dr. H. C. Rowsell inspected university research laboratories across the country earlier this year and made an assessment of the conditions surrounding the use of animals for experimental purposes.
The Parliamentary Secretary has outlined many of the reasons why the government cannot produce a copy of this report. First and foremost among these is that this survey was carried out by an agency which is independent of the government. But I think there are many other reasons why it would not be in the best interests to release this report.
The Canadian Council on Animal Care was set up in 1968 because it was recognized that there was a need for better animal care in Canada. The first director of this agency was Dr. Harry Rowsell, a former professor of the Ontario Veterinary College who later became professor at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. Dr. Rowsell, whom I know very well, is the most competent person to be the first director and the first man in charge of the Canadian Council on Animal Care.
One of his first tasks was to produce a guide on the care of experimental animals, which I am sure people who are concerned about this matter in Canada have read and have found to be a most adequate, initial book on the subject. I am sure that as our experiments on animals become more complicated and sophisticated, this book will be amended and new aspects will be added to it. However, as an initial document for this kind of agency it was and is an excellent text.
The next task that the Canadian Council on Animal Care undertook was a survey of all the laboratories throughout the country, both the research laboratories and those that are operated by drug companies as well as laboratories which are located at universities. I think it should be understood that the survey of these facilities did not only have as its purpose an assessment of the treatment of animals at these laboratories; it also had an educational mission, because the guide had been produced only a year before and such a survey had not been carried out by this type of survey team composed of very capable people travelling across the country to assess these facilities. So I believe the role of this survey team had great educational value for the people operating these research laboratories. I understand that this was done on a voluntary basis but that nearly every laboratory in the country co-operated.
Certainly, as time goes on there will be more sophisticated assessments of research laboratories, and perhaps better regulations. But I think it would be very inappropriate for the first report of the survey team, which contained not only an assessment of animal care facilities and laboratory facilities but also provided an educational role for the people operating these facilities, to be released. I believe that after the survey team visited the various facilities throughout the country, the level of animal care and the kind of facilities provided improved greatly. Since it was voluntary and was done on a confidential basis, I think it would be quite inappropriate for this report to be released.

December 3, 1970
Use of Animals for Research
I expect that at a later stage we will want to establish a regulatory body, whether it be federal or provincial, which will assess these facilities, and if they are not up to a certain standard penalties will be imposed on the laboratories and research establishments concerned. However, I do not think that the overwhelming amount of publicity which would emanate from the publication of this report would necessarily have the best results.
The study of the basic processes of life are fundamental to medical research and to other health science disciplines. Frequently these studies require that research be carried out with animals, and also that living processes be studied as an adjunct to teaching. The benefit which society derives from the use of animals for research and teaehmg is incalculable. As an example I would cite the dramatic decline of poliomyelitis which has resulted from the development of a vaccine, prepared through the use of monkeys, against the virus of this disease. This is best illustrated by the statistics for Canada. In 1959 nearly 1,887 cases of poliomyelitis were recorded; however, in 1969, ten years later, the incidence of poliomyelitis in Canada was reduced to zero through development of the polio vaccine.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The use of living animals for teaching and research is a privilege which is accompanied by responsibility for ensuring that the highest standards of humane care and treatment are provided for animals in our teaching and research institutions. Rapidly expanding scientific research and increased student enrolment in recent years have resulted in increased need for animals. In Ontario alone, in 1967 approximately 636,000 animals ranging from mice to domestic farm animals were used for these purposes. This large use of animals for scientific research, which escalates at between 10 per cent and 20 per cent per year, has necessitated the establishment of more institutions and has sensibilized facilities for animal acquisition, for better accommodation, care and treatment of the animals, requiring the use of professional staff who are especially qualified in respect of animal care.
There are already many programs which provide training and experience in research animal husbandry, and there is a growing emphasis on research into animal diseases and the methods of care, housing and handling of laboratory animals. Research scientists recognize the responsibility for providing the highest standards of care in the accommodation of animals, if for no other reason than that animals used in research and teaching must be in all respects healthy and not subject to environmental or other stresses which could prejudice the results of their studies. To provide animals of the quality necessary for research and teaching, all latent and subclinical diseases must be detected and eliminated by the professional personnel who care for the animals. Facilities must also be constructed to provide research animals with a stable and comfortable environment.
In 1967, a symposium on the care of animals for teaching and research in the life sciences was held at Queen's
University. This symposium, which was sponsored by the faculty of medicine at Queen's, introduced the concept of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, whose objectives are to provide guiding principles for the care of experimental animals in Canada and to work for their effective application. At this symposium Dr. G. Malcolm Brown, chairman of the Medical Research Council of Canada, delivered a paper on the National Research Council report on animal care and the role of the granting agency. In this paper Dr. Malcolm Brown stressed the importance which the Medical Research Council attaches to the care of experimental animals in Canada.
His concern was not only that experimental animals should be treated in a humane manner but, also, that for the purposes of research there is a common basis for good animal care which is not simply a matter of description and definition. Dr. Brown also noted that there was room for improvement in animal care and informed the symposium that scientists are continually seeking improvement in this area.
I shall review briefly the history of the Canadian Council on Animal Care: As early as November, 1963, the Medical Research Council requested the National Research Council to establish a committee to study the situation with regard to the humane use and care of experimental animals. The National Research Council acceded to the request and set up a committee composed of a distinguished jurist, representatives of the two councils, representatives of universities, medical and veterinary schools and a representative of the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies.
This committee's terms of reference included a request for recommendations for improvement in the procurement and production of experimental animals, facilities for their care and control over experiments. The work of this preliminary committee was carried out thoroughly under the able chairmanship of Dr. W. H. Cooke, director, division of biosciences, National Research Council, and was the subject of a special report published by the National Research Council in June, 1966. In large measure the recommendations contained in Dr. Cooke's report resulted in the establishment of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. This body, which acts in an advisory capacity, seeks to ensure the development and use of satisfactory practices. In addition, it is the vehicle for proving and exchanging information on animal care.
At the provincial level the committee recommended the establishment of an advisory board which would concern itself with all facets of the problem of animal care, including procurement, production and care of experimental animals. The committee recommended at the provincial level that the registration and licensing of dealers in laboratory animals be instituted where present arrangements were unsatisfactory. Mr. Speaker, this of course has been carried out in the province of Ontario under the legislation which was passed last year.
At the local level the committee recommended that institutions establish their own committees on animal care, with responsibility for ensuring that generally accepted principles were followed within their laborato-

December 3, 1970

ries. Perhaps the most significant finding of the committee was that in its opinion voluntary controls would be more effective than legislative controls in ensuring that improper experimentation did not occur. In arriving at this recommendation the committee examined legislation relating to animal care in various countries and decided that effective control rested in large measure on the judgment of the individual investigator and that of his colleagues, both immediate and remote. The committee concluded that this type of check is the major influence even when there is controlling legislation. Moreover, there are situations which no legislation can foresee or provide for, and an alert and informed attitude must remain the most effective check on the use of animals, as indeed it does in Canada today.
The concern of society for the care of experimental animals is just one part of the examination which society is making of its many activities. Democracy is a system of checks and balances, and it is right and proper that from time to time it should receive the attention of those outside medical and scientific research. The National Research Council and the Medical Research Council by their actions, which have led to the Canadian Council on Animal Care, have left the individual investigator vulnerable to a wide range of comments and pressures. These pressures come from his colleagues, local committees, provincial advisory boards and the national council, to say nothing of the groups which provide the money for his research and which publish his papers. This is a method of control in the best of democratic traditions.
It may be useful at this moment to review briefly some of the elements involved in the use of animals in research. When a new chemical is isolated or developed that promises to be of value to man, it is tested in animals before it is applied to the human body. In many instances the chemical structure of the new substance can be ralated to a particular pharmacological activity, and with this foreknowledge a definite screening plan can be initiated. However, in some instances where the pharmacological interest is in a group of chemically similar compounds about which there is little knowledge, the research approach may be a blind one in the first instance. For the safety of man, such preliminary research must begin with animals.
Generally, the initial screening of new chemicals is done with small animals such as rodents, because of their size, their availability and reproducibility; and because they are relatively inexpensive, these early tests are frequently conducted with rats, mice or guinea pigs. Moreover, their short life span affords an ideal opportunity to follow the effects of treatment in its entirety. For some aspects of research, certain animals are more suitable than others. For example, rats and mice will retain oral doses that many non-rodents reject. Hamsters are ideal for research on mucous membrane because the cheek-pouch of this animal provides an ideal area for testing the healing properties of solutions intended for use on such tissue in humans. Rabbits have relatively large body areas and rather sensitive skin, which makes them excel-
Use of Animals for Research
lent subjects for testing how irritating chemicals may be. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that while the term guinea pig is properly associated with experimentation, these creatures are not widely used for experimental purposes.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
When administering test material to animals, the investigator attempts to determine the lethality of the chemical, its effects, side effects and range of efficacy. Administration of the material may be oral, subcutaneous, cutaneous, intramuscular, intravenous or it may be administered in some other way. If the researcher knows the intended use of the substance in man, he will attempt to emulate administration of the substance. After initial tests with rodents or rabbits have supplied data on the nature and toxicity of the compound under investigation, if these have been fruitful, more elaborate studies can, if necessary, be devised.
It is at this stage that the larger animals are employed. These more advanced studies are usually conducted longitudinally over a period of time that may be from six months to two years or even longer. Small animals are rarely used for long-term studies because their smallness makes it difficult to follow weight gain or loss with any degree of accuracy. Another aspect in the selection of animals for research is age. In some experiments mature animals are needed, while in others the young are necessary in order to follow growth patterns as they develop.
As I have already mentioned, the smaller the animal generally the shorter the life span, so with the smaller animal researchers are able to go through the whole life span in a relatively short period. They can then judge the effects upon a human who has a much longer life span. Because of possible genetic effects to offspring from compounds ingested by parents, tests may be designed to cover several generations, in which case fertility and reproductive patterns will be examined.
In recent years some uncommon research animals have been introduced into the research laboratory because of special characteristics which make them especially suitable for certain types of studies. These include fish, reptiles, birds and farm animals. Animals having certain personality characteristics, such as aggressiveness, may be used in testing tranquillizing drugs and changes in the personality of the animal in response to these drugs would be studied. This may be very useful for drugs which could be used for Members of Parliament, because some of them are very aggressive. We could determine by the study of aggressive types of animals whether they would be especially useful in humans at a later stage.
As the previous speaker has already stated, and as I mentioned earlier in this speech-


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

December 3, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Benson



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the Federal Court of Canada.
An act to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose tonight in this budget address is to set down in a concise manner the economic strategy of the government for achieving our first economic objective-a steady and substantial improvement in the real income of Canadians everywhere. I propose to go about this task in the following way.
First, I will describe the economic and financial situation as it has developed to the moment. Second, I will discuss the measures we have taken since the last budget in March and the measures we now propose be taken to guide the economy onto a course of high and sustainable economic expansion and full employment. Finally, I will chart the route onto this course as we envisage it for the economy in the balance of this fiscal year and through the next.
A steady and sustainable improvement in the standard of living of all Canadians requires the fullest possible utilization of the nation's human and material resources. It also requires that all regions, sectors and groups of people share in economic expansion; that we progressively narrow regional economic differences; and that we obtain a progressively more equitable distribution of the goods and services we produce.
It is often stated that we must also reach for economic stability, a good price and cost performance, and a satisfactory balance of payments. I see these conditions as means to the end, not the end in themselves. We are concerned about the balance of payments, exchange rates and trade because we cannot hope to reach a steady improvement in the prosperity of our people without satisfactory performance in these areas. Similarly, we are concerned about reasonable economic stability because without it efforts to achieve our primary objective will be frustrated. In brief, our only ultimate concern is for the well-being of all our people. Our other concerns are significant only in so far as they contribute to or detract from this goal.
On October 13 I gave the House a rather detailed account of economic developments this year. I shall not repeat that account tonight. I do wish, however, to draw attention to a number of key features of the situation and to new information which has become available since I last reported.
Of prime importance is the fact that employment is rising in Canada and unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis appears to be falling. This underlying improvement is suggested in the statistics for September and October after allowing for normal seasonal patterns. There may yet be month-to-montih fluctuations from the trend.
The national accounts for the third quarter also reveal that real output in the economy is rising. The pause in the growth of production of goods and services which marked the second quarter did not continue, and this latest information confirms that the economy is now advancing again, although the advance would be stronger if major labour disputes were not in progress.
We are in fact having a considerable boom in housing in Canada, owing in substantial measure to the effectiveness of government policy. Housing starts reached the quite extraordinary level at the annual rate of 270,000 in October. We shall not have a record year for housing in 1970 because of the lower rates of starts in the first part of the year, but it will be a satisfactory year especially when viewed in conjunction with the unusually high level of starts of last year. It is worth noting that the growth in starts currently in progress is concentrated in low income housing in regions of the country where the need is great and where employment growth has been sluggish.
The latest figures on capital investment apart from housing are also stronger and the recent preliminary survey of capital investment intentions indicates growing strength in this area of activity next year, although this year activity in this sector has been one of the weaker elements in our economy.
The year 1970 will go into the records as our best year ever in international trade. The increase in our exports especially in the early part of the year was very vigorous, and perhaps more important the latest figures suggest that this new level of exports is being well sustained. Our merchandise trade surplus for the first ten months of the year was at an annual rate of $2| billion. The current account of our balance of payments, including trade in services as well as goods, will show a record surplus this year. This condition is reflected in the

December 3, 1970

December 3, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Benson
several months. None the less, the government now feels that it would be appropriate to add to them the stimulus of a variety of yet further measures.
Some of these measures are directed toward the immediate needs of the winter ahead. Others are intended to reinforce existing policies and ensure that the economic pick-up in sight for the year ahead will be both strong and sustained. They will also be directed in large part to those regions of the country where unemployment is highest, and to those groups in our society whose incomes are low. I should like now to outline briefly these new proposals, and to refer as well to the fiscal implications of certain other major policy developments which will also have a stimulating effect upon the national and regional economies in the year ahead.
The first of the new measures relates to unemployment insurance. As hon. members know, the objectives and proposals for fundamental reform of the unemployment insurance system were set out in the White Paper tabled last June by my colleague, the Minister of Labour. I am confident that we are well on the way to a vastly improved system of unemployment insurance, providing substantially better protection for all workers in Canada. Because of the time required for consideration and implementation of the new system, however, it is not expected that the higher levels of benefit can be introduced until about next July.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In the meantime, therefore, the government has decided that there should be an immediate increase of 10 per cent in the rates of benefit under the existing system.
This supplementary allowance would be provided to all workers receiving the insurance allowances during the period January to June next. It would be financed by a special government contribution to the insurance fund at a total cost of $54 million. I am sure this increase will be particularly helpful to unemployed workers and then families, especially during the usual seasonal winter peak in unemployment. It will, as well, give an immediate and direct stimulus to the economy, the benefits of which will spread quickly right across the country.
A second new measure proposed is to give still further aid to the provinces, and through them to municipalities if the provinces should so decide. This will take the form of assistance in the financing of additional job-creating public works. A fund to help stimulate the economy will be set up to operate during the remainder of this fiscal year and 1971-72. A total sum of $150 million will be provided by way of long-term loans at favourable interest rates.
The distribution of this fund to the provinces will be based upon a formula which takes account of their differing levels of unemployment experienced over the las t six months of 1970. Because of their population size and current unemployment problems, the largest amounts will be made available to the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia. Based upon our estimates, however, all provinces will be able to make claims upon this fund as a

source of finance for clearly identified capital projects initiated before the end of calendar 1971.
We will, of course, seek the co-operation of the provinces to ensure that projects are undertaken quickly. Wherever appropriate, these projects will be co-ordinated with the existing development programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which in co-operation with the Department of Finance and other federal agencies will administer this loan program.
The projects should be additional to whatever would have been planned for 1971, or they should require financing that would have been beyond the provinces' borrowing capacity. A number of provinces advise us that they have important projects which they would like to move forward quickly in order to create new jobs and economic activity. This additional financing will make this help possible.
In making provision for this fund, we took carefully into account the special submission by the Prime Minister of Quebec to the federal-provincial conference of last September. That submission dealt with the question of evening out fluctuations in provincial revenues over good times and bad. It was agreed at the conference that federal and provincial ministers of finance should give further study to joint efforts to improve fiscal stability. The government's response in this regard as outlined today is directed to the immediate needs in the year ahead. We would plan, however, to continue to explore with the provinces the whole concept involved in possible joint stabilization arrangements for the future.
The federal government itself, of course, is also responsible for a wide range and variety of important capital works across the country. As a third measure of added stimulus, therefore, it is intended to allocate a further sum of $23 million to departments and agencies to undertake further capital improvements in regions where unemployment is most severe. This is a follow-up to the earlier decision announced in October to add $60 million to departmental spending. The review of programs undertaken in that connection indicated a further range of important needs that had been deferred because of the shortage of budgetary funds. It is now proposed to take further steps to reduce this backlog of requirements. Wherever possible this work will also be initiated this winter, continuing where necessary into the next fiscal year.
Parallelling this expanded capital program carried on by federal departments, a fourth program is also planned to accelerate the development of access roads and necessary local services in the area surrounding the new Montreal International Airport. Parliament has already provided substantial funds for construction of the airport itself. Work is getting into high gear on this major project. It will proceed rapidly throughout the year ahead. Services throughout the surrounding municipal areas must also be progressively developed if the region is to achieve its full potential as a dynamic centre for economic growth in the province and the country as a whole. A sum of $20 million of contributions to these needs will
December 3, 1970

therefore be allocated through the special areas program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
A fifth measure proposed is to provide immediately a further amount of $40 million to the capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As I have already recalled, the corporation's budget was raised by $100 million last August to enable it to expand its lending for construction of moderate cost homes for home ownership and rental accommodation for families of modest incomes. The response to this initiative has been remarkably quick. It is apparent that the corporation's program is filling a real and urgent need. As before, it is intended that the bulk of these additional funds should be directed to areas where housing and employment needs are greatest. This additional appropriation will help not only to assure a very high level of housing starts but also to strengthen the round of economic activity that accompanies the creation of new family homes.
Accompanying these direct government programs, three further steps to stimulate the flow of investment in the private business sector are proposed. The most important of these will be presented shortly to the House by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but I should like to describe here very briefly the main highlights. Certain important amendments to the Regional Development Incentives Act will be proposed. If they are approved by Parliament they will be followed by the designation of a new region within which a special system of capital incentive grants will be applied to encourage new private investment. This new region will include the three countries of relatively slow growth m southeastern Ontario-Stormont, Glengarry and Prescott-and the southwestern part of Quebec, including Montreal, which is not now designated.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The development incentives will be available within this new area for a specific time period. We believe they will bring to more rapid fruition many investment projects which would not otherwise be likely to materialize for some time.
It will also be proposed that the present ceiling on incentive grants for individual projects in the Atlantic provinces should be raised, and that a new system of loan guarantees to assist in the financing of viable new enterprises in all the designated regions should be established.
As I have suggested, the details of these important extensions of the industrial incentives program will be made known shortly. They will go into effect as quickly as possible, although it will be some time before their cost will be reflected in our expenditures. It is also very difficult to predict the volume of investment likely to be effected or the probable cost of the incentives. Judging from experience with the program to date, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion foresees a total increase in outlays because of the new program amounting to about $130 million over the period of the next few years. Incentives of this magnitude certainly provide a powerful forward thrust to increased private capital
23563-39i
The Budget-Mr. Benson
investment and the creation of jobs throughout the designated regions. The new system of loan guarantees will reinforce that effect.
The other two measures to maintain and expand employment in the private sector directly are aimed at particular industries. One of these is the shipbuilding industry. As recently announced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, a carefully designed program of further assistance to Canadian shipyards over the next year and a half is to be introduced to help our companies improve their competitive position and expand sales in strong world markets. We intend to provide the financial support required and we look to the industry to continue to diversify and increase its efficiency in serving both domestic and foreign markets. It is estimated that this program may cost upwards of $60 million over the next several years.
The other situation relates to the footwear industry, which is facing exceptional problems of adjustment. It is proposed that the provisions of the General Adjustment Assistance program should be extended to firms in this industry which require financial and technical aid to restructure their operations in order to improve their competitive position.
Both of these industries tend to be labour intensive. They are also located to a considerable degree in slower-growing regions of the country where unemployment is highest. They are, therefore, industries uniquely fitted to receive selective measures of support at this time.
Supplementary estimates covering several of these measures will be tabled in the House tomorrow morning.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you do it now?


Edgar John Benson: In this over-all review of economic stabilization policy, I should also recall several other areas of expenditure of particular relevance to the expansion of the national economy in the course of the year ahead.
Last Monday the Minister of National Health and Welfare tabled the government White Paper on Income Security. Apart from its signficance as a social document, its proposals have important fiscal and economic implications which are likely to be widely debated. For the moment, however, I need only note the fact that beginning on April 1 next the proposed boost in the combined old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement up to the level of $255 per month for a needy couple will raise total federal payments by almost $200 million over the fiscal year. Under the proposed plan it would not be necessary to raise the taxes earmarked for old age pensions since the yield of these taxes appears adequate to finance the new system. Moreover, a plan along the lines suggested in the White Paper to restructure family allowances, that is, restricting them to families with incomes below $10,000 annually, more than doubling them for families in the lowest income brackets, and making the allowances taxable, would redistribute the expenditure toward needy families in a very significant way.

December 3, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Benson
I should also recall yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs regarding veterans' pensions and allowances, involving a net increase in expenditure of about $25 million next year.
Changes in our major social programs are clearly directed to the lower income groups in our society. They are also of greater relative importance to the weaker regions in the country. One can be sure that the great bulk of the expenditure will quickly work its way into the consumer spending stream. The impact of these long-planned measures of social justice will thus come just at a time when it is desirable to stimulate demand in the economy not only for purposes of the short-term economic upturn but also for continuous and sustained economic growth.
Much the same stimulus would flow from new government proposals in quite a different area. I refer here to the grain receipts stabilization plan outlined to the House five weeks ago by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. If that plan is enacted and


Mr. Horner:: If!


Edgar John Benson: -made applicable to the 1970-71 crop year as recommended, it will involve cash stabilization payments to western farmers next spring and summer totalling over $100 million. This would be the net payment contributed by the government to stabilize 1970-71 receipts. There would, of course, be important offsetting savings in government expenditure by the elimination of the temporary wheat storage payments which have been shown to be an inefficient form of assistance. However, the immediate effect of such a stabilization plan would be to put much needed cash into the hands of the farmers next spring.
The largest part of this flow of cash would go to Saskatchewan, where the provincial economy has been hardest hit by the decline in grain marketings since 1968. Large numbers of farmers in both Alberta and Manitoba, however, would also be helped. Taken together with the much higher grain sales and the prospects for further improvement, this early injection of cash would give a significant boost to the entire Prairie economy. Its multiplier and spill-over effects, in terms of increased purchases of goods and services imported from other provinces, both east and west, would be of great importance.
We can also anticipate that the very large and continuing contributions from the federal government to the provinces will prove to be an expansive source of support in the economy in the year ahead. These transfers both by way of unconditional equalization and the grants for the support of shared-cost health, welfare and education programs now require over $3 billion in cash payments.
The supplementary estimates for the current year have already shown an increase of about $79 million payable for equalization and related transfers. A further rise of about $90 million is anticipated for 1971-72. These increases illustrate the responsiveness of the equalization system in stabilizing and supporting the revenues and

expenditures of those provinces which may experience a worsening of fiscal disparity when growth in the economy falls below normal.
As for the shared-cost programs, including health insurance, welfare assistance, and higher education, the excessive rates of cost increase experienced in recent years do show some welcome signs of slackening. Nevertheless a preliminary forecast indicates a further rise of almost $350 million in increased payments to the provinces in support of these basic programs.
Finally, I should mention that although the detailed estimates for 1971-72 are still pending, they are expected to provide for a further advance in the regional development work of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Total expenditures here may rise above the level of $300 million next year.
Mr. Speaker, I turn now to the implications this entire program has for the government's financial position in the current fiscal year and in 1971-72. I have not had occasion as yet to give an indication to the House as to our requirements for next year. Detailed estimates will be presented in the usual way early in the new year. Our present calculations envisage that the cash requirements for 1971-72 would be about $200 million higher than the $1,500 million we are now estimating for the current fiscal year. These figures are apart from any effect of foreign exchange transactions and from the effects of the new program I have described tonight. Our cash requirements for the current fiscal year are high and we still have a considerable portion of them to finance. The new programs will add about $100 million to the requirements for the current year and $400 million to those already contemplated for the next fiscal year. Thus with the new programs our cash requirements for 1971-72 would be half a billion dollars higher than this year's combined budgetary and non-budgetary needs.
We have given the most earnest consideration to the best means of financing these requirements. We want to impart as strong an impetus to the economy as we can without regenerating a spiral of price increases. At the same time we wish to give added support to the disadvantaged regions and groups in our economy. There have been expectations that I would be announcing tax cuts tonight. The government has had to consider whether such a measure would direct economic stimulus and support to these economically weaker regions and groups in the most effective way. We have concluded that it would not. A reduction of taxes would be stimulating, that is not to be doubted. But the positive programs I have described will not only be stimulating but will penetrate more surely to the particular points in the economy where stimulus and relief of economic hardship are most required.
e (8:40p.m.)
In adopting this policy we have, as I have said, added greatly to our cash requirements. A responsible government which is operating on a realistic basis has to be concerned about the total size of its net borrowing requirements. We have to guard against creating too
December 3, 1970

rapid an expansion of the money supply, that is to say we have to guard against another encounter with the second obstacle to a rise in living standards that I have spoken of tonight-a renewed surge of prices. The borrowing needs of the government must be covered by a combination of sales of securities to the banking system and to the public. There are limits to the extent to which the banks can be encouraged to increase their holdings of government securities without running the very serious risk that the expansion and increased liquidity of the banking system will trigger inflation and expectations of inflation. There are also clear limits to the extent to which the general public can be induced to increase its holdings of government securities without this causing upward pressure on interest rates, which would of course restrain capital investment. High interest rates would also tend to push borrowers into foreign capital markets and either produce a further appreciation of the Canadian dollar or increase our need for cash to buy exchange in order to prevent such appreciation. A yet higher value for the Canadian dollar would also tend to restrain the Canadian economy. If we had to purchase exchange to prevent an appreciation, the financing of the extra cash requirements involved would produce yet more pressure on interest rates. I believe hon. members will agree that we must avoid such pitfalls.
For all these reasons, we have decided with reluctance that we shall have to find some of the cash required this fiscal year and next by means other than borrowing. I proposed, therefore, that taxes be kept at present levels by extending the surtaxes on personal and corporate incomes through the calendar year 1971. These surtaxes over a 12-month period are worth $245 million in revenue.
Hon. members I am sure will recall that the surtax on individuals does not apply to the first $200 of basic tax. It therefore does not apply to about 25 per cent of Canadian taxpayers. A single person does not pay any surtax if his income is below $2,743. A married man with two children does not pay any surtax if his income is below $4,343.
While I have no new general tax measures to propose tonight, I am proposing a special measure directed to our present economic circumstances. I referred earlier in my remarks to the fact that private capital investment has been one of the weaker elements in the picture. This has been particularly the case with respect to investment in our secondary industries. To encourage better performance in this area, I propose to provide a special incentive for all businesses engaged in manufacturing and processing. Effective tonight manufacturing and processing enterprises will be permitted to value new investments in machinery, equipment and structures at 115 per cent of their actual cost as a base for earning capital cost allowances. This capital cost allowance supplement will apply to such new capital investments put in place during the period commencing tomorrow morning and ending March 31, 1972. Further details will be provided in a bill and regulations.


David Lewis: At what hour tomorrow morning-four o'clock?
The Budget-Mr. Benson


Edgar John Benson: One of my friends says, before you get up.


David Lewis: That is at four o'clock.


Edgar John Benson: Hon. members will recognize that this new instrument of Canadian fiscal policy is in harmony with our basic approach of focusing our measures upon the specific needs of the economy in order to attain maximum impact. Since the measure will increase significantly the net return on capital investment, I am confident that it will encourage new capital projects and speed up the implementation of capital outlays planned for the future, and thus create new jobs for a variety of the skills of our growing labour force. The tax bill of business enterprises affected will be reduced in each of the next several years to a total of about $250 million. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, I estimate the reduction at $25 million.
With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like now for the information of members to include as an appendix to Hansard tables in the form normally provided with budget speeches. These include a summary statement of our cash requirements for 1969-70 and our current forecast for 1970-71, the yields for the same two years of our main categories of budgetary and old age security revenues and again for the same two years, tables and explanatory notes giving the budget figures in terms of the national economic accounts in the form published by the Bureau of Statistics together with a reconciliation with the budgetary accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
lEditor's Note: For tables referred to above, see Appendix A]


Edgar John Benson: Since I last presented similar tables to the House in mid-October there have been some changes in the figures forecast for 1970-71 quite apart from those which arise out of the new measures announced tonight. In particular budgetary revenues are expected to be lower by $100 million owing to changes in the economy, especially those arising from substantial work stoppages. Expenditures will be some $50 million higher reflecting the impact of certain items already presented to the House as supplementary estimates. In addition, net nonbudgetary requirements will be somewhat higher. Taking account of tonight's measures I am now estimating a budgetary deficit of $320 million and net non-budgetary requirements of $1,250 million, making a total cash requirement of $1,570 million apart from foreign exchange transactions in the current year.
For 1971-72, taking account of the programs described tonight including the continuation of the present level of taxes, we estimate that the budgetary accounts will show a deficit in the area of $600 million; and that our net non-budgetary requirements will be in the area of $1,300 million. Thus the total cash requirements excluding exchange transactions are expected to be approximately $1,900 million.

December 3, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Benson
I should like now to speak briefly about the economic outlook. I have referred to the fact that real output and employment are now rising. It is my firm belief that they will continue to rise and gain in momentum through 1971. Unemployment, seasonally adjusted, fell last month. It is undoubtedly the case that the unadjusted figures of unemployment will rise through the winter months as they always do. But I am hopeful that seasonally adjusted unemployment will prove in fact to have peaked during this quarter unless an improvement is delayed by certain important labour disputes.
I do not wish to suggest that the route to full employment will be easy. With the rapid expansion of the labour force we are experiencing in this country and with the prospect of increasing productivity as the economy expands, very substantial rates of real growth will be required to absorb the new workers and reduce unemployment. But I believe that, led by the policies of the government, there will be renewed confidence in the private sector and a steady advance toward full utilization of our human and material resources. I expect a greater growth of consumer expenditure next year. I expect that investment in housing will be strong. As the year progresses I anticipate that other investments too will expand at an increasing pace. While we cannot expect our exports to show another leap forward next year similar to the one they made this year, they will continue to be strong. I feel sure that other levels of government will be demanding goods and services from the economy at a greater rate than this year. We have set our policies in the confidence that, guided by them, the economy will advance to new, higher levels of output that will permit growing employment, reduced unemployment and continued good price performance.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We are looking to growing increases in the value of gross national product next year, which by the second half may be running at a rate about 8J per cent above the second half of this year. With continued good price performance these figures imply an increase in real output that will be sufficient to more than offset the increase in the labour force and expected growth of productivity and so reduce unemployment progressively during the year.
The governement will continue to watch the developing situation with great care and should policy changes become necessary or desirable we shall, as we have been doing, make suitable adjustments without delay. In saying this I have in mind not only progress toward full employment but also continued satisfactory price performance. If we do not achieve the restraint of prices and costs that we must have, we shall not shirk from action that may be required on that front.
Recently I took part in meetings of finance ministers in Brussels and of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Copenhagen. These meetings have given me an opportunity to compare notes about economic developments with government and business leaders of all the principal countries. Only last week we had a meeting here in Ottawa of the Canada-U.S. Joint Economic Committee and this gave me another chance to see
how we are getting along compared with our neighbours. It is good to see your country though the eyes of others.
My counterparts abroad who are called upon to help manage their national economics would be pleased to claim for their countries the record of Canadian economic attainment over the past several years. They, looking from the outside, are able to see things about Canada which some of us, with myopic concern about day-to-day issues, fail to see in front of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, they see a high and rising standard of living, a strong currency, rapidly expanding export trade, the largest current account surplus in our history and, compared to most, a good price performance, and to them these are no mean accomplishments. When I remind them that the expansion of our economy and the growth of our employment have been less than adequate in recent months, and that the rate of cost increases is still too high, they point to their own very serious problems in exactly these same areas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Even your own members are laughing at you.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in concluding my budget presentation tonight I want to re-assert my strong and abiding optimism in Canada's future. We are endowed with bountiful resources to which the world is turning with increasing interest. We have sound and stable government and a well-established determination to keep it strong. The large investment of recent years in advanced education and vocational training will enhance the productive capacity of our rapidly growing labour force and help our people adapt more readily to requirements of a rapidly changing industrial technology. Our manufacturing industries have shown a remarkable capacity to penetrate world markets and meet import competition at home. We are working hard to expand economic opportunities in the weaker regions of the country and can, I think, rightfully claim some measure of success. We have improved and are continuing to improve the social security system and have made good progress towards a more equitable distribution of our national income.
I have no doubt, and I am not speaking as a government, that we as a Parliament-I trust all members of Parliament are responsible-and as a nation will overcome whatever difficulties will present themselves and keep the economy moving forward on a growth path with increasing momentum that will absorb our full human and material capacity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: And, Mr. Speaker, with a little patience we can reach this ultimate goal without rekindling the

December 3, 1970

fires of inflation. Investors from all over the world are obviously willing to place their bets on Canada, and my strong advice to Canadians everywhere is that there is no better bet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 1 of Standing Order 60, I wish to lay on the table of the House copies in English and French of notices of ways and means resolutions referred to in my budget statement.
[Editor's Note: For text of notices of ways and means motions, see Appendix B.]


An hon. Member:: You have laid an egg.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That was the best part of the speech.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and its supporters, is vainly grasping at straws tonight to get back to the centre of the stage.


An hon. Member:: Author!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Before I comment on the minister's remarks, Mr. Speaker, I must say that this evening we join with all in Canada in grateful appreciation and relief at the news that Mr. Cross has been found and is now in safe hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we have witnessed a posturing act-


An hon. Member:: You've seen nothing yet.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And I am sure there is absolutely nothing in what we did see. This posturing act and the cliches offered by the government show their attitude. Of course, as has been said before about the activities of this government: Look at the damned mess we are in now.
On previous occasions, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has said there is need for only one budget a year. When we were discussing the budget he presented last March it was pointed out that the 3 per cent surtax would lapse. He was asked whether it would be restored, and he said no. But within the last few days the minister had to scurry and he told us we would be having a budget. Why? There are only two budgetary proposals here. One is a great deception of the Canadian public and works to the hardship of those people about whom the minister and the government pretend to care so much- the lower income earners. So what happens? The surtax is imposed for another year.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Higher taxes; raise the taxes!
The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not giving any relief to low income earners. It gives no relief to old age pensioners-


An hon. Member:: Six per cent unemployment and higher taxes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -if they pay taxes. It gives no relief to anyone under the so-called poverty level. Everybody, whether rich or poor, gets the same relief of $200 of tax before the 3 per cent surtax is imposed. In this budget there is no measure to relieve that particular hardship. We are told with great fanfare that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has announced a 10 per cent increase in unemployment benefits. But that does not help the person who cannot qualify, nor the person whose benefits are running out; and there are thousands and thousands of them. You might as well give them cake, since you are not able to give them bread. What is required are jobs.
We are told about redistribution and about income security, but that does not take care of the winter. This measure only comes into force on April 1 next. We are also told about veterans allowances, but this will not help this winter either. That comes into effect in the spring. I suppose everything has to come with spring.


Mr. Crouse:: This is a springtime budget.


An hon. Member:: Like you.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: At least I will come in the spring; you will never arrive. Mr. Speaker, we are having a budget at this time because of the erratic manner in which this government has conducted the economy over the past two or three years. First of all it stubbornly refused to recognize that we had inflation.


Mr. Pepin:: What?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will not go through, chapter and verse, all the attempts that were made to get the government to recognize that there was a problem of inflation. Then we saw a sudden awakening. The government was warned by the Economic Council of Canada in its fifth report, and we know what its reaction was to that gentle warning. In effect, the Economic Council said. "Be careful, because the measures that you have taken will have long and deep effect and may turn the balance the other way." In the fall of 1968 the Economic Council gave that warning, and the Minister of Finance will well remember how he-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't think he ever read those reports.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -appraised that incursion by the Economic Council, and how he felt they were criticizing the actions of the government. It was only a warning, but how true it was. Now we see the government scurrying the other way to restore the balance. And why? Because all its monetary and fiscal measures taken in an effort to fight inflation have resulted in massive unemployment.

December 3, 1970
The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert
Mr. Speaker, I do not for one moment share the optimistic attitude of the minister this evening with regard to his forecast. The minister shakes his head. But we know what his estimates have been in the past, his forecasts and his guarantees. They were not worth the paper they were written on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He has never been right yet.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the reason we have this budget this evening. There is nothing interesting in this budget apart from the continuation of the surtax and the special depreciation allowances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What do you expect from a small-town
bookkeeper?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 

APPENDIX A


[Stage Direction]
Budgetary and Old Age Security Revenues (Millions of Dollars)
1969-70	1970-71
Forecast
Budgetary Revenues
Personal Income Tax	
4,562	5,315Corporation Income Tax	
2,612	2,355Non-Resident Tax	
249	255Estate Tax	
101	115Custom Duties	
818	820Sales Tax	
1,717	1,750Other Duties and Taxes	
897	990Total Taxes	
10,956	11,600Non-Tax Revenues	
1,357	1,435Total Budgetary Revenues	
12,313	13,035
Old Age Security Revenues
Personal Income Tax	
1,027	1,140Corporation Income Tax	
227	215Sales Tax	
577	595Total Old Age Security Revenues______	1,831	1,950
Federal Government Revenue and Expenditure on a National Accounts Basis
(Millions of Dollars)
1969-70	1970-71
Preliminary	Forecast
A-Revenue
Direct Taxes, Persons	
6,790	7,655Direct Taxes, Corporations	
2,257	2,130Direct Taxes, Non-Residents	
252	255Indirect Taxes	
4,024	4,180Other Current Transfers from Persons__	4	5Investment Income	
1,052	1,240Capital Consumption Allowance	
214	235Total Revenue	
14,593	15,700
B-Expenditure
Current Goods & Services	
4,453	4,815(Non-Defence)	
(2,610)	(2,965)(Defence)	
(1,843)	(1,850)Transfer Payments to Persons	
3,702	4,235Subsidies	
571	660Capital Assistance	
97	140Current Transfers to Non-residents	198	220Interest on the Public Debt	
1,675	1,880Transfers to Provinces	
2,719	3,700Transfers to Local Governments	
88	100Gross Capital Formation	
459	520Total Expenditure	
13,962	16,270C-Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	
+631	-570

[Stage Direction]
Public Accounts and National Accounts Reconciliation (Millions of Dollars)
1969-70	1970-71
Preliminary	Forecast
1.	Budgetary Expenditures	 11,938	13,355
Deduct
2.	Budgetary Transfers to Funds and
Agencies (1)	
-551	-6203.	Post Office Expenditures	
-341	-3904.	Deficit of Government Business Enterprises	
- 77	- 855.	Reserves and Write-Offs	
-323	- 856.	Purchase of Existing Capital Assets.	- 9	- 107.	Budgetary Revenue Items OffsetAgainst Budgetary Expenditure (2).... - 80	- 60(-1,381)	(-1,250)
Add Extra+Sudgetary Funds Expenditure
8.	Old Age Security Benefits	
1,732	1,9109.	Unemployment Insurance	Benefits....	542	82510.	Government Pensions	
176	22011.	Prairie Farm Emergency Payments....	4	5(2,454)	(2,960)12.	Expenditure of Government Funds andAgencies (1)	
646	72013.	Capital Consumption Allowances....	214	23514.	Miscellaneous (3)	
91	25015.	Total Expenditure, National AccountsBasis	
13,962	16,27016.	Surplus (+) or Deficit (-), NationalAccounts Basis	
+631	-57017.	Surplus (+) or Deficit (-), BudgetaryBasis	
+375	-320(1)	In the national accounts, budgetary appropriations to various funds and agencies are replaced by the expenditure actually made by these funds and agencies.(2)	This item mainly consists of revenue from sales of goods and services by the government. These sales appear as final expenditure of the private sector and are deducted to avoid double counting.(3)	This item includes the supplementary period adjustment. In the national accounts, expenditures on goods and services in the supplementary period are divided between adjacent fiscal years; most other expenditures are shifted entirely to the next fiscal year.
1748
[Stage Direction]
December 3, 1970
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE Public Accounts and National Accounts Reconciliation (Millions of Dollars)
		1969-70	1970-71
		Prelim-	Forecast
		inary	
1.	Budgetary Revenue		12,313	13,035
Deduct			
2.	Budgetary Return on Investment	-860	-9553.	Post Office Revenue	-355	-3504.	Other Non-Tax Budgetary Revenues...	-142	-130(-1,357)	(-1,435)5.	Corporate Income Tax, Excess of Accruals (+) or Collections (-)	-582	-440Add	6.	Old Age Security Taxes	1,831	1,9507.	Unemployment Insurance Fund, Employer-Employee Contributions	494	5008.	Government Pension Funds Employer-Employee Contributions	494	5409.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act Levies....	6	5(2,825)	(2,995)Government Investment Income:	10.	Interest on Loans, Advances and Investments	423	49011.	Interest Receipts on Social Insurance and Government Pension Funds	285	38512.	Profits before Taxes (Net of Losses) of Government Business Enterprises-	344	365(1,052)	(1,240)13.	Capital Consumption Allowances	214	23514.	Miscellaneous (1)	128	7015.	Total Revenue, National Accounts Basis	14,593	15,700
Government of Canada Cash Requirements (Millions of Dollars)
1969-70 Forecast
Budgetary Transactions
Revenues	
12,313	13,035Expenditures	
-11,938	-13,355Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	
+375	-320
Net Non-Budgetary Transactions
Excluding foreign exchange transactions...	- 293	- 1,250Total Government of Canada Cash Requirements Excluding foreign exchange transactions...	- 82	- 1,570Amount Required to Date to Finance Foreign Exchange Transactions	
-335	-1,216*Total Government of Canada Cash Requirements Excluding future foreign exchange transactions	
-253	-2,786
*As of November 30, 1970.
(1) These miscellaneous adjustments represent insurance companies tax revenues, miscellaneous indirect taxes, miscellaneous transfers from persons and adjustment for the supplementary period. In the national accounts, revenue in the supplementary period is shifted into the following fiscal year.
December 3, 1970


[Stage Direction]
An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the surtax imposed on individuals and corporations by Part IA of the Income Tax Act be applicable in the case of individuals to the 1971 taxation year and in the case of corporations to taxable income earned
NOTICE OF WAYS AND MEANS MOTION The Income Tax Act
That it is expedient to amend the Income Tax Act to provide that a taxpayer who acquires prescribed property in the period between December ^, 1970 and April 1, 1972 for use in a manufacturing or processing business, shall, for the purpose of computing capital cost allowances in respect thereof and for other related purposes, be deemed to have acquired the property at a capital cost to the taxpayer equal to 115 per cent of his actual capital cost.
23568-40J
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 4, 1970