1970-12-02

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Jack Murta, Esquire, for the electoral district of Lisgar.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Jack Murta, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Lisgar, introduced by the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield and the Hon. W. G. Dinsdale.


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Regional Development-Mr. Morison.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in a few seconds I will have the pleasure of presenting a motion for first reading of a bill to amend the Pension Act.
As this bill is so closely related to the general question of rates of pension and war veterans allowances, I am taking advantage of the occasion to make clear the government's intentions on that subject. May I add that I am delighted to announce, in concrete terms, the plans to improve the benefits which are the right of those who served our country when democracy was being threatened in the world.
I am confident that the statement I make today will be welcomed by every member of this House, as it will warm the hearts of a large number of veterans.
The government plans to increase all pensions which are paid for death, or disability, related to military service by 10 per cent as of April 1 next.
Because these pensions are paid as a matter of right they are not subject to a means test and are free of income tax.
Under the revised schedules, the 100 per cent disability pension for a married man win rise by $408 to $4,464 per year. His single counterpart will find his pension increased by $324 to $3,504 per annum and the widow's pension will go up by $240 to $2,640 annually. Pensions for children and dependent parents, brothers and sisters will be proportionately increased.
These increases mean that an additional $22,000,000 will be paid to our pensioners next year, over and above the $214,000,000 they will receive this year.
We also propose to align the rates for pensions, paid under Parts I to X of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, with those of the Pension Act. It is under this act that pensions are awarded to merchant seamen, ferry pilots, auxiliary services supervisors, and other quasi-military personnel who suffered disability, or died, as a result of their war service.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

Also, Mr. Speaker, next April 1 we propose to raise the maximum allowances payable under the War Veterans Allowances Act and under Part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, by 15 per cent.
The new rate for single recipients will go up by $16 a month to $121, and the married rate will increase by $26 to $201 monthly. The rates for orphans and blind persons will be similarly increased. The present rates have been in effect since 1966 which explains why the WVA increase is 5 per cent higher than the pension increase.
War veterans allowances are subject to a means test, as before, which is based on income ceilings for single and married recipients. When the rates are raised these ceilings will be increased from $145 to $161 and from $245 to $271 respectively. We estimate that these revisions will mean that WVA and CWA recipients will receive an additional $21 million in the 1971-1972 fiscal year.
At the same time as the new WVA rates and ceilings go into effect, the regulations will be changed to provide that recipients who are also eligible for old age security and guaranteed income supplements, which are also being increased, will be deemed to be receiving the full amounts to which they are entitled under those programs. Their war veterans allowances will then be adjusted to supplement their OAS and GIS payments to bring their incomes to the level of their relevant income ceilings.
Mr. Speaker, it has given me the greatest personal satisfaction to be able to announce, on the same day, the

December 2, 1970
Veterans Pensions
increases in pensions and war veterans allowances as well as having the privilege of sponsoring a bill to enact into law the results of the most extensive review of the Pension Act in half a century. The three components have together resulted in a complete package of benefits for those who, when they were needed, placed their lives at the disposal of this country and for whom Canada has a special obligation.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, although I have been waiting with bated breath since nine o'clock this morning for the statement by the minister, I was surprised about five minutes ago when I was handed three pages. While I am heartened by the fact that there are increases, why it took so long to decide on an increase of 10 per cent for disability pensions and 15 per cent for those war veterans receiving allowances, who have not had an increase since 1966, is beyond my powers of imagination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: The important thing is, Mr. Speaker, that this poverty line that we keep referring to every day seems to be away up in the clouds as far as this government is concerned.


Mr. McGrath:: Too little, too late.


Jack Marshall: In a speech the minister made in the House in reply to my party's motion on October 27 urging the government to implement the necessary legis-lat.on, he said that the wheels of justice are slow. I am heartened, as I am sure all hon. members and the many thousands of Canadian war veterans will be heartened, that the wheels of justice are starting to move again-


James Aloysius McGrath: They need some oil.


Jack Marshall: -and that we can see some ray of hope for these deserving Canadians.
It would appear most of the recommendations of the Veterans Affairs Committee are acceptable to the government, the most important being those relating to the Hong Kong veterans and other prisoners of war and their dependants. They include increased payments for those suffering exceptional incapacity, consequential disability, loss of paired organs, the retroactivity clause and the acceptance of an organization arrived at by compromise for the handling of applications and appeals.
As to the Hong Kong veterans and prisoners of war, the white paper produced in August, 1969, over one year ago, indicated recognition by the government at that time of their need, but an amendment was not introduced immediately to grant the benefits which the government said they agreed were deserved. The result is that even though the benefits will be retroactive, many of those veterans who suffered such exceptional hardship will not be able to experience the joy and satisfaction of some justice for their wives and children, if not for themselves, because they have passed on.
On page 37 of the white paper on income security, Mr. Speaker, there is a reference to veterans and the interrelationship of war veterans allowances and workmen's compensation. I find it very distressing that, some 25 years after these men in the prime of their productive life served their country in war, the government is now saying they were not really fighting an enemy, they were not dedicating their lives, they were not being tortured in prisoner of war camps but were "work-connected", to use the phrase in the white paper. I shudder at this phrase indicating that it is considered that veterans pensions should be integrated with the Canada Pension Plan and with workmen's compensation. This bothers me, Mr. Speaker. While I do not want to appear pessimistic, it is becoming, to me at least, more obvious day by day that the Department of Veterans Affairs will be gradually phased out and absorbed by the Department of National Health and Welfare. This is completely unacceptable to my party and, I am sure, to the nearly one million surviving war veterans and their dependants. I can only hope that somewhere in the cold heart of present-day bureaucratic thinking there remains some human consideration for the dedication of Canadian war veterans.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I say in a spirit of comradeship that my party offers our pledge of acceptance of this bill and our complete co-operation in its speedy passage. We are prepared to sit day and night in the parliamentary process to achieve third reading and passage of the bill.
This bill is a very significant step forward in the consideration of the dedication and service of some one million of our citizens, but there is much more work to be done. There are many phases of veterans legislation that must be re-examined and reassessed on a continuing basis. To mention a few, there are the merchant marine, the fire-fighters and the Newfoundland foresters, and we must also examine the Veterans Land Act to try to help those veterans who are still without decent accommodation.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I hope that in the not too distant future we who sit in this House, even if the wheels of justice and of Parliament are slow, will be able one day to stand proudly because of the feeling that we have paid our debt to the war veterans of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party understand the pleasure that the minister feels in being able to introduce today a bill with regard to veterans legislation and also in being able to announce increases in the levels of disability pens'ons and payments under the War Veterans Allowance Act. 1 might be pardoned for suggesting that the very good bill that is to come as well as these increases are to a large extent a tribute to the good work that was done by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which was ably assisted by the representatives of the veterans organizations of Canada. However, Mr. Speaker, even though the
[Mr. Dub6.1
December 2, 1970

minister may feel that this is a pleasant experience for him, I am afraid I must tell him that many veterans in Canada, especially those who have waited a long time for this announcement, will be disappointed.
The previous speaker has referred to the poverty levels which forever seem to be above the income levels of veterans and other groups in this country. I join with him in urging the government to try to bring our veterans at least up to the recognized poverty level.
The minister's announcement, Mr. Speaker, deals with two main categories of payments, namely, pensions that are paid as of right, and allowances that are paid under a means test. With respect to the pensions that are paid as of right, the minister has announced an increase of 10 per cent, effective April 1, 1971. May I remind him that a short while ago the national veterans organizations of Canada addressed an emergency appeal to the government, pointing out that there was a crisis in the experience of veterans. That group, in a very responsible manner, urged that there be increases in veterans disability pensions of 6 per cent as of September 1, 1970, and an additional 6 per cent as of January 1, 1971. A number of veterans have written to me and complained that their organizations did not ask for more. I suggest that that total of 12 per cent, to be in effect by January 1, 1971, was a reasonable request and that we are short-changing the veterans by saying to them that their increase is going to be only 10 per cent and that it will not be effective until April 1, 1971. I hope that these payments can be made sooner. It seems to me that this piece of legislation ought to be dealt with before we rise for the Christmas recess.
With respect to the proposed increase in the war veterans allowance payments, the minister emphasized that the increase in this area is 15 per cent. I suggest that despite that increase, we shall still be keeping these people below the poverty line. What bothers me most about the amendments proposed to the War Veterans Allowance Act is that the ceiling on the total income that recipients of the war veterans allowance can have has been raised, not by the 15 per cent that applies to the allowance itself, but by a figure of only 11 per cent in the case of single veterans, and by only 10 per cent in the case of married veterans.
I ask hon. members to listen for a moment to what this produces by way of a result in actual dollars. Under the legislation as it now stands, it is possible for a single veteran to have, by combining his pension, his war veterans allowance and his old age security pension, an income equal to $40 more than is the case for a non-veteran receiving the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement. I think that is as little as it ought to be. Yet in this proposal, the single veteran will be allowed only $26 more than is allowed to a person receiving the old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement. In the case of a married veteran at the present time, the ceiling is such that he can receive $30 more than the married person who is a non-veteran. That figure is being reduced to $16. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that is a case of short-changing. It is not good enough.
Veterans Pensions
I hope when we get into the details of this bill, whether in Committee of the Whole House or in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, that at least we will be able to get those ceilings changed. The most difficult part of the War Veterans Allowance Act is its ceilings. I know that it is difficult not only for the veterans but also for the administration, and it seems to me that at least the same percentage that was applied to the number of dollars being granted should apply to the ceiling. I think we might even go further. The two matters I hope we will deal with before this legislation is disposed of are the ceilings on total income in the War Veterans Allowance Act and the effective date of both of the proposed changes. April 1 is too far away. Many veterans will not live to see the increase.


Mr. Adrien Lamberi (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the bill the hon. minister commented on just now purports to increase veterans' pensions.
The bill is certainly timely and I welcome it as requests for an increase of veterans' pensions have been made over a long period. I remember that several times, on behalf of my colleagues, I urged the government to review the relevant regulations in order to improve the pensioners' situation.
Our suggestion and representations have at last had concrete results. This increase in veterans' pensions is not a luxury and it will certainly not make millionaires of our veterans. We are convinced however that this adjustment will be an appreciable improvement, because under the amendment to the regulations as a result of the passage of this legislation, the higher pensions will surely increase the purchasing power of the veterans who greatly need it.
This is why we are vigorously supporting the proposals of the government, but following consideration of the bill, we will perhaps move some amendments to improve it.
At any rate, I am convinced that Canada will not be poorer, once the rights of those people who fought for freedom are recognized.
I can speak on good ground, because a number of veterans and present members of the armed forces living in my constituency have often asked me to make representations to the authorities, in order to improve their lot. When we hear statements such as the one made today, we must co-operate and be pleased with the fact that the government has finally decided to do something really worthwhile.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the

December 2, 1970
Auditor General
House to make a motion without notice. The urgent circumstances are that it is unfortunately clear that this government is determined to destroy by both open and devious means the office of the Auditor General.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Despite the cries of outrage from taxpayers and political commentators, Bill C-190 remains on the order paper even though it is offensive to all members of this party, other members of the House and 99 per cent of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: However despicable this legislative bludgeoning of a parliamentary officer, it is almost equalled by the attack on his effectiveness through the deliberate red-circling and downgrading of his key staff members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council seeks the floor on a point of order.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I understand the importance of the Standing Order under which the hon. member seeks the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion and I have no objection to the debating material which he has imported into what ought to be an economical method of informing the House as to his intentions. Of course, the danger is that if debating material, charges against the government, argumentation and, at some points, hysterical outbursts are permitted under this procedural rule, it will be necessary for this side of the House to ask for an opportunity to reply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If it is to be admitted that debating material can be used and developed at this point, then fairness would require that members of the government should have an opportunity to reply in a similar way, debating equally. That is my point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Then accept the motion.


Mr. Hees:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has asked for a chance to debate this matter. All he has to do is give unanimous consent on that side of the House and he will get his debate right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Peace River wish to address the Chair on the point of order?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Speaker. I was just about ready to put the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to refer to the point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council. Hon. members who were in the House yesterday will recall that in similar circumstances I did indicate that I thought Standing Order 43 should not make it possible for hon. members to debate the substance of the subject they had in mind. The Standing Order is clear enough. A procedure has evolved recently since Standing Order 26 was amended perhaps by hon. members resorting to a procedural form which had been used over the years under Standing Order 26. In view of the fact that Standing Order 43 does not provide for a rebuttal I think the point made by the President of the Privy Council is well taken when he says that debating material should not be presented to the House by an hon. member seeking leave to propose a motion under Standing Order 43. However, I assume the hon. member for Peace River is now coming to his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was simply attempting to come within the words which require that urgent and pressing reasons for putting the motion should be established.
It is almost equalled by the attack on his effectiveness by the deliberate red-circling and downgrading-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I respectfully suggest that the hon. member proceed to the motion he has in mind as quickly as possible. I suggest to him that he cannot argue the substance of the matter at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: With all due respect, I am putting forward reasons why this motion should be placed before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The last sentence is: The Auditor General is thus hampered in recruiting and retaining the skilled employees essential to his task.
The motion I wish to move is as follows:
That the President of the Treasury Board no longer enjoys the confidence of the House, and the conspiracy against the office of the Auditor General must cease immediately, and measures more in accord with his right to scrutinize on behalf of the taxpayers substituted for Bill C-190.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member requires, of course, the unanimous consent of the House.


George Harris Hees: If you want a debate, say yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to inquire whether there is unanimity which would allow the hon. member to put the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I sense there is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.
December 2, 1970



SALARY RANGE OF STAFF-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43, by unanimous consent, in connection with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It is related to the subject which has just been discussed, and in view of the statements made in that connection I will omit the preamble or explanatory sta ement and simply move, seconded by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North:
That the question of the salary range of the staff of the Auditor General be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, so that the committee might consider recommending that the said salary range be determined by parliament rather than by the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion which the hon. member for Selkirk seeks to propose. Again, the unanimous consent of the House is required.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise that there is no unanimity and in these circumstances, by virtue of Standing Order 43, the motion cannot be put at this time.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the House to agree to a motion concerning Bell Canada.
Yesterday the Canadian Transport Commission again approved an increase in basic residential and business telephone rates amounting to approximately $22.5 million. It was only a year ago that the CTC approved increases requested by Bell Canada which added at that time $27.5 million to the company's revenues. The new decision means that Bell Canada will have an increase of $50 million in a year and will be able to earn a 7.5 per cent rate of return on invested capital compared with the maximum of 6.6 per cent allowed by the former Board of Transport Comm ssioners. It is obvious that the Canadian Transport Commission does not protect the people of Canada and continues to allow Bell Canada to milk the public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring it to the attention of the hon. member, again with respect, that he should indicate the terms of his motion. Standing Order 43 will become difficult to accept as a workable Standing Order if hon. members do not take into account its limitations. Hon. members have the right, under the terms of this rule, to indicate briefly why there is urgency, why the matter they have in mind should be put now in preference to the ordinary business of the House, but I do not think they can import debate concerning the substance of the matter proposed for discussion in the suggested motion.
Bell Canada Rate Increase


David Orlikow: I have completed the reasons for seeking unanimous consent. I will therefore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre:
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to meet forthwith and proceed as quickly as possible to investigate and analyse the activities of Bell Canada and its subsidiaries, and report back to the House as soon as possible.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

This motion, proposed under Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. I must therefore ask hon. members whether they are all in agreement.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.

Therefore the motion cannot be submitted at this time.



ELECTION EXPENSES


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South) moved: that the recommendation contained in the first report of the Special Committee on Election Expenses, presented to the House on Thursday, November 26, 1970, be concurred in. Motion agreed to.



PENSION ACT AND CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES ACT PROVISION OF INCREASES IN BENEFITS

Jean-Eudes Dubé: for leave to introduce Bill C-203, to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.


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

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

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed, how many persons have received payments thereunder?
1676

December 2, 1970
Questions
2.	In each of the above years, what was the total amount paid out under the said Act.
3.	In each of the above years, what was the average amount paid under the said Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows (c) to others?
4.	In each of the last five years, either calendar or financial, for which statistics are available, how many pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows of public servants or widows of retired public servants, have been discontinued because of the death of the superannuate?
4. In each of the last five years, the number of pensions paid under the Public Service Superannuation Act which have been discontinued because of death:
(a) To Retired Public Servants:	(b) To Widows:
1965-66	1,489	1965-66	3821966-67	1,523	1966-67	5081967-68	1,572	1967-68	5031968-69	1,751	1968-69	5141969-70	1,899	1969-70	508


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Number of persons who have received pay-	
ments in each year	since the Public Service Pension
Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed:	
Year	Number
1959-60	14,311
1960-61	13,885
1961-62	12,553
1962-63	11,709
1963-64	10,852
1964-65	10,077
1965-66	9,078
1966-67	8,162
1967-68	7,483
1968-69	6,860
1969-70	6,651
2. Total amount paid out under the Public Service	
Pension Adjustment	Act for each of the above years:
Year	Total
1959-60	$3,112,231.
1960-61	2,956,515.
1961-62	2,817,263.
1962-63	2,657,706.
1963-64	2,504,503.
1964-65	2,344,711.
1965-66	2,236,212.
1966-67	2,038,329.
1967-68	1,905,478.
1968-69	1,777,869.
1969-70	1,641,304.
3. Average Amount Paid Out To:
Retired
Public
Year	Servants	Widows	Others1959-60	$226.72	$124.88	$12.321960-61	225.43	124.42	11.791961-62	222.01	123.92	10.351962-63	220.66	123.59	10.061963-64	220.26	123.75	7.991964-65	217.94	123.08	6.191965-66	216.03	122.69	7.131966-67	212.52	122.64	5.931967-68	210.27	121.27	6.111968-69	208.19	119.21	4.561969-70	196.52	125.05	5.79\ Knowles	(Winnipeg North	Centre) .1


DUMPING OF NERVE GAS IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN BY THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Did the Government of Canada make any representations to the Government of the United States regarding the latter's action of dumping 3,000 tons of nerve gas rockets in the Atlantic Ocean and, if so, what was the nature of these representations?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Government of Canada did not make any representations to the Government of the United States on this matter. Shortly after the United States intention to dump nerve gas rockets in the Atlantic became known, a team of Canadian scientific experts, including oceanographers and marine biologists, made a careful analysis of the technical aspects of the matter. The principal conclusions of these experts were: (a) Given the properties of cement under pressure, it was unlikely that the concrete vaults encasing the rockets would be ruptured; (b) Even if a sudden release of the gas should indeed occur, the local effect would be limited to a relatively small area for a period of less than a day; (c) Because of the rapid decomposition of the gas in salt water, there would be no effect on the surface. A high level team of British experts arrived at similar conclusions in an independent study. In the light of these technical findings it was concluded that there was no demonstrable risk to Canadians or Canadian territory. In these circumstances, and taking into account all relevant aspects of current international law, it was decided that no sufficient legal basis existed for Canada to make a protest against the proposed action.


COMPUTER SERVICES BUREAU-ADVISABILITY OF TENDERING WORK TO INDEPENDENT FIRMS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of tendering the work of the Computer Services Bureau to independent firms and, if so, what economies are anticipated?


James Armstrong Richardson: Government departments and agencies have the option of using commercial, university, other Government departments' computer facilities or the Computer Services Bureau in order to satisfy their computing needs. In making their demand for services through the Computer Services Bureau they indicate which facilities are to be used and, in the case of services outside the Government, they inform the Bureau of the tendering or negotiations they have already made with the indi-
December 2, 1970

vidual companies. The Computer Services Bureau enters into contracts for these services. It makes payment for the use of all these computer services and in turn recovers the full cost from the department or agency concerned.


PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY RCMP REGARDING INQUIRIES FROM FBI CONCERNING DESERTERS
Mr. Gilbert: What procedure is followed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding inquiries from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning deserters from the United States Forces?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Upon receipt of an inquiry from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an investigation is conducted to determine if the person concerned is in Canada in violation of the Immigration Act. If so, this fact is drawn to the attention of the Immigration Department.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-MANHOURS SAVED BECAUSE OF UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during each year since computers have been used?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Detailed estimates of man hours saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are not maintained. In general, the use of computers has improved and extended the analytical techniques of the planning, research and management components of the Department without the recruitment of large clerical staffs.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-LAYOFFS AND HIRINGS BECAUSE OF UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


J. Judd Buchanan: (a)
No employee has been laid off by this Department as a result of the use of computers, (b) As of November 18, the Department employed 27 analysts, programmers and auxiliary equipment operators.


UTILIZATION OF ARMORIES AS YOUTH HOSTELS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many armories were utilized as youth hostels during the Summer of 1970?
2.	How many youths used the armories for shelter during the Summer of 1970?
Questions
3.	What was the cost of providing the service at the armories for youths?
4.	Will the plan be continued in 1971?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. 13 (2 in
Vancouver).
2.	Approximately 69,202 bed nights.
3.	$155,000.
4.	At this time the government is in the process of evaluating the 1970 summer emergency hostel programme and no plans have been formulated to date for a similar programme during the summer of 1971.


'SEAWAY TOLLS
Mr. Souiham: To hold ^ Seaway Tolls at their present level, is it the government s intention to follow the recent legislative action in the USA where Congress would forgive a large interest debt, provide for tax rebates and other debt-forgiving features with a view to placing the seaway on a sound financial footing?

_ Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport): The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: A decision has not yet been taken on this issue, but this and similar views will be taken into consideration.


YARMOUTH AIRPORT
Mr. Comeau: 1.	What amount of money has been spent over the past two years for the remodelling of Yarmouth Airport?
2.	Are any monies allocated for the continued remodelling of this Airport during the next three years?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. $145,000.
2.	No.


VISCOUNTS, DC-8'S AND DC-9'S
Mr. Fortin: How many Viscount DC-8 and DC-9 aircraft did Air Canada operate in each year 1965 to 1970 inclusive?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
Number of aircraft in operation
		Summer Peak				
(August)	Year	EndViscount DC-9	DC-8	Viscount	DC-	-9 DC-81965	39	0	16	39	0	161966	39	6	18	39	6	181967	39	13	18	37	18	211968	38	27	24	33	30	271969	31	33	31	28	33	321970	28	36	38	23	36	38
1678

December 2, 1970
Questions


ALASKA HIGHWAY CONTRACT
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Did the government call for tenders for the clearing, grading and sub-base from approximately Mile 900 to approximately Mile 930 on the Alaska Highway in preparation for paying and, if so, what are the names of the contractors who submitted bids and the amount of each such bid?
2.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest bidder?
3.	Was the contract later renegotiated with the contractor and, if so (a) were public tenders invited before such renegotiation (b) what was the difference between the contractor's initial bid and the renegotiated price for the work?
4.	What was the final amount paid by the government to the contractor for this work?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, tenders were called on May 1, 1969, from Mile 909.2 to Mile 928.5.
Contractor
Nanaimo Bulldozing Co. Ltd.
Poole Engineering Co. Ltd.
Hirtz Bros. Construction Ltd.
General Enterprises Ltd.
Dawson Construction (Northern) Ltd. Cattermole-Trethewey Contractors Ltd.
Peter Kiewit Sons Co. of Canada
2.	Yes.
3.	The original contract covered from Mile 909.2 to Mile 928.5. By the authority of Treasury Board Minute 691059 of July 30, 1969 the contract was extended to include from Mile 904.5 to Mile 909.2 at the same unit price for an estimated additional $375,000.
4.	The final amount paid was $1,522,586.54, which includes $186,002.54 consisting of overruns of estimated quantities paid at contract unit prices and minor contingency work paid for under the terms of the contract.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-LAY-OFFS AND HIRINGS BECAUSE OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Transport how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Gérard Duquet: As a direct result of the use of computers by the Ministry of Transport, there has been no staff lay-offs and 51 people have been hired.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-MAN-HOURS SAVED BECAUSE OF UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Transport during each year since computers have been used?


Gérard Duquet: No direct estimate is possible of the total number of man-hours that have been saved in the
[Mr. Duquet.l
Ministry of Transport as a result of the introduction of computers. This is due to the fact that the largest proportion of the comprehensive analysis of data done by electronic computers, both in the operational and statistical fields, could not have been tackled by manual or desk calculator methods.


VETERANS-DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. MacRae: 1.	As of October 31, 1970, how many veterans are in receipt of Disability Pensions?
2.	Exclusive of the Attendance Allowance, how many veterans are in receipt of $5,496 a year or more?
3.	Were War Veterans Allowances increased in 1965 as stated in Hansard on page 624 of October 27, 1970?
4.	What is the average amount received annually by War Disability Pensioners (exclusive of Attendance Allowance) ?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.	131,636.
2.	97.
3.	These increases were announced on November 10, 1964, and were incorporated into the War Veterans Allowance Act on June 10, 1965. Their effective date was September 1, 1964.
4.	Pensions are paid in twenty different classes, depending upon the degree of disability. The annual liability stands at $151,667,982. On this basis the average for all classes together, exclusive of attendance allowance, is $1,110.


LIBERIAN TANKER &quot;ARROW&quot;-COST OF CLEAN UP OPERATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Will the government consider the advisability of suing the owners of the Liberian tanker Arrow, Sunstone Marine S.A. of Panama, Aristotle Onassis, Imperial Oil Company and any others for the cost of the pollution cleanup?
2.	Has the government been formally contacted by Imperial Oil for contribution towards payment of the company's expenditures for the cleanup operations resulting from the tanker Arrow?
3.	Will the government be reimbursed through "TOVALOP" for the costs of the cleanup operation of the Arrow?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Law officers of the Crown and special Counsel are considering all avenues open to the Crown in the case of the Liberian tanker Arrow including the prospects of suing any person responsible at law for pollution cleanup costs.
2.	No.
3.	In part only, as recovery under "TOVALOP" is limited to recovery at a rate of $100 (U.S.) per gross registered ton shareable on a pro rata basis between owner and government. "TOVALOP" is purely a voluntary scheme and the acceptance of payment thereunder by the government would constitute a bar to any other action.
Amount $ 961,584.00
1.023.822.00
1.153.361.00 1,241,351.24
1.257.299.00
1.319.020.00
1.407.536.00
December 2, 1970


DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS-LAY-OFFS AND HIRINGS BECAUSE OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Communications how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: (a) Nil; (b) five permanent employees; 10 part-time employees.


INSCRIPTION ON BANK NOTES ISSUED BY BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Of all bank notes issued by the Bank of Canada bearing the inscription The Bank of Canada will pay to the bearer on demand" (a) what does the inscription mean (b) what will the Bank of Canada pay (c) will it remit gold to the bearer (d) will it remit bills of another denomination (e) how long have the bills borne this inscription?
2.	Of the new twenty dollar bills issued in 1969 by the Bank of Canada bearing the inscription "This note is legal tender" (a) what does the inscription mean (b) is this bill backed by gold and, if not, on what is it based (c) what difference is there between these new bills and the others which are outstanding and which are only promises to pay (d) for what reasons has the Bank of Canada made the change?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) Prior to the amendment of the Bank of Canada Act in 1967, Section 21 (1) of the Act provided that notes should be payable to bearer on demand, (b) and (c) Prior to the amendment of the Bank of Canada Act in 1967, Section 22 (1) of the Act provided that "The Bank shall sell gold to any person who makes demand therefor at the head office of the Bank and tenders the purchase price in legal tender, but only in the form of bars containing approximately four hundred ounces of fine gold". Prior to the amendment of the Bank of Canada Act in 1967, Section 22 (2) of the Act provided that the Governor in Council, from time to time and for such period as he may deem desirable, may suspend the operation of subsection (1) and remoye such suspension, and under this authority the operation of Section 22 (1) of the Act was suspended annually by Order-in-Council. (d) Yes. (e) Since 1935.
2. (a) The inscription "this note is legal tender" appears on the new $20 Bank of Canada note in conformity with Section 7 of the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act as amended in 1967. (b) No. Section 21 (1) of the Bank of Canada Act provides that notes shall be a first charge on the assets of the Bank, (c) There is no difference between the new issue of the $20 denomination and the previous issues in respect of their designation as legal tender, (d) To conform with the amended provisions of the Bank of Canada Act and the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-LAY-OFFS AND HIRINGS BECAUSE OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Public Works how many employees have been (a) lairi off (b) hired?
Questions


Arthur Laing: (a)
None; (b) 11.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-MAN-HOURS SAVED BECAUSE OF UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Public Works during each year since computers have been used?


Arthur Laing: There has been no direct savings in man-hours resulting from the use of computers. However their use has contributed to the provision of complex information which would have required additional man-hours had computers not been used.


WATER SYSTEM IN CARLING, NFLD.
Mr. Marshall: Has the Province of Newfoundland made application to DREE for funds to provide a water system in Curling, Newfoundland and, if so (a) has a decision been reached (b) what was the decision?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No formal application has been received, (a) and (b) Not applicable.


PASSPORTS ISSUED
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Up to the end of September, how many passport applications were processed this year at each office issuing same identifying the offices?
2.	How many passports in that time were issued to applicants from Atlantic Canada?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Up to the end of
September, 1970, 335,178 passports were issued this year at offices in Canada as follows: Ottawa, 252,820; Toronto, 36,400; Montreal, 31,838; Vancouver, 14,120.
2. The Passport Office does not keep precise records of the province of origin of passport applications. However, a sampling of passport applications received in the first nine months of 1970 indicated that slightly less than 3 percent of passport applications originated in the Atlantic provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.


ADMISSION OF LANDED IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA WITHOUT SECURITY CHECKS
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many landed immigrants in each year 1966 to 1969 inclusive and 1970 to date have been admitted to Canada without being subject to security checks?

December 2, 1970
Orders for Returns


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamenlary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: All immigrants to Canada are subject to checks and examinations to determine whether they come within any of the categories of prohibited persons described in the Immigration Act, including those pertaining to security. However, these checks and examinations are waived in the case of individuals such as minor children, wives of Canadian residents and aged parents unless there are reasons to believe that they should also be subjected to the more detailed type of check normally carried out. There is no way of determining how many immigrants may have been admitted where such detailed checks were not made.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired federal civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99	per	month	(c)	$30.00	to	$39.99	per	month	(d)	$40.00	to$49.99	per	month	(e)	$50.00	to	$59.99	per	month	(f)	$60.00	to$69.99	per	month	(g)	$70.00	to	$79.99	per	month	(h)	$80.00	to$89.99	per	month	(i)	$90.00	to	$99.99	per	month	(j)	$100.00	to
$149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired civil servants and also the number of widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of federal civil servants are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?
Return tabled.


FARM ANNEX AT ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Has the government taken steps to close any parts or divisions of the farm annex at the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary and, if so, which parts or divisions, by name, have been closed and for what reason?
2.	With respect to each such division for each of the past five years, is it considered that the operation thereof was profitable and, if so, what are the financial statistics with respect thereto?
3. For each of the past five years and for each of the commodities raised at the farm annex, to what extent has the cost of production been (a) above (b) below the market price?
4.	Within the past five years, has any stock of cans been scrapped or discarded and, if so (a) how many such cans were discarded (b) what was the value thereof (c) what were the reasons for discarding them?
5.	Within the past five years (a) were any commodities transported to any place for canning and, if so ti) which

ones (ii) in what quantities (iii) at what cost (b) were they transported to any place from the point of canning and, if so (i) where (ii) at what cost?
6.	Who did the canning referred to in part 5?
7.	Is any acreage at the farm annex lying idle and, if so (a) what number of acres (b) for what reason?
Return tabled.


STORAGE OF GASOLINE AND OIL IN THE NORTH
Mr. Robinson: 1. Does the federal government have any portable gasoline or oil tanks for use in the North?
2 What plan does the federal government have for storage of collapsible tanks for oil and fuel?
3.	Will the federal government consider the feasibility of requiring the storage of gasoline and oil in collapsible storage tanks as a safety measure?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my starred question No. 12 has been on the order paper since October 8, along with 24 other questions I have on the order paper at the present time, none of which have been answered. Starred question No. 12 was on the order paper during the last session of Parliament as well. I see no reason for this long delay in answering the question. I would ask the hon. member to try to secure an answer for me.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, may I say that this year we have made every effort to keep a close check on questions and to determine, if questions are not answered, whether there is some reason for the delay. Several departments are involved at times when answers are compiled and we do try hard to keep on top of them. I will certainly take notice of the hon. member's remarks.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, starred question No. 80 was also put on the order paper on October 8. Starred questions should be answered fairly quickly. Starred question No. 80 was also on the order paper last session, having been placed there on February 20. It has now been on the order paper for nine months.
The question is a simple one. It asks the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada whether he would table in Parliament the background studies and consultant reports which were prepared by the task force on government information and by the Privy Council. If the answer is going to be no, then it does not take nine months to say no. If it is going to be yes, we should have had the answer by now. I would ask the minister to get busy on the job.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer a question that is within my power to answer, but this question should be directed to the Privy Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 2, 1970



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 AUDITOR GENERAL DOWNGRADING OF POSITIONS OF SENIOR OFFICERS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 26 to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the action of the Treasury Board in downgrading the senior officer positions in the Auditor General's office as a result of which most of the 28 senior officers have individually lost $2,400 per year since July 1, 1967, a period when most public servants were receiving raises. This sinister attack on the office of the Auditor General which impairs the efficiency of his important office ought to be debated forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North has filed a notice of his intention to propose a motion under Standing Order 26. I have given very serious consideration to the matter and have considered all the procedural aspects of the motion. The hon. member for Calgary North proposes that the business ordered for today be set aside so that the House may debate Treasury Board decision affecting the remuneration of senior officials of the Auditor General's office, going back to July 1, 1967. The hon. member charges that the efficiency of the Auditor General's office has been impaired as a result of such action by Treasury Board.
Hon. members know the criteria which must guide the Chair in relation to Standing Order 26. I must determine whether the subject matter sought to be discussed can be termed an emergency. The word "emergency" used in relation to Standing Order 26 has always been interpreted to refer to a sudden occurrence, a newly arising situation which, because of that aspect, requires the immediate, urgent consideration of the House.
Is this requirement met in the circumstances indicated by the hon. member for Calgary North? This is obviously a very important matter and one which is or should be of interest and concern to all hon. members; and there is an aspect of immediacy in the sense that relevant evidence has just been heard by the public accounts committee. On the other hand, the situation referred to in the proposed motion goes back to July, 1967.
It is hardly necessary to remind the House that the Auditor General's relation to the government has been brought to the attention of the House on a number of occasions in recent months. In particular, the matter was raised on April 6 last by the hon. member for Peace River, also under the provisions of Standing Order 26. On April 13 the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands again brought the situation to the attention of the House, at that time by way of a question of privilege. The hon. member's motion is based on a submission that there was an attempt to "harass and intimidate the Auditor General".
Motions for Papers
The Chair also has to take into account the possibility that the matter might be debated in other circumstances. The House has before it at the present time the bill that was referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Peace River. The Auditor General's report is now before the Public Accounts Committee and it can be reasonably assumed by the Chair that in due course the committee's report will be debated in the House. What is perhaps even more relevant is that the budget debate will take place very soon. While I agree the matter is an important and urgent one which hon. members may wish to debate, for all these reasons I suggest such a debate should take place as part of a discussion on a substantive motion rather than within the somewhat limited framework provided under Standing Order 26.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 46 and 111 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government concerned.



OIL AND GAS LAND REGULATIONS IN YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all representations received by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding the revision of Canada's Oil and Gas Land Regulations in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Forrestall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all proposed plans, together with descriptions and correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia with respect to a National Park in the Ship Harbour area of Halifax County.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 8, 13, 23, 31, 55, 89, 101 and 102?

December 2, 1970
Motions for Papers



SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS BY CANADIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Salisman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all returns submitted to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by Canadian financial institutions regarding information on consumer loan intentions in 1970 as requested by the Department.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the information on advertising budgets for the promotion of consumer loans was forwarded to us on the explicit understanding that the confidentiality of individual returns would be respected. Under the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Saltsman:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, unless I read this improperly I have asked for returns by financial institutions regarding information on consumer loan intentions rather than advertising. Would the minister check the item?


Mr. Speaker:: It will be allowed to stand for the moment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In that case there is no such information and I would ask for this reason that the hon. member withdraw the motion.


Max Saltsman: I am not prepared to accept that at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion to be put or transferred?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



INTERNATIONAL DRUG COMPANIES-CORRESPONDENCE PROVIDED BY UNITED STATES ON ANTICOMBINE MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 13-Mr. Saltsman:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., provided to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by the United States Justice Department on anti-combines matters related to international drug companies and the price of quinine.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it would not be in the public interest to disclose confidential communications between my department and the United States Justice Department relative to anti-trust investigations because such disclosure could prejudice an anti-trust inquiry in either or both countries. For these reasons I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how that could possibly be accepted as a reason. The public is entitled to the information I have asked for.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
[Mr. Jerome.I



SPEECH BY DIRECTOR, RCMP SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE BRANCH

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the speech delivered to the Canadian Society for Industrial Security, in Toronto, by John K. Starnes, Director of the RCMP's Security and Intelligence Branch.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Solicitor General as follows:
The remarks in question, made at a private meeting from which the press and public were specifically excluded, were given from notes and no text is available. A quite inaccurate and garbled version of a part of the discussion subsequently was published in the press, having been obtained in an unauthorized and unusual manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should indicate whether or not there is a document which can be tabled.


James Alexander Jerome: As no such document is available I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as I do not wish the leading official of the RCMP to be misrepresented I should like that information.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ANALYSIS OF MANPOWER UTILIZATION OF THE MANITOBA GARMENT INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Summerour and Associates Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis of the Manpower Utilization of the Manitoba Garment Industry".
James Alexander Jerome: Stand.
Motion stands.



STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. Broadbeni:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the plan of the special task force to study the question of summer jobs for students as stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his address to the Canadian Vocational Association on May 23, 1969.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


James Alexander Jerome: Stand.
Motion stands.
December 2, 1970



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS PENSION TRUST FUNDS, 1935 TO 1968

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 89-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the financial statements filed by the Canadian National Railways in respect to the Canadian National Railways Pension Trust Funds for the years 1935 to 1968 inclusive.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to file the required documents for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969 inclusive. Prior to the Pensions Benefits Standard Act, as passed on October 1, 1967, there was no requirement for filing such documents. The government is prepared to table the aforementioned documents subject to the conditions stated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will be agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 89 be deemed to have been adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr. Rowland:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and provincial governments commencing June 25, 1968 (a) dealing with the subject of the endorsation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (b) seeking co-ordination in the field of Human Rights and Civil Liberties.
André Ouellet: Monsieur l'Orateur, as regards paragraph (a) of the notice of motion, there was no correspondence with the provincial governments in this matter.
As regards paragraph (b), it is not customary to table correspondence between the federal government and the provincial governments, as is the case at the present time in the field of the bill of rights and civil liberties. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Douglas Charles Rowland: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I have very little choice, but I think it reprehensible that there has not been correspondence dealing at least with (a).


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FEASIBILITY STUDY RELATING TO CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN UNITY ROAD IN NIGER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 102-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility study related to Canadian participation in the Unity Road in Niger.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the consultants' study concerning Unity Road is a privileged document drafted to help the Canadian government in its development aid negotiations with the government of the Republic of Niger. Making this study public would destroy the confidence between the two governments.
Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government accepts the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Commission against a guideline policy for the year 1971 and, if so, is this decision based upon the government's view that such a policy is unworkable or, on the other hand, because it is unnecessary?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as one has seen in the press, the Prices and Incomes Commission came to the conclusion yesterday that it would not be possible to have industry agree to guidelines with labour not agreeing to guidelines on the other side. In the specific position they were in the commission decided they would carry on with the method of investigating particular price increases and particular wage increases and report to the government and the government would, of course, make these available to the public for their information, or the government's opinion would be made known to the public.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prices and Incomes Commission has adopted the position of a study group, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether the government proposes through any other medium to establish an incomes policy through consultation involving the government, business and labour, or are we left
1684

December 2, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
simply with the alternatives mentioned in the chairman's review unacceptable unemployment, unacceptable inflation or compulsory wage and price controls?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the present situation is that Canada has a record better than that of any other western country in controlling inflation. I think this is agreed by the OECD and many other authorities. In respect of how we must proceed from here with regard to fiscal and monetary policy, I will be making our position known tomorrow night in my budget speech. How we proceed on the prices and incomes side is a matter for decision by the government, but no decision has been made at the present time.



INFLATION-SUGGESTED MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER AND LEADERS OF ORGANIZED LABOUR

George Harris Hees: As the
only chance of price restraint continuing into the next year rests on the slim hope that organized labour will agree to give its very necessary co-operation, will the Prime Minister even at this late date consider, as he has been urged to do many times during the past year, meeting with the leaders of organized labour in an effort to persuade them of the vital importance of giving their co-operation?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us have an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already asked a supplementary question. Has he a further supplementary question?


George Harris Hees: May I put my question in a different way so as to make it easier for the Prime Minister to answer. Would the Prime Minister give consideration to putting his duty to the economy ahead of his fear of a rebuff and stop helping to push price restraint down the drain?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INFLATION-ABANDONMENT OF WAGES AND INCOMES GUIDELINE POLICY-NEW INCOMES POLICY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government is prepared to try to seek an incomes policy through some organization other than the Prices and Incomes Commission which, perhaps through no fault of its own, failed to secure the confidence of labour? Is the government prepared to seek such an arrangement directly or through some other means?


Edgar John Benson: The Prices and Incomes Commission indicated yesterday what had resulted from its consultations with business. The government must consider now what steps it may be willing to undertake in the future. As I indicated previously, since last March the government has been easing substantially on the fiscal and monetary side. In the meantime, quite contrary to what my hon. friend was saying last March, the rate of increase of prices has come down in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: Yes, this has happened, quite contrary to his forecast. We are still concerned on the cost side in an expanding economy that we may move too much and put too much pressure on the economy and perhaps cause another inflationary cycle. The government must, of course, in its expansion policies consider this matter very carefully.


George Harris Hees: What expansion policies? You do not have any policy, expanding or otherwise, and you know it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
% ijs SjS



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to ask a question related to the Prices and Incomes Commission and I direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the supplementary estimates which were tabled the other day do not contain any additional amounts for the commission, would he inform the House whether it is his intention to table additional estimates for the commission at some future date?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: the provision made in the main estimates for this operation by the end of the year turns out to be inadequate, it will then be necessary to table supplementary estimates.


David Lewis: Do I understand then that the President of the Treasury Board has not yet been able to assess the expenditure resulting from the reduced role which the chairman of the commission announced yesterday and is therefore not in a position to inform us whether additional estimates will be necessary?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The conclusion that I am unable to inform the hon. gentleman now whether supplementary estimates will be necessary is quite right.


David Lewis: I should like to direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prices and Incomes Commission has obviously failed in its declared objectives and has lost credibility in most sectors-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously making a speech. He is debating an issue when he should ask a question.


David Lewis: I have a question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister considering abolishing the commission or at least firing its pontificating chairman?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

December 2, 1970



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
As unemployment is rising at an appalling rate, will the minister say whether he intends, with the agreement of the provinces, to make massive investments in various public works in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, the premise is incorrect; second, the hon. member will have to wait for policies until the budget speech.



AUDITOR GENERAL


George Harris Hees: I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the great seriousness surrounding the situation concerning the Auditor General at the present time, would the government give serious consideration to reversing its decision to downgrade 28 members of the Auditor General's staff?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It
is hard to give serious consideration to most of the hon. gentleman's suggestions. He is probably unaware, by reason of the poor attendance of his party at the committee meetings, that this particular topic is under discussion there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Since the minister refuses to answer my question I will ask him a supplementary question. Is not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for a supplementary question but it is difficult for the Chair to hear him.


George Harris Hees: Is not this move an attempt to do by indirect means what the government fears to do by direct means, simply a conspiracy to stifle the Auditor General, and will the government please cease-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask
the minister whether he would be prepared to table any letters between his departmental officials, himself and the Auditor General in relation to the downgrading of the Auditor General and his staff at the present time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yesterday the Auditor General tabled such letters. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that if the Opposition would just attend the meetings of the committee we would not have these questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for South Shore rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Crouse:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Treasury Board has made allegations in the House which are not correct and I ask that they be withdrawn. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and as a member of the Official Opposition I, along with three of my colleagues, was in attendance at the meeting when the papers were tabled.


An hon. Member:: Where were the others?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, if you can quiet this babble of the rabble I will go on with my point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The government is trying to silence the Auditor General, but they are not going to silence me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: During my 14 years here, I have made a point of trying not to interrupt other members, when they speak in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I would ask that members on the government side follow the same course if we are to have any decorum in this chamber. I wish to state that members of the Official Opposition were in attendance at the meeting yesterday to which the President of the Privy Council referred. I, therefore, ask him to withdraw the allegation that members of the Official Opposition were not in attendance at that meeting yesterday.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if I made an allegation which was incorrect in fact, I hasten to correct it in any way necessary. Perhaps rather than referring to attendance I should have referred to the apparent lack of communication within their party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will return now to the original question. The hon. member for Calgary North has the floor for a supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Calgary North on a supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the
minister a question about the letters. Were all the letters between his department and the Auditor General in reference to the downgrading filed before the committee, and were there any personal conversations between the
23568-36*
December 2, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
minister and the Auditor General, or between any members of the minister's staff and the Auditor General that were not disclosed to the committee on that occasion?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of conversations-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, yes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -with members of the administration. I do not think the Auditor General endeavoured, if indeed he could succeed, to produce before the committee yesterday a complete record of all the conversations that he has had with all members of the administration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister be prepared to make a full statement on motions soon as to what the conversations were and what took place between his department and the Auditor General?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker-


Gerald William Baldwin: You mean a full confession.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -I understand the committee will be-perhaps it would be wrong to use the word "inviting"-summoning me to a session next week-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a good idea.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West. Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Edmonton West, but I believe the hon. member for Ontario seeks the floor on a question of privilege.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add any further heat to this debate-


George Harris Hees: Then sit down.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -but the hon. member for South Shore, who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee as I am, has indicated to the House that he was in attendance at those meetings, which he was. I make no bones about that, but he indicated that the government, through the report of that committee, was trying to muzzle the Auditor General. As a member of that committee I resent such a remark, because the report to which we are alluding and upon which the bill has been based was passed unanimously by the Public Accounts Committee of which he is a member and, if I remember correctly, he was in attendance at the time it was passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister

in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has consultation taken place or is consultation taking place between the federal and provincial governments on the subject of admitting immigrants into Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, discussions have previously been held on the subject.
I obviously cannot say what matters were studied. It all depends on the subject and the date to which the member is referring.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I apologize to the hon. member for Edmonton West. We may get to his supplementary eventually, but I understand we have a question of privilege from the hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. Yewchuk:: On a question of privilege, I just want to put the record straight, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If that is the purpose of the hon. member in seeking the floor, that is not a question of privilege. I suggest that the hon. member for Ontario did not have a question of privilege, and again I suggest to the hon. member for Athabasca that if we are to pursue this debate as to who attended and who did not attend the committee meeting, and whether there were communications or not, it will not advance the work of the House very much. However, I will hear the hon. member for Athabasca.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege pertains to the statement which was made that this report was unanimously approved by the members of the committee. I state that this was not so. The chairman of the committee was not present. The report was not signed by him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca has the floor. Perhaps he should be allowed to indicate what the privilege is.


Paul Yewchuk: The question of privilege is the fact that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was away on an official trip to Japan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a question of privilege. Obviously, there is debate between hon. members as to who was there and who was not there. The citations are numerous to indicate that this cannot be construed as a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege-


December 2, 1970


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Athabasca kindly resume his seat? I suggest to hon. members that we are going nowhere very fast. We have had a series of questions of privilege as to who attended a meeting and who did not attend a meeting. I suggest to hon. members that this has nothing at all to do with privilege. It should not even be raised as a question of privilege. Obviously, there is disagreement among hon. members as to who signed the report, whether it was unanimous or not, who attended a committee meeting and who did not attend a committee meeting. Perhaps this should not have been raised at all in the first instance, but now I do suggest to hon. members that we will fritter away the whole question period if we continue with questions of privilege that are not questions of privilege. The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a second question I would like to direct to the Prime Minister.
Are discussions being held at the present time with the government of the province of Quebec on the matter of admitting a given class of immigrants of a given nationality and would these discussions also concern the advising of immigrants landing in Canada and of Canadian-born citizens who would wish to settle in the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any such meetings are held, certainly not at the prime ministers' level. We heard about this problem for the first time through the newspapers.
# * *



TRANSPORT


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I am one of
the few members of the Public Accounts Committee who do not have a question of privilege at this time. Instead, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Transport. I do so because this is safe driving week in Canada. Since no group of drivers is more prone to accidents than the group between the ages of 16 and 24 years, would the minister consider emulating the action of his counterpart, Mr. Volpe, of the United States Department of Transport, and encourage a study in which a group of young people would take part with the idea of promoting a motor vehicle safety campaign throughout the country?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if this is safe driving week you would never know it here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: However, I assure the hon. member that I will be very glad to take his suggestion into account. Mr. Volpe will be in Canada for meetings with me in early January, as will his and my counterpart from the United Kingdom, and we are working on something along the lines of an international campaign of the kind suggested by the hon. member.



EXPLANATION OF ADVERTISEMENT IN REGINA LEADER-POST

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he explain an advertisement placed by the Department of Transport in the Leader-Post of November 26, 1970, which calls for a tender for an NDP site in Regina?'


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes
Mr. Speaker-	'


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Well, I had a good answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the House would like to hear it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is a direction finder for the NDP because in Saskatchewan, as elsewhere, they have obviously lost their way completely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Yukon is rising on a question of privilege.
Mr; Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, 1 would not want the minister even unintentionally to mislead the House. The initials "NDB" stand for "nondirectional beacon."


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is what I meant.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could he tell the House whether, following the requests made by the Quebec Association of school boards, he intends to recommend to the government to consider non-taxable entertainment allowances paid to school boards trustees, which is what Quebec is doing now?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the minister is away today on government business, but I shall take the question asked by the hon. member as notice and draw it to his attention.

December 2, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker-


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


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, it is more a point of order.
I directed my question to the Minister of National Revenue. I can see that his body is here, but I wonder where his mind is. If he heard my question, I would like him to answer, if at all possible.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not hear the question the first time. I am taking the hon. member's question as notice and shall answer it tomorrow.
that members could express their views in the House on the drug question within two months, and before Canada commits herself at the Vienna conference thus perhaps jeopardizing the necessary but costly work of the Le Dain Commission?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that hon. members have had ample opportunity already to express their views on the Le Dain Commission report.


An hon. Member:: When?


John Carr Munro: You certainly have.


Mr. Rynard:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that we are not going to meet in the House to talk about it, so could the minister now tell us what reservations will be made at the Vienna conference?
tfc *	%



INDUSTRY


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister was interrupted yesterday-at least, his answer was-and you suggested that I might ask a supplementary today. In view of the very serious economic situation in Elliot Lake, can the Prime Minister advise what progress has been made in the negotiations between the government of Canada and the offic.als of Denison Mines to prevent the shutdown of this uranium mine?


An hon. Member:: Better get Mr. Pearson back.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to pursue yesterday's answer and indicate that the government has a continuing concern over the situation in Elliot Lake. I was telling the House that there have been active exchanges and consultations between the parties concerned, the latest being in November. The minister is presently leading a delegation to Japan on the problems of mining, and I believe the president of Denison Mines is part of that delegation. I think it is, therefore, safe to assume that uranium will be discussed. I know that when the minister returns he will resume negotiations, in mid-December and hopefully we will find a solution.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as far as the government's decision on the position to be taken at the Vienna conference with regard to reservations is concerned, this will be announced in due course, certainly before the House
recesses.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreviile):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the appeal of the directors of anti-addiction programs for nine provinces urging that the government should not sign the international drug treaty prior to the tabling of the final report of the Le Dain Commission, can the minister inform the House whether the government has responded to this appeal in an affirmative manner?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, all I can indicate at this time is that the government has taken note of these reservations and its decision as to policy on this question will be made known to the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wonder if the minister would undertake to make a statement on motions on the government's view of the relationship of the pending international commitment-the protocol on psychotropic substances-and the forthcoming Le Dain Commission report?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to consider that.
* *
*



AGRICULTURE


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the Le Dain Commission will cost the people of Canada at least $1,200,000, will the minister now tell the House how he will fulfil his pledge, given on October 21 this year,



FARM MACHINERY-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL REPORT OF BARBER COMMISSION

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In view of the continuing concern about the high prices of farm machinery, can the minister inform the House whether he has received the final report of the Barber Commission and, if not, when does he expect to receive it?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I have not received that report yet, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry to say that I cannot give a precise date for its receipt as Dr. Barber has not yet indicated this to me.
December 2, 1970



STEPS TO LIMIT IMPORTS OF AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND BEEF

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Further to the question I put to the Minister of Agriculture yesterday, Mr. Speaker, about the importation of beef, may I ask what limitation was agreed to between Canada and New Zealand in the negotiations to which he referred in his answer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it would take longer than you would allow to answer that question. However, it is a matter of public record that shipments were stopped from July 2 until some time in September, so that the stocks here or that were destined for Canada exceeding the amount consumed here could be cleared away.



INDUSTRY


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. What action is the government taking to roll back the 50 per cent increase in the cost of some important fuel oils used industrially in the Maritime provinces, such as Bunker C, in order to keep down the cost of production in that part of the country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, these price increases would be subject to review and examination by the Prices and Incomes Commission.


George Harris Hees: Boy, do they ever do a job! They certainly keep those prices down.


John Angus MacLean: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but could the minister state what benefit has accrued to the consumers of this oil and to the Maritime provinces from this procedure?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to state what benefits have accrued from policy. This is hardly a question that could be allowed at this time.


John Angus MacLean: Perhaps I could rephrase my question and address it to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Could the minister state what action his department is taking to keep the effectiveness of industrial expansion in the Maritimes from being negated by the exceptional increase in the cost of fuel which is also having an effect on the cost of electric power?
1Translation]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: If the hon. member will wait a couple of days, perhaps I will then be in a better position to answer his question.

Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS



PROTEST AGAINST SUSPENSION OF HOCKEY PLAYER-METHOD OF SIGNING

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received a telegram from western Manitoba signed by more than 500 people protesting the suspension of a young hockey player with the Brandon Wheat Kings by the MAHA and the CAHA against the wishes of his parents? If so, what action is the minister taking on the matter?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have received the telegram referred to by the hon. member and we are looking into this matter.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, as the player mentioned by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was signed to a player's card when only 15 years old, and without the consent of his parents, can the minister assure the House that the government will soon present legislation to end the CAHA slave market methods of signing our youth to player cards?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, for some time the government has been looking into its legislative competence in this part;cular area, and when that has been decided it will be announced in the House.
*
* *



AGRICULTURE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister investigate serious allegations of trafficking in industrial milk quotas, which the regulalions of his department apparently permit, and will he make a report to the House on motions in due course?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have a little more detailed information from the hon. member respecting this question. I would advise him that milk quotas are not negotiable as far as subsidy quotas are concerned and fluid milk quotas, of course, are the responsibility of the provinces.



SERVING OF NEW ZEALAND BUTTER BY AIR CANADA

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as it is obviously desirable that Canadians use Canadian dairy products as much as possible, would the minister, with his colleague the Minister of Transport, look into the situation on our national airline, Air Canada, which serves New Zealand butter with in-flight meals, and ask the airline to serve only good Canadian butter in future?
December 2, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



REFERENCE OF LAND USE REGULATIONS TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will he confirm to the House the commitment he gave to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the previous session to refer to that committee the draft regulations on land use for the Territories? If so, could he indicate to the House when he will be prepared to refer those draft regulations to that committee for its consideration?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot grant the request of the hon. member because the regulations involved have not yet been approved by the governor in council, but as soon as they will have been approved, I will try to determine whether that question can be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Pontiac who is vice-chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I direct it to him because of the absence of the chairman, the hon. member for Wellington. Was the fifth report of the committee to the House of Commons dated June 26, 1970, relating to the Auditor General's report in fact passed unanimously?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not admissible under the rules. Questions to chairmen of committees can only relate to forthcoming proceedings of those committees. For example, members can ask whether committees will sit or not sit. The question asked by the hon. member is not procedurally acceptable.
^	-i-



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the recommendation that the Canadian Wheat Board be placed under the Department of Agriculture, made by the grains committee study group that was established to review the task force report during the recent agricultural congress that has just been concluded in Ottawa, may I ask when the Prime Minister plans to implement this important recommendation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any of these reports so far. When I receive them, I will study them.
[Mr. Hees.l



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions asked by my leader and other hon. members. I will therefore omit the preamble and ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the following: Will the minister not employ some effective method of surveillance and supervision to maintain reasonable and legitimate retail food prices and profits that will be conducive to the welfare of the consumer and to the survival of the small, independent merchants in our rural communities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is in the form of a substantive motion. I suggest that he has made a submission to the minister and he must assume that it will be considered.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, could I not obtain an answer, either negative or affirmative, from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has to assume that the answer to this kind of logical and interesting question would be yes.



FINANCE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question is related to the decision of the government that, for constitutional reasons, it cannot involve itself in the sale of Ryerson Press to McGraw-Hill. It involves a field in which no such prohibition exists. Would the minister immediately take steps to end the preferential tax concessions available to Time and Reader's Digest?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this matter was dealt with by Parliament. Legislation was passed. If the government were going to make changes it would, of course, propose them in the normal manner.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I assume from that answer that the minister is going to continue maintaining Time and Reader's Digest as friends of his party.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Since the Quebec premier stated yesterday that his government intends to repatriate the social security programs, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether consultations are now under way in this connection between Ottawa and Quebec?
December 2, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the government's position is indicated in a white paper introduced almost one year ago at a federal-provincial conference.
I am convinced the opposition will approve our position as soon as they have the opportunity to read that white paper.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is it the intention of the government to delay the implementation of the recommendations in the white paper on income security until more thorough discussions can take place between the federal government and the Quebec government in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that depends on the part of the white paper that is concerned. Most recommendations will be implemented only in a few months, after the introduction of bills that will be discussed in this House. If the members of the hon. member's party wish to delay the payment of the supplement to be paid to older people, they have but one thing to do-vote against the proposed measures.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of Information Canada. It is with respect to the digest of responses to government announcements about which I asked him a question on November 10. Can the minister say when the first report will be ready? Will he also assure the House that all responses on the matter of the Auditor General, both favourable, if there are any, and unfavourable, will be made available to Parliament?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about the digest which the hon. member has invented.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister not know that in his department they are making a big play about this so-called digest?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I know that we are not, Mr. Speaker.



COMBINES


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister tell the House what consideration, if any, has been given to the methods whereby the restrictive practices of professional bodies, such as the dental, legal and medical societies, can be
Inquiries of the Ministry
curtailed so that the opportunity to receive professional services at reasonable cost will be available to all Canadians no matter where they may live?


An hon. Member:: That applies especially to lawyers.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada, in its report on competition policy, recommended that services, including those of professional groups, be included within the Combines Investigation Act. The recommendations of the Economic Council are in front of the government in preparing revisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
* *



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of growing public concern after many airline catastrophes, can the minister assure the House that all airports in Canada serving scheduled airlines have the glide slope electronic system, or its equivalent, for blind landings in bad weather?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is the kind of question which requires a written answer. I can assure the hon. member I have been told that by world standards our system is certainly as good as or better than most. If the hon. member would like me to furnish a written answer about the specifics of what is available, I will be glad to provide that for him.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Please do.



FINANCE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement by the Royal Bank yesterday of a 10.1 per cent increase in its profits, would the minister make a statement on motions with regard to the profits of the banks and deal especially with the increase in profits of the Royal Bank, which was 10.1 per cent, that of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, which was 15.7 per cent_


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not give information. He has asked his question.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the banks publicly indicate what their own profits are and it is not necessary for me to indicate on motions what they are. My hon. friend obviously knows what the profits are.

December 2, 1970
Old Age Security Act




Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister inform the House whether he will exert due pressure on the Bank of Canada to obtain low interest loans with a view to financing public works since this measure could alleviate unemployment next winter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to this question, I think that the monetary policy followed by the Bank of Canada over the last number of months has indeed had the effect of lowering interest rates in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carr 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 Affairs.
e (3:40 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, The bill before us today is the first of several measures prom'sed in the white paper on income security which I tabled in this House on Monday. As the white paper indicated, this legislation has to be introduced immediately to meet the various deadlines entailed in our proposal.
In the white paper, we served notice that we were going to put much less emphasis in future on the demo-grant approach, which pays universal flat-rate benefits to everybody who meets certain age and residence requirements. We also ind cated that we would be putting much greater emphasis on the guaranteed income approach to alleviating poverty in this country. Although we cannot at this time contemplate a guaranteed income program for all Canadians, in every age group, we can use the guaranteed income approach very effectively for certain groups in the population, especially those who are no longer in the labour force.
Four years ago this month, in December 1966, the guaranteed income supplement program for old age security recipients was approved by the members of this House. In January 1967, people who were 68 or older, and who had no other source of income, became eligible for a 40 per cent supplement to their old age security pension, that is, an extra $30 a month. In the three succeeding

years, the amount of this supplement rose slightly as the cost of living rose, and the whole benefit, old age security and guaranteed income supplement combined, became payable at earlier ages. Since January of this year, people who were 65 or older could receive as much as $111.41, consisting of $79.58 in old age security pension and $31.83 in guaranteed income supplement.
This guaranteed income supplement program has proven very effective; 818,000 people, or almost half all old age security recipients, were drawing some supplement as of last June. By October this figure had reached 821,000. These people submit application forms each January stating what their family income has been in the previous calendar year. In this way we can be sure that the benefits are being paid to those who need them most, the aged people who have little or no other source of income. This program cost $263 million in 1969-70, and during the current fiscal year it is expected to cost $285 million.
There are two major features of this program which have made it so effective. One is the income test I have just mentioned. This is an impersonal test that does not involve any private investigation of one's living habits or spending habits. It is no more degrading than the income test that all taxpayers must undergo when they file their income tax returns. The second is the built-in incentive feature. The supplement is not cut back by a dollar for every dollar a person has from other sources. It is cut back by $1 a month for each full $2 a month one has from other sources. This leaves an incentive for older people who can augment their pensions by do ng some work to do so. It leaves an incentive for younger people contemplating the'r retirement to save toward that day. At present a single person could have up to $768 in other income, or $1,722 includ ng his old age security pension, before he would be ineligible for any supplement. A married couple could have up to $1,536 in other income, or $3,444 including their old age security pensions, before they would be ineligible for any supplement.
We believe this program has proven successful in dealing with the problems of the aged poor, although we concede that the amount of benefit is no longer adequate. We have, therefore, decided to extend the program to cover people who will reach age 65 after 1975. At present the supplement is only available to pensioners born on or before December 31, 1910. This bill will remove that restriction.
There will be a small number of persons born after 1910 who will be unable to benefit from the Canada Pension Plan, including those already disabled or widowed. There will also be a certain number of persons who will get a Canada Pension Plan retirement pension, but because of long periods of unemployment, underemployment or because of a lifetime spent at or near the minimum wage, that retirement pension will be very small. As the law now stands, a man who was disabled in 1965 or earlier, a woman widowed in 1967 or earlier, and a person with a very small retirement pension will, if they have little or no income, be eligible for a guaranteed income supplement if they reach age 65 before the end of 1975, but not if they reach 65 after January 1, 1976.
December 2, 1970

Although relatively few in number, each person denied the protection of the guaranteed income supplement would justifiably feel discriminated against. Therefore, the bill proposes to eliminate this source of discrimination.
The major feature of the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, is the increase that is proposed in the amount of the supplement. The current legislation sets the supplement at 40 per cent of the old age security pension. With the old age security pension at $80 a month next year, this would mean the supplement would be $32. Instead, we are proposing to remove this proportionate relationship, and to raise the supplement to $55 a month for single people and to $95 a month for a married couple if both are pensioners. Together with an $80 old age security payment this will mean a total monthly benefit of $135 if single or $255 for a couple if both qualify.
In 1967, the combined benefits were $105 if single and $210 for couples. At the rate prices have been increasing since then, the corresponding values for these amounts in January 1971 would be $122 and $245. Our proposed rates of $135 and $255 more than restore what their pensions would have been had there been no limiting of escalation.
Married couples who are both pensioners will be assured incomes of $3,060 a year. They can draw a partial supplement if their combined income is less than $2,304 excluding old age security, or less than $4,224 including their old age security pensions. A person married to a non-pensioner could draw a partial supplement as long as his income is under $3,600 excluding old age security, or $4,560 including old age security. Your Honour will agree, I am sure, that these amounts will be very helpful to a great many low-income aged persons across Canada.
Your Honour will have noted that the rate proposed for a single pensioner is more than half that proposed for a couple. This represents a first step in adjusting the level of benefits to reflect the fact that single pensioners face a higher cost of living per person than do married couples. Data were provided on page 40 of the wh te paper showing that single aged persons are on the whole poorer than aged couples. For example, 37 per cent of single pensioners have no other source of income, as compared with 19 per cent of married couples over 65. Up until now, the old age security and guaranteed income supplement program paid a single person half the rate for a married couple. However, most of the provincial assistance plans long ago recognized the need for a differential, and pay one person from 60 to 66 per cent of the rate for a couple. Studies of family budgets have shown that an aged person needs about two-thirds of the amount required by an elderly couple to get along. The proposal in this bill will raise the minimum income of a single person to 53 per cent of that for a couple. If only the amount of the supplement is considered, the single rate is 58 per cent of the rate for a couple. This we regard as a first step in improving this relationship; we hope that further adjustments can be made the next time the rates are improved.
Old Age Security Act
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
After the first year of operation at these new rates, the supplement will be raised in April 1972 by the 2 per cent escalation which will be reflected in the pension index for that year. This automatic escalation feature is to be retained for the GIS program, and will be applied to the total combined amount of old age security plus GIS, that is $135 and $255. Thus, in April, 1972, a 2 per cent increase would mean that the single rate would rise to $137.70 and the married couple's rate to $260.10. In other words, the amount of the supplement would be raised to $57.70 for single persons and to $100.10 for couples. On the basis of price increases in 1970, it was felt that the 2 per cent ceil ng could justifiably be retained, since price increases this year have remained with n that limit. The increase in benefits we are proposing will take care of the past abnormal increases in prices, and the automatic escalation of not more than 2 per cent should take care of any price increases that may be expected in future.
Another change contained in the bill before us is the proposal to switch from a calendar to a ficcal year basis for the payment of benefits. Applicants will still be asked in January of each year to report their income from the preceding calendar year. Then, during the period January to March, the administration will be processing and verifying applications as they do now. But, instead of making retroactive adjustments in the supplements for the first three months, they will start paying the new rate in April; this rate will carry through to the following March. To cover the period January to March, 1971, before the new rate of benefit comes into effect, pensioners who qualify will receive during these months the same amount as they would have been entitled to had no changes been made in the legislation at all. Single pensioners will get up to $33.61 and married pensioners will receive up to $67.22 a month.
Other changes in the legislation have also been proposed to make it more equitable. Married couples who have been living apart for more than a year can be treated as single in cases where one spouse cannot be found or refuses to co-operate by providing required information. In cases where one spouse is in a hospital or nursing home, and the other has to live alone with the same costs as a single person, that spouse can be treated as though he were single.
At the present time, spouses who do not draw pensions have to declare their income for the previous year and are not given the option of substituting their current year's earnings if they have retired. This option is granted to those who are pensioners. The Act thus discriminates between pensioners whose spouses are over 65 and those who are under 65. The bill proposes to remove this discrimination by allowing spouses under 65 to declare they have retired and to substitute current earnings for previous earnings.
Another change proposed will allow people to exercise the option to retire more than once. Experience has shown that older people do take up new work after retirement, and suffer hardship in the year they retire

December 2, 1970
Old Age Security Act
from their second employment if they have already declared their previous retirement when applying for the supplement in the past. The bill before us proposes to allow them to declare their retirement on more than one occasion.
Two changes are proposed for the basic OAS pension. There will be a longer residence period required of those who do not reside in Canada between the ages of 55 and 64. For each year in the period during which they were absent, they will have to substitute three years after age 18 instead of two years after birth. Thus, a person would be required to have resided in Canada from age 18 to age 45 if he were to be absent from age 55 to his 64th birthday, to qualify for OAS at age 65.
The other change is the proposal to remove the automatic escalation from the basic OAS pension. It will be set at $80 until changed by some future parliamentary action. This decision was made in order to concentrate the financial resources available for income support for the aged on payments to those most in need of help. In 1971, this new policy will release $15 million for use in financing the increased supplement; in 1975 an extra $100 million will be released for this purpose. In the first fiscal year, 1971-72, our proposals are expected to cost an additional $194 million; without the $15 million savings, they would have cost $209 million.
There are those who argue that the OAS pension itself should have been increased. To raise it by $10 a month to $90 in 1971, would have cost an extra $206 million. We considered it a far better use of resources to concentrate this sum on improving the supplement for low-income aged pensioners. We have, therefore, suggested raising the supplement for single pensioners by $22 and for married couples by $29 a month at a net cost of $194 million. By so doing we have been able to ensure that all persons over the age of 65 will have incomes of at least $1,600 if single, or $3,000 if married pensioners. It is estimated that about 970,000 pensioners will be drawing the supplement, including about 470,000 who will get the full supplement. This seems a far more appropriate way to spend the money available than to raise all old age security pensions by another $1.17 a month. That is what is involved in removing the automatic escalation feature.
The substantial increases recommended for aged pensioners receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the other changes proposed in the legislation are proposed as a result of the experience we have gained concerning various inequities and anomalies in the administration of the Act, as well as from observations made by hon. members in cases where particular rules have led to injustice. This bill, with the changes I outlined in the latter part of my remarks, will, we hope, to a considerable extent correct those inequities and anomalies.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments on this bill at the second reading stage. Others of my associates will emphasize various points, but there are a number of
[Mr. Munro.l
features in this bill on which I wish to comment this afternoon. As the minister has told us, the bill provides for a flat rate old age security pension which is frozen at $80 a month. Single persons over 65 are assured of a minimum income of $1,600 a year, and married couples $3,060 per year.
The first question that comes to my mind having read the white paper is, why the delay? We received the impression that there was some massive comprehensive overhaul of the whole approach to welfare that made it impossible for the government to take action in the area of old age security. But when one reads the white paper, one sees that no such comprehensive overhaul is involved. It is, therefore, impossible to understand why the government could not have proceeded to amend the legislation relating to old age security so as to provide something approaching justice for the older people of this country who are living below the poverty line.
Surely, the delay is not justified on the ground that such a move would be inflationary. The minister would not pretend for a moment, I am sure, that taking this action would have been inflationary. Certainly, it is not part of any general approach to welfare which could not have been proceeded with by itself. It seems to me that the delay that has taken place is inexcusable, and it has been very unfair to the older people of this country. Surely, we are not so hard up in this country or so callous as to sit back for a number of years and allow the older people who are in need to fall into a more and more difficult position each year. This has been happening, in part, because of the 2 per cent limit of escalation that the government has insisted on maintaining. So, the first question that does occur to one is how the government justifies the delay, one which must weigh very heavily upon the conscience of the minister and the members of the government.
The new maximum figure for the single aged is $1,600 a year. The second question I ask myself is, why this particular figure? It is still below the poverty line. The figure for a married couple is slightly over $3,000, which is not far off the poverty line indicated by the Economic Council of Canada. I was disappointed that the minister did not give some lucid and convincing explanation as to why the figure $1,600 was chosen as the upper limit for single aged people. I think the House deserves an explanation, either from the minister or from someone on that side of the House, as to why that figure was chosen rather than a figure more in line with what is generally considered to be appropriate, particularly in view of the long period of delay and hardship to which the government has exposed these people.
In considering this level of aid, one must bear in mind that it is taxable, and one must relate it to the white paper on taxation. There is no reason to believe that single aged people or the married aged people are going to be altogether exempt from taxation. The exemption figures proposed in the white paper do not relate by any means to the figures contained in this bill or in the white paper on welfare.
December 2, 1970

Another matter we have to bear in mind when considering the adequacy of the $1,600 figure is the 2 per cent limit on escalation of the cost of living. I could hardly believe the minister was talking seriously this afternoon when he justified this 2 per cent maximum on the basis that the cost of living was not expected to go up more than that this year. He must have stayed up a long time last night figuring out that particular explanation.
What possible justification is that for the 2 per cent escalation limit? If the cost of living is not going beyond 2 per cent, then why impose a limit of 2 per cent? On the other hand, if it may go beyond 2 per cent this year or next year, why the limit of 2 per cent, particularly in view of the fact that this 2 per cent escalation limit has caused much of the injustice suffered by the older people in recent years. So, I contend the minister has given no reason for deciding on the $1,600 figure, and certainly has shown no justification for retaining the 2 per cent escalation limit to keep pace with the cost of living.
As to the $80 frozen rate for old age security, apart from the guaranteed income supplement, the escalation feature is now being dropped. I ask the minister why he has taken this step. The reason it is to be frozen is not obvious; neither is the reason for the basic old age security pension not moving upwards as the cost of living moves upwards. These people have contributed to the old age security fund, which I think shows a surplus of some $700 million. I suggest the minister will have to explain to the House and to the people of this country in greater detail than he has up till now why this action is being taken before he will convince us that the basic old age security pension ought to be frozen at $80 a month, and that any future escalation to keep pace with the cost of living ought to be eliminated.
As I say, the escalation has been held to 2 per cent. My view is that it should move upwards in line with the cost of living, especially when one considers the extent of the contributory nature of this plan and the surplus that has been built up in the fund by the contributions of those who are now drawing on the fund. This is particularly important when one considers the fact that, even with the addition of the guaranteed income supplement, these pensions are still below the poverty line.
I am not saying that the present proposals are approaching justice, but they are certainly a vast improvement over what has been the situation. Neither the government nor the minister has given the House any explanation ai all to justify holding the older people of this country to the limits of the aid they have received for so long. But their hearts somehow having been warmed from some source, perhaps the minister himself, and having decided to move suddenly, why did the government postpone the effective date until April 1, 1971. Why are the older people in this country faced with the difficulty of having to work their way through this winter on these old rates? This course cannot be justified. The delay in the past cannot be justified and the delay in not implementing these increases until April 1, 1971 cannot be justified. The minister, I believe, had the honesty not to try to justify it.
Old Age Security Act
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John Carr Munro: Administratively.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Administratively, it can be done. There is no reason why it cannot be done, but the government is not prepared to move.
There is another feature which has not been corrected in respect of which I believe something might be done. This is in connection with the administrative arrangements. A lot of our older people are hurt badly when, perhaps through administrative error, their is an overpayment. When this happens, I believe the administration should bear more responsibility than it has to date because such an error can work great hardship against the older people. I also think consideration should be given to some plan whereby the pensioner can resort to other than the governor in council or to someone within the government service. I realize this may involve difficulties, but I do not think the regulations in respect of this whole procedure for appeals should be too costly within bureaucracy itself. I believe this is something the minister ought to consider, but I shall not dwell on this matter at this stage since we are talking about the principle of the bill.
I want to emphasize that the delay until April 1, 1971 is inexcusable just as the delay to date has been inexcusable. The use of the figure $1,600 for single people certainly has not been justified yet. This must be justified. I concede that it represents a substantial improvement over what we have had, but I am sure the minister would concede that this $1,600 does not take a single aged person up to what is now considered to be a minimum figure in respect of living in this country as worked out by bodies such as the Economic Council of Canada. The 2 per cent limit on the escalation in connection with the cost of living has not been justified, and I do not believe it can be justified. The freeze on the basic old age security rate at $80, without provision for any future escalation because of an increase in the cost of living, has not been justified. I believe it is very difficult to justify, particularly in view of the contributions made to the old age security fund and the very substantial surplus which now exists in that fund.
I want to say quite frankly that I approve of the general approach of helping those who are in need. I think, however, when some of those who have contributed to the $80 a month have their pensions frozen at that level and are prevented from receiving any compensation in the future as a result of increases in the cost of living, this is not fair. I approve of the use of the guaranteed income supplement approach but I believe it is inadequate, especially in connection with the single aged people. I had hoped that when the legislation came in, we would get rid of the 2 per cent upper limit of adjustment in connection with the cost of living which has caused so much grief. I hope the government or the minister will see fit to take out this provision because in my view it cannot be justified and will lead to a great deal of hardship in the future.

December 2, 1970
Old Age Security Act
While I compliment the minister for the improvements which are being effected, because I agree they are substantial, I suggest the bill is very inadequate in the senses I have indicated. I hope the minister really agrees with me in this regard and that with our help, if he does agree that the points I have made are valid, we can have this bill further improved as it goes through the House and can remove the very substantial five or six injustices I have emphasized this afternoon and which the House should not adopt.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. I realize that on Monday, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) tabled his white paper on income security for Canadians, I stood in my place and said there were a number of items in it that were good and that I welcomed. I did so because when one is aware that people are in distress any alleviation of that distress is to be welcomed. However, now that I have had an opportunity to study this actual bill, I believe the first thing to be said about it is that instead of its being an act respecting old age security it is an act for the re-distribution of old age poverty. In his remarks just now, the minister sa:d that it would cost a certain number of dollars to put these proposals into effect. He did not, however, say that there would be any increase in taxes to cover that cost. Indeed, in the white paper it is declared that there is enough in the old age security fund, or that there will be enough in the old age security fund from the taxes now being paid, to take care of the changes being made by this bill for the next few years. In other words, we are not talking about a re-distribution of wealth as between the working part of our population and the retired people. We are simply stirring it around a bit among the older people themselves. We are calling upon some of the older people to do with less so that some other older people may have a bit more. That is not old age security; that is the redistribution of old age poverty.
I noticed that the minister hesitated to rise and move second reading because he had heard me say yesterday and the day before that there was a point of order I wanted to raise in respect of this bill. The reason I did not do so was that once I had seen the bill, and made a general study of the points of procedure on which I had done some research, I came to the conclusion that my points related to equity and legality, so were not exactly procedural points but rather were arguments against the bill itself. Therefore, rather than raise a point of order, I decided I would endeavour to meet the bill head on. In a few minutes I shall be indicating the reasons I thought the bill was out of order and the reasons I believe no government should be asking Parliament to pass this bill for there is at least one utterly offensive feature in it.
Before I begin my criticism of the bill I believe it is only fair that one who has criticisms should state what he thinks ought to be before us at this time. I differ from the Leader of the Opposition in this respect. I think that instead of building on this old age security guaranteed income supplement combination we should go back to the principles that were established in the Old Age Security

Act that came into effect in 1952. There should be before us a bill increasing the basic pension to $150 a month payable to all our people over 65 without any means or income test and subject to escalation to the full extent of the rise in the cost of living.
& (4:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the government thinks that that is beyond its capacity to plan and bring in, and if the government wants a second choice, I will offer it. I do so reluctantly because my first choice is what the Canadian people would like. My second choice would be for the government to bring in a bill raising the basic old age pension to $100 a month and granting a supplement of $50 so that those who are in need will at least get the $150 a month which surely is a minimum figure. I urge that nothing less than one or the other of these two proposals is what should be before us at the present time.
I have characterized this bill as a bad one, and 1 implied in the remarks I made on Monday and Tuesday that in my view it should not have been admitted. My reasons for that revolve around the fact that Parliament made a contract with the Canadian people. The word "contract" is not mine alone. It appears on page 24 of the minister's white paper and again in substance on page 42. Mind you, he uses it in a different context. He uses it in buttressing his arguments as to why all the present schemes cannot be replaced by a guaranteed annual income. He says that the old age security program cannot be eliminated because Parliament made a social contract with the Canadian people. The Canadian people have been paying into the old age security fund and they have a right to draw the pensions provided in the Old Age Security Act. That was the point of order that I felt could be raised.
I point out that in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 382, there is a reference to the fact that Parliament on occasion has refused to proceed with a bill that contravened policies laid down by Parliament in previous acts. We have laid it down as a policy that the people of Canada are required by taxation to pay money into the old age security fund, and we have undertaken in the Old Age Security Act that the Canadian people, having paid into that fund, are entitled to the pensions and the benefits set out in that act. That was stated clearly to us by Mr. Pearson when he was prime minister, and by Mr. St. Laurent before him. It was stated clearly to us by Miss LaMarsh when she was piloting certain amendments to this legislation, and I suspect my friend, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr.Monteith) drew attention to this when he was minister of national health and welfare.
More recently, on March 15, 1965, when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), in his capacity of minister of national revenue, was dealing with the Canada Pension Plan and wanted to argue against some of the things that we were advancing, he went out of his
December 2, 1970

way to point out that parliament had guaranteed to the people of Canada the benefits provided in the Old Age Security Act. I also draw attention to the remarks made by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), when he was minister of finance, on December 19, 1966, in the course of a minibudget that he was presenting on that occasion. He devoted a section of that budget speech to the Old Age Security Act, both the fund and the payments. He read to us a portion of the Old Age Security Act which provides that the minister of finance must annually report to Parliament on the state of the old age security fund.
The Old Age Security Act provides very clearly that if there is not enough money in the fund to pay the benefits required by the act, the minister of finance shall report to Parliament on how he thinks the deficit should be made up. There is no suggestion in that act that Parliament or the government has any right to do the other thing, that is to cut off any of the benefits because there is a shortage of funds. The benefits are part of a social contract. They have been guaranteed by statements of ministers, and by the act itself, to the people of this country. I submit that to cut off any of these benefits is to break a contract, and the government is doing this in a kind of bill that should not be before Parliament.
As I said, the minister in his white paper refers to this social contract on page 24. He refers to the fact that it is a social contract, that people have built their retirement plans on the basis of this program, and therefore it would be quite unfair and quite unthinkable to take it away from them. Then, on page 42 where he is discussing again the question of the flat rate benefits, he says that many people have planned their retirement on the expectation that they will receive old age security at the age of 65. To deny them this benefit would be extremely unfair and a breach of faith.


John Carr Munro: Where is the word "contract" mentioned?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On page 24, there is reference to the fact that it is a social contract.


John Carr Munro: But where is it on page 42?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On page 24.


John Carr Munro: You said it was in both places.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On page 24 there is the statement that this program has almost the nature of a separate social contract between the state and its citizens. On page 42 the minister used different language. He said that to deny them this benefit would be extremely unfair and a breach of faith.


John Carr Munro: Yes, to remove the entire thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for his interjection. It is a breaking of the
Old Age Security Act
contract, a breach of faith, to remove the entire thing. I say that to remove anything that has been guaranteed to the people under this act is a breach of contract and a breach of faith. One of the things that has been built into this act is the guarantee of an escalation, if the cost of living goes up, by at least 2 per cent per year. For the last three or four years people have built their retirement plans on that fact just as much as anything else, and taking away that 2 per cent is just as much a breach of contract as if the pension were reduced to $70 or to $50 or wiped out altogether. It is that fact which makes it seem to me that this is the kind of legislation that should not be brought before Parliament by a government that believes in the rule of law, that believes in social contracts, and that believes in keeping any kind of faith.
I decided not to raise these arguments as a point of procedure but rather as arguments in the debate, which I suspect the Speaker would have told me they were. In addition to these arguments, I want to point out what the government has done in social terms in the matter of escalating because of the rise in the cost of living. This government-the Liberals, and I have lots of things to say about them-


Mr. Mackasey:: They are not all bad.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute, let me continue. The Liberals have it to their credit-just a minute, my dear friend in the red shirt-that they were the first federal government in Canada to introduce the principle of escalating pensions. They attached this principle to the old age security pension as well as to the Canada Pension Plan. Then, they put it in the Devco pension plan and in a few other such plans. We have argued for many years that this was a good beginning and that we should go on and do it in other plans. And so we did last March. We accepted this principle and applied it to the pensions of retired civil servants, of retired RCMP personnel, of retired armed forces personnel, and of retired Members of Parliament.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
What kind of people are we? We pushed ahead with this idea of escalating pensions as the cost of living goes up until we got ourselves covered by it. Now, we are going to go back and take it away from those on the basic old age pension. The minister may want to interject that there is a special half of one per cent that we pay into a fund for this purpose. But every citizen of Canada who pays taxes at all pays 4 per cent into the old age security fund, and is paying 3 per cent in sales tax. He pays indirectly, as well, corporation taxes, and part of that contract, part of what people pay for when they pay those taxes, is that they should get what Parliament has said they should get. Therefore, I submit that this is not only a breach of contract but that we are destroying something that is good, something that this government started.
What is going to happen as a result? I made a brief reference to it on Monday. Instead of moving to the day

December 2, 1970
Old Age Security Act
when almost everybody in retirement could anticipate that his income would go up by at least a couple of per cent, we will have our retired people in several different categories.
The first group I want to talk about are the people on the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Their pensions will not be very high but they will be the fortunate ones in that they will get a 2 per cent increase every year if the cost of living goes up by that much. Their total income will escalate.
Then, there will be people like retired civil servants who get the old age security pension and their civil service pension. Their civil service pension will escalate every January, but their old age security pension will not escaiate if they are getting only the basic pension.
Then, there will be people on private pensions from outside employers, the CPR and so on. Their total pension will be the old age security and the basic amount of their other pension, and they will be out in the cold completely. There will be no increase for them because of the cost of living increase. I should admit that there is a slight modification to that. Those who have any portion of their retirement pension from the Canada Pension Plan will get an increase with respect to that portion. But what a patchwork we are building up when what we should be doing, after the progress we made last March and based on what we have done in previous years, is moving toward the concept of all pensions in retirement going up at least 2 per cent as the cost of living goes up. But instead we are retreating from that, and taking it away from the 800,000 of our people on the basic old age pension by itself.
If I were a Liberal-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You are pretty close. There is hope for you yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hope you applaud my restraint.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be terribly ashamed that my party had come in with this good principle and now was about to destroy it.
It is in the same category as universality. You know, we claim the credit for that, and rightly so, for we kept prodding the government to remove the means test from the old age pension. We are proud we did that until we won. But when the bill to do so was brought in, it was a Liberal government that brought it in, and the Liberals around the country boasted of the fact it was their party that recognized the principle that people in retirement should have their pensions not on the basis of a means or income test but as a matter of right.
These two good principles which, whoever may have done the prodding to begin with, were put into law on the basis of bills brought in by Liberals-universality of payment and escalation because of the cost of living
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).)
increase-are now being abandoned and destroyed by the government. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, despite my slightly generous remarks on Monday, that this bill is a bad bill. It ought not to be before Parliament. I do not raise a point of order against it, because it is more than a procedural issue, but I do suggest that the members of this House should meet it head on in debate. They should insist not that the Liberals adopt something the opposition is asking for but that the Liberals get back to the principles they followed when they brought in the Old Age Security act back in 1951-the best piece of social legislation that was ever brought into this House of Commons.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare today, and also the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he has talked about this matter, tell us it is a case of taking away from the rich, or not giving it to the rich so that we can give it to the poor, to those who are needy. That is a very nice and high-sounding phrase, take it away from the rich to give it to the poor. If that were what we were doing, particularly if it were an over-all proposition and we were saying to the rich in our society of whatever age, "You should have less so that the retired people could have more"-we would have to applaud. But all this bill is doing, even at the risk of repeating my phrase, is redistributing old age poverty; that is what it is doing. It is taking away from some retired people and giving it to others who are also retired.
If even the latter phrase fitted, if description used by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister were correct, one might have to listen to it. But who are these rich who are being asked to do with less? Who are these rich who are being asked to settle for an increase of 42 cents and to have their pensions frozen at $80? Who are these rich who are no longer to get an increase in their pension on the basis of the rising cost of living? Well, to begin with, any single person over 65 years of age who has other income of over $110 a month will not qualify for the supplement, will therefore qualify only for the basic pension, and will not qualify for the escalation. Do you call a 65 year old single person with $110 of other income apart from his pension, rich? I don't think you can. No one can, not even the Prime Minster.
Let us look at the statistics, and I thank the minister not only for having given them to me in answers to questions put on the Order Paper but for having them included in this white paper. Mind you, if I read the document correctly he was giving these figures to show us there is not enough income amongst the older people to tax back to make a significant difference. The tables given us on pages 40 and 41, when you break them down, show that our people over 65 years divided into three main categories. There are 1,700,000 of these people. I take it that under the new provisions about 60 per cent will qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. At present that figure is about 48 per cent, but about 60 per cent will qualify under the new ceilings. That leaves 40 per cent. That 40 per cent falls into two groups, one of 30 per cent and one of 10 per cent. I am talking about 30 per cent of the whole 1,700,000 of our people who are
December 2, 1970

over 65. The 30 per cent I am talking about have incomes between the cut-off figure of about $110 a month and a figure of about $3,500 or $4,000 a year single, or twice that married.
Let me drive that home as strongly as I can, and I am avoiding a lot of detailed figures I have worked out because I want to make the point. That 30 per cent of
1,700,000	people represents over 500,000 Canadians, 510,000 to be precise. There are over 500,000 Canadians, 65 years of age and over, who are just over the $110 a month or the corresponding figure married, but their total incomes run from that up to $3,500 or a bit over $4,000 single, or twice that married.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John Carr Munro: Let's talk about the new rates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are talking about the new rates. I am using the minister's-


John Carr Munro: You are using the old rates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, no. Just a minute. Mr. Speaker, I have been dealing with this matter as long as the minister and he will readily admit that. I am saying that under the new rates $110 a month other income is the point at which you do not get any GIS, and the minister now nods his head. He realizes I know what I am talking about. I am saying that there are over 500,000 people in that area, from a point just over the figure where they do not get any GIS to around $3,500 or $4,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, these are the rich. These are the people who the minister and the Prime Minister say must do with less so that we can help the poor.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it is shameful. Somebody over there snorts or something-


An hon. Member:: It is a Liberal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a clear demonstration of what I want to call this act, there it is. It is an act for the re-distribution of old age poverty. We are asking these people, these retired Canadians, and incidentally Canadians who had a social contract and believed they could count on their pension increasing by at least 2 per cent per year as long as they lived, to settle for $80 a month for all time or until some government calls upon Parliament to take action again. In January they are going to get $80 instead of the $81.17 they would receive if this act did not go through, and $80 it will be for years to come.
Apparently the people in this category are the rich. I confess that I get annoyed by the minister and the Prime Minister saying that we are not going to give it to the rich any more. There they are, those 500,000 people. They
Old Age Security Act
are starting to write to me about it and, indeed, it begins to look as though I may hear from all 500,000 of them. I shall need some help to answer them. But the kind of help we want, Mr. Speaker, is at least to leave them with that 2 per cent increase we have been giving up to this point.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those are the rich, the people we are taking it from. A lot of them are far below the $3,500 or $4,000 level, some are at the $2,000 level or even less.


John Carr Munro: May I ask the hon. member a question? Are you saying-


An hon. Member:: As long as it is not counted in his time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. If the minister wishes to ask a question he should stand and address the Chair.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member if he is suggesting that 500,000 pensioners will receive the flat rate of $80 a month and not get GIS and that they are all on this narrow band above $110?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am.


John Carr Munro: The whole 500,000?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am taking the figures the minister gives on pages 40 and 41, and I am trying to get some merging of single and married. Sixty per cent of the single are below $500 a year and 60 per cent of the married are below $3,300 a year. I have done some meshing of these figures and if I may go back to my point, of a total of 100 per cent I say 60 per cent have incomes so low that they will qualify for GIS. Perhaps there are 10 per cent at the top who are not in need. In between that top 10 per cent and the bottom 60 per cent there is 30 per cent. Thirty per cent of 1,700,000 is 510,000. That is my arithmetic. These are the rich for whom the minister and the Prime Minister want to do nothing, from whom what they have must be taken away. They are not rich, they are in need, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are taking from the rich to give to the poor. And what are we doing for the poor? If asking these 500,000 people to surrender some of their alleged affluence amounted to something substantial being done for the needy, maybe I would say it is up to them to do it. What does this bill provide? We are going to increase the maximum benefit for single people from $114.41 per month to $135 a month, which is $23.59. How many potatoes will that buy? We are going to increase the married total from $222.82 to $255, that is $32.18 or $16.09 each for man and wife. It may have sounded good in the headlines, and a lot of people may have thought that the millenium had come, but by the

December 2, 1970
Old Age Security Act
time they get their cheques in April they will be saying, "Some millenium".


John Gilbert: Forty-two cents worth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I cannot press too strongly upon the minister the disappointment I feel over this legislation, coming as it does from a Liberal party which was the first to bring in the principle of universality of payment and the principle of escalating pensions. What we should have before us instead of this bad bill is a liberal bill, one that would go back to the principle of 1951 and provide an increase in the old age security pension to $150 a month payable to all without any means or income test. I say again, reluctantly but realistically, that if the government is not prepared to go that far, at least it should bring in $100 a month as the basic pension and $50 a month as the guaranteed income supplement, making a total of $150.
Mr. Speaker, may I take the few minutes I have left to comment on some of the details in the bill to which the minister has referred. Some of them are welcome and important but some are not outstanding. I do not quite know why the change is being made whereby a person who does not have the necessary last ten years of residence before age 65 is required to substitute previous years to the extent of three times the shortage since age 18 rather than twice the shortage since birth. It seems to me that the restrictions on the pension are tight enough already without making them tighter. However, I have to admit that offhand I do not know of any cases that will be adversely affected by this, though I am sure there will be some. Any tightening of the regulations has that result.
I note the removal of the year 1910 for the act, so that this guaranteed income supplement becomes not a temporary thing geared to the Canada Pension Plan as it was when it was introduced in 1966, but a permanent piece of legislation. I suppose if we are going to operate this way, then that date should be removed but what I do not like about it is that it adds to the permanence of this two level arrangement, universal security on the one hand and the means test supplement on the other. I welcome the fact that some anomalies have been corrected, particularly cases where people have had their income reduced during a year for reasons other than retirement-such as a widow losing a pension. In fact, such people have sometimes had to wait two years before getting an adjustment. As I read the bill that will be corrected, though I am not sure it will be completely corrected. I believe that could happen in the early part of the fiscal year and the adjustment not be made until the next fiscal year. What then about the current fiscal year? When other income is cut off in the middle of a fiscal year the increase is needed right then.
The change from payment on a calendar year basis to a fiscal year basis seems to make administrative sense and I do not quarrel with that. However, I do quarrel, as did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), with the comment made by the minister about the 2 per cent

ceiling. I know, Mr. Speaker, that we have to refer to each other here by our constituencies or titles but I feel like saying, "John, how could you? How could you stand up and tell us that we should leave the 2 per cent ceiling there?" I will come back to order, Mr. Speaker, and ask the minister how he could leave the 2 per cent ceiling there because the cost of living is not expected to rise much more than that in the years ahead.


An hon. Member:: No-he said this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If this is true, then we do not need any ceiling. In any case, I believe most members feel that the ceiling on the amounts by which pensions can be escalated should be removed altogether.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The minister made some reference to removing the discrimination against the spouse who is below 65 years of age. His remarks sounded enticing, and it looked as if something interesting were coming, as if we were going to do something for the spouse who is under 65. Apparently all that he or she can do is supply a current estimate of his or her income, for the grand total. There seems to be nothing which will deal with the real problem, namely, the difficulty that two people have in getting along on one income when one is over 65 and the other is under 65. I will not at present try to work out a formula, but it seems to me that when the breadwinner, if one can still use that phrase in this modem age, is retired and on a pension, the pension he gets ought to be sufficient for himself and his spouse, no matter what the age of his spouse might be.
The minister said that a number of anomalies have been straightened out. That is true. Some of the improvements are important and welcome. I suppose the one that I should now like to refer to is one that he will tell me is out of his field and that I should wait for the speech which is to be made at eight o'clock tomorrow night by the Minister of Finance. I will wait, and we will discuss this matter and this bill when we get it to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I believe, very strongly, that we should take a special look at the income tax position of pensioners, especially when they are on the guaranteed income supplement. I will not quarrel when the minister says that I am so strongly in favour of the universal approach that I do not have the right to talk about correcting the guaranteed income supplement. Nevertheless, I must deal with what is before us.
I still think it is iniquitous in the extreme in legislation known as the guaranteed income supplement, the purpose of which is to bring pensioners up to a certain level, to give pensioners that supplement with one hand and to take it away by taxation with the other hand.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh
away.
December 2, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, only I see no resemblance to the Lord on the government side. The members over there may think they are lords, but the facts are different. I am speaking about the situation as it is at present. Even with the present guaranteed income supplement for persons between the ages of 65 and 70, once those persons get that supplement they are over the income tax exemption level and, instead of getting the net guarantee that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is supposed to give them, they obtain something less, because his dear friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), comes along with his tax. Under the new levels, the situation will be even worse.
Is the minister rising to make an announcement?


John Carr Munro: No. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member a little while ago said that he did not like the recommendation in the bill to make the guaranteed income supplement program permanent. He did not like it because it perpetuated distinctions between the aged people, between the ones who actually need the supplementation and the ones who do not and who receive only the old age security pension. Really, what I am asking the hon. member is this: is it his position that he would like to do away with the guaranteed income supplement program entirely? If he does not wish to make this program permanent or if he wishes to have it phased out, does he think that the money that would otherwise be put in this area should assist the old age pensioner generally in a completely univeral coverage? My second question is this: would he then still be prepared to recommend only $100 as the limit for all pensioners in the country?


John Gilbert: The minister has missed the point, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister was listening intently to me.


John Carr Munro: I was.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I answer his first question by saying categorically, yes, I should like to go back to the completely universal program. I realize that I do not have the support of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on that, but I think I could win him over if I could spend some time with him. Yes, I should like to go back to the completely universal program, and I would collect more by way of income tax from that 10 per cent of the population that is at the top of the income scale. I see the minister shaking his head.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member knows very well how much he would get.


Mr. Peters:: There is plenty of money here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is running out. Surely, you will allow me the two minutes that the minister took. I come back
Old Age Security Act
to his question. If all we are going to do is merely redistribute the amounts now given to the older people, of course we cannot do it; but if we are prepared to consider the Canadian family as a unit and if we are prepared to redistribute our total wealth in terms of justice and fairness to our older people, we can do it.
May I answer the second part of the minister's question? He asked me if I still support a pension of $100 a month.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could I have a couple of minutes more, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It will be necessary for the hon. member to obtain the unanimous consent of the House, because his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree unanimously to allowing the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members of the House. I shall not abuse their kindness. I thought I made it clear to the minister and to the House in the first sentence or two of my remarks this afternoon that, in my opinion, what should be before the House is a bill providing for $150 across the board. Back in 1966 we were asking for $100 a month, yes; but we are asking for $150 a month across the board. That is the position I take, that my party takes, and that is the position that I think would make sense so far as the people of this nation are concerned. I say again that if we attempt to put the old people off to one side by themselves and stir around and redistribute the resources that we make available to them, it cannot be done. On the other hand, if we take an over-all, comprehensive view of Canadian society, we can.
May I close by drawing attention to a rather ingenious provision in this bill regarding the guaranteed income supplement. The minister referred to it. The government's intention is that the increases shall not become effective until April 1. This applies to the guaranteed income supplement, and the Leader of the Opposition made a special note of that fact. Yet I notice that the bill is ingeniously drawn in such a way that people on the guaranteed income supplement will obtain exactly the same amount of money in January, February and March, whether the bill passes or not. If the bill passes, they will get the rate provided for in the legislation as it now stands. It works out to the figure the minister mentioned.


Mr. Monteilh:: Is it not $111.41?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be a bit more. They will obtain the addition of the 2 per cent escalation due in January. That is what the bill, if passed, would give them in January, February and

December 2, 1970
Old Age Security Act
March. If the bill does not pass they will get the sum of $112 or $113, or an amount like that, by virtue of the legislation as it now stands. But, Mr. Speaker, the 800,000 Canadians who receive only the basic old age security pension-which they get as part of the contract, because it is their right to receive it-will receive only $80 a month in January, if this bill passes this month. That is an increase of 42 cents from this year's $79.58. If this bill does not pass, they will get $81.17. You know, that poses a challenge to Parliament does it not?
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the light of all the facts, members on both sides of the House will give this bill very serious consideration. It deals with a terribly important issue. It deals with a matter which, in 1951, we resolved in what I think was the finest way it could be resolved, when we said old age pensions should be paid to all as a matter of right. I hope that we come back to justice, fair play and a decent concept of social security for all Canadians.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief in my remarks on Bill C-202.
Since I came to this House, there has often been talk of increasing the old age pension, but not much has been achieved in that regard.
Even though this bill provides for nothing more than a 42 cent monthly increase in the pension of those whose income does not exceed a certain level fixed by the act, we still intend to support it in order that a higher pension might be paid to our old people as soon as possible.
But we should ask ourselves whether our senior citizens are not entitled to better consideration. In Canada, in 1970, do these people not have a right to more gratitude for the efforts they made building the country, for their discoveries and the progress we owe them? Unfortunately, more than 500,000 of those who could continue the work started by Canadians aged 65 or over, are unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that nobody would be any poorer if Canada decided to give old people a minimum income which would allow them to meet all their needs without having to worry about tomorrow.
I know a great number of people who live in very strained circumstances. We must admit that with $3,060 two persons cannot easily procure shelter, pay school and municipal taxes, buy clothes and live decently. This is surely not an amount commensurate with our ability to pay.
When Jacques Cartier discovered Canada and when the first settlers in his party had to pick wild berries, fish and hunt to provide for their needs, old people could not rely very much on the assistance of the state in difficult times.
However, in 1970, conditions have changed and we should show more gratitude to those who are really quite
deserving. Canada can do more. Those people are not asking for charity, but justice. We must distribute the wealth of our country instead of hoarding it or paying grants to curtail production. We should pass somes measures which would enable the aged to enjoy a well earned security. I understand what the government means. I am sure that the present government, as well as the preceding ones, has meant to show gratitude to the older people by drafting legislation which would allow the payment of pensions. I remember-and yet, I am not very old-that a number of years ago, when one mentioned this possibility of paying pensions or family allowances, one was called a communist. These measures did not make sense. They could not see why one should give money for nothing, to people who had not been required to work to deserve it.
Times have changed. Nowadays, everyone agrees that this is not a communist deal, but a matter of social justice, of economic possibilities. Everybody wants the government to keep on paying these pensions and to increase them without of course being brought to the brink of bankruptcy.
We have production surpluses of all sorts. Machinery is lying idle in our factories and getting rusty. Workers have noLhing to do. Last night, four young men from my riding told me that they had been fired. They asked me if I could do something for them. I answered that I was willing to help them-I do this every day-but the system is faulty, we are not proceeding in the right direction.
Instead of putting our economic car on the right road so as to enable the young to work, we are driving a car with half its wheels off the road.
Young people are ready to help raise the old age security pensions but on condition that they should be able, in turn, to earn money.
Fortunately, some provincial governments have taken the lead and proved that it was possible to pay more than a small pension which allows only for living from day to day with no security at all.
The provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have seen to it that old people get an income of $139 and $149 respectively.
These provinces are none the worse for it. As a matter of fact, their production potential is sufficient to meet the demand of aged people who have a higher income.
An aged person who receives a pension, say $130 a month, could not live decently when rents are $180 or even $200 a month. You might say the difference will be put up by the provincial government under the social welfare plan. However, it happens that these persons may feel ill at ease, they may consider themselves as public charity cases and be dissatisfied with their lot.
Mr. Speaker, our economic system offers major opportunities of all kinds in the construction industry, the manufacture of clothing, of foodstuffs. However, the system is being paralyzed and an effort is being made to deprive some people of such advantages.

December 2, 1970

Not so long ago, I was impressed when reading the following:
Our production system must therefore be geared to production of goods which will meet, first of all, the elementary needs of mankind, then the secondary needs, and finally those needs which come into the class of affluence and luxury.
It can hardly be suggested that the increase the government is proposing is going over that level to fit into the luxury level. Definitely not! Still it is possible to do more, taking into account the capacity to produce. Now, legislation is passed to increase pensions gradually according to the development of our country and we expect the government to do it. Were we to reduce our demands, we would be unfair to our senior citizens.
In my opinion, increasing old age security pensions only to keep them in line with the ever increasing cost of living would not be enough because with higher standards of living resulting from increased productivity, our old people should be allowed to benefit from this situation to the same extent as all other Canadians.
This is what we call the heritage of a nation. Our senior citizens have all contributed to this national wealth. They strove to produce wealth so that they could benefit from their work in their older days.
Some people say sometimes that it is annoying to pay taxes in order to support older people. Why did they not save money when they were working, so as to be able to provide for themselves? But these people are not to blamed, for they were overtaxed all their lives and squeezed for interest charged by the comptroller of credit that belongs to the nation.
Some people who cashed in on the nation's credit were rewarded in the form of interest from the taxes paid by Canadians. It is no wonder then that most older people are in a difficult situation and did not succeed in saving money to enable them to live decently for the later years of their lives.
This is the pattern we keep on fighting. However, we do progress. We see from one day to the other that we can do better, that certain changes are in order, but progress does not come about fast enough. The events overwhelm us and we have the situation which prevails now in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I should hope that the minister will prove not charitable but just in the means test and that if through errors in the implementation of the new plan, some Canadians receive a few dollars to which they are not duly entitled under the law, they will not be treated too harshly.
Without there being dishonesty on the part of pensioners, due to misunderstood answers or questions while completing forms, it happens sometimes after two, three or four years, that the department finds out it has paid too much money. The old people must then pay it back at a time when their income has never been so low. A certain amount of money is deducted from their pension cheques and they are put in a difficult position. It is inhuman.
Old Age Security Act
This is why I would like to ask the minister to tell his officials not to be too harsh so that in such cases the old people do not become even more miserable than they were.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, we intend to support this legislation but we also want to make some suggestions and to bring in amendments. We do not feel that this is the last pension increase. We hope that the Old Age Security Act will be amended again so as to grant a justified increase of pension.
For the next eight, ten or fifteen years, it will be impossible for anyone to run in an election by telling older people: We have raised your pension by 42 cents a month and we have slightly adjusted your guaranteed income supplement, it was a gift. More honesty is needed. Right after this bill is passed, we should keep considering the old age security situation with a view to bringing it in line with our productive capacities so that our senior citizens will be able to live many more wonderful years in a Canada they helped to build for us.
For these reasons, and because we are still in the prime of life, we wish the government would do even more so that it can be said everywhere that in Canada people live on more than just memories. They line on gratitude and material goods. We must ensure that it will be said that Canadians realize that God has not put on our territory so much wealth in order to accumulate it to create misery, but to have this wealth distributed among Canadians. We must ensure that nobody will think any longer that it is necessary to live in misery in the midst of plenty.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: I do not know whether it was the anticipation of my speech or the Social Credit philosophy we have just heard which so quickly emptied this chamber, but I hope that before I am through I shall not be addressing just you, Mr. Speaker; I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) nodding his head and I am glad of this assurance that he will be here for a while.
I do not intend to deal, now, with specific figures or to indulge in the hair-splitting evident in the remarks of the NDP spokesmen and, to some extent, in those of the spokesmen for the Official Opposition; I believe we should keep this sort of thing for the committee. After all, the result of second reading will be to get the bill into commit' ee. I propose to deal with the general principles embodied in this measure and with the position of the parties opposite in relation to those principles.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said he would like to see a liberal bill. Then, he went on to say he would like to see a liberal bill like the one brought in during 1951 or 1952. I can tell him that Liberal bills do not go back to 1952, 1910 or 1912. All the legislation we have is forward-looking legislation. If he wants to go back to 1914 it indicates the direction the New Democratic Party is taking, not the Liberal party, and he should know this. I have listened time and time again to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

December 2, 1970
Old Age Security Act
You know, as he rises, with his very revered look, one would think there was sincerity there. I have known this gentleman for years; he and I have been good friends. But I had the feeling today he was trying to sell sincerity and make the most of it. Because the substance of what he was saying does not make sense. What does he recommend? He himself cannot believe it. He recommends one hundred and fifty dollars a month for everybody, or two hundred dollars a month and the application of the principle of universality.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If 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. The hon. member knows this. In one breath he says there should be universality; but when it comes to who is going to pay for this, he and his party will turn round to the working men, the tax payers, those who are tired of paying taxes, and will say to them that it will be the rich who will pay. What he has said today is a clear indication that he objects to the idea of selectivity that is contained in this bill. Then, he says that this is not a Liberal document.
I know that to break the so-called rule of universality is difficult. Does the hon. member not think that we know that we are going to be unpopular to some? Does he think we believe it is easy to do this? Somebody has to have the guts to do this, and we have done it. We know you cannot apply the principle of universality and give everybody the great benefits the hon. members talked about unless someone is taxed for them. He and others have said time and time again that the poor working man is tired of paying taxes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us tax you
and me.


Steven Otto: We are taxed. The hon. member himself said that. The numbers of people who are supposedly rich are not sufficient to pay for this. What the hon. member is really saying is that we should not pay $153 or $156 only to those who need it; we should make a universal payment to everyone of $150 or even $200. But when the hon. member asks where the money should come from, he will d;scover that it comes from the working man who has to pay taxes, real estate taxes, income taxes. He is the fellow who is being squeezed, and it is the government who is accused of squeezing him.
The hon. member's statements are irresponsible and do not make sense. When he gets into the committee he will have to show where he is going to get the money to pay for the benefits he wants. In committee he will be told that the money will not come from the rich because there just are not enough rich, including the hon. member and me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak for yourself.


Steven Otto: Then, all of a sudden he became a legal expert and dwelt on the question of contracts at some
length. The idea that seemed to flow from him was that we had made a pact with all the contributors to the old age security fund; that we are now saying to them that we dare not go back on that contract even though this money is being redistributed from the same fund and that this surplus in the fund is not going to last.
We have made other contracts. For example, practically ever since confederation people who have bought property not meant for speculative gain have expected that the proceeds from the sale of the property would not be taxed as a capital gain. It is hon. members opposite who claimed that this tax should be applied retroactively. If that were the case, where is the contract? If there is a contract on the one side there must be a contract on the other side. The idea of having a static, immovable contract does not make sense.
I do not think anybody in Canada would interpret a so-called contractual obligation in that narrow sense. No member on this side is giving this money to the rich; the money is being redistributed because we have to be selective. As a nation we cannot afford to apply the principle of universality with generosity and aplomb. However, I shaU be talking later on an issue close to this to illustrate why we cannot afford this principle. We cannot even afford what we think we can afford. I say that the suggestion that we continue this general idea of universality does not make sense. As I say, although the government knows it is going to be unpopular somebody must have the nerve to go ahead and take this action. The provisions in this bill will provide some benefit to those who are really in need.
I suggest that averaging out the payment what we are really talking about is an income of $440 a month for a man and his wife. That is not affluence; but if that couple have no more children to feed and clothe and are living by themselves, it is not exactly extreme poverty either when you compare their income with those who have nothing. Since we are not going to be popular with these
500,000	people to whom the hon. member referred, it is politically opportune at this time for him to appeal to them. This is why the hon. member's party is trying to take their side. It does not matter whose side they are on as long as the voters will support them. I suggest this is not being sincere. If the hon. member has a theory to expound, then we should be pleased to hear what it is.
Other questions have been raised, one of which was escalation. The question of unlimited escalation or a 2 per cent escalation is a difficult one. Most of the wage earners today who have to pay taxes to support payments of old age security and other benefits somehow gear their demands not to their total salary but to their take home pay. If the government were to tell these people that they needed an additional one half of one per cent in order to raise more money, then the wage earners in turn would ask for more wages. And, so on it goes. For example, we could apply the escalation principle to the sale of government bonds, or to payments of mortgage interest. If we were to do that there would be a pull toward escalation, toward a higher level of payments, and we just cannot do this in light of today's economy.

December 2, 1970


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). He is always very interesting, and at times he is amusing. He usually has a wealth of figures and a good imagination. I pay tribute to him for all these reasons. I have sat with him as a member on committees. I have always enjoyed being on those committees with him. I hope we will both be members of this committee because I am sure when he manipulates figures I will try to have something to say. I do not hold that against him. He has a new Liberal policy. Is it the just society one? The Liberal policy of the past, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), just does not fit in with his philosophy.
May I say I am very glad the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) finally made a move. I am sure he must be acutely aware of the things he has left undone and the damage and shortcomings of some of the things he proposes. As the hon. member for York East said, there will be some repercussions in respect of some of the provisions that are being introduced. I congratulate the minister for what he has done and I hope I am, at least partially, cognizant of the difficulties governments face in introducing bills, in finding the necessary funds and in accepting responsibility for what they do.
I shall chastise the minister for the bad things he has done and the things he has left undone. There is much he
Old Age Security Act
has left undone. It is certainly not a magnanimous measure. Subtly, the minister tried to leave the impression he was giving a lot when in reality he was taking something away. Robin Hood at his best could not have done better. In an interesting article the Toronto Daily Star mentions this under the heading "Munro initiatives help the poor". The article reads:
It was his Robin Hood costume. If his government brings in legislation-as it should, promptly-to implement the social security white paper tabled yesterday, it will be asking Parliament to take from the rich and give to the poor on a scale never matched in Sherwood Forest.
Well, it is quite a compliment to him that he could outdo Robin Hood whose legend has lived through the ages. The minister did not go further because the realities of the misnomered just society did not allow him to do so. After all, the just society has not operated the way the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had pictured it. His prescience has not worked. His surplus vanished and he was out a few million dollars more in his calculations. This is not unusual for this minister.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance remembers the wise old axiom that the plans of mice and men oft go astray. I suggest to the hon. member for York East that if his figures are no better, he should be very careful before the committee. What is the reason for the delay in relieving the humiliation of the old people and their difficulties in life? Nothing is to be done before April 1. Santa Claus just did not come. To give the minister credit I admit that he did his best to try to gild the lily, but quickly this will disappear when cold reality sets in. Those promises of things to come might never materialize. This is merely a white paper, a feeler to test the water. We hope it is that because then perhaps some of the things in it can be changed. Perhaps we can give the Liberals a shot in the arm by redirecting them on the right course. What about the poor old age pensioner? He needs bread and the government gives him cake-shades of Marie Antoinette. It will be a sparse Christmas for many people who will not believe this government could not have made arrangements for the increase to become available before the year's end. The approach to poverty is becoming a hodge-podge of municipal provincial and federal welfare boards with duplications and over-lapping. Often times no one receives help because the help is buried in bureaucracy.
It was interesting and sad to learn last evening that the Department of Health and Welfare has been sending out papers to addresses which had been changed five years previously, or even longer, and to non-existent places. Perhaps some of these people had passed away. However, this is government, this is bureaucracy, and perhaps this type of thing just cannot be helped, but surely to goodness they should try to do something about it. The approach to poverty, as I have said is becoming a hodgepodge of welfare boards. Let us take the case of the old age security pension. The recipient pays for it. The amount now is 4 per cent. Why is it said that the old people who are over age 65 do not deserve it. Surely, these people have been paying for it over the years through taxation. An amount of 4 per cent has been
December 2, 1970

Old Age Security Act
received from these people on a sliding scale from the time they began paying income tax. If a person had been fortunate enough to have a job, he was paying income tax on a sliding scale up to $240 per year. Those earning were paying more. I say that this is not right. How many people would like to make insurance payments on that basis? This is a tax which has been paid year after year so that the people would receive the old age pension as a matter of right, and not in the form of charity.
Surely, it is a principle of any business that when one makes a contribution toward a fund in order to provide for his old age this should not be taken away from him. I believe the old age pension, since people are taxed in order to pay for it, should be paid as a maximum at the level of $3,060 per year to married couples and $1,620 per year for single people and should be tied to a cost of living increase. This I support, and I congratulate the minister for doing this even though it is done on the means test, but even at this level these people are being left in the land of poverty according to the Economic Council. Since everyone who pays income tax contributes to his own old age pension fund, and pays according to his income up to $240 per year, it is my belief that everyone has the right to receive it.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If a person does not need the pension because his income is above the poverty line, taxes will look after that excess income. According to this principle, regardless of whether or not it is a Liberal principle, the money is raised by taxing those who have bigger incomes. That was the principle. Hon. members can go back and look at the debates recorded in Hansard of those days. The minister's bill also has the demeaning feature of separating people into two classes. If a person has a taxable income-and here is another point that bothers me-whether or not the old age supplement has made his income taxable, he has to look after his own hospitalization. I do not know how many hon. members have had this point brought to their attention but I run into this very feature over and over again. Even if a person receives the old age supplement and his income is taxable, he has to pay for his hospitalization and for his OHSIP as well as his drugs. As I have stated before, this principle applies to the single or married couples receiving the income supplement if they have taxable income.
I think that sometimes this is very unfair because, after paying income tax and hospitalization, these people end up below the income level which they would have had before getting the supplement. The government committed itself to this principle when it made those persons who are on a guaranteed income supplement pay for their hospitalization and medical insurance if their income is taxable. In other words, they are taking some of the supplement away from them when they make them pay taxes and hospitalization. Furthermore, the government sticks to this principle when it taxes by 50 per cent all the old age pensioner receives above the supplement. Surely, in this way the government taxes the supplement away from these people. Therefore, the government cannot keep riding two horses all the time. Perhaps they realize that there must be work
incentives. The Globe and Mail had a small article on this which I think is apropos. It reads in part:
So why not experiment with the old folk? Not ail, despite the white paper, wish to be removed permanently from the work force. Why not allow a pensioner $3 or $4 of earned income for each dollar deduction of supplement? The cost to the government would not be great, the able old would not be trapped in a workless world, and useful information could be amassed on the effectiveness of such an incentive to work.
The article goes on to read:
Just in passing, it might be noted that when members of Parliament revised their own pension scheme, they did not feel it necessary to insert a clause deducting $1 of pension for each $2 of other income.
The principle of dividing old people into two classes bothers me. This principle was given up in 1951 after careful consideration. The principle was brought out over and over again in the debates of those days. If hon. members would go back to the debates of 1951 they would see this. It is abundantly clear it was ruled out by the St. Laurent government because it encouraged too many people to get rid of estates. It cost too much to police. With the situation as it is now, with estate taxes and confiscations, this process may be accelerated. This will encourage people to give their money away so as to qualify for a guaranteed income supplement, and it will not be long before the 900,000 people who qualify today will become 1,700,000 tomorrow. The problem is that to qualify on a means test for 60 per cent or more is very demeaning. This is pointed out in an article in the Star which reads in part as follows:
Another of the neediest groups, people over 65 with little or no income of their own, will be substantially helped if the white paper proposals take effect. The increases of $22 a month for single supplemented pensioners and of $28 for married couples are more than welcome, and they too are overdue, for these pensioners' real incomes have steadily fallen as the cost of living rose. To their new pensions should be added an escalator which will fully cover future price increases.
This government proposes the removal of the escalation clause and that presents another problem. When people apply for this guaranteed income supplement, if the application forms are not filled out correctly and an overpayment is made, the poor old recipient can starve as he pays it back bit by bit in the months ahead. This occurs over and over again. I have had people coming to see me, as I think most other hon. members have, telling me that through an error on their part, which perhaps was not intentional, they received for a time more than they were entitled to and then have had to pay it back leaving them with not enough to live on. This is not a nice thing to happen to old people. Actually, it is very cruel in a good many cases. Just the other day a case was drawn to my attention of a poor old lady whose husband had died. The government suddenly found out that he owed them some money. It was only $6. They threatened action. The widow was living in poverty trying to pay the funeral expenses out of her small pension.
This is why I believe in the principle of universal pensions. As it is there is far too much demeaning of the individual. I have some figures here that would indicate the average earnings of a person at the age of 65. Of
.
December 2, 1970

68,000	people who were paying income tax at 65, the reported average income was $4,020. At the age of 70 that figure dropped to $4,000. A couple aged 65 years and over will receive $3,060. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, one has to draw a comparison between the reported poverty level income of $4,020 and the $3,060 that will be received.
This is why I believe in universal pensions and in getting away from the bureaucracy and the humiliation which our people have to undergo. I do not believe in the division of our people into the rich and the poor. A great many of these people have come through the great depression, and I know some of them personally.


John Gilbert: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) agrees with that.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I am sure he does. There would be no question of bringing out a white paper such as this one if he were in charge. I want to bring this point home. The difference is very small and those people have come through the great depression. They worked for years in hard times. Many of them worked for a buck a day. Some of them bought the perpetual bonds in the grim 30's the payment of which the government has now welched. I refer to the 3% per cent perpetuals which were supposed to mature in 1966, and which every banker in the country said would be paid off at that time. Those bonds are now worth only 38 cents on the dollar, and I am sure the Minister of Labour realizes that the purchasing power of that dollar has been cut by a third. In effect, therefore the bonds are actually worth less than 15 cents on the dollar.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This bothers me because I am not a partisan politician. I know many of the people who bought those bonds. I was a young doctor in those years. I know how we were paid then. I know the difficulties people had in making ends meet. That they now have to accept 15 cents on their dollar shows how cruel and hard governments can be.
The white paper, Mr. Speaker, may even discourage people from saving for their old age. As I have said, the estate tax is confiscatory. People may say to themselves, "We will not be any further ahead by scrimping and saving. Our friends across the road will get $255 per month with the old age pension and the supplement. They are not providing for their old age. Why should we?" Surely, this Canada of ours is too great a resource country for that? Surely, we have too many opportunities to start playing that type of game? What effect will this double standard have on the thrift and industry of the community and of the country?
The middle class upon which this country is dependent for its prosperity, the people who must carry the load if the country is to progress, are being taxed so heavily that their incentive is being destroyed. We are encouraging people not to save because we will provide them with a guaranteed income supplement. They will ask each other,
Old Age Security Act
"Why not live like our neighbours? Why not keep up with the Joneses? The government will help us anyway." The individual's incentive is being destroyed. Once this happens the tax base will be gradually eroded. I congratulate the minister on the crumbs he has thrown, but I regret the inability of the government to grasp the question of poverty, to meet the problem in a realistic manner instead of with this hodge-podge attack.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) said that of course we never do things for political purposes. I could go through the Department of Health and Welfare in both the province of Ontario and the federal government and point out place after place where the neglect is woeful. We have chronic illness hospitals but we ship people out of them by telling them they are not in need of active treatment any more. In each case a committee will tell a patient, "You are fit to go out." Despite government controls, the cost of ward care has risen to $40, $50 and $60 per day. I have seen patients almost cruelly shoved out.
Where do these people go? They expect to be covered by hospitalization, for which they may have paid for years. But hospitalization does not cover them when they are chronically ill, and so they go to a home. What nonsense! That is not proper coverage. Why doesn't the federal government accept its share of this cost? Why doesn't it take the pressure off active treatment hospitals, and contribute to the provinces for the care of these patients in chronic illness hospitals? Governments just are not doing their best.
I think it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who said that people should always be alert to prevent a government from being completely incompetent. This is very true. This old age supplement should have been made universal. I have cited the reasons for that. Our old people have paid for it. They have been taxed at 4 per cent. They have been taxed on a sliding scale up to $240. It is theirs by right. I do not believe we should separate the old people, saying to some that they are rich and to others that they are poor. The cost would be minimal.
I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in the House because I noticed he quoted a figure of $150 million or $160 million as the cost of paying an extra $10 per month.


Mr. Francis:: $200 million.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I thank the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). How in the world would it cost $200 million to give 500,000 people $10 a month?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am sorry, I made a mistake.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I think the minister made one too. I will look it up in Hansard tomorrow, but he made that mistake. I think he said $160 million. I am not a mathematician, but I can say that if the minister looked at that properly he would have come up with a figure around $50 million or $60 million. Maybe the minister in error multi-

December 2, 1970
Old Age Security Act
plied the 1,600,000 by ten. It would not take that much money, and if we were paying them too much it would he taxed away. Surely, this is the principle upon which the government was working with respect to the guaranteed income supplement. Otherwise how could it have put some of these pensioners in the income tax bracket.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock-



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could it be confirmed to us what the business will be tomorrow afternoon? We know what it will be at night.


James Alexander Jerome: The intention is to continue with this measure tomorrow afternoon.


Thomas Miller Bell: And supposing we did complete it fairly early tomorrow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


James Alexander Jerome: I have had a word with one of the other house leaders and perhaps I am advisedly not prepared for that eventuality.


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


Thursday, December 3, 1970