1971-10-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ]ack Davis (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table a press release outlining the proposed national air quality objectives for which provision is made in the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat what I said on an earlier occasion. This press release may well contain information which ought first to have been given to the House in a statement on motions. I want to enter a covert that press releases are not the subject of filing under this particular order of business.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised this point before. I must say I cannot remember clearly what the disposition of the matter was. I thought at the time that the point was worth considering very seriously. It is difficult to interpret the exact wording of the Standing Order, which appears to be very wide. One might wonder whether the papers referred to in the Standing Order include a press release. The Chair will look into the matter further in view of the fact the hon. member has raised it by way of a point of order.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I want to file copies in both official languages of a release announcing the designation of Employment Support Board members. Information booklets on Board regulations will be distributed to hon. members this afternoon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by Premier Kosygin at the conclusion of his talks here that "between the Soviet Union and Canada there exists a considerable degree of mutual understanding in the assessment of the situation in the parts of the world where peace is violated,", may I ask the Prime Minister to indicate what Canadian government assessment was portrayed to Premier Kosygin in relation to military actions or interventions which have been considered appropriate by the U.S.S.R. under what is commonly referred to as the Brezhnev doctrine?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The Leader of the Opposition is really asking me to restate in answer to a question the totality of Canada's foreign policy. We have made various statements at various times to the House of Commons and in our white papers on what we thought about the Middle East, Viet Nam, the situation in Pakistan, Berlin and so on, and these are matters that we repeated to Premier Kosygin. I will willingly answer more detailed questions if they are asked, but surely I cannot be expected to recite here the totality of Canadian foreign policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With all respect to the Prime Minister, I asked a specific question in relation to a specific doctrine relating to a specific part of Europe. I should like to ask the Prime Minister another quite specific question. In view of Premier Kosygin's remark, and also in view of his statement on October 19 about "the struggle of the peoples of the Arab countries for the liberation of Arab territories occupied by Israel", can the Prime Minister indicate what assessment the Canadian government portrayed to Premier Kosygin in regard to this matter, and would the Prime Minister briefly indicate what is the area of mutual understanding between the Soviet Union and Canada in the assessment of the Middle East situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, we both agreed that United Nations resolution 242 should have our wholehearted support.

October 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the general nature of Premier Kosygin's statement about the degree of mutual understanding in parts of the world where peace is violated, I wonder whether this is an indication that the government of Canada has informed Premier Kosygin that Canada shares Russia's view with regard to the border dispute between Russia and the People's Republic of China?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this subject was not raised, either by ourselves or by the Soviet Union. Therefore I am not in a position to answer that question.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to express its regret to those people and organizations engaged in peaceful protest in Ottawa during the last few days who Premier Kosygin, the guest of the government, at a press conference described as "riff-raff"?


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister with reference to the comments of the Soviet premier concerning the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union and the difficulties that he envisioned would be created for the Soviet government in regard to increasing the number of those who would bear arms in Israel. Did the Prime Minister or any member of his government express to the Soviet premier a willingness to increase emigration possibilities for Jewish people in the Soviet Union who might wish to come to Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This point was not stressed, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Soviet Union knows Canada's immigration policy and there was no particular occasion to raise this matter. Nor have representations on that score been made to me. I think the representations that I received had more to do with emigration from the Soviet Union to Israel and also the question of the reunification of families, which is distinct from emigration.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that the Soviet premier did express at least on one occasion, if not more, that difficulty did exist in regard to increasing Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union, would the Prime Minister or one of his ministers agree to look into this matter further so as to relieve the concern of many Canadian citizens about the inability of Jewish citizens in the Soviet Union to emigrate from that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will consider that request.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the Brezhnev doctrine, or an adaptation thereof, has been adopted by Senator Kennedy, the front-running contender for the United States presidency, namely, that in view of close relations between the United States and another
state the U.S. has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another state, may I ask the Prime Minister whether or not we can expect an early report from the Minister of National Revenue on the subject of foreign involvement in the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we can expect an early statement on this subject, though its connection with the Brezhnev doctrine is fairly tenuous. But I do want to reassure the hon. member that we will be making a statement soon.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister to return to the question of the discussions he had with Mr. Kosygin concerning the matter of emigration from the Soviet Union and also the question of the rights of Jews and other cultural groups in the Soviet Union. Is the Prime Minister in a position to make a public statement or tell the House anything in addition to what we learned in the meeting of the committee yesterday morning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The statements made by Mr. Kosygin in the committee, and, indeed, repeated in part at the press conference, were more or less in the same form as the statement he made to me, although he did not elaborate to me on statistics as he did, I believe, in the statement made to the committee of the House. However, it was generally couched in the same terms, namely, that he did not recognize that there were particular forms of discrimination against any of the Soviet people. He explained in what circumstances some Jews were not given the facilities to emigrate to Israel, but he stated that generally, and we concurred from the knowledge we have, there has been vastly increased emigration from the Soviet Union to Israel in the past little while, and I expressed the hope that this would continue.
On the problem of reunification of families, I pointed out very carefully to him that I was raising this matter merely on a humanitarian basis and that, as with other subjects, I was not trying to interfere in the internal affairs of their country but I was appealing to him on a humanitarian basis to further the cause of those who had made application for the reunification of families. I attempted somewhat to see if there were any reasons of policy or of doctrine as to why this subject had not met with more notable success and he assured me that there were not. It was essentially a matter of processing these names, of contacting the people and getting them through the bureaucracy and, in some cases, of discovering that those who had been applied for as subject, for reunification did not always want, when they were reached, to be reunited with the people on this side who wanted to be reunited with them. He said that there were some occasions when this happened. Generally, however, he expressed regret that the matter had taken some little time. He assured me that the names were in the works
(Mr. Trudeau.]
October 21, 1971

now, that he would see to it personally that substantial advance would be made on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Temiscamingue have a supplementary?


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister.
It would appear that the United States are becoming somewhat touchy at the idea that agreements might be reached with the USSR concerning the north where our countries are next-door neighbours. Has the Prime Minister been officially informed of reactions of United States authorities who apprehend such agreements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that there have been reactions following my meetings with Mr. Kosygin or with Soviet authorities, but the hon. member knows that the United States ever since we ourselves have taken quite a strong stand on our rights in the Arctic, have made representations indicating that they were not always in agreement with our positions.
There have been reactions, as mentioned by the hon. member, but they were prior to my meetings with Mr. Kosygin.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister feel that in order to increase the friendliness of our relations with the U.S.S.R. it is necessary to cool our relations with the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not our position, Mr. Speaker. I hope it would not be that of hon. members opposite.


An hon. Member:: That was juvenile.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the answer given the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister in connection with Canadian agreement with the U.S.S.R. to support the United Nations resolution respecting the boundaries and territorial areas of Israel, in view of the fact that most people do not know about the resolution in detail and to get it clearly before the people of Canada may I ask whether it is a fact that the Canadian government supports the need for the Israelis to give up the occupied territory, including that portion of Jerusalem which was in Jordan, as a condition to peace? Is that what the government of Canada is taking a stand on?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary oi State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since I have been speaking for Canada many times at the United Nations when the question of the Middle East has been raised, may I be permitted to say to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, through Your Honour, that Canada is strongly in support of resolution 242 of the Security Council which says that there should be a withdrawal of Israeli forces to secure and recognized boundaries.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has demonstrated his capacity for evasive language not only in this House but in the United Nations. Nevertheless I ask him this very simple question: Does the Canadian government declare as its policy that the Israelis have to give up all the land they are occupying at the present time and have occupied since the war? It is as simple as that and there should not be all this equivocation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, resolution 242 was worked out as a result of prolonged negotiations among the powers that were then members of the Security Council, including Canada, and we stand behind the resolution which calls for withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries. That is the resolution and that is our policy.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I want. That is not what you have been telling the Jewish people in Canada.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, as a result'of the talks and discussions with the U.S.S.R. and Premier Kosygin is there any prospect of an increase in trade or wider talks toward expanding trade relations between our two countries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday, I believe, this was one of the results of the meeting, but I am not in a position today to say how this will take place. Views were expressed on both sides on wheat, for example, and on the export of manufactured products, too and results of this will become visible as the months go by.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture whether the government has concerned itself about the fact that there is at present some difficulty in respect of the importation of Russian tractors and parts involving a legal action? Has either minister concerned himself with the matter of the importer in Oakville, Ontario?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have looked into that matter and we consider this to be a problem between the Soviet Union and the Canadian importer of these tractors. It is a private affair and it is being dealt with in that way by the authorities of the U.S.S.R.
8884

October 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in his discussions with the Premier of the Soviet Union the possibility of Canada opening immigration offices in certain of the communist countries was discussed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, it was not discussed.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell the House if it is true that Soviet Premier Kosygin undertook to supply Canadian wheat to the USSR for the next five years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I did not attend the press conference where Mr. Kosygin might have suggested that. I am not in a position to confirm or deny what has been said.
However, I know, first, that the USSR has taken the good habit of coming to Canada first when it needs grain; second, that relations are extremely friendly between the Canadian Wheat Board and the Export Kleb; and third, that the USSR now receives Canadian wheat deliveries under the terms of a contract for the sale of 3,500,000 tons, and that these deliveries will continue until April 1972.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the report that a general consensus has been reached among the Big Ten with regard to the devaluation of the United States dollar to the extent of 10 per cent as against the leading currencies, does Canada share in this consensus, and if that is the case does this mean that there will be a further devaluation of the U.S. dollar relative to the Canadian dollar?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The first I heard of any consensus was on reading the same press report that my hon. friend read. I am waiting for our delegate to return from Paris when I will have information.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How long will we have to wait?


Edgar John Benson: The meeting finished just last night.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Since Canada had a delegate at this conference, can the minister say what his instructions were in this regard? Was Canada pressing for a downward revision of the value of the American dollar relative to the Canadian dollar?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Was
the Canadian delegate at that conference authorized to agree to any devaluation of the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar as part of a general accord among the Group of Ten?


Edgar John Benson: This conference was not supposed to reach decisions but merely to sense the feeling of other countries prior to a ministerial meeting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Was the Canadian delegate authorized to give an impression that such a tentative accord might meet the approval of the government of Canada, and if not, why was this view not conveyed to the members of the Group of Ten who, according to the report, seemed to feel that there was in fact such an accord?


Edgar John Benson: I have seen no evidence that there was such an accord, and this meeting was not qualified to reach accords.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You don't seem to be in touch at all.



POSSIBLE IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES BECAUSE OF CANADIAN PROGRAM TO ASSIST INDUSTRY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of a report from Washington which credits certain United States officials as saying that they have informed the Canadian government of the possibility of that government imposing countervailing duties as a result of the $80 million program for assisting Canadian industry should American companies lodge a complaint. Has that information been conveyed to him or to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and, if so, what representations is the Canadian government making to the U.S. government regarding this matter?
Hon. ]ean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce): It has not been conveyed to me and the Minister of Finance says it has not been conveyed to him either. If the U.S. government, after studying the issue, decides that it deserves countervailing duties, I am sure they will find the proper way to convey the message to us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.
October 21, 1971



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the fact-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for South Shore who has already started asking his question. I will return to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands for his supplementary question thereafter.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the former deputy minister of DREE, Tom Kent, conceded yesterday that DREE has been a disappointment, is the government going to appoint an independent public inquiry into the strategies and practices of DREE?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of Mr. Kent's agreement that it would be desirable that DREE bring the administration of its programs closer to the Atlantic region, is DREE going to take steps to decentralize some of the administration and decision-making of the department?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any such report of Mr. Kent's remarks. I would want to see if indeed he was correctly reported before commenting.



POSSIBLE USE OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES UNDER PROPOSED UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the DISC program now before the United States Senate would seem to imply the need for countervailing duties if it is passed much more than the assistance which the Canadian government has been giving to Canadian industry, has the Canadian government conveyed to the American government what might be the probable results of proceeding with the DISC program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is very hypothetical but it seems to me I have to assume that one of the reasons why the United States government would not countervail against Bill C-262 would be the fact indicated by the hon. member as to their own deficiencies in other areas.
Inquiries of the Ministry



POSSIBLE LIFTING OF UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX IN CASE OF WEST GERMANY-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. While there has been no agreement between Washington and West Germany, last Sunday the United States Secretary of the Treasury was reported as having said he was prepared to consider the selective lifting of the import surcharge in the case of West German imports because they had allowed their mark to float to a reasonable level with the U.S. dollar. In view of the fact that the Canadian government allowed its dollar to float 14 months before the surcharge was imposed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should try to ask the question a little more briefly. We are running short of time. We are still only on the second or third question in the first 25 minutes of the question period. I would hope that the hon. member would ask his question a little more briefly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am asking the minister whether in view of this concession which Mr. Connally is prepared to make the Canadian government is making any representations to the U.S. government for similar consideration and, if not, why not?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this again is a very hypothetical question. No such concession has been made.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in light of the apparent breakdown between Ottawa and Washington, will the Minister of Finance consider asking Premier Kosygin to make the government's case to President Nixon?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will soon be running short of time. There are only 15 minutes left until the end of the question period, and there are four rows of members who have not had a chance to ask questions.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General if at this time his department or any department of the government is advertising for students who are trained in law, economics or sociology to become specialist investigators at a salary of $16,000 per annum who will go into the province of Quebec, where they have been categorized as Quebec spies in an article, "Regional Analysis", by the Quebec press, and report back to the minister? Further, are they to take an oath of secrecy as well? Is that correct? If the minister does not know, will he have the matter investigated?

October 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ALLEGED GRANT TO ORGANIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALS IN TORONTO

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Can the hon. gentleman advise the House whether the CHAT organization, an organization of Toronto homosexuals, received a grant under the Opportunities for Youth program through the Core City Youth Employment Group?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there surely was no direct subsidy. The hon. member suggests that the subsidy could have been received indirectly through some other agency. In order to find out I would have to consult the record.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his reply. After he has investigated I hope he will report to the House. As a supplementary question, will he assure the House that this is not the reason why this group is today supporting the provincial Liberal party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
*
* *



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that one of Canada's chartered banks has predicted that unemployment in 1972 will probably be of the order of 6.4 per cent, the same average that was expected this year, can the Prime Minister say whether this is the government's target or does the government have something better and, if so, what is it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not our
target, Mr. Speaker. We have something better. You will see if you just wait another year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he indicate the purpose and the

program of the Canada-Mexico ministerial committee meeting in Ottawa this week and perhaps indicate why it has taken three years to organize the meeting with this very friendly group?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this meeting is to explore ways and means of improving bilateral relations between Canada and Mexico. Mexico is one of our most important trading partners, and many of us visit there from time to time. We have a big tourist business. I regret that until now we have not had this meeting. The visiting ministers, who are watching us, know that in 1969 we were engaged in trying to decide our policy on Latin America, and in 1970 they were having an election in Mexico. So this is our first opportunity. I am very glad to have them here, and I am sure the House would like to welcome them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
According to a statement made by his Quebec counterpart, from August 15, 1971 to August 15, 1972, Quebec farmers will lose close to $3 million because of the 10 per cent American surcharge. What action does the minister intend to take to help Quebec farmers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a number of proposals have been made to us not only by the farmers of Quebec but by the organizations representing commodity groups. We are looking at them. I have made some announcements, for example, respecting turkeys and our help with respect to their market situation. There are a number of others under study, and I hope we will soon reach conclusions so that I can make announcements about specific assistance programs for certain commodities.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
What amount will the minister recommend the Cabinet allocate to this purpose?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question in its present form is receivable.
October 21, 1971



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. No one expects a security cordon to be impregnable, but nonetheless the circumstances connected with the assault committed on Mr. Kosygin the other day were of such a nature as to demand investigation and the placing of responsibility, if there was negligence, on those who were negligent. I ask him whether an investigation is taking place and, in particular, if an investigation has taken place is it not a fact that the responsibility has been taken away from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-and I am very glad to hear that-and placed in other quarters?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have had a long discussion with the heads of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding security measures to be taken on the occasion of Mr. Kosygin's visit. We have had all possible co-operation from the authorities that we have contacted. I was satisfied with the security measures taken and it is unfortunate that an incident should have taken place. I apologize to this House for this. I have discussed this incident with the RCMP Commissioner; he has given me a complete report on it. I have moreover reported to the Prime Minister regarding this. In my opinion, there has been no negligence as such but we shall certainly endeavour to develop still better methods for protecting those who visit our country. This means, of course, that we may perhaps restrain access by the public to distinguished visitors in the future. I think that it must be recognized that security measures are becoming more and more necessary in this country just as in all others.


John George Diefenbaker: As this is a matter that affects Parliament Hill and parliamentarians generally and as the security of Canada is naturally one of the elements, will this report be made available so that a study may be made and incidents of this kind prevented to the greatest possible degree in the future? This is one report that should be made available to the Canadian people.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, were I convinced that there was some oversight, it would perhaps be advisable, but I doubt so. I do not think that it is proper to discuss publicly police methods for protecting distinguished visitors in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if it cannot be discussed in a public forum, can Privy Councillors in this House be given personal knowledge of the contents?
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



ALLEGED PHYSICAL VIOLENCE IN JAIL AGAINST PERSON WHO ASSAULTED PREMIER KOSYGIN

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, everybody is sorry about what took place on Monday but I am in possession of information that the young man from Hungary, Geza Matrai, who assaulted Premier Kosygin on Monday was placed in a cell in Carleton County jail with persons being held for selling illegal drugs, some of whom attacked him. The attack is alleged to have occurred at approximately seven o'clock on Tuesday evening and to have taken the form of punches and kicks administered to Mr. Matrai's person. Will the minister give the assurance that this matter will be investigated and that in the meantime Mr. Matrai will be protected and kept completely separate from the persons who he claims attacked him?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, it would be an excellent question to ask the provincial minister, Mr. Apps, but I think it would be difficult to do so today and obtain an answer.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In an address in Montreal yesterday to the Canadian Real Estate Association the minister stated that the federal government is willing to reduce its powers in the field of urban development if that reduction leads to federal-provincial co-operation in the redevelopment of Canadian cities. May I ask the minister what powers he has in mind that the government would reduce?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State ior Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the rest of the remarks would indicate, my intent was to say that through lack of a policy framework in the past I am afraid that in the exercise of programs clearly within federal jurisdiction we have from time to time inadvertently invaded provincial jurisdiction but that with the policy framework possible through the urban affairs ministry that was less likely to happen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to seek again the co-operation of hon. members. There are just about four minutes left in the question period. If hon. members each take five or six minutes of the time of the question period there will be members who I think ought to be given an opportunity to ask questions who will be deprived of that privilege. I invite the co-operation of hon. members who from day to day are recognized and given a chance to ask questions to give that opportunity to other hon. members also. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

October 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry COMBINES



INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE ANTI-TRUST ACTIVITIES BY NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE RESPECTING FORMATION OF NEW LEAGUE

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. Is the minister's department investigating possible anti-trust violations by the National Hockey League through interference in the formation of the WHA league in competition with the NHL?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the title is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The existing Combines Investigation Act does not cover the provision of sport services or professional or amateur sport. The hon. member will know that Bill C-256 which is before the House does so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.



HURRICANES


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I have a question for the Prime Minister or possibly one of his colleagues. Has the federal authority yet received a request for aid from the province of Nova Scotia to help defray the cost of repairing the damage caused by hurricanes in that province in mid-August?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take note of the question, Mr. Speaker. I have no memory of such a request.



WELFARE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On a couple of occasions in the last two weeks the minister said he was investigating an incident reported to have occurred in Cornwall where welfare officials refused welfare to recipients with long hair in order to determine whether this might be a violation of the Canada Assistance Plan. Can the minister report today whether he came to any conclusion as a result of this investigation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My information is that no violation occurred, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour. In view of the apparent closing of the ties between Canada and the Soviet Union, does the government plan to initiate a study of Soviet methods of combating unemployment with a view to possibly adopting such methods?



INCOME TAX


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister studied the brief forwarded to him earlier this week by Mr. Charles Munro on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which refers specifically to Bill C-259 on tax reform and points out some of the very serious aspects of the legislation as it applies to the agricultural industry? If so, can the minister indicate to the House what steps he plans to take to rectify these serious difficulties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should reply briefly if he wishes but normally that kind of information should be conveyed by way of a general statement.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I received the brief. We are reviewing it and will of course consider the suggestions made.



UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX-POSSIBLE LIFTING IN CASE OF WEST GERMANY

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On Tuesday the minister stated he would report back to the House on whether or not any bilateral arrangements have been entered into with the United States in regard to the removal of the surcharge. I think the question was specifically related to West Germany. Can the minister inform the House whether he has any information in that regard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in answering the former leader of the NDP, said a moment ago, quoting Mr. Connally himself, that the information was erroneous.



HOUSING


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In
October 21, 1971

view of the statement the minister made yesterday in Montreal to the effect that the government will be "providing housing for the poor", would the minister inform the House when this new policy will take effect?


Robert Knight Andras: I think it has been in effect for about 25 or 30 years, Mr. Speaker, and has been accelerated very drastically in the last two or three years.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Secretary of State.
Referring to last spring's policy statement on bilingual districts and since the 90-day period has expired, is the minister in a position to tell if some changes have been made or if the statement, made previously to the House, will definitely represent the government's policy.


Gérard Pelletier: The matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and I will probably report to the House soon.



AGRICULTURE


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the meeting held last weekend by the premiers of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick regarding the serious situation that exists concerning the export of potatoes from those two provinces, can the minister indicate whether he has anything favourable to report on the situation today or when he will be in a position to make a statement in view of the fact that a number of seed potato producers are now facing a very serious problem in regard to export?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, most of that meeting centered around a proposal with regard to a large export order which lacked detail in so far as our ability to accept it is concerned. The deeper we got into finding the detail, the more discouraging it became.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has any consideration been given to a proposal not to have any duty on potatoes moving in either direction between Canada and the United States as Canada is a net importer of potatoes?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I and my predecessors in this department, as well as other Ministers of Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs, have proposed to the United States many times that we should change the rate on potatoes either to nil both ways or at least the same going both
Old Age Security Pensions
ways. Over the past few years the United States has responded that this is not negotiable.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: -This House regrets that the government has not deemed advisable to provide old age security pensions to persons between the ages of 60 and 65, or to the wife of a retired person, whatever the age. Any pension so awarded should be such as to enable anyone to live as decently as the physical, material and human resources of Canada would allow.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the days allotted to the opposition are a unique opportunity for us of the Social Credit Party of Canada to draw the attention of the government on ticklish matters with which the government does not dare deal in order to reach a rational solution.
This motion, which could be entitled "Adjustment of pensions for older Canadians", reads as follows:
-This House regrets that the government has not deemed advisable to provide old age security pensions to persons between the ages of 60 and 65, or to the wife of a retired person, whatever the age.. Any pension so awarded should be such as to enable anyone to live as decently as the physical, material and human resources of Canada would allow.
But if we accept the principle that Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, I fail to see why we should trail far behind those same countries with regard to the social security of those who built our country.
In the past, it was difficult enough to set, according to accepted standards, the minimum age entitling one to a pension. If we refer to the Internation Labour Conference of 1932, the minimum age was not to exceed 65, but it took Canada 35 years to recognize the recommendation of the International Labour Office. Indeed, it was only in 1952 that universal old age security pensions provided for a uniform payment of $40 a month to everyone 70 or over. That was a very timid start considering the fact that in 1937, 30 years before Canada, Denmark lowered pensionable age to 60.
Since January 1, 1971, a 65 year old person gets a pension of $80 per month and if that person has no other source of income, he may be entitled to a $55 monthly supplement. We lost in terms of universality what we gained in terms of social assistance. In other words, the old age pension is no longer strictly a pension, but is partly social welfare. And that is precisely what people do not accept any more. I shall come back to this subject a little later.
It is absolutely essential for us to base our social reforms on economic requirements. In these days of
8890

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
unemployment, the public opinion calls for the lowering of the retirement age, so that a greater number of people withdraw from the labour market, thus enabling younger people to find employment. Besides, that is the main reason why the government of Denmark reduced the eligible age for pension to 60 years in 1937.
In 1911, New Zealand set the pensionable age at 60. They even set eligibility at 55 for women.
In Australia, as early as 1910, the minimum eligible age for a pension was also lowered to 60.
In Canada, we had to wait until 1927 before persons 70 years and over were guaranteed payment of a miserable pittance of $20. It is so ridiculous that I am ashamed of stating the amount of the pension. Could not Canada which ranks among the ten richest countries in the world at least follow the example of the countries I have just mentioned?
Today, we urge the present government to give all older Canadians a pension based on the cost of living. I did say a pension, not the semblance of one such as the scheme that now exists. Pensions are dues, not social welfare. I am convinced that our country is rich enough to give good protection to those who spent the best years of their lives making their country progress. A pension that will reestablish social distributive justice, because it will not allow any patronage and will not result in any discrimination since all people will get the guaranteed minimum regardless of their social or monetary status.
How much would such a pension cost the Canadian treasury? Not more than we are spending today for bureaucracy and patronage of all kinds. Think of the millions the Canadian treasury is now spending to fight unemployment, for instance, for training, second training, third training, to support all the young people who, having finished their studies or their training, can still find no jobs.
Transferring funds allocated to workers 60 to 65 years old to government pensions will increase old age pension disbursements but at the same time and perhaps to a greater extent it will reduce funds allocated to support these unemployed persons or train them. It must be recognized that a family of unemployed individuals costs the government much more than a married couple receiving a pension.
I can, Mr. Speaker, give a simple example to illustrate what I have in mind. What happens to a factory worker who has reached retirement age? This factory worker, who is a breadwinner, will leave a fairly remunerative job to make room for whom? For another breadwinner who was unemployed. That is to say, the state was providing a living to this breadwinner who had perhaps three, four, five or six children, therefore costing the welfare bureau or the unemployment insurance-mostly the welfare bureau-$250, $300 or perhaps $350 a month. The latter will replace the other breadwinner, the retired one, in the last case and in the present situation the government would pay $255 a month.
That is why I said a moment ago that by giving a pension to those who reach age 60, the government will be called upon to spend more money, but in a number of cases, it would make a saving. On the other hand, in

granting this pension to all and without investigation, as is done now in the case of family allowances, the various provincial inquiries would be eliminated; these cost to the treasury as much as the income supplement which 35 per cent of pensioners receive on account of their poverty. In considering these two points only, we see that our case is justified.
We finally ask that the wife receive the same pension as her husband when the latter reaches retiring age and we base our request on the most elementary sense of justice. Let us consider the family as it exists in our Canadian society. The salary of the breadwinner is still that of the father. When he was at work, he was supporting the family economy and when he paid his taxes, he was doing so as the head of the family. Is it not true that when he ceases to receive his salary, it is the head of the family who loses his income? If a pension is to replace this salary, is it not logical that such pension be granted to a breadwinner? Otherwise, how can the father continue to carry out his role of head of the household without the financial means required for this?
I was going to suggest, as a solution to the problem, that the legislation be amended with regard to the family head. But there is a much simpler way: give the same pension to his spouse, whatever her age. In this way we would reach our objective, that is a guaranteed family income, and to all couples without exception.
Some may object to this, arguing that the rich do not need the old age pension. I would answer that they may not need it but that they are entitled to it, like all other citizens, because this is a pension and not social assistance.
That is why, at the beginning of my speech I established a distinction between a pension and assistance. One does have the right to a pension when perhaps one does not need it, but one is not entitled to any aid which one does not need. That should be quite clear. And I say that the pension should be universal because I consider that the worker has a right to it when he reaches 60. As for the money that one not needing it will receive, you can rest assured that it will quickly go back to where it came from, that is the national treasury, through income tax.
Since the old age security pension is taxable, all the inspectors in every Canadian income tax office will see to it to collect what is due. One must choose the lesser of two evils.
It would be better to have only one collection office, since the present financial system requires it. The cases of all taxpayers will have to be settled instead of the thousands of offices being maintained, which give rise to so many complaints and injustices and where the worst patronage since the heyday of the Taschereau regime is often rampant.
If time allowed me, I would quote hundreds of cases that I had to deal with in my riding, due to on the one hand, this guaranteed income supplement and, on the other hand, because the wife was too young when her husband reached retirement age.
October 21, 1971

Furthermore, there are conflicts of jurisdiction about the sharing of responsibilities in certain social fields. In Quebec, the situation is further complicated by a rather vague legislation in the field of social affairs, and mainly with regards to shared cost programs, to which the federal government contributes 50 per cent without having a say in the matter. It must also be said that provincial and federal regulations made by officials often supersede the law. Finally, all mothers have seen their cheque reduced to nil with the introduction of the guaranteed income supplement. That is the limit! The finest social mess in the world! Those are the situations that a member must face in his constituency.
The last part of our motion reads as follows: "Any pension so awarded should be such as to enable anyone to live as decently . . We still say according to the cost of living index, which would mean about $150 per month at the present time.
I know that all the officials associated with our rotten financial system will say that we are putting it on, since they are the ones who conceive, draw up and complicate the legislation introduced in this House. But do they remember sometimes their yearly salary of $24,000, $25,000, $30,000 or more, while the government states that when it gives $1 to a citizen, it must collect $3 in taxes? I know why.
It is well understood that they will never appreciate the sorry plight of pensioners, when they spend their lifetime in the unequalled luxury of their office, surrounded by secretaries who even fetch them a glass of water.
How can popular social legislation be expected from such bureaucrats? All these high officials should have to live for three years on the older people allowance and share their living quarters, I am sure that we would then get much better social legislation.
I am always surprised, when a bill is tabled in the House, to see all Liberal members without exception endorse the bill without having even read it. I am doubly surprised when the opposition dares to point out the shortcomings of the measure, to see these same Liberals howling against the opposition, charging it with filibustering in the House. However, like all of us, these same Liberal members must receive letters of protest from their constituents. Just like us, they must go through their riding to check the effects that legislation adopted by the House has on their constituents. It is not enough to adopt laws, it is more important to go in the field and see how they are accepted by the people, what are their good and ill effects and to come back here to move the appropriate amendments. And that is what all Social Credit members do in their riding every weekend.
It is just too easy to excuse oneself by blaming the local employees who do everything possible but who are very often overwhelmed by all those laws one would often believe had been invented to make things more difficult for them and to confuse people more. The employees who work close to the people always get the kicks the top men would have well deserved. At times, I have felt that might be the purpose of new social laws: to make people quarrel, that they might no longer have the time or opportunity to notice the administrative blunders of the governments.
Old Age Security Pensions
I shall now deal with the pensioners. I still have a few moments left, which I should like to use to pinpoint real cases, and the problems facing those people.
I have here files on some ten cases, but I could have brought along hundreds of them concerning people who are having problems with the Old Age Pensions Act. I apologize for not giving any names, because it could hurt those people. But that will help me point out the deficiencies of the present law and the problems that can plague a member seeking to solve all those difficulties with which he is confronted day in and day out.
First we have the latest device of the government: the guaranteed income supplement. I think that most of the correspondence we have received these last few months deals mainly with the guaranteed income from the 1st of January, when the pension was first raised by the incredible amount of 58 cents per month.
How many headaches this guaranteed income has given pensioners, who had always been under the impression that they were going to receive $135 a month-which turned out not to be the case at all. It seems as if great pains are taken to mislead the population in order to throw even more confusion and to create quarrels between members and their constituents-who presumably elected this member because they trusted him, and, quite naturally, turn to him when they have problems.
I think that all acts nowadays are meant to make the members' task harder and cause them even more problems. Let us take, for instance, the guaranteed income in the case of a couple in which the wife is not yet eligible to a pension. Before the supplement was introduced, the aged head of a household used to receive $79.42, while his wife received social security payments of-and I have the papers here to show it-between $1 and $75. In most cases, the wife receives $69, $70 or $72. As soon as the government introduced the garanteed income supplement, the father, who had no income as his wife was drawing social security benefits from Quebec, got $135. In Quebec the wife is no longer eligible to anything in that province from the moment when that father gets $135. Indeed I wrote several times to Mr. Castongay and he answered me that this was not possible, because it was absolutely necessary that he should get about the same amount he was getting before the increase.
Finally the government of Quebec acknowledged that that married couple needed $150, $155 or $160 to live and, since the government gave $135 to the husband, it immediately withdrew any assistance given to the wife.
There were dozens of such cases, Mr. Speaker, and that situation was called "the scythe" by the women who were too young to get the federal pension. And all those women believed and hoped that they would get the same pension so that they would at least come under the same government plan. And they were right. In fact they said: If my husband belongs to the federal government plan, I should at least belong to it too. We have jobs and it happens that I come under the provincial government plan whereas my husband belongs to the federal government plan.
That is absurd. That is why I said just now, Mr. Speaker, that there must absolutely be some justice and logic in
24372-4}

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
government plans. When a husband reaches the federal pension age, the wife should also come under the federal pension plan in order to avoid conflict and above all so that Quebec should not be able to pocket whatever increases might be granted to elderly people, which would go into the Quebec treasury instead of to the citizens involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must tell him that his time has expired. He may however continue his remarks with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be unanimous consent and the hon. member may therefore proceed with his remarks.


Mr. Gauthier:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not overdo it. I thought I had 45 minutes at my disposal. I realize you were right. Anyway, you are always right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thirty minutes.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am told thirty minutes. I was wrong.
I shall have to be brief if I don't want to take too much time of the House. I very much thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity of not ending my remarks too suddenly.
A moment ago, I quoted the case of young mothers. All hon. members of this House will understand this problem.
As to the guaranteed income supplement, we must determine the reception date or the means test. The guaranteed income supplement is paid on the basis of income for the preceding year. We can imagine the conflicts that can arise from that. There are some cases in my own riding.
To provide for a pensioner today, we take into account his revenues of the previous year when he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he was still entitled to them. Therefore, it means he will have to live on $80 a month. That is what happens. An older married couple must live on $80 a month because there has been an increase which prompted Quebec to withdraw the $30 or $35 the spouse was getting. The couple must go through twelve months on $80 a month. As some would put it, it is no sinecure.
That is why I call the attention of the House on that matter. Once the husband is no longer eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, it is possible to determine his yearly budget two or three months in advance. This can be done and we would not be condemning couples to eke out a living with $80, $100 or $110 a month.
Mr. Speaker, I would have many other things to say but I must abide by my promise not to speak more than two or three minutes. However, I invite hon. members to study the motion. We did not move it as a joke or to help pass the time. It is serious and most of the people approve of such measures. We ask the government to look into that matter and to finally help elderly people. We will be able to do so if the eligible age for pension is lowered to 60.

Unemployment will thus be reduced in Canada since new pensioners will make room for the unemployed.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) upon bringing before the House the motion we are discussing and for the very human way he talked about the subject it covers. We think far too little about the older people of this country. Many people say, "Why, there are lots of old people around. There are more older people than ever before in this country." There have been many scientific changes during the century and many scientific advances. Each basic discovery has led to many other basic discoveries. More scientists are alive today than the combined total of all the other scientists who have lived since the world began. Never before in history, however, has there been such an awareness of the needs and attributes of youth, and never before has any society done so much to assess the needs of youth and to give them a free hand on the rudder of democracy. Yet, in all regions of the country it is the old who multiply more quickly than the rest of the population. Their numbers are increasing at break-neck speed.
For instance, when the Mayflower landed in Massachusetts in 1620, the population of the whole world stood at around 500 million. Today that is the population of one nation, India. Let us take a look back in time. Approximately 25,000 years ago there were 3 million people in the whole world. Ten thousand years ago there were 5 million people in the world. In other words, in over 15,000 years the human population had not even doubled. At the beginning of the Christian era the world population was only 150 million, much less than the population of the United States today. At the beginning of this century, the world population was just over one billion. In 1950 it approached three billion and by the year 2,000 the statisticians tell us it will be well over five billion. As a consequence of overcrowding, pollution, economics and insufficient space in which to stand, the problem is that these people will be aging fast, although the life expectancy is increasing. From 1940 to 1960 the world population grew by just over 1.5 per cent per year, but in the older age group, those over 60, it grew by 2.5 per cent. Statisticians tell us we are getting close to, if we are not already there, a population of 300 million people in the 60 year age group and over, more than the total population of the North American continent today.
The increase in the population of the aged is due to the containment of diseases by scientific medicine. The acute diseases have been brought under control so that the common cause of death in respect of people up to age 40 is accidental. There are many more people who reach age 40 only to find then that the aging and chronic diseases set in. These are the diseases that we have been unable to treat as successfully as those of the acute kind. These diseases which take their toll are heart disease, strokes, cancer, nephritis, respiratory diseases and arthritis. Many of the people who are suffering from these diseases are working today or trying to until they reach the calendar age of 65. Many people reach this age in good mental and
October 21, 1971

physical health. The crudest thing in the world is to stop them contributing to their own physical well-being and to the economics of this country. I am sure all of us in this House know of the contribution being made by people of 65 years of age and over. However, thousands of people suffering from chronic disease go to work daily simply so that they might obtain a larger pension at 65. They work under stress and strain.
I think it is about time that we assessed the physical and mental condition of people rather than considered their calendar age. They feel they must work because they know that every day their pension is being eroded. They know it will have less purchasing power. They know hidden taxes will take more of it. They are afraid to quit. They have strokes and coronaries at age 40 and at age 50. Provision should be made so that they would have a pension not at the calendar age of 60 or 65 but at the physical and mental age they represent. There is no question but that there was discrimination when the government brought in the old age supplement of $55 per month for a single person and $95 a month for a married couple with no other cash income. There certainly is discrimination and it is this I should like to see cured. I am in agreement with what the hon. member for Roberval said, but I also realize that, considering our economic position, we probably first want to correct the injustices that already exist in some areas and modernize the system.
But what about, say, John Brown who is partially disabled and owns a little house? He has a small pension of $80 per month from other sources, but he does not qualify for a disability pension or even for medicare. His wife is gone. He will receive only $80 a month, the purchasing power of which will diminish month by month because of inflation. There is nothing to compensate him. We stopped that, so actually we give the old age pensioner less every month. There are hundreds of John Browns who cannot make ends meet. They have been discriminated against. This particular man also has a heart condition and requires medication costing around $10 per month. The discriminating action of this government will not be forgotten. This magnanimous government, in a just society, increases the old age pension by 42 cents per month and then freezes it. These people will not forget that. Then, the pension is eroded by inflation caused largely by the poor management of this government.
Many widows are in the same position. They have a little home and a small pension. The pensions were smaller in the early days, but from 1948 to the present time the value of the dollar has decreased by 50 per cent. This is an indication of how the pension has been cut. I believe this Parliament has a responsibility in this regard. The old people should not be the forgotten people. There are very few elderly affluent people in the age bracket of 60 to 65 and over. They will remember the magnanimity of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the next federal election. The rich old age pensioner really is non-existent, and the Prime Minister must remember that those people of 65 years of age represent 17 per cent or 18 per cent of the voting power of this country.
It is really the second part of the motion presented to the House that is the most interesting. It reads:
Old Age Security Pensions
Any pension so awarded should be such as to enable anyone to live as decently as the physical, material and human resources of Canada would allow.
I believe all of us-and I suggest this applies to all parties in the House-should wholeheartedly endorse that proposal. If any member of this House does not endorse it, I should like him to take part in this debate and explain his reason. There is a constant concern on this side of the House that the Liberal government has continually eroded the status and well-being of Canadian pensioners and has repeatedly ignored the plea for more adequate and meaningful assistance. Consequently, it is really the second part of the motion to which I wish to direct most of my attention.
Before I do so, however, I should like to comment on the part of this motion which calls for a reduction in the age level now required for eligibility for old age pensions. The motion calls for the inclusion of persons aged 60 to 64, and persons of any age who are spouses of pensioners. Again I say this is a noble gesture and one for which I have a great deal of sympathy. When medicare was discussed in this House reference was made to supplementary payments for drugs. This proposal was contained in the Hall Commission Report which was tabled in this House some four years ago, but that recommendation has never been carried out.
Let me say that once a person reaches 60 years of age his drug bill increases by four or five times, so that some of these people require up to $30 a month for drugs. However, this government does nothing to help those people who have difficulty meeting their drug bills. There are so many areas of unfairness that have been left in this scheme that I should like to see it modernized and brought up to date. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has spoken from time to time about the guaranteed income, but then he shied away from that. Later, he told us of another plan which would bring the income of the old age pensioner close to that of a guaranteed income. I do not believe he knows what he means at all. This government just does not have any feeling or humanity, although I am sure they have these qualities individually. Why do they not get together over there and do a little thinking about such things as drug bills?
I will tell you something about the cost of drugs. Last year Canadians paid $271 million for drugs. If you take 17 per cent of 23 million people which is the percentage of the population over 60, you realize there is one person in 12 or one person in 13, in that category. Since these elderly people use drugs four times oftener than those under 60, you can see how much money those older people require. The federal government should establish a scheme to cover drug costs, similar to the national medicare scheme so the provinces could follow suit. This is not just my own idea. There is an election in Ontario today. Perhaps I should not mention that, but it is expected that the cost of drugs will be covered in the province of Ontario. Of course, we all know that election promises do not always become law, but I hope that such a bill will be introduced.
Another piece of legislation that was introduced-we have moved in this direction but we are moving so slowly-is one that would cover the cost of patients in

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
nursing homes, with the exception of $3 per day. This is a big thing. We have done something in this direction but there are still many pockets of people who have been forgotten. Over 500,000 Canadians over 65 are in this category. This is why I plead with the government to get off its seat. I know that on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have been lenient with me when I was asking the Minister of National Health and Wefare questions, but I also know that you have realized his answers were neither up to date nor very helpful in assisting us to ascertain the real situation.
In pleading for the older people I want to say that boredom, alienation, poor health and reduced incomes are their main problems. The problems of the older people receive very little attention in the press. How many stories do you hear concerning them compared to those about younger people? They get no notice on the CBC, and this is amazing. How many times, Mr. Speaker, have you seen a program about older people and how they live? Reference was made to this point by the hon. member for Roberval when he cited case histories. How many times have we heard about these people? If the views of older people are rarely heard on the CBC, on radio or television, it is because most of the performers, and indeed the programs, are slanted towards sports, culture and styles in the arts. The older people are just not mentioned. This is not just my observation. A member of this House who had the honour of being the postmaster general appeared before the Senate Committee and stated that there were no programs aimed specifically at representing the plight of the older people in Canada. When one considers that over 500,000 old age pensioners are on incomes between $1,320 and $4,500, which is below the poverty line, one realizes the gravity of the problem.
Again I compliment the hon. member for Roberval who so thoughtfully brought in this motion and thus brought these problems to the attention of the government. In my own way, I have brought to the attention of the government the plight of older people. The world is getting older by the day. When I look around me, and at hon. members opposite, I realize that most of us are approaching the age of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis and respiratory diseases.


An hon. Member:: Senility.


Mr. Bell:: There is another thing wrong with them, also.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Without getting too funny about it, let me point out that all this is true. We have seen many members of the House, many of them noted members, who have suffered from coronaries and cardiovascular disease and passed on. I am sure all hon. members know what this means and I am sure it has affected some of their families. All of us have or had fathers and mothers. I am sure it only needs some thought about what we are doing to our old people to make us straighten out our values and to become fair with respect to them. We have that power in Parliament. Let us use it to protect, honour and respect those people among our old age pensioners who are living below the poverty level.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) on the introduction of the motion that is now before the House. We shall be pleased to give it our full support. As I see it, the motion is in two parts. In the first half of it the hon. member requests that consideration be given to the lowering of the age at which the old age pension is paid so that it would be payable to all at the age of 60. He couples with that the very commendable suggestion that where the breadwinner is on pension the spouse should also receive the pension, even if that spouse has not yet reached the required age. In the second part of the motion the suggestion is made that the level of the pension should be sufficient to enable people to live as decently as is possible in this country.
I suspect that when we hear from the government side of the House in this debate there will be some who will give their support to this motion, their support to moving in the direction suggested by it, but I have no doubt that we will also be given a history of old age pensions. We will be told of the many improvements that have been made since 1926 when the first Old Age Pension Act was enacted. If one compares the original Old Age Pension Act with the present situation, there is no doubt in the world that a tremendous improvement has been made. That first act provided for $20 a month payable only at the age of 70, with a means test so rigorous that very few people were able to qualify for it. We now have a pension that is universal at age 65 to the extent of $80 per month for an individual, and we have the guaranteed income supplement which makes it possible for an individual without means to get an additional $55 for a total of $135 a month. It also makes it possible for a married couple without means to receive a total pension of $255 a month. A number of other improvements have been made, and I have no hesitation in welcoming the fact that we have come a long way since 1926 and 1927.


Mr. Whelan:: No other nation has done as much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not here when the first act was brought in, but I have been here through all of the years in which the improvements have been won.


Mr. Mackasey:: Was it in 1912?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, but it was in
this century, the early part of it.
I have no hesitation in saying that the improvements are welcome. But, Mr. Speaker, let us not get carried away with what we have done when, by comparison with what is needed, we are so far behind. If one compares the amount of the pension today with the total wealth we are producing in Canada, with the affluence many people enjoy, we just are not doing enough. We leave the old people in a position where they are entitled to say they are forgotten by the government and by Parliament. This notion that we can rest on our laurels because we passed an amendment to the Old Age Security Act in this session is not good enough for the Parliament of Canada.
October 21, 1971

The first proposal in this motion is one that we have to take seriously, namely, the lowering of the eligible age. I was interested in the very significant remarks made by the hon. member who preceded me, concerning the difference between chronological age and actual age. He has suggested ideas that should be given very serious consideration. However, what we have before us is a proposal that the eligible age be reduced from 65 to 60. I know that when this suggestion is made during the question period, there are some around who gasp and tell us how much it will cost. But we seem to find it possible to dig up $80 million for this, $90 million for that, and $1 billion for something else, and I think that if we were really aware of the importance of this problem we would find the money.
The point I should like to make is that we have to get away from the idea that an old age pension is merely something one gets when he is old and decrepit. We are in a society that is not finding it possible to provide full employment. This worries us. But it is also a fact of our age that we are moving into a time when there may be a lot less employment, a lot less actual physical work that has to be done. I hope the day will come in the lifetime of those of us here when great numbers of our people just will not be required to do physical work, or work in the actual production of goods and services, but will be free to enjoy life in various kinds of pursuits, and that society will make it possible for them to do so.
Instead of waiting until this type of life is forced on us, instead of bungling into it, why do we not decide now that age 60 is a good age for people to be permitted to leave the labour market. If one is forced to wait until 70, or even 65, in many cases one is not able to make the necessary adjustments or necessary shifts. But if we can say to people that they can retire from physical, manual or other labour at 60, and follow other pursuits, there is a chance for them to make that shift into the later part of life which, after all, is the best of all, for which the first is made-if my poetry isn't too mixed up.
Instead of thinking of pensions as a form of charity, of welfare, of something given to people because they are old and decrepit, there should be a firm decision on a time when we say, "You have done your share of the kind of drudgery that work demands. It is time for you to enjoy a guaranteed annual income. You have reached that age, now go out and show what you can do as human beings."
I suggest that we could think in terms of phasing into this situation. I suggest two ways, in case some are scandalized by the amount of money this would cost to do it all at once. When we reduced the eligible age from 70 to 65 years we faced this problem. Some people thought it would be too much to do it all at once, so we did it year by year, from 70 to 69, from 69 to 68, 68 to 67, 67 to 66, and finally from 66 to 65. We can do the same now. We can start next year to make it 64, the year after that 63, and so on until we get down to 60. This is something that will have to be considered.
Another way we could make this kind of transition is suggested to us in the way we treat the benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. We now provide that a person at age 70 gets the full benefits under the Canada Pension Plan to which he is entitled because of his contributions,
Old Age Security Pensions
no matter what he is doing, whether he is working or not, or has other income. Between 65 and 70, we permit persons to draw the benefits they have earned under the Canada Pension Plan on one condition only, namely, that they leave the labour market, that they do not have income from employment. It is no barrier to their full Canada Pension Plan benefits that persons may have income from investments and other sources. The only requirement is that they leave the labour market.
That might be a way for us to get started on the payment of old age pensions at age 60, simply by saying to people that it is optional-"if you leave the labour market you can get the full amount without regard to a means test, or other sources of income that you may have." Just as I have pleaded in this House over several decades for the various other improvements we have had to make in pensions, I think this question has to be taken seriously. That is why I commend my hon. friend from Roberval for placing it before us today.
Sometimes my hon. friends to my left are characterized as having strange ideas. It is also said that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has some strange ideas, but he has been able to sell some of his strange ideas. I wish him luck with others. But the point of the matter is that strange or not, I think this is a serious proposition that society will have to face. I urge that this House today discuss it seriously, and try its best to make it known to the government that the issue of what we are doing about old age pensions is not over just because we passed an amending bill last December.
Part of the motion that is before us, part of the first sentence as it were, relates to the desirability of the pension being available to the spouse where that spouse is under the pension age if the breadwinner is on the pension. I hope that this, too, will be given serious consideration. I hope that we will not go through the routine that we usually go through when this comes up, that it is possible for some old codger to marry a young girl and then have her on the pension when she is 35, or even less. This could be taken care of by a simple regulation that the difference must be not more than five years, or that the couple must have been married for a certain number of years, or there could be the possibility of an employment test. I hope the House sees clearly that I do not under any circumstances suggest a means test. Ever since I came into this House the idea of a means test has been an anathema to me. I think there are other things in the labour market that are reasonable tests that could be applied. Let us not have the kind of nonsense that we sometimes have when this suggestion is made. It is a sound suggestion, and I think it should receive the attention and consideration of the House.
I have dealt thus far with what I regard as the first part of the motion, the first half, namely, the half that has to do with the lowering of the eligible age. As I say, I think that is the new thing that is before us in this motion. I do not mean that the suggestion is new because it has been made by some of us a good many times, but this is one of the few times that it has been before us as a motion, and I stress the seriousness and importance of it.
As I have already said there are times when people assert, and it has been asserted today, that one way to

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
provide jobs for younger people is to get some of the older people out of the labour market. That may be oversimplifying it a bit, although there may be validity to that suggestion. But as I tried to say earlier this should be looked at in the context of the kind of over-all change which is taking place in society. I am as sure as I am that I am standing here that in the year 2,000 work will not have the important place in life that it has today. There will be millions of our people who will live for something else. Why don't we start now, deliberately choosing those groups of people who should not have to be in the labour market. I know of no better group to choose than our older people.
My friend from Simcoe North looked across the way a minute ago and, as a doctor, saw all sorts of medical conditions that he could attend to if he had time. I think one of the sad things about our retirement policy is that we have this tradition that you can work until you cannot do anything more, and then you are put out to pasture until you die. Why not accept the proposition that it is good at a reasonable time of life to retire from what one has been doing and to start over again? Now don't let anyone throw that at me-I have been here so long there is no other place for me to go. I intend to stay here arguing for this kind of thing and it may be of benefit to some of my friends across the way. There is my friend, the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan). He has done a good job here and one thing I know, he will not be going to the other place. However, it might be a good idea if he were retired early so that he could make a contribution in some other way of life. And there are others across the way who might do the same thing.
I must not get sidetracked, Mr. Speaker, even if I am doing it myself because I want to say something about the second part of the motion. In fact, I want to move an amendment to it. I have shown my amendment to some of my friends to my left and have indicated to them that although it seeks to change a part of their wording, it is a friendly amendment that seeks to underline a certain aspect of this motion. The second part of the motion reads:
Any pension so awarded should be such as to enable anyone to live as decently as the physical, material and human resources of Canada would allow.
I agree. I just want to make the point and to underline it, that this means there must be a substantial increase in the amount of the pension now being paid. People cannot live and meet those conditions on $80 a month or $160 a month for man and wife. As for the people who qualify for $135 a month single or $255 a month married, they qualify only because they have practically nothing else. I think the circumstances that we have had since the guaranteed income supplement was brought in, and since these higher figures were set, prove the unfairness of a pension that has a means test attached to any portion of it.
While I think that we have been right on this side of the House over the years, and that the government was right when it accepted the principle of paying the pension universally, I think what we should now be doing is getting back to that principle and paying a pension of at least $150 across the board without any means test whatsoever.
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
We can take care of the few wealthy people in the old age pension group by means of the income tax. That income tax is going to take care of all kinds of things if the bill ever gets through! The fact of the matter is that statistics prove that my hon. friend from Simcoe North was right. The number of wealthy people in the older age brackets is very low. Most are in need of every dollar they can get. Then, there is the whole problem of inflation which wipes out any increase. I think the minimum amount needed now is $150 a month across the board. To put it in precise terms, I think that is what my friend is asking for when he uses that rhetorical phrase that "any pension so awarded should be such as to enable anyone" to do such and such.
I have already got a motion on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, calling for pensions to be $150 a month, so I am afraid if I move that one at this point it might be looked upon by the Chair as repeating an argument taking place in another debate and therefore out of order. However, I think if I put my words in general terms they will meet the requirements of the rules, and therefore I want to propose that the amount paid as old age security should be substantially increased and by "substantially" I mean that it should be not less than $150 a month and that it should be' payable across the board.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move an amendment to the motion now before the House. I do so seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and my motion is as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom the words "Any pension so awarded should be such as", and by substituting therefor the words: "The amount of the pension now provided as old age security should be increased substantially".
If my motion were accepted, the total motion as amended would then read:
This House regrets that the government has not deemed advisable to provide old age security pensions to persons between the ages of 60 and 65, or to the wife of a retired person, whatever the age. The amount of the pension now provided as old age security should be increased substantially to enable anyone to live as decently as the physical, material and human resources of Canada would allow.
It was a good motion that the hon. member for Roberval brought in. I think it is a better motion with the change I have made in it, and I hope the House, throughout the day, will indicate its support.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault), I might put the motion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated that it was a friendly motion in so far as hon. members to his left who are sponsoring the motion today are concerned, and it would be the view of the Chair that the motion is in order. It seems to me it does not go outside the scope of the motion moved by the hon. member for Roberval. I am prepared to put it to the House unless there is procedural objection.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault).
October 21, 1971


Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I have supported the motion moved by my colleague the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), requesting the government to provide the old age security pension all those between 60 and 65, as well as to the wife, whatever her age may be.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Parliament, in 1965, passed a law to bring the pension age down from 70 to 65 and today anyone aged 65 is entitled to this pension. Until 1967, the pension was established at $75 per month, but since 1968, the amount can be increased according to the rise in the cost of living, and it now stands at $79.58. And in January 1971, the maximum was increased by 42 cents, so as to become a monthly payment of $80.
Mr. Speaker, this government is presently incapable of finding jobs for the unemployed. During periods of unemployment, as is now the case, public opinion calls for a lower retirement age, so that more old people can withdraw from the labour market thus making room for younger people.
Mr. Speaker, legislation passed in Denmark in 1891 set at 60 the retirement age, but it was amended in 1932 to raise it to 65. Even if this was a backward step with respect to the 1891 legislation, it provided some compensation. For example, under special circumstances, local authorities could, with the approval of the responsible minister, grant the pensions at 60.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation passed in New Zealand in 1898 provided a pension to the citizens of 65 and over. An amendment passed in 1911 reduced it to 60 and to 55 for women, when the applicants had two young dependents of 15 or under. Another amendment passed in 1913 granted a retirement pension to all women of 60 or over.
Mr. Speaker, the law that was passed in Australia in 1908 granted old age pension to men and women of 65 and over. That minimum age was lowered to 60 in 1910.
In China a few years ago, older people starved to death in the streets. Nowadays, people of 50 and 55 in that immense and over-populated country receive the old age pension. Canada cannot be left behind in this vital question of age.
Mr. Speaker, the government seems to think we are asking for something impossible, yet considering Canada's physical possibilities to produce, we all agree that we could produce for a population twice the size of ours. Indeed, we are 50 years behind as concerns the application of this old age pension to cover people at 60. Mr. Speaker, Canada must face stronger and stronger foreign competition. It should endeavour to increase its manufacturing efficiency. In other words, it should increase productivity. Now, account should be taken of the development of new techniques older workers, 60 years and over, find it hard to get used to.
According to a study conducted by the Economy and Research Branch of the federal Department of Labor in 1960 and published under the title "Age and Efficiency", maximum efficiency obtains at 55 and tends to decrease thereafter.
Old Age Security Pensions
Mr. Speaker, in my constituency, there are many cases of married couples where the husband receives a pension, whereas the wife, being younger, has to be satisfied with a small welfare allowance. This is an unfortunate situation. After having brought up a fairly large family, one should not have to live under inhuman conditions, although that is often the case. The reason is that there is no money to buy the necessities of life while we are living in affluence and that department stores in all our cities are bursting with those goods which could make our families so happy.
During summer adjournment, I convassed from door to door in my riding to make on the spot enquiries. I believe that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet members, in charge of the laws on old age pensions, could do the same they would see the deplorable living conditions of many aged couples and this would prompt the cabinet to make a faster decision. But the Prime Minister and his cabinet are satisfied with travelling around the world to try and sell our products of which many Canadian families are in great need but the almighty dollar does not work for people's needs but for those who control our economic blood; even more important, the election fund must be replenished.

In a pre-election speech in the fall of 1935, the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King declared at the opening of the electoral campaign and I quote:
Until the control of currency and credit is restored to Parliament and recognized as its most evident and most sacred responsibility all talk of democracy is idle and futile. A truly national bank, properly constituted, should control the issue of money in terms of public need.
The flow of money must be in relation with the domestic, social and industrial needs of the Canadian people.
I think this was a very true statement, but just like all the other Liberal promises, it was never respected. It was just another trap to get voters to vote for the party. Since 1930, Canadian people have been asking questions about our Canadian monetary policy. Canadians wonder why we have so much in time of war and so little in time of peace, so much for underdeveloped countries and so little to develop Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government to set up a royal commission to find out if we have enough products to pay our older people a pension as soon as they reach age 60.
Mr. Speaker, we make all sorts of studies but it would be important to know if our country has enough products to pay our older people a pension as soon as they reach age 60. I think our country has the necessary products to help those people.
There is a particular case I would like to single out. Two older people from Malartic came to see me, one is 71 and the other 74 years old. These two persons have a joint bank account where each deposited $1,000. The father was telling me, we do not want to touch it, it is for our burial. At the end of each year, the bank files a report indicating that they received a small amount of interest. So the federal government takes away part of the interest they receive. Instead of getting the maximum $255 a

October 21, 1971
8898	_________________________________
Old Age Security Pensions
month, they get roughly $248 a month because they each have $1,000.
I think that this should not be tolerated in a country as rich as Canada.
I have recently seen a family in Val d'Or, where the father is 74 years of age and the mother 57, and they have a totally incapacitated son of 27 and an ailing daughter. The father draws the $135 maximum pension, the son $75, the daughter $80 and the mother nought. This is a situation which happens in Canada. Four people must live on $290. How can they manage?
The hon. member for Roberval stated a few moments ago that an employee is forced to leave his job at the age of 65 and is eligible to only three weeks of unemployment insurance benefits and the maximum he can receive is $80 a month, a year earlier, if the same person aged 65 who left his work by reason of his age was available for work, he could draw unemployment insurance benefits together with his monthly pension of $80, $79 or $58. Here is a person who could live with a measure of decency for at least a year. But the investigating officers realized that there was some money to be gotten out of these families and this is how people are penalized.
Mr. Speaker, I will say no more on the subject, but ask once again the government to fall in with the request that old age security pensions be provided to persons aged 60. The government of Canada would be well deserving of the ratefulness of the Canadian people by instituting forthwith an integral scheme whereby pensions would be provided to persons aged 60 and to the wife of a retired person, whatever the age.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: It was good of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) to put forward his motion today. It gives us an opportunity to pause for a while and give some thought to the question of the retirement in dignity of people in Canada, considering the fact that they have contributed to our society in a productive manner all their lives and that they therefore have the right to a pension which will permit them to live in dignity.
The thrust of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Roberval is concentrated around the approach that is made available by means of the old age security pension. This is the measure he has emphasized and which he would like to expand further to include people whose age is 60 and over. In discussing the manner whereby he would finance this proposal, if I am interpreting him correctly, he said the necessary funds could be found by reducing or eliminating payments to recipients of unemployment insurance benefits, by reducing or eliminating payments to trainees under manpower auspices and by reducing the number of people employed as civil servants to administer certain programs.
It seems to me this is an awkward way in which to go about providing benefits of the kind envisaged. It is perhaps outdated in the sense that it looks only at one social benefit measure, without taking into account that with every year that goes by we are closer to the fruition of 
another social insurance measure of great importance to Canadians, namely, the Canada Pension Plan which was introduced in the House in 1965, I believe. It seems to me that if we are to achieve the objective outlined by the hon. member, namely, the extension of pension benefits to other segments in our community, we could do so more effectively and more generously by paying attention to the Canada Pension Plan and to some of the provisions it contains. There are provisions in the plan which would permit us to achieve this objective earlier if it were possible to accelerate the year in which full rates are to be made available, namely, to introduce full rates earlier than 1976. This would only be possible, of course, if Canadians were willing to increase their premiums to this contributory plan thus enabling the year of maturity of the plan itself to be advanced.
Another step which might go a long way to meeting the hon. member's objective would be to raise the ceiling on pensioners' earnings. This would increase the number of people who would benefit. Rather than by means of increasing taxes in a manner the hon. member for Roberval did not really specifically outline, except by indicating that certain useful programs which exist at present should be eliminated, the Canada Pension Plan offers a vehicle of self-imposed taxation and contributions which makes much more sense.
This discussion also provides us with an opportunity to consider a question which has been raised, I suppose, by other hon. members on other occasions, that is to say, whether we should continue to regard the age of 60 as the age at which people have reached a stage in life at which they should retire from the productive labour force. It seems to me there is another way to go about it. We could revise this concept of a fixed retirement age and substitute a flexible retirement clause. This would tie in with some of the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) when he spoke of two different ages, the calendar age and the physical age. Rather than be tied down by a calendar age, it seems to me we could achieve greater social benefits by thinking in terms of a flexible retirement age. This would permit an individual to retire from active productive life at the age at which he or she wished to do so. In some cases it would be well above the age of 65; in others it might be well below.
It is this concept which might be considered by the minister and the officials in charge of the Canada Pension Plan when embarking upon consultations with provincial governments as they are scheduled to do in years to come. It makes sense that a flexible retirement clause should be part and parcel of a social security scheme. Canadians would then be able to retire when they wished to do so and become entitled to certain benefits on their own terms, rather than in accordance with a rigid concept which is difficult to apply in day to day life. May I add that this concept is not only not new but has already been incorporated in the legislation of some other countries. For instance, I understand that the pension plan operated by the Federal Republic of Germany, as recently amended, introduces this same concept of flexible retirement. That country has also introduced at the same time the one-year credit concept for mothers who have to withdraw from the labour force. This kind of pioneering in the
October 21, 1971

field of social measures would, if adapted to our own needs, considerably benefit pensioners in Canada.
In examining the approach developed by the hon. member for Roberval, who suggested we could achieve a similar objective if not a better one, through the Canada pension plan, I would suggest that in doing so it would be desirable to co-ordinate social measures with other federal programs. For instance, it would be desirable to coordinate the Canada Pension Plan with the unemployment insurance plan, thereby offering flexible retirement when workers decide to withdraw. Perhaps we might even introduce incentives to withdraw that are even more attractive than the present incentives.
Let me give the House an example, Mr. Speaker. If I recall correctly, under the unemployment insurance legislation approved by this House, if a person aged 65 or over decides to retire and take a pension under the Canada Pension Plan he receives a lump sum payment amounting to three weeks' salary. However, should this person decide not to retire but to continue to make himself available for employment-this person is assumed to be unemployed- he can continue to receive unemployment insurance benefits for almost one year. There is a considerable difference in the amount that this person will receive, depending upon which approach he decides to adopt. It seems to me that the incentive offered by the lump sum payment is much less than the benefit that this person would receive were he to decide to remain available for employment. I just give this example to underline the importance, as already indicated by others before me, of co-ordinating the Canada Pension Plan with other social measures, such as unemployment insurance, in order to offer the maximum benefit.
Before concluding may I make reference to one aspect of our old age security legislation which has not been debated today. I refer to immigrants who wish to retire in their native land. Under the present provisions, an immigrant is permitted to receive his old age security pension should he decide to return to his native land only when he has been resident in Canada for 25 years. This opportunity has been taken by some who felt that, for health or sentimental reasons, it was necessary for them to retire in their country of origin. This measure has also been made use of by others who felt that the sum made available by old age security would go further in their native land where the cost of living was lower. In recent years a number of representations have been made to the government by different groups who have stressed the desirability of reducing the number of years residence from 25 so as to permit individuals, who perhaps have reached the age of retirement but have been resident in Canada only 20 or 23 years, to retire to their native country.
It seems to me this is a matter about which arguments can be made either way. At the same time, I should like to take this opportunity of drawing this question to the attention of the minister. I urge him to consider requests made over the years to reduce the residence requirement. If this is possible I am sure it would be most appreciated by those who wish to take advantage of such a provision.
Old Age Security Pensions


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to say a few words on behalf of the older citizens of Canada. No section of the Canadian populace has suffered more under this government's outmoded approach to the economy than our senior citizens. No section of our populace has suffered more from the deliberate and cold-blooded effort by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to fight inflation by creating unemployment.
It has often been said that the war against inflation is fought on the backs of the poor. I know that our senior citizens will agree with that statement. After working all their lives to try to accumulate enough to live on in decency for the balance of their lives, these people now find their pensions and savings chopped away by inflation. They are denied any satisfactory measure of relief by a government which can find hundreds of millions of dollars to squander on unnecessary projects, but little if any assistance to offer the old age pensioners.
I would be the first to agree that the conditions for the old age pensioner have improved over the last 20 or 30 years. May I also say formally that we cannot rest on our laurels. Much needs to be done for these people. If I need to support that statement, I can do no better than refer to statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). I was interested to note, in glancing through some remarks that the minister made at the federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers last January, that he recognized that unemployment was higher than ever before in this country, that many, many more human lives were in jeopardy in this country and that those people were depending on social welfare assistance. After referring to the various programs the government has in mind, he went on to say:
The main thrust of the federal policy in this field-
Meaning the whole field of social assistance.
-for the future will be:
1.	to develop the guaranteed income technique as a major anti-poverty policy;
2.	to reduce emphasis on universal programs like old age security and family allowances and place greater emphasis on selective programs providing income-related benefits under Guaranteed Income Supplement and Family Income Security Plan;
Today, we are concerned only about the guaranteed income supplement part of the statement. I think the minister's remarks are enlightening and show that he recognizes that much more must be done for our older citizens if they are to live in any sort of decent retirement.
The minister also discussed the question of assistance as a right, something that has been argued over the years. I was pleased to see his statement to the effect that governments must now recognize that the provision of this type of assistance constitutes a right and that this is what the government intends to provide. That, to me, demonstrates clearly the wisdom of a motion of the type we are considering. The necessity is there. In the few minutes I shall talk, I want to point out some of the weaknesses of the present system and make suggestions for betterment.

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
Canada's senior citizens make up a large proportion of those affected by poverty. They had high hopes as a result of the white paper on income security; yet, since being introduced in November, 1970, the white paper has been subject to a heavy barrage of criticism from all sectors of Canadian society. Its critics include social welfare workers, journalists and economists. They come from all sections of the population. The white paper, prepared under the direction of Deputy Minister Joseph Willard, took two years to research. Canadians expected the white paper to include the announcement of a broad, new social policy for this country. Yet, when the programs were announced, it became evident that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had lost in his fight for a comprehensive social program. After 18 months of cabinet in-fighting, a very feeble document was introduced on November 30, 1970.
The proposals in this document advocated three main changes. The first related to family allowances; the second, to old age payments and the income supplement, and the third, to the Canada Pension Plan. At this time, in this debate, I am concerned only about proposals or suggestions relating to old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement. My criticism of these proposals and of our present system falls under two headings: the first is the old age security plan itself and the second, the guaranteed income supplement.
It is amazing that the criticism of these two plans has been so widespread and uniform, although the critics have come from a diversity of backgrounds. One of the things that has surprised critics is the speed with which the government enacted into law those parts of the white paper dealing with old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. The speed with which they brought those programs in was unusual for this government. Up to the present, the government has brought out white papers, with the avowed intention of giving people lots of time to study them, make proposals and suggestions and, hopefully, bring about improvements. In this instance, no opportunity was given to anyone to study the proposals in the white paper. There was no opportunity for organizations and people to suggest amendments.
The old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits, even with the increases provided in the spring of this year, still fall short of the minimum required for a satisfactory standard of living for the aged. Few of our old people will be removed from poverty as a result of the increase. Furthermore, as critics have pointed out, income tax at present rates reduces the payments in many instances, particularly for single people; and, even if the proposals for tax amendments are adopted, single people and some couples under 70 will suffer an income reduction through taxation.
There has also been a criticism of the fact that the universal program, that is, the old age security plan, was not "beefed up". Why was there such a meagre increase? It was about 40 cents a month, as I recall. Here is a payment that is given to all people who are over 65. If you want to see how great the need is for an increased basic amount, you only need to look at the figures. About 50 per cent of our people on old age security are receiving the guaranteed income supplement; more than half of these people get the full supplement. Clearly, the need is there.

These older people just do not have the necessary income on which to exist.
The flat rate of $80 for old age security, even with the cost of living escalation of 2 per cent for the guaranteed income supplement, is not realistic when we consider that the cost of living index has been rising by 4 or 5 per cent annually. If the past performance of the economy is repeated in the future, and there is nothing to indicate that the increase in the cost of living index will be lower- indications are that it will continue to rise by at least 4 or 5 per cent-the result will be that in 25 years today's $80 will buy something less than $40 worth of goods and services. At the end of 50 years it will not buy anything. The sad part is that pensioners are at the mercy of the system. They have no way of bargaining for wage increases, as everybody else does. This action by the government is even more unfair when we realize that old age pensions were directly paid for, in part, by the pensioners themselves. They have contribute dto thes epensions through automatic tax deductions and have taken into considerations pension payments in figuring out how much will be available to them at retirement.
Another serious criticism of the present legislation is that old age pensioners are still taxed on income they earn on top of the government allowances. For each $2 of income in excess of the pension, $1 will be taken away in taxes. There are many ways in which this practice of deducting $1 for every $2 can be shown to be both undesirable and unfair. For example, many older people have substantial savings but low income and are receiving the supplement. Other people with no savings but with incomes only slightly above the present maximum receive nothing. When the working corps becomes the retired corps and eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, they find their Canada Pension Plan payments are cut because they are taxable. Can we blame them if they feel they are effectively paying a 50 per cent rate of income tax on their Canada Pension Plan pensions, even though their retirement income may be below the poverty level? As a result of this, many old age pensioners, even though they are healthy and well enough to take outside jobs, feel it would not be to their advantage to accept these jobs. Such a penalty is not consistent with the allegations in the white paper of last year that the major reason for not adopting the guaranteed annual income centres around a need to develop a suitable work incentive for such a plan.
There are many glaring examples. I have received many letters as I am sure have other members. One letter I received deals with the case of an old age pensioner who is not able to work and whose wife is under the age at which she would be eligible for the pension. She has to go to work, probably to help pay the drug bills for the pensioner. When she goes to work she immediately finds the guaranteed income supplement is reduced or taken away entirely. This is a ridiculous situation and is one which is not fair to the older citizen. Every time we suggest changes, the government asks where the money is to come from. These are changes perhaps of a minor nature, but they are of very great importance to the pensioners who are involved. I do not think the cost in dollars would be so
October 21, 1971

great that it should be met with a reply to the effect that this is fine but where is the money to come from.
There are many other anomalies and hardships which our present system works on the old age pensioner. For example, even at a time when the government is trying to encourage savings and to encourage people to take part in the financing of the country, the older person is discouraged from purchasing government bonds because the interest on those bonds would be considered income so his guaranteed income supplement could be lowered. Because of these laws people are encouraged to remain in dwellings which probably are too big for their requirements. Because the dwelling is paid for, these people feel they have no alternative but to live there rather than rent smaller premises which would be more suitable for them in their old age.
These are some of the criticisms I wanted to bring forward in this short space of time. As I remarked, they are not of such a far reaching nature as to represent a great drain on the treasury and yet are very important to these people involved. I have been very encouraged by the fact that the minister has recognized the needs of our older people. The quotation from his remarks to which I referred at the start of my speech indicates that the minister is aware of these problems. The question now is not whether these people should be helped, but how. I am encouraged by the fact that the minister has indicated his willingness to accept suggestions. I hope he will accept some of the suggestions made here today and push ahead with plans to develop a rational and reasonable social assistance welfare services program.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation and that of the hon. members of my party and of all parties in the House for the good service rendered by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) in moving this motion, because he has drawn the attention of the whole House to the very serious problems of all the older people in our great country. I am sure that we are all happy that he has moved this motion this afternoon, and I want to congratulate him.

As the first spokesman for our party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said we heartily support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). Our only suggestion in the form of an amendment has been that we would like to see something a little more definite. We would like to see the amount of the benefit now provided as old age security substantially increased. I believe our concern in introducing this amendment arises from the fact that, as outlined by the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the government party, there are many other things which could be introduced to help the elderly people who need income at the present time. He expounded at great length on the various alternative ways and means by which this could be done. Yet, at no stage do I believe he said this motion was not a good one, except of course he implied it would be a very expensive one, at least in respect of those people who would be pensionable at 60 years of age.
Old Age Security Pensions
The fact is that the elderly people in this country suffer more and more as the months and years go by. They suffer for a great variety of reasons. I do not think little bits of patches here and there and yonder will be sufficient to help in this case. Obviously, as the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) said, there are pockets of injustice here and there which need eliminating. The elimination of pockets of injustice, however, will not deal with the very great difficulty which exists now in respect of the older people. The overriding problem of the older people is that they do not have enough money on which to live. Their pensions are not adequate. As time goes on and as living costs increase in a whole variety of directions, and as their little bits of revenue decrease, the problem becomes more and more acute. No amount of patching up in respect of the abuses and injustices will solve the main problem of how to get enough income into the hands of the thousands and thousands of elderly people which they require in order to live decently.
I wish to point out to members opposite, particularly the hon. member who just spoke, that there is nothing in this motion or in the minds of any of us on this side, that would prevent a flexible approach in respect of the old age pension. That does not mean a means test. We have been told about the situation in Germany and I would add Britain and other places where the application of the old age pension is flexible depending on the age, vitality and will of the person to continue working. We in no way would interfere with that. I think it would be a very bad thing indeed to lower the boom on people at the age of 60 by simply saying that everybody who reaches the age of 60 must stop gainful employment. There are a great many people who, having gone beyond the age of 60, still have sufficient strength, vitality, intelligence and devotion to make great contributions.
.00 p.m.)
On looking at this motion, one sees that it is very simple and logical. It suggests the lowering of the pensionable age to the age of 60 for all people. In my view, it does one very good thing right away. It brings back the principle of universality to a place from which it should never have been taken. I have never been able to understand why the government cannot bear to use the income tax as a means of getting back from people who do not need it the full amount of the old age pension that is paid to them, and a great deal more, in order to help the other people. Why is it not simpler, easier and more fair to make the pension available as a matter of right, and then use the income tax in a fair way to get the pension back from all those who do not need it?
One thing I want to point out is that ever since the inception of the old age pension it has never been set at a level which covered the actual cost of living. Since no attempt has ever been made to find out what it actually costs to live, pensions have not been based on it. As a matter of fact, a few years ago the Senate Committee on Aging pointed out clearly that one of the things that was required in connection with the old age pension was the establishment of a technically competent body to study the income needs of older people and the development of a socially acceptable minimum budget for single persons as well as for couples, which would be adjusted automati-

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
cally each year on the basis of a suitable index of consumer spending or of earnings. This minimum budget would be reviewed every five years to reflect changes in the relative circumstances of the working population and of the retired population.
So far as I am aware, and I know what has happened with old age pensions since the beginning, there has never been any competent body told to find out what it costs older people to live so that pensions could be set in accordance with it. Pension increases have always been set on the basis of the least possible amount that could be given which would keep the government viable politically. In my view, this is not the way to approach this matter. We should take to heart the recommendation of the Senate Committee on Aging, and before anything else is done to old age pensions we should find out right now how much it costs pensioners to live and then set the pensions at that level, with an escalator clause. We should also ensure there are sufficiently frequent reviews to keep the old age pensions moving in accordance with the cost of living.
Old age pensioners should no longer be divided into well-off and less well-off pensioners, since none of them is well off. There should not be such discrimination on the basis of whether one group has a few dollars available for their emergency needs or for their funerals. They should be considered as one group of retired people who should have a fair pension and who should be able to enjoy it. If some of them are able to earn more money after they retire, so what? Surely, they should be allowed to earn that money without a means test, and the computer can find out how much should be returned in income tax at the end of the year.
This motion has one or two very interesting features in it. One of them is that when a pension is paid at the age of 60 instead of 65, the spouse of the pensioner should also receive a pension, regardless of her age. We have heard people say that this is an incentive for elderly men to marry very young girls so that they will get a double income in the form of pension. I remember some years ago when a former cabinet minister, whom I shall not name because he is still living although he is no longer in the cabinet, during a discussion of the medicare scheme said he was very much opposed to it because he thought this would be an incentive for people to throw themselves under trains or to have industrial accidents in order to qualify for benefits. This is the same sort of logic as is being used in this argument. I believe that this aspect of the motion takes account of a very real need. In most cases the wife of the pensioner is only a few years younger. When the husband retires, his pay cheque is cut off and they both have to live on his pension. I am in sympathy with the idea of a pension being paid to the spouse of a pensioner who has no other source of income. If she is in the labour force, there may be regulations to provide for that contingency, but the intent of this resolution is to ensure that the spouse has enough on which to live.
There is another group about which I would like to say a few words. I am referring to women who, with all respect to what was said on the other side of the House about what could be done under the Canada Pension Plan to help elderly people, are not covered by the Canada

Pension Plan so far as I can see. These are women who are spinsters or those who were casually employed when they were young, or those whose husbands have died, or those who have separated. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) said that most women over the age of 40 cannot get a job these days. I do not consider baby sitting and housework as being a job. This just provides pin money. Today, any woman over the age of 40, unless she is really lucky, cannot get a job. There is a great gap between the age of 40 and the age of 65. I have received many letters from women in this group who have no income and have to rely on social assistance. It tears them apart to have to go on social assistance for all those years, with the resultant lowering of living standards as well as the indignity.
I would like to make a special plea for those women and emphasize the need to lower the pensionable age. If we can lower it to the age of 60, it will help to look after women who cannot earn a living before they reach the present pensionable age of 65. This will cover many widows and women who are separated or divorced. It will not cover all of them, but it would help. I would like to urge that we consider them. There are many women who are alone and without a job and who have to rely on social assistance. They do not qualify for low income housing for families and they do not qualify for housing for older people. They are at the mercy of the landlords. They are in a bad way, indeed.
In supporting this motion we should take account of the fact that today elderly people are in a very different situation from that which existed several generations ago. The reason young people today regard old age with such unqualified horror is that for so many people old age is becoming a time of penury and poverty. The younger people think it is pretty awful to have your teeth falling out, your hair falling out, your insides being taken because of various diseases, with all kinds of disabilities setting in, and being regarded as a supernumerary. To them, it is just too much. They consider that there is nothing worse than old age.
Old age used to be considered more dignified because then there was the family circle. There was housing for that family circle. There was attention, and there was affection within the family circle. Elderly people had a part to play. But today, people have moved into the big cities, into tiny little houses where there is no room for elderly people. More and more elderly people have nothing to live on except what the government gives them in the form of pensions and relief. Today, they are in a very bad way. Today, they do not even have a true old age pension. It was pointed out by one hon. member to my left that what they have is part pension and part social welfare. This is true for those who are not fortunate enough to qualify for the $80, and those who do not consider themselves fortunate because no matter how the cost of living goes up their pension does not go up.
Elderly people's needs for health care and drugs are not covered. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), who is a member of the medical profession, pointed out that last year the drug bill in Canada was $271 million. This is not covered by medicare. Old people who
October 21, 1971

are not on social assistance have to go short of food and other necessities in order to try and get the drugs which are essential to treat the ailments associated with old age. Today elderly people are in a vastly different position from that which they used to occupy. An increasing number of them is dependent completely on what the community can do for them, through government services and through the pension. When we think of economizing the last place we should economize is the pensions for the elderly which would provide them with a decent living.
I urge that the House support the motion presented by the hon. member for Roberval. The eligible age should be reduced to 60 years, and there should be some flexibility provided to allow people to continue earning. There should be a substantial increase in old age pensions. We should determine the amount after finding out what it costs to live today. There should be an escalator provision in all pensions, and everybody should get the pension at age 60. Let us put our computers to work to determine the necessary amounts, to retrieve pension payments from millionaires, and make sure that those who arrive at age 60 have a chance to live out their days in a dignified, worth-while manner.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Before recognizing the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue), it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows:

The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)- National Parks-Kluane Game Sanctuary-possible site of new park; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Veterans Affairs-Canadian Pension Commission-possible appointment of extra bodies to clear backlog of cases; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-Manpower-availability of job vacancy survey data.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gauthier:
This House regrets that the government has not deemed advisable to provide old age security pensions to persons between the ages of 60 and 65, or to the wife of a retired person, whatever the age. Any pension so awarded should be such as to enable anyone to live as decently as the physical, material and human resources of Canada would allow.
Old Age Security Pensions
Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity of speaking in favour of the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).
This motion, to my mind very important, deals with a problem that is getting more serious everyday, that of the people of 60 to 65.
We are now going through a very difficult period as far as employment is concerned. The latest reports on unemployment published by Statistics Canada and the Department of Manpower and Immigration on October 14, showed that 434,000 people were unemployed in Canada at the end of the week ending September 18 1971.
Statistics also indicated a marked increase in the number of unemployed in the 14 to 24 age group. The situation is certainly serious because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) tabled supplementary estimates including many programs to create more jobs in the next months.
I am sorry to find that young people have a hard time finding employment; I think this should not be at the present time. These are our best workers, our best brains, and they are ready to participate in the economy of the country. In view of this situation, many people and groups now demand that the pension age be lowered to 60 years.
It is useless to try and find out what those who have reached 60 think when the matter of asking them to retire comes up. Some would be prepared to retire after 40 or 45 years of work, but the loss of their only income does not allow them to consider an early retirement at 60.
As to those who have reached that age, when they apply for a job, they are sometimes asked how old they are. After a cursory look, they are told there is nothing for them on account of their age.
Such an answer is disheartening for those who have worked hard all their lives but who are still willing to contribute to the economic life of the country through their work, while receiving at the same time a salary which would allow them as well as their family to live decently.
Things are even harder for families in which one or two children are still in school, and the father's is the only income. Then there are those men who are sick or exhausted, and just do not have the physical strength to compete with younger, fitter workers. The labour market has become increasingly demanding. Machines which have taken the place of man run at very high speed and demand more energy from the people who operate them, so that in many cases, when he reaches an advanced age, the same man cannot keep up with production requirements because of his physical condition.
I could quote many similar examples. The problem which affects all of us is this: the number of unemployed is increasing all the time. More and more young people join the labour force every year. People who have reached 60 find it increasingly difficult to remain on the labour market, for the reasons I have just mentioned. Are we going to leave them and their families without an income? I do not think this would be worthy of a country which calls itself wealthy and even claims that it is one of the

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
richest in the world. We must quite urgently have a look at this and find a just solution for those people who certainly are entitled to a decent life after all the years they have served their families and their country.
To put the matter off is not a solution, Mr. Speaker. That would amount to ignoring the situation. That problem has been throughly investigated in several countries. A document published in 1932 by the International Labour Conference says that the minimum retirement age should not be beyond 65. As I said, that report was published in 1932. In Canada it took 35 years to take into account that recommendation of the International Labour Organization.
Indeed there may be different views according to economic needs. When there is unemployment, as it is the case today, public opinion wants the retirement age to be reduced so that more old people will quit the labour market to make way for young people who are entering that labour market. We must also stress the fact that the difficulty older people have in getting a job confirms that it is necessary to lower the retirement age.
That is what happened in Denmark in 1932 when labour unions requested that retirement age be brought down from 65 to 60, which was in fact done in 1937.
The same reactions prompted British unions to demand retirement at an earlier age and an increase in the age of compulsory school attendance, in order to reduce the number of people on the labour market.
In New Zealand, as early as 1898, retirement pensions were paid at age 65 and an amendment passed in 1911 brought this down to age 60.
In 1908, Australia passed a similar legislation for persons aged 65 and the minimum age was reduced to 60 in 1910.
In Canada, only in 1927 was legislation passed granting payment of a $20 a month pension to people aged 70 and over. Among the industrialized countries, we were one of the last to pass legislation providing a retirement pension and it is only two years ago that those who have reached age 65 have been entitled to draw this pension. We certainly don't hold the speed record when it comes to producing legislation to help the retired. Mind you, I don't intend to blame the various governments we have had since 1900, nor can one government take the credit for passing this legislation or for amending it during the last 15 years. The only ones I could address congratulations to for this law are the Canadian citizens who have agreed to support its costs.
At election time, there have been some mischievous people who took pleasure in intimidating those who were in receipt of a federal government retirement pension, by saying that if they did not support this or that candidate, they would lose their pension. Those who intimidated our retired people in this manner were dishonest. I say that if we are behind some countries as far as improving our pensions program is concerned, it is likely attributable to people of this caliber.
I would like to deal with another matter which surely deserves serious consideration, that is the excessive
number of social assistance programs, which duplicate one another. At the present time, I believe there is need in Canada to reconsider social programs in order to eliminate bureaucracy which is becoming more and more rampant. In some fields, programs seem to have expanded inordinately, considering the aid that the people can receive from them.
Some persons receive the old age pension, a small amount under the Quebec or the Canada Pension Plan and, sometimes, an allowance from the Department of Health, Family and Social Welfare. They receive money from three different sources and all this is not enough to enable them to live decently. This example shows that we are over administered. There is uneasiness and lack of coordination concerning the application of all assistance programs in Canada, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level. All administrative levels demand exclusiveness and priority, without ever coming to an understanding. This is sheer pandemonium. And those who really need help must sometimes deal with several offices before managing to get a meagre allowance which barely keeps starvation away.
Those who pay for this fancy are, first, the people in need of assistance, second, "Bateeste" the taxpayer who, every week, sees the amount of his pay cheque decrease, whereas the deductions on his cheque stub keep on increasing, third, the employer who, at the end of every month, is never done with sending reports to various governments and this under the threat that if the reports do not reach the departments on a specified date, a surcharge will be levied. Employers have also become a cog in the bureaucratic system.
As a result there are a loss of time, a decrease in production and an increase in prices.
It is time to put an end to similar programs which are a waste of public funds. If we sincerely want to alleviate destitution and obtain a minimum of efficiency, the federal government must first-followed by the provincial governments-take the necessary steps to remove in certain cases that cumbersome and useless redtape and this as soon as possible, if we do not want to crush those who through their taxes contribute to the administration of the country.
In 1968, when it came into office, the government stated that it would use all possible means to attain the highest degree of efficiency and this at less cost. Where are the changes?
The Prime Minister himself dealt with the matter with so much assurance that even those who did not share his views really believed what he said and hoped for a change.
In that regard, I would like to quote the words of the Prime Minister himself, as reported in a commercial advertisement published by the Liberal Party of Canada in June 15, 1968 issue of the magazine La terre de chez nous, and I quote:
I believe in progress. I believe in evolution. I believe we have the duty of not trying to stick to everything from the past. I believe we must make experiments, risk solutions that are necessary if we want to enter tomorrow's world and not linger in yesterday's.
Canada offers many signs of bad wealth distribution. For instance, in the whole rural population, including fishermen, farm-

October 21, 1971

ers and forest workers, there are people who live in intolerable economic conditions. Now, that is unacceptable. But what is also unacceptable is that many politicians seem to consider this situation only as a secondary problem.
He who seeks to please everybody by lessening his positions or making a compromise with his convictions eventually ends up with neither position nor convictions. What one really believes he must say simply, clearly and without guile.
It was fine to establish priorities and to generate hope in the minds of the people; it was indeed necessary. After three years, nothing warrants that those objectives will be reached. I even wonder whether they are still pursued. I would rather think that all those programs have been shelved together with the other election promises.
Mr. Speaker, in all fairness for the have-not groups, the time has now come to work seriously, by brushing off all the impediments which build up an impassable barrier to the real wealth of this country, which is available has has been accumulated by men to meet the needs of one and all.
What prevents production from meeting consumption and reaching the population is that impassable barrier erected between production and distribution; it is too high indeed and to protect some private interests, no opening has been provided.
What is this obstacle in front of us? It is the financial system assisted by its best device bureaucracy.
Each time people request improvements, new structures which more and more difficult to reach, are created; when they can be reached, some extremely complicated regulations are made. Sometime, even public servants contradict each other and understand nothing.
In the meantime, people suffer, are deprived of necessities and the whole economy of the country is slowed down by that bureaucracy.
If democracy still exists, if it is not a topic discussed in living rooms only, if it is not an empty word, it is up to this government to eliminate the obstacles it has created. If the government is really sovereign and responsible to the people, it must and can take action, otherwise we will have to believe the Right Honourable Mackenzie King was right when he said in 1935, and I quote:
As soon as a nation gives up control of its credit, it matters little who makes the laws. As long as the control of money and credit are not given back to the government and recognized as its most important responsibility, one cannot speak of the sovereignty of parliament and democracy.
Mr. Gerry McGeer, former mayor of Vancouver, who sat in the House of Commons as member for the liberal party in 1935, speaking to an audience, stated as follows:
If the Canadian government could delegate to the banks through an act, the privilege of creating the credit of the nation, surely it could claim back, on behalf of the nation, the same privilege by introducing another legislation.
Mr. McGeer added, addressing the reporters who had asked him questions:
My answer is that the government could pass an act to regain control of its credit; that would be constitutional and it could be done simply by amending the bank act and the financial administration act.
Old Age Security Pensions
To my mind, as long as the government does not remove those artificial stumbling blocks, the nation will go from bad to worse. We must remove them.
It is time we had a single program to provide a guaranteed social income to all Canadians.
Since the beginning of my term of office in the House of Commons in 1968, I have received many letters from my constituents and even from other Canadians whose age vary between 60 and 65. They tell me that their physical condition does not allow them to work or that they are unemployed and they ask me to help them find a new job.
This is why a motion, which I support, was proposed by my colleague the member for Roberval.
Those who reach age 60 are demanding the passage of such legislation. A bill granting a pension to those persons would be well received by the other classes of society.
Now, I urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as well as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and their advisors to consider thoroughly the matter and I hope that we will soon have a legislation reducing the retirement age at 60 and that it will not merely be a promise.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate, in view of the importance of the motion moved by members of the Social Credit. I think that this motion is a great idea as it is very important for the country, and I feel that it concerns the majority of members, if not all.
I have had the pleasure of making some remarks on the necessity of a pension at 60. There were at that time two reasons for such a policy, and I believe that after about one and a half years, I have had the opportunity, four or five times, of advocating the passing of such a measure. In fact, I find today that this idea seems more and more in agreement with the view of several hon. members, and I think that in the present context, such a solution would allow us to improve in no small way the present situation of employment.
I may have to repeat some comments that I have already made in this House. As a matter of fact, there are many reasons why the government should give serious consideration to this policy in the interest of the aged in the whole Canadian economy.
We take the opportunity that this allotted day affords us to make hon. members sensitive to this motion. I also believe that, because of hon. members' participation, the government will be inclined to give more attention to the matter than it has done so far.
Of course, one must admit at the start that there will be a price to pay. I believe that any social measure calls for some sacrifice, but, if they assess the effect of such a measure, most hon. members will not hesitate to vote the required funds, considering the way in which such a measure will help give new stability to the economy of the world in which we are now living.
We can link it of course, with the current social climate, but I think the measure cannot be more justified and the figures I could quote were already given in this House. One thing is sure, however; through such a measure we could reduce the unemployment rate by about 60 or 70 per

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
cent. And if we calculate the costs to the state of maintaining 600,000 or 700,000 unemployed, we should all the more reconsider this possibility and I can well imagine that a drop of 50 p. cent in the number of unemployed would enable the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to sleep soundly. It would equally enable the hon. Minister of National Healh and Welfare (Mr. Munro) to be happier. We should appreciate their efforts to improve the present situation, but, being realistic, we should at the same time recognize that their achievements have not met our expectations and due to the unavailability of the cure-all which we are always seeking, I think that the policy of providing old age security pensions at the age of 60 would offer a far easier solution than we have been hitherto contemplating.
I think that we have neglected to seriously consider this policy which appears too simple at first glance, but in the end, it would contribute to the greater happiness of a specific category of citizens as it would rekindle hope in the younger generation now awaiting the openings that the government has been unable to provide. Should we blame only the government? I do not think so because the situation is difficult everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if they undertook a little investigation in various regions, all hon. members would realize that those who are pushing "60" or who are already in their 60's, would be most favourable to such pensions, considering the difficulties encountered by workers. Machines are constantly encroaching on the activities of man who normally, at that age, wishes to be provided with an adequate pension.
I believe it would be most convenient to consider the passing of a bill which would bring about that old age security. It might be better perhaps to introduce such a measure on a voluntary basis for the first six months, so as to enable people with a sufficient income-I mean by that, an amount of $150 as suggested by an hon. member of the NDP, amount which would surely not be too much, considering the fact that a pensioned couple would receive $300 per month, and that unemployed people receive more than $300 per month-to make a decision.
I believe we should consider that seriously so as to enable those older people to remain an asset in our society, to live a happier life under the present circumstances, recognizing at the same time all the benefits such a measure would provide, thus creating a much more valid social context than the one we know at the present time.
I shall limit myself to those few comments as I have been aware for a long time of the benefit of such measure and I hope the hon. members here will make an enquiry in their constituency and will all unhesitatingly claim from the people responsible in the department concerned, from the cabinet and from Parliament, the establishment of such a measure, to put the world back on its feet, by giving holidays to people who deserve them, creating employment for young people who have been longing for it for such a long time, which would make them much more optimistic as to the future, considering the comparisons we could make and the present difficulties they must face.
I will limit myself to those few remarks, but I cannot help denying the comments made a while ago to the effect that such a policy could be established over a five-year period.
I believe the present economic difficulties are much more urgent than the introduction of a legislation to cover the people who would be 60 years of age only in five years from now.
I think we will have to move at a faster pace than we did when we lowered the pensionable age from 70 to 65 years of age, and keeping in mind once again the present economic difficulties, I think the 12-month or perhaps six-month period could be left to the discretion of any worker wanting to take advantage of an adequate pension and quit working. He would still have a six-month period to make room for younger people who are costing the government plenty and at the same time, it would allow those who deserve holidays after working for 25, 30 or 40 years to be assured of a security the younger generation is already thinking about. I think that those who are now nearing the sixty mark have well deserved this treatment which would be the most human one the government would have ever given.
Together with the other hon. members of this House, I suggest that the government seriously consider implementing this policy as soon as possible in the best interests of all those who deserve it.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I think the subject matter of the motion moved by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) is of great concern to all of us, as it is to me.
The subject matter of that motion, old age security pensions, is undoubtedly a very important issue respecting which we all feel highly concerned. So I am very pleased to have this opportunity to make my views known in the House this afternoon and to express my opinion on that motion, to say what I think of it, and how we should deal with this problem.
The proposed motion consists of two parts. What strikes me in the first one is that it sets out to blame the government. As a matter of fact, it reads:
-that the government has not deemed advisable to provide old age security pensions to persons between the ages of 60 and 65,-
As it was pointed out to us a moment ago by the hon.. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), we are going to be told that so much has been done in the past, and I do agree with that.
I feel I can assert that those governments which extended social security to cover not just older people but also the weak, the sick, the widowed, in short, all the underprivileged, have always been Liberal governments.
I extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Roberval for having introduced this motion, for we cannot but support any suggestion aimed at improving our pension system for older people.
However, there is one aspect of this I should like to emphasize and which I find quite sensible, and that is the way we should provide for the wife of a pensioned older citizen. We all have in our respective constituencies-at least I have met many in mine-older couples who have

October 21, 1971

always done their utmost to earn a living, who have lived with pride and dignity. Two or three weeks ago, I had such a couple in my office on a visit: the husband, 65 years old, is a pensionner. Although he would like to keep on working just like before, he is no longer able to do so because of a recent illness. Therefore, his only income is his pension.
His wife who is 59 has always lived on her husband's income, looking after the household and her family. Because of her age, she can expect very little assistance from her provincial Department of Health, Family and Social welfare. This couple have barely enough to live on and both of them are disheartened and saddened by what is happening to them. And in spite of all their efforts and all the requests they make to improve their lot, because of the existing laws and regulations, they get nowhere.
This is why we should urge the government that this specific point of the motion be given our consideration or be efficiently studied by the department involved and the officials who usually take care of such requests.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, this system should obviously be regulated. An older man may have a much younger wife. I know this is unusual. Sometimes, this woman works to make a living and some unbalance would result if this comparatively young working woman received the old age security pension. The same reasoning applies to opposite situations.
As regards pension eligibility at 60, which would enable older people to lead a more human life in security, with the same living standards as the others, we all agree that we should keep on doing something in that direction.
Besides, our democratic institutions remind us of those principles in the Bill of Rights. May I read section 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and I quote:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
All those philosophical principles concerning social security, guaranteed income, assistance to the sick, are shared by everyone. However, opinions are divided, even among the people, at least in my region. I have met people who criticize-and sometimes rightly-certain social security measures, saying that in certain cases they might encourage some of the welfare recipients to commit a capital sin which I will not mention, since everybody here knows about it.
However, others who are really in need, who would really want to live in dignity as proud citizens, cannot get enough.	[DOT]
In any event, it would be desirable, as other members have said, to give immediately a very large amount, either $150 a month or more, to older people. But I think that all responsible citizens, even the older ones who want these amounts to better their lot, realize that a government cannot pay out so much money overnight, because it would throw our economy out of balance.
Old Age Security Pensions
Those projects that we all consider with much eagerness and sincerity can nevertheless be developed within a certain period. At the present time, people say that even if the government has not been able to give the aged everything some require, it has found money to encourage, in other fields, other active and productive citizens. Of course, it had to be done. I have in mind the unemployed who are able to work and who are looking for a job.
In conclusion, I would like to stress the following point: Whatever may be said, it is always easier to find solutions which are sometimes over-simple to problems that are rather complicated, as everybody admits. If it were that easy, the problem of the old age security pension would have been solved like all the other increasingly complicated problems which exist in our technical and modern society.
Thus, in spite of our sincerity and emotion about this, because we all have older people in our families, we can nevertheless ask the government to give special attention to this motion, although we know that the only way we can find practical answers in as short a time as possible is by putting this problem in the hands of scientists and technicians, so that it may be solved by experts with modern, scientific methods. Thus, if we forget about demagogy, if we stop thinking only of elections and start giving some thought to the aged, we will certainly be able to solve this problem.
We are sure, given this government's sincerity and competence, that the problem is going to be solved-as it already is to a great extent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair to resume same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on the motion before us. This is a motion accepted by all hon. members and to which there was almost no opposition. In view of the fact that, generally all members are in favour of this motion, I would now like to suggest new ways and means of implementing its proposals. It is well and fine to talk about them but problems must be solved and funds must be found. In our present system, one must know where to find the necessary funds and how much the financing of such a project may cost.
We already know, Mr. Speaker, that our country can afford to pay to our older people as soon as they reach 60, a reasonable pension to allow them to retire from the work force in order to give others an opportunity to work and, after that, to live as men must live in a wealthy country.
Economic growth must be an economic right which is, first of all, to meet the needs of each Canadian citizen. By his labour and his genius, man has always tried to give a

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
larger development to his life. But today, thanks to science and technology, he has become master of practically all nature and is extending his domination increasingly.
Thanks to the proliferation of communication between nations, the human family has become aware of itself as a unique community in the midst of the universe and is gradually so organising itself. As a result, Mr. Speaker, man now owes to his own industry many goods which he formerly awaited from superior forces.
Facing these alternatives and the huge enterprise extending to the whole Mankind, many questions have arisen among men as to the meaning and the value of this diligent activity, what use is to be made of all these new resources, what is the purpose of individual and collective effort, the intensification and the awareness of the needs for development and the personal renascence of a generation liberated by science, Progress and unprecedented wealth, and exceptional national economic growth in
One must admit that manpower needs are dwindling all the time, people being more and more replaced by the machine. Having to face this dilemma, young people remain without employment and older people are forced to cling to their jobs because they have no other source of income.
Another motion is officially put to the House asking that the old age security pension be granted to our citizens when they reach 60 years of age and that it be high enough to enable all citizens over 60, as well as their wives, to lead a decent life in line with their needs and the national production.
We are therefore requesting an increase in the basic pensions, that is more than $80 a month, and a lowering of the age of eligibility from 65 to 60. We also feel indirectly entitled to indicate to the government the means to provide the amounts required for the monthly payment of these pensions.
Within the frame of our economic system and of the present policy, we know that we of the Social Credit will not have our demands met because we are promoting a specific financing technique. Since we do not have the financing power, we are compelled to comply and to suggest means of payment consistent with the present system.
Although we are on the opposition side, although we are a party, that does not prevent us from thinking, from paying taxes, from living and from advising the government according to the custom of the capitalistic system.
We are perfectly aware that we live in Canada in 1971 within the capitalistic system which was generated and has evolved for 100 years under the guidance of the main political parties, the liberal and the progressive conservative parties. We are perfectly aware that we cannot administer nor can we advise the Canadian government as if it were already thinking in terms of social credit. Nevertheless, even under our present system, it is possible to provide better care for human beings, for the citizen, from his birth to his death, from the cradle to the grave, from his first breath to his last.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: How poetic!


Henry P. Latulippe: That is, Mr. Speaker, what must be brought home in Parliament to the 30 ministers and all the elected representatives of the people, in order to provide a fair and efficient administration to 22 million Canadians.
Let us rejoice that our potential production is worth several billion dollars more each year. However, it pains us all to see our best citizens deprived of their fair share of this wonderful production and this, because of our unconcern, our carelessness, our improvidence or incompetence.
Under our present system, we have been able to produce goods worth $90 billion up to 1971. I say $90 billion, but I think that the amount will exceed $92 billion, that is more than $4,200 per capita or $21,000 per household of five.
It is also under our present system that we must be able to organize the distribution, the consumption and the purchasing power of all our citizens, that all might have a fair share of the tremendous national production to which they are entitled.
Let us remember the years 1930-39, the years of the depression. Can we remember the war years, from 1939 to 1945? Can we recall the splendid period of the after-war, when money was plentiful until 1958, when the people started to speak of inflation, of unemployment and poverty, and this, in times of peace and overproduction?
We see clearly that the problems of unemployment, poverty and inflation are not a mere problem of production, but one of distribution. We produce more and more, and consume less and less. This is what is paradoxical about the management of Canada in 1971. We produce a lot, we capitalize too much, and we do not consume enough. There is a nationwide economic imbalance between production, consumption and capitalization. So, we must restore some balance in all this, within the framework of our monetary, economic and political, Canadian and capitalist system of free enterprise.
Here is a very simple table which will make us clearly understand how our national economy is planned by all the leaders, known or unknown, who control our economy. In 1945, 90 per cent of a $12 billion production was consumed and 10 per cent was capitalized. Everybody was happy. In 1958, that is 13 years later, $32 billion were produced, 75 per cent consumed and 25 per cent capitalized. People were still rather satisfied. Today, 13 years later, after the war, $90 billion are produced, but only 60 per cent are consumed and 40 per cent capitalized, mainly in the large companies, private or public institutions and corporations. By keeping the same pace in 1975, we will produce over $140 billion, but we will consume less than 50 per cent and capitalize over 50 per cent. Such a situation is ridiculous.
Still a little later, we will produce $200 billion but the companies will keep 90 per cent of the capitalization and leave only 10 per cent for consumption.
That is where we should intervene, Mr. Speaker. So, in 1971, we face a very well known and definite situation in which the great wealth of Canada and its main banking,

October 21, 1971

business, financial, and industrial institutions is obvious. Apart from those encouraging facts, we notice many deficits in the budgets of several governments, many companies and numerous families which get more and more into debt each year although they still are short of the things necessary to lead a normal life in a country as prosperous as Canada.
These are not joking matters. We are at a loss to understand anything. The entire Canadian population is only able to consume $54 billion of a national product valued at $90 billion, whilst a few corporations and individuals accumulate capital to the tune of more than $36 billion for the years to come, as reserves to guard against risks and guarantee their business security.
Before allowing our firms to set aside surpluses of $36 billion, could we not earmark $12 billion to increase the purchasing power or to guarantee a minimum income to citizens who are deprived of the bare necessities of life as are our 60-year-old senior citizens and others and when such a marvelous national product exists side by side with a highly ambitious capitalization on the part of large corporations.
I am neither against profits and surpluses nor against necessary reserves aimed at guaranteeing business security. I know that this is good. But the evil lies in the abnormal increase in these famous reserves, year after year, on a scale authorized by the ministers and hon. members who have been elected by the people to administer justice and equity for the benefit of consumers who are all entitled to live in Canada, in 1971, in accordance with the national product and before exorbitant reserves have been accumulated for the years to come.
Even when the Bank of Canada was established in 1934, and oftentimes since then, the government has been requested to scrutinize those famous reserves accumulated by banks and corporations and to restrict them or bring them down to a level more in line with reality.
It should be realized that these enormous reserves derive from exaggerated profits obtained through high prices paid by the people. They even constitute the main source of inflation. The statistics published these last years on the secret, discreet and concrete reserves of large companies show that the price increases equal the increased reserves of those companies.
It would take too long to prove this here but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is aware of it and so are the accountants, economists and directors of major institutions. All the price increases the population had to put up with from 1960 to 1970 are equal to the accumulation of exorbitant reserves as shown in the report of private and public companies, banks and major institutions.
For the time being and for the purposes of the motion moved today, since better pensions must be paid to those older people of 60 and over, let us not try to determine where the money will be coming from. Money we have plenty. Production is there but it is the purchasing power that is inadequate. The money that is lacking is precisely the money that is needlessly accumulated in the large hidden reserves of major private and public institutions, with the permission or connivance of our government,
Old Age Security Pensions
which is not dishonest, but too unconsciously devoted to old administrative methods of protection, capital or productivity promotion.
Why produce 10 times more if the population does not have more money to buy that increased production? Can anybody answer me? If we produce $90 billion in 1971, we can only consume $54 billion, and other individuals and companies can capitalize $36 billion. If we were to produce $10 billion more, the citizens without purchasing power could not buy this additional production. The trouble is not lack of production but lack of purchasing power to meet the needs of the citizens of all levels and ages, including the children, the students, the unemployed, the crippled, the sick, the mothers with a family, the old, the citizens 60 years old or over who cannot find work and must live in 1971.
As can be seen, the entire economy of this country is off balance: some lack the essentials of life while others enjoy exorbitant surpluses, personally or through their millionaire companies.
People comment on inflation, unemployment, poverty, boosted taxes and prices. Nobody is satisfied. Nonetheless, Canada not enjoys prosperity but ranks among the wealthiest countries in the world. Only an over-all revision is required to restore the economic balance between the various sectors of our population, but we balk at the necessary decision.
The United States again will take the lead. They are now taking steps so that conflicts between employers and employees will be settled before the consumers, who at last will have their say and an opportunity to take exception to the price increases due to the increases in wages and interests rates.
Production is intended for consumption. Without consumers, there would be no need for production. But if consumers have no purchasing power, no money to buy production, it is not much better. Our lopsided system is not comfortable with those dependent consumers requesting pension, allowances or grants that they manage to have productive citizens pay through their income derived from wages or interests.
The solution would simply be to have the huge reserves capitalized yearly by big companies converted into purchasing power for dependent citizens. There would be no need then to increase personal income taxes, the cost of living, the price of products or services. This will have to be done sooner or later. It is not a matter of overtaxing corporations but of taxing their tremendous reserves and their reported profits. That is the important thing.
Today when individuals pay $5 in taxes, corporations pay only $1. We shall have to set this straight some day if we want a fair tax system. After ten years of studies and a royal commission on taxation, this point perhaps the only important one, was overlooked.
On page 113 of the bulky report of the Carter Commission on taxation, Mr. Carter took exception to the "practices" used in computing the depreciation reserves of the corporations, but no one wants to mention this dissenting opinion of the chief commissioner himself-

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there should be improvements in the old age pension program, but I do not agree with this motion. The motion suggests, among other things, that the basic pension is the old age security pension. This is not true. At the present time the foundation, the core of our old age pension program is the Canada Pension Plan plus the old age security pension.
The motion also suggests an extension of the flat rate, universal old age security payment, in other words an extension of the basic $80 a month which is not related to other income and is not related to contributions. I totally reject a flat increase in the universal old age security of $80 a month. I think there is no justification for paying government pensions to all individuals without consideration of their other income, their other pensions, their rents, their dividends, their profits, and so on.
During the debate today the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated that if we increased the old age security pension for everyone we could get back all this money from the rich through income taxes. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked why the government cannot get it all back from recipients who are wealthy, through the income tax system. A few years ago when we introduced the guaranteed income supplement the minister produced statistics to show that you do not get it all back through the income tax system.
I cannot agree to the payment of a flat rate to everyone, hoping to get it back in some cases through the income tax system when through the very simple procedure of the guaranteed income supplement we can pay out money to the people who need it most. I think we should take the money that is available and divide it among those who have none or very little private income so that they can have a decent pension.
This year we are spending $2.2 billion on old age security and guaranteed income supplements. If we divided this among all our pensioners, rich and poor, the guaranteed minimum of $135 a month would not be available. In other words, if we divided that $2.2 billion among all the pensioners, the average pension would be below $135. We can only pay the $135 minimum because we are being selective.
I said that the Canada Pension Plan is the core of our old age pension program. When it comes fully into effect in 1976 under the present legislation we will be paying $121 per month to persons who have annual earnings of $5,200 a year. That $121 a month, plus the basic old age security of $80, would provide a pension of $201 a month. I said that this would be the case under the present legislation, Mr. Speaker, because in its white paper the government proposes changes in the Canada Pension Plan. For example, it proposes that by 1976 we would have a pension of $162 per month for those with average annual
[Mr. Latulippe.J
earnings of approximately $7,000, and if we add the basic $80 old age security pension to that it will give a pension of $242 a month.
When he introduced the white paper the minister said the changes proposed to the Canada Pension Plan were subject to negotiation with the provinces, especially with the province of Quebec because the Quebec Pension Plan is very closely tied in with the Canada Pension Plan. I hope the minister will proceed quickly with these negotiations and that very soon he will get acceptance for his proposals.
These figures I have given are for the Canada Pension Plan when it comes fully into effect in 1976. In this coming year, however, 1972, a person whose average annual earnings are $5,200, which is the maximum, will receive $65 a month from the Canada Pension Plan, plus $80 a month from old age security and $22.50 from the guaranteed income supplement. He will receive part of the income supplement because his income other than the old age pension will be less than $110 a month, so that the total he will receive in 1972 will be $171.50 a month, which is more than the $150 suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a flat, universal basis.
I also wish to point out that the estimate with respect to the Canada Pension Plan is that it will cover 92 per cent of all employees and self-employed persons. The Canada Pension Plan also has a 2 per cent cost of living escalation clause. As I say, this is the core of our pension program. For those who will not have a sufficient number of working years, or who could not work at all, we have the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Assistance Plan. The guaranteed income supplement at the present time provides $55 a month for those who have no other income.
The number of persons who are now receiving the guaranteed income supplement will become less as time goes by because more and more people will be covered by the Canada Pension Plan. Then as more people become covered by the Canada Pension Plan they will receive that plus the old age security and they will be getting the type of pension I referred to a few minutes ago which, for the vast majority of Canadians, if the proposals of the minister go through, would be approximately $242 a month in 1976.
The present old age security, guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan are payable at age 65. Those who retire before 65 must rely on the Canada Assistance Plan and the programs that are related to it. I would favour reducing the qualifying age for the Canada Pension Plan, but not for the old age security as suggested in this motion. I suggest that one could take advantage of the Canada Pension Plan at age 60 in the same way that persons can now take advantage of it at age 65, that is if they leave the work force and retire. Under the present Canada Pension Plan, between ages 65 and 70 you do not get the pension, or you may get only part of it if you work between those ages, but at age 70 you get it in full whether you work or not. I would make that plan applicable at age 60. But the important difference between my proposal and that in the motion is that I would apply it to the Canada Pension Plan because, as I have said, it is the core of our pension program. It is based on contributions and
October 21, 1971

the benefits are much higher than they are under the flat rate, universal old age security pension.
The motion proposes that wives at any age should receive old age security if their husbands have retired. I cannot accept that proposal. In many cases wives work and earn good incomes. There are cases where the wife wants to work. I can see no reason for paying a pension to a wife who is under 60, say 50 or 45, if she is working, just because her husband is retired. I would suggest, in its place, that she have the right as of age 60 to receive the old age pension if her husband is retired. Of course, if she had worked in her lifetime she would be eligible for the Canada Pension Plan and could receive those benefits at age 60, just as her husband could. If she had not worked at all, the only thing she could rely on would be the old age security pension. I would agree that if she is not working at age 60 she should have the right to the old age security pension.
I want to raise two matters with which I am not satisfied in the present program. One is the 2 per cent cost of living escalation clause. On several occasions in the House I have said that I do not think it is reasonable to limit the cost of living escalation clause to 2 per cent. I believe it should be the same as the percentage increase in the cost of living. The 2 per cent figure was picked when we introduced the Canada Pension Plan. At that time the minister said we would fix it at 2 per cent because in some years the cost of living rose and in others it went down. That might be true if we look at statistics over the last 50 years, but if we look at statistics since the last war I do not think there was any occasion when the cost of living dropped below that of the previous year. So if the 2 per cent was based on the fact that we will have reductions in the cost of living, I think it is unreasonable.
We should be prepared to increase pensions automatically in accordance with the total increase in the cost of living. This would be paid for by the increase in income tax collected due to increased wages. I think we should able to pay for a total increase in the cost of living under the guaranteed income supplement and under the Canada Pension Plan. If we are to do that and we want a reasonable pension for the small group of people not eligible for the Canada Pension Plan, then I think the guaranteed income supplement should also be increased to $70 a month.
That would mean a guaranteed minimum pension of $150 a month instead of $135. It would not be, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the basic, universal old age security which is paid to everyone but, rather, it would be as a result of the guaranteed income supplement. As I said before, this would be a better use of the money available for old age security.
I realize that to have a total increase in the pension fixed to the cost of living, and to increase the supplement to $70 a month would be costly. I also realize that in this fiscal year we are spending $2.2 billion on old age security. That is a lot of money. I understand the difficulty of the government in raising money for programs at this time. However, I put forward these proposals because I
Old Age Security Pensions
think they are goals that we have to achieve and I think they can be achieved if we put our minds to it.
Mr. Speaker, I have referred to the Canada Pension Plan, the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement but I have not mentioned private pensions. In Canada, most companies now have private pension programs and the great majority of them do not have a cost of living escalation clause. Some of them have accepted such clauses. As a matter of fact, this House made a report last year or the year before with respect to the Canadian National Railways and when they revised their pension plan our proposal to include a cost of living escalation clause was accepted. The public service of Canada also has an escalation clause in its pension plan. I think it would help to reduce social tensions and bring about a much happier generation of elderly people if more private companies included a cost of living escalation clause in their pension programs. Several have done it and I see no reason why more should not.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat my points. First, I do not think we should increase the basic universal pension of $80 a month; I think that should remain fixed. Second, I think that the core of our pension program should continue to be the Canada Pension Plan, and I hope the government will get agreement for the changes proposed in its white paper as soon as possible. Third, I suggest that the age of eligibility under the Canada Pension Plan should be 60 years, but only if the person was not working, or in the same manner in which it is now available between the ages of 65 and 70 years.
Fourth, women over 60 years of age should be eligible for the old age security pension if the husband is retired. I do not think they should be eligible for a pension if they are under 60 years of age and working. Fifth, if women are under 60 years of age I think they should be eligible if they are not working and their husband is on the guaranteed income supplement. That would give some reason for paying the pension to a woman under 60 years of age because it would mean that the family income was not high and there could be a situation where the woman could not obtain work.
Six, I think if we want to make the guaranteed income supplement more in tune with today's cost of living, it should be $70 a month. This would mean that the guaranteed minimum pension would be $150 instead of $135. If we had that as well as an escalation clause which would increase with the cost of living, then I think we would have a first-class pension package. By that I mean one basically founded on the Canada Pension Plan and which would provide a guaranteed income supplement for the small percentage of people not eligible for the Canada Pension Plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the very welcome suggestion of the hon. member that if persons leave the labour market at age 60 they should qualify for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, would he consider coupling with that a suggestion that such per-

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
sons also qualify for the old age security pension? I am accepting his proposition-I suggested it myself this afternoon-that the condition be one of leaving the labour market. With that condition, and in view of the fact that the hon. member groups the two as a desirable combination, would he not agree that such persons, at age 60, ought to draw both pensions?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I was preparing my remarks this afternoon I considered that matter and I could not come to that conclusion. I agree that in some of the proposals I have made there are arguments that suggest it, but on the other hand I have an inclination which is opposed to the basic pension of $80 a month. What I would like to see is a complete guaranteed income supplement for all pensioners. However, we have the $80 a month now and we have to keep it. I would not reject what the hon. member proposes. I think it may be the only course, but I must say I did not come to a firm conclusion that it was the best way to proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment):: I thank you Mr. Speaker. I did not expect to speak so early, but I am pleased to welcome this opportunity.
I do not very often have the opportunity to speak in the House for the simple reason that the opposition members have so much to say that there is scarcely any time left for the government members. In spite of all that, we are criticized.
I must also add that if certain opposition members feel unable to communicate with the government, they are the only ones to blame. As for me, I have good relationships I should even say fruitful ones and generally satisfactory.
Since the government is also made up of men and therefore can make mistakes at times, sin through omission, accomplish too little or not enough,-depending of course on which side of the House the members are,-it is easy, much too easy, for a member of the opposition to blame the administration, to blame the government for not looking after the older people as it should. Politically speaking, this may seem profitable, but I must confess that I can do without this kind of politicians who quite irresponsibly, make use of the conditions or circumstances of older people in order to get political support. I have not accused anyone, Mr. Speaker. The truth is that there is not a single member in this House who is uninterested in the old people's lot. On the contrary, I am sure we are all endeavouring to find the means to provide our old people with a happy and peaceful retirement.
The hon. members, Mr. Speaker, are not the only ones to tackle this problem. Let us not forget the many agencies, associations and religious orders that were active in this field before governments even thought of acting.
Every one of us has in his family, among his friends and acquaintances some aged persons. We cannot forget even for a moment the needs of those persons. Many of them

were able to provide for themselves during their years of retirement an adequate income from their earnings during their best years of activity. Many live very well, but it goes without saying that there are many in our country who do not have the bare minimum, others who, having saved all through their life, find that, with the cost of living, their savings are not enough. And the saddest thing is to see an older person, an aged couple afflicted by illness.
We must ask ourselves very seriously if our senior citizens, our present pensioners, whoever they are, whatever area of this country that they live in, have all they need to live decently. Being realistic I feel that we could do more for the aged, before thinking of forcing into retirement people who have not reached the required age and who are still productive.
I have often discussed this question with my constituents. Some tell me that the problem of unemployment can be solved by retiring 60 year-old people. I am not aware of all the consequences that such a measure might have on our economy, but I have a distinct feeling that our economy and productivity, and consequently the revenues of governments, would suffer from it. People between 60 and 65 have reached the top of the salary scale. They have quite often acquired an experience difficult to replace, and I fear that it would be disastrous for our economy if these Canadians were to prematurely leave the labour force for an early retirement.
However, I do not reject completely the concept of people being pensioned at 60. In every sector of commercial, industrial, professional and even parliamentary activity-for we have here relatively aged members who should have retired a long time ago, people who often say they are marking time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of us will be here after you are gone.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, others should retire honourably in that repository called the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That isn't honourable.


Eymard G. Corbin: Long before they reach retirement age, some people mark time, that is they keep count of how many years, months, weeks and even days there are before they retire. Consequently, they gradually lose interest in their profession and their work. They become less productive and have a tendency to be more critical of their employers, to get on their colleagues' nerves at work without rhyme or reason, finally to become a nuisance to everybody. They mark time and occupy positions that would be more properly filled by young people entering the labour market. Those people whose only concern is an early retirement could be encouraged. I think that would be profitable to the Canadian economy. However, it should be done gradually and systematically and with great discretion. I would suggest that governments and large corporations first make a limited experiment the results of which should be assessed.
A great number of Canadians are fed up helping those who could work but are too lazy to do so when jobs are available. The payment of welfare allowances to young
October 21, 1971

people able to work is beginning to exasperate the taxpayers. We will soon reach the revolt level, if governments fail to solve this problem. And I do not have that solution, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, I do not believe that the solution proposed today by the Social Credit is entirely acceptable. In any event, not now. It might be practicable in a rich province, like Ontario, but certainly not in New Brunswick where less and less salaried people are called upon to support more welfare recipients.
We are faced with serious problems in the social field. We all recognize it. However, all men of good will, all well intentioned governments must pool their resources to find solutions that will be satisfactory to the majority of Canadian taxpayers. Study groups, committees and white papers must be included in the exercise. But in the final analysis, each government must take realistic decisions. Motions such as the one introduced today are not the solution. I feel that the proposal is too oversimplified and therefore, I cannot support it.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Ouellet) will be closing the debate. I have much confidence in the young member for Papineau and I am eager to hear him. But before resuming my seat, I would ask him to discuss with the minister the possibility of extending the coverage of the old age security system to those individuals who, having not yet reached the conventional age of retirement, have become unable to earn their living, due to illness, disability or any other valid reason. There are plenty of such cases in these days of heart attacks, nervous breakdowns, accidents of all kinds and incurable diseases.
However, I would like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that in my view it would be premature to set up a universal pension plan at age 60. Let us first of all look after the really old people and then we can think of spending additional sums of money for people 60 or over.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shellord):: Mr. Speaker, I was afraid that after all the speakers to whom you gave the floor I could not get a few words in, at least, on the motion I was pleased to support this afternoon.
The motion is extremely simple and important. It purports to make all those who are 60 or over eligible for the old age security pension.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to draw a parallel. A few days ago, the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) announced his department's policy concerning rehabilitation of inmates. He said here in the House that such rehabilitation was most important. Thus the Solicitor General apparently wanted to make available to inmates the promises of the just society, whereas the majority of our old people in Canada will unfortunately have to wait too long, particularly those in whose behalf we presented this motion today.
If we are going to be so considerate towards prisoners in Canada, it seems to me that we should be even more so towards people 60 years of age or over. It is with this purpose in mind that tonight I gladly second the motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).
Old Age Security Pensions
Mr. Speaker, we in Canada-as everyone knows-live in affluence: we are constantly being told that we have too much wheat, too many dairy products, too many agricultural products, too much fuel, too many textile products, too many building materials, too many slums, too many farmers, too many workmen, too many teachers. On the other hand, we also have 650,000 unemployed too many- including educated ones-too many illiterate people, too many retrained people, too many poor, too many industries which do not run to their full potential, too many empty pockets, too many bankruptcies, too many debts and too many taxes, as well as too many old people who live in poverty.
When a man turns 50, it is true today that he cannot find employment in Canada. Nor does he like to beg the mere pittances of social welfare. He wants to work and not to live off public charity. If our economy cannot give him a job, it seems to me we could pay him a pension at 60, especially when we know that, in most cases, those people brought up seven or eight children.
The government should revise its social policy along those lines. They would thus give opportunities to the young who in turn want to have a family and have the privilege of doing what others had a chance to do before them.
Today, Mr. Speaker, a young person who is unemployed is a candidate for protestation and also, perhaps, unfortunately, a candidate for revolution.
Mr. Speaker, the 60 year old man and woman are cast aside. Thus we take away from them their privilege as respected human beings in our society by imposing upon them a social life pattern where often and unfortunately they are rudely treated. They must suffer the humiliation of being rejected as useless by a selfish and unfair society while, during the electoral campaign in 1968, we had them dream of a just society which is yet to come.
Often, we unfortunately blame the elderly people for their age. If the pension begins at 65, old age begins however at hiring, that is at 40, because at 50 no job is available anywhere. According to reports of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, we must let the young work but, unfortunately, today the place of 40 year old people in our society is often in the welfare office.
Mr. Speaker, that motion proposes that pensions be paid from the age of 60 for many reasons, because after having worked for over 40 years, those same people often feel tired and are no longer able to do their job properly. And others can no longer work due to poor health. They also would like to enjoy some comfort, to live it up, to travel before the end of their lives.
Mr. Speaker, in these days of unemployment, young people should be allowed to replace their elders in the labour force.
If we gave the old age pension to the 60-year olds, we would automatically reduce the number of unemployed who, unfortunately, include too many young people. We would be surprised at the number of young people who would work. It would not cost the government more to give pensions to those citizens 60 years of age.
Moreover, with the implementation of the recommendations contained in the motion, many people would be
8914

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
pleased to keep their aged parents with them. According to the stupid social welfare legislation we know, particularly in the province of Quebec, those who would like to keep and maintain their parents would be no longer eligible to any social welfare allowance. If welfare services agree to help them, the amount allowed is reduced to the bare minimum.
If the aged are living with strangers, or alone in a small apartment, welfare services grant them the full pension and pay all drugs and care.
These laws are stupid, they force children to neglect their aged parents. I personally know of married children who are working and living without any luxury, but who would welcome their aged parents in their home. But the fear of drugs and care costs forces them to be prudent and prevents them from keeping their parents under their own roof.
In 1971, Canada could, I think, pay a pension to the 60-year olds and they could end their days in serenity with the members of their own family instead of living in solitude.
Today, in our society, children are unfortunately in the same position as older people. They do not have their place in our so-called modern society. They seem to embarrass everybody, and this scandal should not be tolerated in our country.
I have with me very interesting data on showing the aging pattern of the population.
In 1951, there was 126,000 people aged 65 or more. In 1961, 306,000. In 1971, 411,000. In 1981, they will be 600,000. And the June, 1970, figures show that in Canada, there are close to 750,000 people aged 60 to 65 who now receive no old age pension at 60.
Senior citizens deserve better than having to worry about tomorrow, worries, financial difficulties, moral hardships and insecurity. They deserve better than having to live on others, all the more as at this age illness and worries about their children are often their major concern.
If we are to have a modern society, we should do better for our old people than the so-called primitive tribes which show more concern about their aged people than we do. At present, certain under-developped countries do more for their people aged 60 and even 50 than we do here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is also quite normal for people aged 60, in the last ten years of their life, that they may enjoy recreational activities in this century of leisure, at a time when automation increasingly reduces working hours, when unemployment is affecting thousands of homes; we should be able in our modern society to enable our senior citizens to enjoy recreational activities.
The motion before us is most simple. The government will probably again use the pretext of expenses, while Canadians can certainly provide the aged people with food, accommodation and comfort, in short, anything we can possibly give them.

But there again we are up against backwards, obsolete and archaic financial conditions. Therefore the members of the Ralliement creditiste are right in saying that Canada is bursting with all sort of riches while our citizens between 40 and 60 years of age cannot find jobs nowhere in Canada. It is high time that this government, the self-declared government of the just society, would at least provide our older citizens with an opportunity to live decently.
This is why I urge the government to study the matter earnestly, because the Creditistes are not alone in asking for the pension to be paid at 60 years of age. For several years, various public bodies and organizations have asked for it. We often read in the newspapers open letters with requests for the payment of the pension at 60 years of age.
Prior to the next federal election, we should be able to say to our 60 year-old people that they are not a privileged group and that we recognize what they have done, for we must not forget that if we can enjoy the comforts and the standard of living we now have, if our society has been developed we owe it mainly to our older citizens.
It is on account of such facts and because we can achieve that physically that the government should not stumble against a mere financial difficulty, that it should get off the beaten track so as to put money at the service of production, production at the service of old people in order that our 60 year-old citizens may be regarded as full-fledged citizens in our economy, benefit from this country's great production and enjoy the last years of their life, especially since they have given so much for this country and for their fellow-citizens.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Social Credit party has taken its "money-printing machine" out of mothballs. Last Monday evening, the leader of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) talked about a guaranteed income plan for all Canadians of 18 and over, regardless of whether they were working or not, had money or not, were millionaires or unemployed. That plan would cost roughly $18 billion, four times more than what is now being spent in the field of social security. With that plan, the annual budget expenditures of the federal government would automatically double.
Now, the Social Credit party is putting forward new proposals for older people in Canada. This new formula would cost over $1.1 billion to the public treasury. As you can see, the Creditiste "money-printing machine" is going at full blast this week.
If we were to grant an old age pension of $80 a month to all older people between 60 and 65, it would cost an additional amount of $740 million in 1972, an increase of nearly 45 per cent over present expenditures.
Furthermore, if we were to extend the guaranteed income supplement to that age group, the combined additional cost of guaranteed income and old age pensions would be roughly $850 million, for a total amount of $3.4 billion in 1972, and that would be for all persons of 60 and over.
The present government is undoubtedly concerned with older people. The record of all Liberal governments in the
October 21, 1971

past has more than proved it, and I think it would be useful to recall the part it has played in the old age security pension plan. The first attempt in Canada to make any kind of government provision for older persons was the passage in 1908 of the Canadian Government Annuities Act.
In 1927 the Old Age Pension Act went into effect. This provided financial assistance to persons 70 years of age or over who could meet a means test. This act was administered by the provinces with a federal sharing of the costs of the pension. At first the federal government contribution was 50 per cent but this was later increased to 75 per cent. In the years that followed after 1927, there were a number of amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act liberalizing the amount of the benefit which originally had been $20 a month to $40 a month and there were changes in the means test requirements as well. Nevertheless it became apparent that there was some dissatisfaction with this method of meeting the needs of older people.
In 1950 there was established a joint parliamentary committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. This committee made an exhaustive study of the various pension schemes then in existence throughout the world and they heard briefs from various organizations and individuals to get any opinions possible as to the best course to be followed in Canada. It is interesting now to read the committee reports of that date and to notice that there was some discussion of the introduction of an insurance plan similar to the Old Age and Survivors Insurance of the United States which had gone into effect in the mid-30's. Coming out of this committee were recommendations to the effect that there should be established a system of universal pensions for persons 70 and over coupled with a program to be called Old-Age Assistance paid on a means test basis for persons 65 to 69 years of age. The federal government would administer and pay for the universal pension while the provinces would administer the Old Age Assistance Act-with the federal government paying 50 per cent of the assistance payment.
The government of the day decided to implement the committee recommendations, but before this could be done it was ncessary to obtain a constitutional amendment which would permit the federal government to legislate concurrently with the provincial governments. This was obtained and the Old Age Security Act of 1951 was passed to become effective January 1952.
The amount which was to be paid under the Old Age Security Act when it was first established in January 1952 was $40 a month. This was changed over the years so that, in July 1957, under a Liberal government, the pension became $46 a month, in November 1957 $55 a month, in February 1962 $65 a month and since October 1963 has been at the rate of $75 a month.
The main premise of the old age security scheme is to pay a pension on a universal basis with no means test and with no direct connection with the financing of the plan. The application for pension does not have any question concerning income or resources. In order to qualify for the pension, the individual needs only to establish that he is of the proper age and that he has met certain residence
Old Age Security Pensions
requirements. In other words, any person who meets the age and residence requirements is eligible for the pension and there is no reference to his income or to any contribution he may have made to the Old Age Security fund in the past, present, or future. It is obvious that the principle of the Old Age Security Act follows more closely the schemes in effect in New Zealand and Sweden, rather than the social insurance approach of the United States and Great Britain. It can be noted, besides, that at present the Canada Pension Plan is based on the social insurance principle.
The plan is operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. The Old Age Security fund receives money through a sales tax, a corporation income tax and a personal income tax. Originally, the formula was 2 per cent for each of these items, subject to a limit of $60 a year for the personal income tax contribution. This is the formula 2-2-2, and those who were concerned with the operation of the program could only hope that the coincidence that this formula sounded like a headache tablet would not bear any omen of difficulties ahead. The financing at present is through a 3 per cent sales tax, a 3 per cent corporation tax and a 4 per cent personal income tax, subject to a limit of $120, thus a 3-3-4 formula.
Since the passing of the Old Age Security Act, there have been years where the financial resources obtained through these taxes have turned out to be insufficient to meet the costs of pensions. Where this has happened temporary loans have been advanced to the fund and these loans have, in turn, been paid off through grants from general revenue. The current situation is that the income is greater than the outgo.
As can be seen, the evolution of old age security through the years is tremendous. One may be interested to learn that old age security pensioners received $1,730,000,000 during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1970, out of a national budget of approximately $14,000,000,000. There are now approximately 1,670,000 old age security pensioners in Canada. From these figures, one can appreciate that the decisions which are reached must be equitable not only to recipients of social security benefits but also to the taxpayers who must pay for all services provided by the government. Unless, of course, we use the moneymaking machine of the Creditistes. As a matter of fact, that is why we must tackle the question with the utmost caution even if, spontaneously, the members of all parties would like to do much more for the aged.
I think that it is important to deal more particularly with the new guaranteed income supplement program. I would like to say a word about it.
Five years ago, 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 earlier. Presently, people who are 65 or older can receive as much as $135, consisting of $80.00 in old age
24372-5}

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions
security pension and $55.00 in guaranteed income supplement. This guaranteed income supplement program has proven very effective. Almost half all old age security recipients are drawing some supplement. The figure had now reached more than 830,000. 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 1969-1970, and during the current fiscal year it is expected to cost nearly $300 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 of income a person has from other sources. It is only cut back by $1 a month for each $2 a month one has from other sources. This leaves an incentive for older people who can supplement their pensions by doing some work to do so. It leaves an incentive for younger people contemplating retirement to save toward that day.
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 us an extra $206 million. We considered it a far better use of resources to concentrate this sum on improving the supplement for low-income old age 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 65 will have incomes of at least $1,600 if single, or of $3,000 if married pensioners. We estimate that about 970,000 pensioners are drawing the supplement, including about 470,000 who are getting full supplement.
Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a growing interest in matters relating to retirement at ages below the traditional retirement age of 65. It is advisable, we feel, to know what the Canadian experience with early retirement has been and whether or not any trends toward early retirement can be detected. For this reason, various data sources have to be examined.
There is no apparent trend towards decreased participation in the combined labour force for the age group 55-64. In fact, there has been a general increase in participation since 1951 for that age group. In the case of males only, however, for the age group 55-64, participation has dropped fairly regularly since 1951 and each year since 1966. Female labour force participation, on the other hand, has increased substantially every year except in 1953 and 1970.
For Canadians in the age group 65 to 69, there is a definite trend towards lesser participation in employment. The participation rate for males, in particular, has declined rapidly in the period 1966 to 1970. This likely is a

reflection of the increasing availability of pension income through OAS and CPP for that age group. The Economics and Research Branch of the federal Department of Labour routinely undertakes a number of studies of developments within the field of collective agreements. In the course of this work some attention is given to the provisions relating to pension plans, which, unfortunately could be given only cursory examination. A detailed study in this area is scheduled for the fall of 1972.
The Department of Labour reports that they have recently conducted an examination of 341 collective agreements negotiated during the period July 1st, 1970, to June 30, 1971. Examination of these collective agreements indicates that 70 contracts had negotiated new provisions with respect to pensions and 26 of these contained clauses for early retirement.
The Department of Labour cannot provide information on the nature of the clauses relating to early retirement nor their effect on retirement age experience. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the private pension field is more and more turning its attention to changes which would allow retirement at ages prior to normal retirement ages.
Many Canadian pension plans permit members to retire early provided certain conditions, based on age or service or a combination of both, are met. The most recent survey of pension plans available for public scrutiny was conducted by The National Trust Company in 1969.
The National Trust survey involved 113 employers which had 136 different pension plans in operation covering more than 1 million employees. There were 24 plans (18 per cent of plans surveyed) which permitted an employee to take his pension prior to normal retirement age without the consent or approval of the employer.
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that a trend will become clear in the next few years.
However, I would like to say in closing that if the Canadian government considers it advisable to look after the aged in order to provide them with decent living conditions, it absolutely does not feel, like the Social Credit, that it is timely to retire persons between 60 and 65 years who can still be very useful in the labour force.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length tonight for various reasons, the first being the celebration we are having tonight on the occasion of the great victory achieved in Ontario by the Conservative party, and also because I would like to allow time for my hon. friend of the Social Credit party who has been attacked by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Without subscribing outright to the motion submitted by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), I would like from the start to state that I share his view that our senior citizens deserve a closer attention than is presently accorded them.
The meaning of the words "physical, material, and human resources of Canada" should however be specified. I am sure there are all sorts of words to be clarified in this respect and the information we could obtain would enable an easier debate of the motion now before the House.
October 21, 1971

The purpose which the hon. member for Roberval had in mind in introducing his motion goes to show that he keeps close to the people, unlike the members on the government side. Because he is aware of the needs of the humbler classes, and of the grievances of those who became unemployed at the age of 55 or 60, and who were unable to find other jobs that could afford them a living, he thought unto himself: "Well, I believe it is my duty to introduce a motion that will call the attention of the House to that matter".
He is to be commended for it and should be encouraged to keep on working for the benefit of our humbler classes because if we leave it to the government members, we may be sure that the conditions of our people will only deteriorate from one year to another.


Some hon. Members:: What about the $135?


Hon.   Mr. Ricard@: I will come to it later on, Mr. Speaker.
I was extremely interested and amused with the history lesson delivered to us by the parliamentary secretary. He described the Liberal Party as one great party, that had done everything or almost everything, in the social field-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, no great knowledge of history is needed to start applauding as the hon. members on the other side of the House are doing at the present time, since we could not expect the Progressive Conservative party or the Railliement creditiste to take such measures while the Liberal party was in office.
The Liberal party has been in office for many years, and it is because it has been in office so long that the Canadian people, especially our older citizens, suffer such hardships today.
At the time of the 1957 elections, the government members were prepared to grant pensions equivalent to the cost of a daily cup of coffee. This the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Ouellet) forgot to tell us, as he forgot to state that a prominent Quebec Liberal premier, Mr. Taschereau, who was in office from 1927 to 1936, rejected the idea of old age pensions for senior citizens in Quebec. While that province contributed to the pensions being paid to the remainder of this country's citizens, that eminent Liberal politician, with whom the government members claim some association, from year to year refused to have the older men and women in Quebec receive the pension to which they were entitled-


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister ofJustice rising on a point of order?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He probably has more nonsense to utter.


Albert Béchard: I should like to ask a question to the hon. member.
Old Age Security Pensions


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. If there is no point of order, I would suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary may ask a question with the consent of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard).


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House not to hear an idiotic question from the Parliamentary Secretary.


David Réal Caouette: That is true!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would simply like to continue-


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The honourable Parliamentary Secretary rises on a question of privilege.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, before saying my question is idiotic, I would like the hon. member to reply in a sensible way to a sensible question.
Can he tell the House why Mr. Taschereau rejected old age pensions and family allowances? Can he tell us why?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary will admit that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe did not give his consent. The Chair has ther-fore no other alternative than to recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This proves how silly is the parliamentary secretary who cannot even follow our rules-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. In spite of this late hour and of the interest of the hon. members in this debate, it is most advisable that we keep our decorum and avoid strong words. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe has the floor. Is the parliamentary secretary rising on a question of privilege?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to reply. It is no trifling matter. He said that Mr. Taschereau had refused-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The parliamentary secretary is aware that he may put his question only with the consent of the member who has the floor. The hon. member of Saint-Hyacinthe has the floor.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to do a favour to the parliamentary secretary. Would you please send him a copy of the Standing Orders and urge him to study them closely. Perhaps the House would benefit from this.


Albert Béchard: This is no answer to the question.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


An hon. Member:: We want an answer.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is always surprising, Mr. Speaker, when a member from the province of Quebec, whether a Conservative or a Social Crediter, speaks in the House, to see those who were called donkeys by their present leader open their mouth to bray and try to prevent us from speaking.


An hon. Member:: We have an example presently.

October 21, 1971
Old Age Security Pensions


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They should simply prevail themselves of their right to speak, participate in the debates and prove to the House they have something between the ears besides servility to their leader. Let them make the country benefit from their studies and teach us what they know.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I beg the Chair to remind the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe that he is out of order. He is straying far from the subject now before us.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, if I am out of order, it is because I followed the Parliamentary Secretary's path, he was the first one to broach this subject.


Albert Béchard: Let the hon. member answer my question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If he had let me make my speech quietly, as I religiously listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Ouellet) who, in turn, is listening to me, I would have likely finished my speech by now, and we would not have witnessed the disgraceful scene that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Maleleine-


Albert Béchard: That's a lot of rubbish.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is easy to see he is not even able to listen. What a superman! With a superiority complex at that! Let us then leave him to this business of his and try to proceed just the same.
I was saying that if ever there was a segment of society that deserved the attention of this House and this government, it is these older people who have earned a secure retirement.
Was it not last week that we heard the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) forsake the security of the entire population to assist the criminals? He said it was more important to protect and try to re-train criminals than to look after the security of the people.
That is what the government means by security. That is the kind of security they intend to provide for our people. I shall make no further comments because I want to give my hon. friend of the Social Credit the opportunity of saying a few things to the hon. parliamentary secretary.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I welcome my very good friend from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) among the Creditistes. He has-


An hon. Member:: Some recruit!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe raises the question of privilege.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I raise the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to say that I would like to remain a Progressive Conservative.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member is perfectly right in saying that we must give more consideration to the elderly people in Canada. The motion now before us asks that pensions be paid to both husband and wife, provided that one of them has reached the age of 60.
A while ago the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) was accusing the Creditistes of wanting to play around with the money press. I will remind him that in 1962 when I publicly asked for a pension of $100 a month for the elderly, it was then only $55 a month. The hon. member should get that into his head. But I was then called a fool because I asked for $100. Today this Liberal government is boasting that it pays $135 a month. This means that the Liberals have become "$80 a month more foolish" than I was in 1962.
Mr. Ouellet What was the cost of living at that time?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, some mention the cost of living at that time. The hon. member for Papineau was saying: "The Creditistes will start operating their moneymaking machine because the cost would be four times as high with their social security program."
The hon. member who travels throughout the province of Quebec, said in Sherbrooke: "The Creditistes are opposed to our helping the underdeveloped countries." The hon. member knows very well that he is lying through his teeth, because we say that we should help underdeveloped countries, but that there is no reason in the world for not helping our provinces, our municipalities, our school boards in the same way, without depriving anyone of anything.
When the hon. member said a few moments ago that it costs $4 billion for social welfare, social security, unemployment insurance, etc., if he wants to take notes, I shall give him statistics. At the present time, $8,735,400,000 are being paid in social assistance, social welfare. The administrative costs are not included in this amount. I am referring to the Ramsay Committee report on social welfare, dated December 22, 1969. These are the most recent figures. This is a submission from the Canadian Association of Tax Studies.
As regards provincial authorities which make a contribution, the figures for 1969 are reported in the DBS Bulletin 68-205 under Provincial Government Finance.
As for the municipalities, their latest contributions date from 1967.
But, from 1967 to 1971, they have increased, and if we add to $8,735,000,000 the administrative costs of all welfare and unemployment insurance offices, the hon. member will realize that we are now getting close to 12 billion dollars!
The plan which I suggested the other day, under which all others would be abolished, would include pensions, unemployment insurance, social welfare which at the present time create countless abuses. For a population of 21,337,000 inhabitants, this program would cost $19,580,945,000. It is therefore not four times more. If the hon.
October 21, 1971

member knows how to count, instead of referring to a money press to show how smart he is, he should use his common sense to establish facts. We are basing ourselves, Mr. Speaker-


André Ouellet: I raise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on a question of privilege.


André Ouellet: The hon. member seems to distort the figures I gave in the House. When he refers to $19 billion, that is even $1.5 billion more than my estimate of the cost of the program. I stated that it would cost $18 billion, but he himself admits that it would cost $19.5 billion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I must point out to the hon. member-


André Ouellet: The hon. member recognizes then that his program would cost four times as much as what the federal government spends-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I must point out to him that his argument proves that his question of privilege is really a point of debate. His speech being over, I must recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, his was neither a point of order nor even a question of privilege. Instead, it is proof that the hon. member cannot count. We counted though. That program would cost $19 billion and not $18 billion. This is neither four times as much as what it costs now, nor even twice as much. Taking for granted the fact that the provinces and municipalities contribute to the present overall social welfare program, in all honesty, outside of political considerations, on what do we base ourselves?
We know-and the hon. member is aware of it-that we are producing this year $90 billion worth of consumer goods and services. That is the total production and the total national revenue, including the parliamentary secretary's increase, comes to $65 billion. The figures are not mine but those of government statisticians. Therefore there is a $25 billion gap between our production and our revenue. That production exists but we cannot have it because there are no corresponding credits.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced a credit of $1,070 billion to provide employment, he did not tell us where it would come from. Did he use a money press? No. He merely said: We are going to have $1,070 billion of new credit. Prior to the last war, our national debt was $3 billion; after the war, it was $17 billion. The $14 billion did not come out in thin air. It did not come out of our pockets because we did not have any money. The government came up with sums of money, appropriations. We made war.
We are presently in conflict with the younger generation and we are wondering what to do about it. And the hon. member knows it because when he went to Sherbrooke he could easily see that it was so. The younger generation nowadays is boiling. They have a grudge against us. They
Old Age Security Pensions
have a grudge against the establishment. Why? Because last summer, 900,000 of them could not find a summer job. The hon. member also knows that if a war was to break out tomorrow we would have a job for each and everyone of them. They are the ones who do not accept the government's position.
Mr. Speaker, it is not by talking the way the hon. member for Papineau was a while ago that we are going to solve our problems. Mr. Speaker, the "money-printing machine" is becoming outmoded. To the extent that the Canadian people produce goods and services-to that same extent, no more but no less-we suggest that the Department of Finance should use the Bank of Canada to obtain equivalent funds and create new sources of credit.
I have been hearing those people speak of a "moneyprinting machine" for the last 32 years. I can hear them bawling. A lot of bawlers! They understand nothing and yet they denounce everything without any reason. What the hon. member said a few moments ago did not prove anything. He got even mixed up in his statistics. He said: "Four times more". My proposal would promote the sale of Canadian goods. We would not less dependent on the United States with regard to exports and the 10 per cent surtax, because our major market, the domestic market, could still be supplied with goods. Industries would then operate normally and new jobs would be created. That would be a solution to unemployment.
We would no longer see abuses like those now rampant throughout Canada: in Quebec, in Ontario and in all the other provinces. And with the new programs which will be implemented, we will be confronted this coming winter with an unbearable economic situation. So let us have solutions. On our part, we are prepared to support logical solutions. I do not have the time this evening to give further details on the cost of a social security plan, but I have the figures. If any hon. member wants a copy of them, I can send him one. They are true figures. If the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles de la Madeleine wants figures, I will give them when I am in his constituency early in November to make sure that the hon. member knows that his constituents are more interested and more informed than he himself has kept them informed since he has been here.
Mr. Speaker, I call it 10 o'clock. So I will close my remarks, and I will come back to them at the next opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 58 proceedings on the motion have expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I have the honour of informing the House that the Senate has sent a message saying that it has agreed to meet with the House in a joint committee of both houses for the purpose of studying and reviewing statutory instruments which are, under Section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act, referred to that com-

October 21, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion mittee on an ongoing basis, and that honourable senators who are to sit on that committee will be designated at a later date.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on October 15, I directed the following question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien):
Can the minister inform the House if the entire Kluane game sanctuary in the Yukon is actively being considered as a site for a national park?
My supplementary question was:
When may we expect a decision from the minister on the setting aside of this outstanding area for national park purposes?
Mr. Speaker suggested that these questions be placed on the order paper, but I felt that in view of their national importance and the need for an early decision to be made I should raise the issue on our so-called ten o'clock show. May I first point out that there is some urgency in the need for establishing additional national parks throughout Canada. An increasing number of Canadians and interested organizations are actively pressing the government for action on the establishing of more national parks. I will not detail the immense value which accrues to Canadians through the establishment of parks but perhaps I should mention the basic purposes of Canada's national parks as defined in the government's 1964 parks policy statement. It is:
To preserve for all time areas which contain significant geographical, geological, biological or historic features as a national heritage for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada.
Canada's national parks system began with the establishment of Banff national park in 1885. Since that time we have added 27 national parks to our parks system. There is urgent need for other areas to be set aside as national parks in an effort to round out the system so that it truly represents all the major regions of our country and includes major geographical and ecological features of national significance. There is increasing urgency for the need to complete our parks system while there is still time. The minister several years ago at a conference in Calgary made the following statement:
The national park system in Canada originated here in the west but it has taken too long to extend the system to other parts of Canada, where there is just as great a need and just as exciting opportunities to establish such parks so that all parts of Canada can share in the benefits of what must become a truly national policy. I would like to impress upon you my sense of urgency on
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
this question of establishing additional national parks. It is estimated that to achieve adequate representation of Canada's heritage at a suitable scale we shall require 40 to 60 new national parks by 1985.
Wheat creates this sense of urgency are two factors. First, the increased cost of acquiring land for park use is reaching prohibitive levels. Second, past experience has shown that areas of natural beauty can quickly be spoiled for potential park use by different problems of economic and social development. Failure to recognize the urgent need for additional parks will mean that one day we will risk reaching the point of no return.
The very principle of conservation demands that we have the foresight and determination to take action needed today so that tomorrow will not be a time for regretting lost opportunities.
I fully endorse this statement made by the minister, but it is becoming obvious that he is ducking the parks issue as it affects several areas of Canada. One of the most important is the need for a national park in the Yukon which will set aside for all time the Kluane game sanctuary. I point out there are national parks in every province of Canada but none in either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories.
I understand that 28 years ago almost all of the newly created 10,000 square mile Kluane game sanctuary in the Yukon was reserved for national park purposes. I ask the minister why there has been such a lengthy delay in establishing this area as a national park. Are the lobbies of the powerful mining industry to take precedence over what could and should be a national reserve for all time? I point out that mineral resources are non-renewable but the resources of an area preserved in a national park are there for all time and will provide a far more stable economic base over the long-run.
The Kluane game sanctuary is one of the unique areas in Canada. It has terrific potential as a national park. It is located in the extreme southwestern tip of the Yukon and on its eastern boundary is parallelled by the Alaska highway for 200 miles. It is one of the most beautiful areas in the north and contains the Saint Elias mountains which are the highest in Canada. Here we find Mount Logan, our highest peak which towers 19,850 feet.
The game sanctuary contains an outstanding number of wild animals and bird species. It contains a vast ice field, the largest in the world outside of the polar regions. This area is easily accessible and can be reached by automobile from Edmonton and by the Alaska ferry system and car from Vancouver and Prince Rupert. A daily jet service to Whitehorse brings this area only a few hours flying time away from the most populated areas of North America.
The Kluane game sanctuary was reserved 28 years ago for national park purpose. To date no action has been taken by this government or past governments in having it set aside as a national park. At the present time the mining industry has been free to operate in sanctuary virtually without restraint. This is in direct violation of national parks principles and objectives. There is no doubt that the mining industry is extremely important in Canada's economy, but I again refer the minister to the statement which he made at the Calgary conference several years ago:
We must have the foresight and determination to take action needed today so that tomorrow will not be a time for regretting lost opportunities.
October 21, 1971


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: I suggest to the minister that the time to set the Kluane game sanctuary aside for a national park is now. We cannot afford to lose any more of these choice areas through economic exploiters. Already procrastination on the part of this government and other governments has seen some of the most outstanding park areas in Canada lost for all time to future generations. I point out to the minister that we must look to the future and legislate for the future in the wise disposition of our natural resources.
Our national parks system must be extended to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The Kluane game sanctuary should be the first step in our national parks program for the north. This park could become one of the major economic assets of the north and, unlike nonrenewable resources such as minerals, we can expect its value and economic return to sharply increase as time goes on. Here, too, we have an asset which can provide employment for a large number of native people who call northern Canada their home. Their natural talents and skills can be utilized in such projects to a far greater degree than in industrial and economic activities which are for the most part foreign to their way of life.
I urge the minister and the government to move without delay on this very important matter. I trust we shall soon see the entire Kluane game sanctuary set aside as another national park to serve the interests of all Canadians both at the present and in the future.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this question. I have already stated in my speeches, especially in the Yukon, that it is my goal to have the Kluane reserve set aside for a national park. There is one problem which prevents the possibility of doing that right away. We are not in a position to do so because of the legislative time required to have the Yukon Mineral Act adopted. I have already stated that the government plans to make this a national park as soon as the legal possibility exists.
At this time I say to the hon. member who subscribes to my policies that we have overcome something very important by speaking. As I have said, we do not only say things. In the 40 years prior to 1968, only four new national parks were created in Canada. In a little more than three years we have succeeded in creating six new national parks in Canada. We have created the first two national parks in the province of Quebec. Different governments tried to do this for many years. This government has succeeded in creating two national parks in the province of Quebec, one in Newfoundland, one in New Brunswick and one in British Columbia on the west coast of Vancouver Island, an outstanding area for a national park. For the first time we have succeeded in getting a big chunk of land to make a national park in Ontario. This will be a large area at Lake Superior between Sault Ste. Marie and Port Arthur. In three years we have succeeded in creating six new national parks.
I intend to maintain the goal I referred to in my speech in Calgary in 1968. This is the speech with which the hon. member agreed. I would like to create four additional
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion national parks before the end of the fiscal year, or next summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When the time comes for us to go to the people, we will be able to prove to them that this government is not only talking; it is acting and it is acting with the support of the opposition parties.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to hon. members, and especially to our distinguished clutch of visitors in the galleries, that a great show is taking place outside. It has undoubtedly cut down on our attendance. No doubt the attendance is completely to the satisfaction of the party that I represent. I will now move to non-partisan matters.
I bow to nobody as a parliamentarian in paying respect to those of this Parliament who have concerned themselves with veterans affairs and with the treatment of those who did so much for Canada. It is on their behalf, that is to say on behalf of the veterans of Canada, that I make this pitch tonight. I hope nobody will misconstrue it in any way as being sour or partisan or bitter.
I wish to try to do something about what I believe to be an injustice to Canadian veterans, believing that while good legislation has been passed by all parties in this House there are simply not enough people to carry it out and see that those who are entitled to benefits will receive them quickly. I think that if you have to stand in a queue one mile long and shuffle forward awaiting your turn, even if you will receive justice at the head of the queue, justice delayed is justice denied.
The chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission, Mr. Allan O'Solomon, according to a report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Wednesday points out that applications under the new act are coming in at the rate of 1,000 a month. In other words, some 7,000 cases have been piled on the doorstep of the Commission since the new legislation came into effect. There are many reasons for this situation. First, any claim which has been denied in the past can be reopened because of the provision made for a shift in the balance of the preponderance of evidence rules which guided the commission in the past. We all fought for that. We are glad to see it in effect, but it means that many claims are being put forward which are unlikely to be dealt with expeditiously in the present circumstances.
Other factors can now be taken into consideration, too. There is the effect of a war disability upon a second disability incurred since war service; there is the special position of those who were prisoners of the Japanese; there is the effect of the new clauses dealing with disability claims and widows claims. So in effect we are dealing with a wholly new situation when it comes to claims which can be presented to the commission, thanks to the generous action of this House. I do not make any claim
8922

October 21, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that I had anything to do with that. Perhaps I did with regard to the evidentiary balance, but otherwise no.
I can see around me hon. members who were engaged in this work and I am proud of the decisions they reached. But if a man is at the back of a queue of 7,000 people he is at the back of a queue which is very long indeed. I therefore make two suggestions for speeding up this whole process so that those affected can obtain their rights. First, there should be consultation between the Department of Veterans Affairs and Bar Associations in various parts of Canada, particularly in areas where large numbers of claims have been filed in order that lawyers may be retained even on a temporary basis to provide what is in effect a free legal counsel which is available to everyone who uses the veterans bureau to present claims.
The other suggestion is this. There must be a method of apppointing special panels even on a temporary basis until we can clear up this overwhelming backlog of cases. This need not be done in all areas; it can be done where the need is most pressing. In some provinces sufficient resources are already available, but if we take a sensible attitude even the 7,000 cases which have arisen since the new legislation became effective could be processed with some kind of expedition. People would not then feel that they were caught forever in the back end of an alley and could not see their way to the front. I make that suggestion to the government and I hope it will be considered.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) I thank the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for his question. I am sure that no member of the House doubts the sincerity or impartiality of his concern, which indeed is shared by all members of this House including members of the government.
I should like to point out that the present backlog is 5,348 cases. Although it is a substantial number, it is somewhat less than the number suggested by the hon. member. The present rate of entitlement decision completion is 23.88 files per working day over the period September 25 to date. An accurate forecast concerning elimination of the backlog is difficult, if not impossible, and will be influenced by a number of factors. The present rate of application input is variable but, as stated on October 18, it is hoped the peak will be reached by the end of the calendar year. While at our present rate it will take a year to deal only with the 5,348 cases pending, increasing familiarity with the amended act and more experience with the work by new people on the commission should permit increased output during each succeeding month.
The statute permits the appointment of not more than 12 regular members of the commission plus a maximum of five ad hoc members appointed for one year. This maximum complement of commissioners has already been appointed. I might add that in any case a new appointee to this work needs at least a year's experience before he could make a worth-while contribution. The current backlog of work represents a temporary peakload resulting from recent amendments to the Pension Act, and the present membership of the commission is already eating into the backlog.
[Mr. McCleave.J


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) for an explanation of some of the many inefficiencies in his department. Specifically, I asked him why it has taken four years, the employment of 106 bureaucrats and the spending of more than $3 million to produce a report about job vacancies, and the data is not available and probably will not be available until the end of the year.
Additionally, as far as another survey is concerned the minister told the House a few days ago that he is spending I do not know how many dollars on it, this time collecting data on occupational shortages. I do not know what is the difference between job vacancies and occupational shortages but I suppose that some sophisticated bureaucrat in the department, even the minister himself, being a former law professor, may be able to argue the difference between the two. The fact of the matter is, however, that the difference does not really matter to the man who is out of work, which should be the key purpose of the department to remedy.
Another statistical analysis undertaken by the department relates to job orders. Here again, I do not know how much money is involved because the amount has not yet been determined. Looking at some statistics in this regard, in the fiscal year 1966-67 employers placed 850,000 job orders with Canada Manpower. By the last fiscal year, 1970-71, it had dropped to fewer than 600,000.
There is another statistical series which has emanated from the minister's department, namely, job placements by Canada Manpower. Not surprisingly, the statistical figures for this operation are equally disastrous. In the period 1965-66, when we still had the National Employment Service in operation and a much smaller labour force than we have today, the number of placements by the department was 961,000. In the last fiscal, 1970-71, the number of placements by the new department working under extended operations had fallen to below 650,000, a drop of some 32 per cent in job placements.
I think more pertinent than that is the fact that in 1965-66 the cost of placing a person in a job was $23. Today, taking into account manpower training and all the other programs of the department, the cost of placing one person in a job has escalated to $647. If we exclude the training program, it still costs about $268 to place a person in a job. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and all the other ministers, obsessed as they are with destroying and defeating inflation, cannot be accused of losing the battle at such a clip as to account for the 2,700 per cent increase in placement costs over only five years.
In the field of the operations of the Department of Manpower and Immigration three things only are growing: one, the amount of money being spent; two, the number of bureaucrats being employed by the department and, three, the number of people who are unemployed in the nation. These three factors do not make up any equation at all. The growth in these areas seems to be
October 21, 1971

the only accomplishment of the department. I think the statistic-and the minister seems to be obsessed with statistics-which the minister should be giving to the public is how many of the people who actually go through manpower training end up getting jobs afterwards. How many are successful? The manpower training program is currently costing over $300 million a year, and another $35 million was added to that figure the other day.
What is it for? Primarily, to train people for jobs that simply do not exist. I think the main objective, therefore, in the eyes of the government is to hide away, to cover up in any given month some 80,000 unemployed people so that the forecasts and prognostications of the Minister of Finance about the level of unemployment will look slightly less ludicrous and damaging than they otherwise would. I personally, members of this House and people across the country object strongly to that sort of government trickery and I resent very much the cruelty of the hoax which is being perpetrated on the unemployed. Quite a number of them hope that after the training is over there will be a job waiting for them. Regretfully, that does not seem to be the case.
The minister has made a mess in his handling of the grain situation. It appears that he is bent on making an equal mess of the manpower aspect that is under his jurisdiction.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member and, in my reply, I shall try to disregard the partisan side of his remarks-

Mr. Speaker, may I deal with the matter the hon. member has raised. With respect to that part of the hon. member's question relating to the job vacancy survey, I would point out that this survey is being conducted among employers throughout Canada in the expectation that the results will give a more constant picture of the state of the labour market at the national level. Particular attention is being paid to those job vacancies which have been open for a month or more, and the survey will produce a three-month moving average of these vacancies.
However, as was pointed out to the hon. member, the survey is still in the developmental stage. As this job
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion vacancy survey is being developed by Statistics Canada under contract to the Department of Manpower and Immigration, I would suggest that if more technical information is required relating to the timing of completion of this developmental work such a request should be directed to the minister responsible for Statistics Canada. The development of this survey is but one aspect of a continuing effort to improve the quality of labour market knowledge available to assist in the planning and implementation of manpower programs and placement activities.
With specific reference to the hon. member's remarks concerning the job placement activities of the department, I would point out that the main reason there has been a decline in the number of placements in employment by Canada Manpower centres since 1965 and 1966 is that Canada Manpower centres have been heavily involved in several new programs and services which have been added to the functions performed by the Canada Manpower centres, including the Canada Manpower training program and the Canada Manpower mobility program. When the placements in these programs are taken into account, the total output of the Canada Manpower centres compares favourably with previous years. I say that because I believe it is the answer the hon. member is looking for. For example, in 1970-71 the Canada Manpower centres placed 344,846 people in training and made 648,966 placements in jobs, excluding casual jobs, for a total of 993,812. This total exceeds the 960,995 placements made in 1965-66.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order.


Marcel Prud'homme: With the indulgence of the House perhaps I could finish the paragraph.


Frank Howard: I would be quite agreeable to the hon. gentleman concluding the paragraph. After all, it was written for him by someone in the department and I want to make sure it is on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: We have agreed we should be specific in respect of time. The hon. gentleman's time has elapsed and I doubt whether the Chair has the power to allow him to continue.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Would the hon. member please resume his seat? According to the rules I must be firm about this. I am sorry, but that is my answer.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
24372-6J

Friday. October 22. 1971