1972-03-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have repeatedly, over the past few weeks, sought clarification of the confusion related to the Local Initiatives Program.
The replies to my oral questions seem to be absolutely contradictory to facts and they mislead the House.
When questioned by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) on February 28 last, the parliamentary secretary stated that on February 25 there were still $4,000,000 to distribute. The Minister of Labour, on March 2, gave a vague reply to a question on the same subject posed by my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).
As for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), he replied that he would take under advisement the questions put by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) and myself as to the possibility of increasing or transferring funds. Nothing further was done about that.
Nor have I been able, in spite of several questions, to determine when funds available for Quebec were used up.
Mr. Speaker, such a procedure is a direct infringement on our rights and privileges as representatives of the people.
It is inacceptable that we should be unable to give accurate information to some 700 Quebec municipalities which have been misinformed and frustrated, and all the more since the statements of the Quebec minister in charge contradict allegations of officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
We therefore demand an official statement from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) in this connection.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member gave notice of the matter he has just brought to the attention of the House.
The hon. member knows that, under Standing Order 17, he must advise the Chair not only of his intention to raise a question of privilege but also of the subject of the question.
To some extent, his notice may not have been in order. In any event, the matter he just brought up is more in the nature of a grievance than a question of privilege. His presentation was not followed by a motion.
Under those circumstances, I doubt that it would be in order to deal with the matter further as a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Gervais.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to the House that the port of Prince Rupert will become the tenth National Harbours Board port.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Two recommendations to the Governor in Council that will have an important bearing on the future of Prince Rupert have been accepted. One recommendation extends the limits of Prince Rupert harbour and transfers the administration, management and control of the harbour to the National Harbours Board. The other confirms the acceptance by Canada of the transfer by the province of British Columbia of the administration, control and benefit of certain Crown lands at Prince Rupert for the purpose of operating a national harbour.
I am looking forward to inviting representatives of the community to serve as members of the Port of Prince Rupert Authority, which will be created at the earliest possible opportunity.
I will also ask the National Harbours Board to invite proposals that will lead to the establishment of a major modern grain transshipment facility at Prince Rupert. This is in anticipation of a larger proportion of grain shipments to China and Russia and the Pacific rim countries being directed over the northern route, thus relieving congestion in the Fraser River canyon and elsewhere.
The National Harbours Board will also undertake studies related to its own possible involvement in such facilities. I want to emphasize that the federal government is seeking to further the development of the port of Prince Rupert in conjunction with the development of other ports, such as the port of Vancouver. The objective is to provide both greater capacity and greater flexibility, and to improve access to the Pacific.
1072

March 23, 1972
Prince Rupert Harbour
The National Harbours Board will continue to support and pursue other initiatives that anticipate the development of bulk handling and general cargo facilities in the port of Prince Rupert. Provision has been made in the board's 1972-73 estimates for a $5 million expenditure at this port.
I think the House will also be interested in knowing that the National Harbours Board has opened a business office in Winnipeg to serve western Canadian requirements. The growth in grain, bulk commodity and general cargo movements is such that full co-ordination of transportation and transshipment facilities is essential. It is anticipated that the new office will contribute to the establishing of more efficient traffic flows through the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Churchill and Thunder Bay.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this announcement, but we wonder why it has taken so long-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -to recognize Prince Rupert. We are fully aware that the Prime Minister made a trip to the Pacific rim countries some years ago and more or less suggested that trade should pick up with that area. Prince Rupert is far closer to Japan and China than is Vancouver and therefore it is the natural port from which to ship to those countries.
We will reserve our final judgment on the government and the expenditure until we see how the government goes about it. A few years ago funds were allotted to the department for the development of the port of Vancouver under the National Harbours Board, but the board did not use all of the allotted moneys for that port. Whether the $5 million for Prince Rupert will be spent in the right manner is hard to determine at this time. There are only two wharves at Prince Rupert, only one of which handles grain. Also-, there is the so-called surge problem at the port. We hope that some money will be allocated to correct this problem, and we certainly hope that the grain handling facilities will be enlarged.
The minister suggests that bulk handling and general cargo facilities should be improved. We certainly agree they should be because ships must be able to come into Prince Rupert with a cargo and also leave the port with a cargo. Part of the difficulty has been in getting ships with cargoes to come to Prince Rupert. Access by rail to Edmonton and the northern parts of the prairie region is far shorter from Prince Rupert and therefore we have always looked upon Prince Rupert as a valuable port which should be developed.
We welcome this initial step by the government and we will watch the expenditures carefully to make certain that this port proves to be the tremendous asset it could be, particularly to the grain economy in the northern parts of the Prairies as well as the whole prairie region.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from mentioning the difficulties which we had in trying to get the grain storage facilities at Prince Rupert doubled between 1958 and 1962.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: We have been awaiting this announcement not just for months, as might appear to be the case, but ever since 1919 when the late Mackenzie King visited Prince Rupert and made these commitments. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been in the minds of everybody in Prince Rupert and the surrounding area for a long period of time, and certainly this is a welcome announcement on the part of the minister. We look forward to the establishment of the port authority itself, the involvement of the National Harbours Board, and the development of the port for obvious reasons that are clear to everyone, namely, shipments in and out of the port of Prince Rupert, particularly of grain, thus helping to relieve the pressure on other ports and other parts of the country.
Up until now Mr. Bill Raithie, a member for the National Harbours Board, has acted as liaison between the federal government and the provincial government with respect to the transfer of land. I would hope, with all respect to Mr. Raithie, that he would have a minimum of involvement in whatever happens in the city of Prince Rupert from the National Harbours Board point of view. He is chairman of the Vancouver Port Authority, and I believe that his interests are mainly directed there and that he should not have too much involvement with Prince Rupert for that reason.
In the establishment of the Port of Prince Rupert authority I hope the minister would go beyond the boundaries of the city and include persons from the organized community of Port Edward.
I do not know what the minister means by a major, modern grain transshipment facility at Prince Rupert. At the present time there is a storage capacity there of 2\ million bushels, or a little less. I would suggest that he, the National Harbours Board, or whoever is going to do this work, should be thinking at least in terms of a storage capacity of 10 million bushels and the installation of a tipple system so that boxcars can move in loaded with clearn grain and be unloaded rapidly with a minimum of difficulty, thus making maximum use of the port.
This will also mean, I hope, increased use of the Canadian National facilities running in and out of the port of Prince Rupert. If that is the case-in fact, even without increased use of Canadian National facilities-I think that Canadian National, in conjunction with the province of British Columbia if they can work out an agreement or by itself if they cannot, should move into the installation of snowsheds along the lower reaches of the Skeena River. At this time of year and earlier in the winter there are periods of a week, ten days and sometimes up to two weeks when there is no rail movement in and out of that area because of snow slides. Snowsheds would help to alleviate that problem.
I would not like to see this port when it is developed, used simply as an exit port for raw materials or nearly raw materials. The more we continue to export raw materials out of the nation the more we export jobs with them and the more we provide jobs to people in manufacturing industries in other countries. I would rather see us expand our own manufacturing industries, process raw

March 23, 1972

materials into useable goods, and export useable goods rather then export our natural wealth in the form of raw materials.
I am sure the people of Prince Rupert would endorse the concepts I am now expressing and would want me to express their appreciation to the minister for his announcement. We look forward to further action in the future.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be my day for making announcements. Hon. members will recall that in 1969 it was announced by the government that the Canadian Forces Base at Summerside, Prince Edward Island, was having its life extended as a military base to the end of 1973 in order to provide time during which it might be determined whether alternative uses could be found for the base. This effort has been going on for quite some time, and I think it is generally known that it has not been possible to obtain enough in the way of alternative uses to take the place of the base. So, as one who worked on that committee, and on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson), I wish to inform the House that Canadian Forces Base Summerside, Prince Edward Island, will continue in its present operational role.
It will be recalled that Canadian Forces Base Summer-side was one of several defence bases that were recommended for closure under an armed forces base consolidation plan that was worked out some years ago. In December, 1969, an extension of its operation was granted until April of this year to permit a study of the economic impact that closure would have on the local community and the province. A thorough investigation of the alternatives has clearly demonstrated that the base should be confirmed in its present role.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) on behalf of his colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson) is most welcome. I especially appreciate it as the base to which he refers is in my constituency. I am delighted that this decision has been made not only because of the high operational quality that has been maintained there from a defence point of view, the high morale that has existed and the higher than average level of competency that has been demonstrated by the personnel but because, and in some ways more important, this base is a very important economic factor in the life of Prince Edward Island and in the future of the town of Summerside. On all these scores the announcement is indeed very welcome not only for its own value but also because it removes the doubt which clouded the economic future of that area since the suggestion was first made that the base might not continue.
Opportunities for Youth Program In closing and on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say that I am delighted that the Premier of Prince Edward Island is in Your Honour's gallery at the moment to hear this important announcement directly.
*
* *



STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF STATE ON 1972 OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM

Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a progress report to the House on the response of young people to this year's Opportunities for Youth program.
On January 13, I announced that the budget for the 1972 program was $33,978,000 and that this money would fund jobs and activities for about 29,000 young men and women. Another 1,860 non-paying activities will also be created by the program. At the same time, I advised that the deadline for project applications was midnight, March 8. In other words, Mr. Speaker, applicants had almost two months to prepare their submissions. They were advised and helped in filling their application forms by 75 program field officers who were deployed across the country meeting young people at high schools, on college and university campuses, and conferring with municipal authorities and representatives of various public organizations.
Program officers and officials of the department assured that there was an adequate supply of application forms. Some 200,000 English and 100,000 French forms were available from various government outlets and from program workers. The program was extensively promoted in the print and broadcasting media.
As we anticipated, the younger generation's interest in the program has remained at a high level. Once again, they have shown their resourcefulness by the quality and variety of their proposals.
Canadian youth in all parts of the country submitted some 19,102 projects to the Opportunities for Youth Program head-quarters here in Ottawa. These applications are now being coded and processed. The spread of projects by region is as follows: Atlantic provinces, 3,189 or 17 per cent; Quebec, 6,688 or 35 per cent; Ontario, 4,046 or 21 per cent; Prairie provinces, 2,912 or 15 per cent; British Columbia, 2,104 or 11 per cent, and national, 173 or roughly one per cent. Project proposals average $11,949 each and would include an average of 10 participants. This is close to what program planners consider the ideal project size which should cost between $10,000 and $15,000 and employ between eight and 12 people.
In my January 13 press conference I said that we hoped to be able to put more stress on assisting students from disadvantaged environments. I think that with the very strong response we have received from the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and the rural sections of the Prairie provinces-60 per cent of the prairie applications came from rural areas-with this kind of response, I repeat, it should
1074

March 23, 1972
Opportunities for Youth Program
be easier to meet the objective of putting funds where they are needed most.
A special effort was also made this year to enhance the participation of women in projects. To date, 40 per cent of jobs proposed have been for women. Present analysis also indicates that 30 per cent of would-be participants are secondary or high school students, 63 per cent are postsecondary and seven per cent are non-students.

The largest groups of proposed projects involve recreational activities, 25 per cent, and social services, 20 per cent. Other estimates of projects are cultural, 16 per cent; environmental, 14 per cent; research, 11 per cent; information, 11 per cent, and miscellaneous, 2 per cent.
We are of course pleased by the strong response that the program has received in its second year. This response shows that the government was right when it decided to increase the program's budget by about $10 million this year. These additional resources should allow us to fund about 3,000 projects and participants should, on the whole, earn somewhat more than they received on the average last year. In other words, we foresee an average allocation of about $1,100 this year per participant compared with $900 last year. Unfortunately, many worthwhile projects will be rejected. But it was never intended that this program should be a total answer to summer employment for students. As in the past, a very large proportion of employment will be supplied by the private sector of the economy. And of course Opportunities for Youth is not the only federal program designed to promote useful summer activities and employment. In addition to our own department's efforts to support about 100 hostels across the country and other programs to promote travel and exchanges of young people, special efforts are being made by the Public Service Commission, the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Manpower to encourage student activities and employment under the general heading of Summer '72 programs. The over-all expenditure for the Summer '72 effort will be in the order of $85 million.
I would like now to say a word about the schedule for processing the applications received by the Opportunities for Youth program administration. All provincial governments have been consulted on their regional priorities and their views will be taken into account during the selection process. Officers of the department for which I am responsible and a staff of over 230 at the program's headquarters will participate in the selection. Processing will be computerized and selection will be based on such factors as conformity to the program's criteria, the numbers >i jobs per project, the employment needs of participants and the ratio between male and female participants, geographical distribution, recommendations from people in the community, specialist consultants, provincial priorities and the budgets allocated by region and sub-region.
It is expected that public announcements of accepted projects will be made from April 17 to 27. Each group of participants will be advised by letter of the approval of their projects. Throughout the summer, 100 field officers will be posted in the various regions to provide support

for the project workers, maintain contact with other community groups and offer resource assistance to projects.
I would ask applicants to bear with us while each submission is studied. We are aware that young people are anxious to know the results. First decisions should be announced by April 17. Groups are requested not to expect answers before that date.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful for the minister's statement, particularly with regard to the progress report on this year's Opportunities for Youth program. There is no doubt that the Opportunities for Youth program both last year and this year is enjoying tremendous popularity with the young people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The obvious rate of submissions, close to 20,000, is indication enough of the popularity of the program. It also indicates, and this was not mentioned in the minister's statement, the tremendous need of young people for employment this year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I find it passing strange that the minister would even dare comment on the employment possibilities of Opportunities for Youth without at once acknowledging the tremendous need and growing gap in terms of jobs for students and other young people during this present year. The minister talked about the possibility of employment this summer for approximately 30,000 young people under Opportunities for Youth; yet we know the summer labour force is going to increase by some 100,000 this year to a total of approximately 1,300,000. I see no acknowledgement in the minister's statement in this regard.
While I think all hon. members and many Canadians will rejoice in the opportunities that young people will have to develop their talents and skills creatively under Opportunities for Youth, we must not let this divert us from a basic concern about the need for employment by young people during this present year. We know only too well that during the past two years the rate of unemployment for those in the 14 to 24 age group has been running at more than twice the national level. This is simply not an acceptable figure for a modern country like Canada. Just the other day, a York University sociologist said:
Inadequate federal economic policy theories have given Canada the highest rate of youth unemployment in the industrialized western world-
That sociologist is not a particular friend of members on this side of the House. He was the chairman of the government's own committee on youth, Mr. David Hunter. It is well past time that this government acknowledged, if its total answer to the swelling ranks of unemployed youth is one program or a series of travelling opportunities, that this is not sufficient to meet the needs of this country. We ask, what answers and what action is the government prepared to put forward?
March 23, 1972

In his statement the minister was limited to saying: "Unfortunately many worth-while projects will be rejected. But it was never intended that this program should be a total answer to summer employment for students." That understatement is the masterpiece of the minister's career because it acknowledges the almost total failure of this government to realize what its basic responsibilities are with regard to youth and their importance to this country.
It is near the end of March and we are talking about a progress report on this year's Opportunities for Youth program. We were told last fall we would have a thoroughgoing evaluation of last summer's activities which would give us some clear idea as to the strategy and goals for this year's program. Where is that report? We got a gloss of it in December. We were again told in December that we would have the report shortly. We have been left to read in the usual fashion what the government is up to, through leaked reports in the daily press which tell us that the goals of meeting the youth unemployment crisis are being failed by this government.
There is a cqmplete lack of recognition and co-ordination. Only yesterday afternoon I sought the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion in these terms:
That the Secretary of State immediately consult with business and industry in order to develop a concerted approach to the imminent crisis in youth unemployment.
Unfortunately, some hon. members saw fit not to consent.
We have heard that somewhere in the minister's vast department some industrial referral centre is trying to deal with the five out of six projects that will not be accepted under the Opportunities for Youth; yet we have heard no specific mention or acknowledgement of this program. Basically, we are getting non-answers from an overworked minister with regard to the youth unemployment crisis. It seems to me at least that this minister is just not capable any longer of handling this tremendously important problem. It is time the government acknowledged that it has a basic responsibility to co-ordinate not only its own activities, but to suggest and allow for coordination of activities in other levels of government and in the private sector.
In the statement today we were not even told about the subjective parts of the selection process. Will there be any kind of negotiation as there was last year with regard to project submissions? What will be the criteria in subjective selection of projects? Will the final answer be that five out of six project groups will receive a form letter, as was the case last year, with reasons that are not clear as to why their project is not acceptable? That kind of answer is unacceptable to the members of this House and the people of this country.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, all of us on this side of the House are getting tired of the government periodically and triumphantly trotting out temporary measures to deal with our now chronic problem of massive unemployment in this country. Opportunities for Youth, while it contains the germ of a good idea, that of providing young people with opportunities to conceive, plan and execute projects which they believe are interesting, challenging and socially worth while, is in the end
Opportunities for Youth Program simply another patch like the Local Initiatives Program on a system based on a dying, decaying economic philosophy.
These programs do not go even a small part of the way toward meeting the real needs of this country and its people, young or old. This country needs a government dedicated to the creation of full employment. Only full employment will provide real opportunities for youth, real opportunities for young adults, real opportunities for the middle-aged, real opportunities for the elderly, and avoid programs which are essentially government subsidies to an already, for the most part, privileged group. Opportunities for Youth is essentially a middle-class program for middle-class youth, an attempt to buy off an extremely able, highly articulate segment of our society who know, when discontented, how to apply pressure so it hurts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Rowland: It is this group that the government is attempting to buy off with Opportunities for Youth; it is attempting to buy them off and divert their attention from correcting the real social ills to which they would otherwise be devoting their attention.
I am fed up to the back teeth with middle-class programs for middle-class kids when there are no corresponding programs for the other 85 per cent of the population. Leaving aside other age groups, what does this program do for the 75 per cent of the young people who are not in universities or community colleges?
Where did the minister say his 75 field workers spent their time? Was it among the 70 per cent of the young people who might have some difficulty in setting down their ideas for worth-while projects in a manner which would impress someone sitting behind a desk in Ottawa evaluating those submissions? No. The minister told us with evident pride that the field workers spent their time "meeting young people at high schools, on college and university campuses and conferring with municipal officials and representatives of various public organizations".
I ask hon. members, are these the people who need assistance in making preparations? They are already where they are because they have demonstrated some facility in communication. When is this government going to do something really meaningful to assist the disadvantaged in this country? I have given up hope.
The ultimate perversion is that some former employees of the Opportunities for Youth program of last year set themselves up in business writing submissions for people who wish to apply this year. As one former employee of Opportunities for Youth said:
We are producing a generation of professional grants-men, kids from universities with long training in how to deal with this era of public grant giving.
I have nothing at all against doing something for college and university students-far from it-but not to the exclusion of everyone else and not with a program which does not even meet the needs of that group of society. Last year I was willing to put up with mistakes in the conception and execution of Opportunities for Youth because it was a new program, all too rapidly thrown together. This year I am not, not after a year's experience and certainly not

March 23, 1972
Opportunities for Youth Program after the promised evaluations of last year's program turned out to be cooked information and the independent evaluation has either been stolen or lost. If I sound churlish, Mr. Speaker, it is because I am disappointed, and I make no bones about it.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secertary of State (Mr. Pelletier) for being kind enough to forward a copy of his statement to us.
As he indicated, the record number of 19,000 projects submitted by student groups is proof enough that young Canadians are interested in participating in Canadian community life.
On many occasions in this House, I emphasized this wish for participation on the part of our young people, who are receptive and ready to contribute their full share to the Canadian community.
The Opportunities for Youth program will certainly be helpful to a great number of them. The only hitch is that it will be impossible to accept all the projects submitted.
I hope that the group in charge of assessing and examining the projects will be objective in the selection, so that last year's errors are not repeated.
During the past few weeks, I have had a look at some of the projects submitted from my constituency. I am quite impressed with their originality and seriousness of design. This is why I should be disappointed if some serious projects were rejected. The project screening group has an important task to perform and I hope that it will approach it very earnestly.
I thank the minister for submitting this first report to the House and I invite him once more to keep us informed in this respect.



MANPOWER


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to raise an urgent matter of national interest, under Standing Order 43.
When raising a question of privilege a moment ago, my colleague for Champlain (Mr. Matte) has pointed out an important problem about which Canadians have been misled, especially Quebeckers, with rega~d to 700 municipalities. As for the Local Initiatives Program, the problems should be solved.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the minister responsible for the administration of the Local Initiatives Program make a statement on motions to explain to the House the conflicting statements made by federal and provincial representatives about allegedly approved projects and the sum of $5 million which is supposed to be earmarked for that program, in order to elucidate the matter thoroughly.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) under Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent, therefore the motion cannot be put.

On the order: Introduction of bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to refer at this point to the ten bills which were mentioned yesterday and the day before. The Chair indicated then that there was agreement that these bills be stood until tomorrow for consideration from a procedural standpoint.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-174, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to facilitate competition in the light of the existing monopolistic position enjoyed by the old parties. It should encourage freedom of choice and fresh ideas in the democratic process.


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


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns his ever-popular Texas friend, "Two-gun" Connolly. Yesterday I addressed this question to the Prime Minister but he did not know the answer. Perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will today. Has the government looked into the suggestion that the United States Secretary of the Treasury has issued a
March 23, 1972

directive to customs officials telling them to enforce regulations with considerable severity in connection with auto parts shipments? If so, can the minister inform the House whether this has happened?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday in the committee on my estimates, and I repeat it today, even more emphatically because the department has had occasion to check further, that there is no appearance of United States customs officers concentrating their attention, or an unwillingness to be friendly, on the Canadian auto parts exporters. The tightening up of customs implementation in the United States is not recent; it goes back at least two years. It is not concentrated on Canada. It is widely applied to all countries of the world. It is not concentrated on the automobile sector and, within that sector, it is not concentrated upon automobile parts. In other words, it is general. It applies to all countries and sectors and not to Canadian auto parts makers in particular.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Has the minister made any specific representations to the United States government concerning this matter? Also, since I have an uneasy feeling that the minister has not exactly answered my original question, may I ask him to tell us what steps he has taken to ascertain that there has been no singling out of the auto parts industry in this regard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought I was emphatic enough. We gathered all the information we could get from all sources. We consulted with a number of people and the result of our inquiry is the one I have indicated. It is very difficult to ask somebody to go to confession unless it can be demonstrated that he has sinned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



MANPOWER


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration with regard to LIP. The question arises out of reports suggesting that the provision of half a billion dollars more is contemplated for this manpower program. I want to ask the minister whether the government is considering increasing expenditures under this manpower program by half a billion dollars and also whether the House will be given an evaluation of LIP in the next day or two explaining what has been happening with regard to it?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, consideration is always being given to the manpower programs but not in the terms that have been expressed to us by the hon. member.
Inquiries of the Ministry
With respect to the second part of the question, we do hope to publish quite soon, hopefully before the end of this month, a list of all projects, numbers employed and the funding of each project. This could form the basis for the beginning of an evaluation by hon. members themselves.


David Lewis: In view of the announcement made earlier with regard to another program, may I ask the acting minister whether thought is being given to announcing a program beyond May 31 to deal with the unemployment of those people who are not now or do not admit to being young? Is any plan being worked out to continue a worthwhile program beyond May 31 in view of the fact that unemployment will not be reduced to adequate levels-no one suggests it will-within the next two or three months?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer in language precise enough to satisfy the hon. member opposite, but I can say that the employment picture following May 31 is very much the government's preoccupation. Certainly we know of plans for student employment and we do expect that in the period beginning last month and extending into June well over 700,000 new jobs will be created by the economy's own expansion. We are watching very carefully the phasing out of the special employment programs in relation to the total economic picture. We have the matter very much under consideration, though perhaps not in the precise manner referred to by the hon. gentleman. He will have to wait till later for a better answer.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the point of my question-and I say this only to make my supplementary clear-was whether an announcement would be made in time. May I therefore ask the minister whether I am to understand that this consideration is a continuous exercise and that we may expect an announcement of a plan long before May 31 so that the necessary preparations, arrangements and consultations can take place?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I do want to assure the hon. member that if there is such a plan I am sure we will make every effort to announce it sufficiently in advance of its implementation to enable everyone to get into position.



PENITENTIARIES


Right Hon. I. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General who, in the city of Edmonton within the past two days, made an announcement concerning a plan of his department, under the head of rehabilitation of prisoners in penitentiaries, to place them in the homes of older people across Canada. In consequence of that announcement, which should have been made in the House rather than outside, consternation has come into the hearts of many of our old people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends may laugh, but I have learned not only from the radio but from personal conversations with people in my office that people are asking whether or not this policy is a form of restoration of impressment. What is the nature of this plan which to many seems like a crackpot one? Would the minister please explain?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this was only a project I mentioned, and which has not been finalized yet. This project is on a completely voluntary basis on either side, which means we want to meet two basic needs: first, the fact that retired people are often idle, although they are prepared to serve their community; second the fact that they often need extra income.
On the other hand, prisoners who are not a serious threat to society could stay in the homes of those retired people and find there, maybe for the first time in their lives, a warm, friendly, and productive atmosphere. It is, therefore, on a purely voluntary basis on either side that this program could be implemented, and I only made those remarks in Edmonton in order to suggest this idea.
Now, if the right hon. member does not like my making an announcement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered why he contemptuously disregarded the House in not making his announcement here. Second, I want to ask him whether he has not had protests made to his office today from hospitals in this city to the effect that our old people are very deeply disturbed by this? Has he not had any such word?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, my words must have been misinterpreted, and I know that some people thought that they would lose their pensions if they did not welcome a prisoner into their homes. This is completely wrong, of course, as the right hon. member must be aware.
As for an announcement in this House as to whether the program has been finalized, it will certainly be made. I simply wanted to exchange a few ideas with the people in western Canada, who seemed to me to be very receptive to such ideas.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I observe that the making of the announcement outside the House is applauded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The explanation given by the minister is worthless. I ask him now to answer the question I asked him a moment ago. Has he not received complaints about the number of elderly people who have found themselves in the emergency departments of hospitals in this city in consequence of his statement made outside the House, a statement which for egregious nonsense has never been exceeded?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this. But I fail to see why this would worry people sick, or why the right hon. member would worry himself sick over this idea.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General in connection with the plan to station prisoners in the homes of elderly people. Will consideration be given to maintaining the diet of prisoners while they are stationed in the homes of pensioners, or is the government considering increasing the incomes of pensioners in order to enable them to eat as well as the prisoners?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will try another subject.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to announce its policy on foreign investment in Canada before the arrival of President Nixon on April 13 so that the policy can be explained to and discussed with him during his visit here, especially in view of the fact that the rewriting of the background study has now been completed and the need for completing this task was cited by the government as the reason for holding up the announcement of its policy?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a statement can be made before the President arrives but I can assure the House that the presence of the President in Canada will be really quite irrelevant to the decision by Canada on its policy.


George Harris Hees: In view of the uncertainty on the government's part, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to have Mr. Nixon announce this policy while he is here as the latest episode in his exciting series of fantastic breakthroughs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is irregular.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-ACTION TO SETTLE INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Can the minister tell the House what action the government is taking to settle more rapidly the Indian question and the environmental problems in the

March 23, 1972

James Bay area in order that the province can proceed as quickly as possible with the hydro development and create jobs?


Mr. Allan B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Indians in the James Bay area are negotiating for themselves with the provincial government, and until they request the assistance of the Department of Indian Affairs we will allow them to carry on their own negotiations.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-FEDERAL POSITION ON REPRESENTATIONS OF ESKIMOS TO QUEBEC GOVERNMENT

['It\nhas been accelerated to the degree that we had applicants to accelerate it.']
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the parliamentary secretary. Has the government agreed to the request of the Northern Quebec Eskimo Association to assist them to make formal presentations in discussions with the government of Quebec on the James Bay project? If so, has the government discussed this with the Quebec government?


Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Northern Quebec Eskimos met the minister yesterday and he is considering their representations.
* # *



Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the urgent call for help from an United States doctor who is performing abortions on Bangla Desh women raped by Pakistani soldiers, and since time is running out for these 20,000 women who are casualties of the war in a very real and grim sense in that they are dishonoured and cannot return home, will the Canadian government make known to the government of Bangla Desh its willingness to send Canadian doctors who offer their services, at least one of whom has already done so?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. lady for her suggestion. Mr. Gerin-Lajoie is either in Dacca today or will be there shortly and I will pass along her suggestion to him.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Will the government give consideration to making known to the Canadian Medical Association an offer of financial assistance to doctors willing to give such immediate aid to Bangla Desh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take that suggestion under
consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for
Urban Affairs. It arises out of a recent tragedy in a low-income housing unit. Will steps be taken by the government to upgrade safety and sanitation standards in low-income housing and will departmental studies on these topics be made available to interested members?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, any houses built with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation financing or assistance must meet the standards for construction, safety and otherwise set by the corporation. Those are constantly under review with the National Research Council to try to ensure they are as adequate as possible.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. In view of the very shocking expose which appeared in the last two issues of the Globe and Mail regarding the Metis people in Canada and the shocking conditions in which they live, particularly in respect of housing, is the minister aware of this and can he advise the House of any immediate plan he has in order to alleviate this very intolerable situation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, a meeting was held with senior officials of the association by my parliamentary secretary some weeks ago at which a very substantial grant was made to a number of Metis groups for the purpose of improving existing housing. A number of grants have been made to assist them in training officers to apply for and promote housing projects among the Metis people. I could go on. It is a matter of very lively concern within Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and within my ministry.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I understand there has been an application for a grant of some $18 million, if I am not mistaken, for housing. Is this one of the areas in which the minister has given approval and, if not, can we expect immediate approval of this application as requested by the Metis people?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would have to examine the article to which the hon. member refers, which I have not read.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the House if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is considering making financing available to mobile homes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, they already meet certain lending require-
1080

March 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
ments of the corporation where they comply with existing regulations.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House whether the program of accelerating loans by CMHC that was announced on October 14 by the Minister of Finance has been carried out to the full extent of the amount of $113 million which was allocated and, if not, why not?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It
has been accelerated to the degree that we had applicants to accelerate it.



* CRIMINAL CODE


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
In view of the statement made by his predecessor that the government is now reviewing the advisability of maintaining capital punishment, would the hon. minister say whether this review is now completed and whether he intends to make an announcement to the House in the near future?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is continuing to be studied. It is the expectation that the legislation will be introduced before the end of 1972.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Does the minister intend to table in the House a study showing the number of shoe factories that have closed down in the last ten years because of massive imports of footwear, and in this case what amounts have Canadians been able to save every year?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will probably be able to reply to the first question. As to the second question it is of a statistical nature and consequently, the minister would be unable to reply for the time being.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to elaborate on past events. I suppose that the economy has benefited from the closing of some of these plants and that the contrary happened in other cases. At any rate, we intend

to contribute as much as possible, in co-operation, particularly with the governments of Quebec and Ontario, and to see that the footwear industry in general becomes more productive and efficient and better adapted to our domestic and foreign markets. To this end, a whole series of measures are being taken of which I will inform the hon. member at the first opportunity.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.
Does the minister believe that it is necessary to close down additional industries for the situation to become more viable?



INCOME TAX


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of National Revenue. In his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that this year April 30 will fall on a Sunday, is it the intention of the government to extend the deadline for filing income tax returns to midnight, May 1?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I think I had better get my colleague to answer that question, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the continuing and increasing violence in Northern Ireland, would the Canadian government consider holding discussions with the British and Irish governments to explore possible areas in which Canada might be helpful in settling this serious dispute or in providing some other type of assistance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we did have the foreign minister of Ireland here in Canada at which time we received representations from him. We have had consultations with the British government, but I do not think it would be wise, unless we are asked to do so by the governments concerned to interfere in this very serious problem.
March 23, 1972



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Can the minister explain why a certain employee, grade EL-5, was screened out of a competition because he was not bilingual after having been refused language training on four separate occasions on the ground that it would not be necessary for advancement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question, referring to an individual case, normally should be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, the hon. member knows it can always be considered at the time of adjournment.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear voices from the other side asking me to name this person?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it might be better if the hon. member gave notice of his intention to raise the matter at the time of adjournment. It can be considered and debated at that time.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



AUTO PARTS-ALLEGED HARASSMENT OF CANADIAN SHIPMENTS AT UNITED STATES BORDER-GOVERNMENT ACTION

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of his answers earlier this afternoon with regard to the treatment of Canadian auto parts exports to the United States at the border. I heard the minister say emphatically that there was no particular attitude toward our auto parts. Has he received communications from Canadian auto parts manufacturers complaining about what they call harassment at the border? If so, has he investigated their particular complaints and informed them of the results of his investigation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been some complaints and this is exactly the point on which I was reporting. It cannot be said that what the U.S. customs officers are doing is against the rules and regulations. I have said that they were implementing these customs rules and regulations in a tighter way than they have in the past. But there is no way we could say that what is taking place now is contrary to the customs rules and regulations.
Inquiries of the Ministry



AUTO PARTS-TIMING OF ALLEGED TIGHTENING OF CUSTOMS REGULATIONS BY UNITED STATES- OPERATIONS OF UNITED STATES MANUFACTURERS UNDER DISC

David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a further supplementary question and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


David Lewis: It may be that the rules are not being violated and therefore this makes it difficult for the minister, but would the minister inform the House whether this tightening up of regulations so far as automotive parts are concerned has taken place in recent weeks and months as the manufacturers have claimed rather than for the past three years. Second, did their communication also draw the minister's attention to the fact that some major auto parts manufacturers in the United States have begun to set up export corporations under DISC and, if so, has he made any representations on that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only say that the tighter application of the rules and regulations is not concentrated on the auto parts makers, on automobiles, or on Canada, and that their decision to do so is not recent. I can only repeat these four points. It is impossible to make a case for that section of the trade in particular.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize if I interrupted the minister but I thought he had completed his reply. However, there is a second part to the question which he may be allowed to answer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Regarding DISC, there is no way of knowing the names of those 100-odd companies which have apparently manifested their intention to form DISC companies in the United States. The information I have from Canadian auto parts manufacturers-and it is only hearsay-is that there are a few of them applying, but one cannot say that there is a rush on the U.S. side by auto parts manufacturers to create DISC companies.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. I. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Are there any negotiations presently taking place between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Alberta government with regard to a take-over by the Alberta Hospital Commission of the Colonel Belcher veterans hospital in Calgary, and what guarantees are being sought to protect the veterans interest in priority of treatment?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have a policy in this regard and we have been
25104-10}

March 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
open to suggestions from all the provinces. However, I have no knowledge of any active discussions going on with Alberta at present.



POSITION OF SHIPMENTS TO WEST COAST-PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN RAIL HANDLING-EFFECT OF OPENING OF SEAWAY

Mr. S. I. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. I should like to ask him how far behind we are in our commitments to shipments on the west coast, whether any plan has been formulated with the railways, how they have stepped up their shipments to the west coast, and how the opening of the seaway, which is delayed this year, will affect the situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the number of ships waiting at Vancouver remains fairly high. The problem of continuing difficulties in the Rocky Mountains for both railroads is contributing to this. The railways have enough cars and equipment committed to the movement of grain so that if the rail lines are operating they can gain on the commitments the Wheat Board has on the west coast. They are attempting to switch cars from one line to another. For instance, the CNR has tried using the PGE and in each case they have run into some special difficulties. At the moment, we are simply facing the difficulties of the great snowfall and the slides which are occurring there.



POSSIBLE DIVERSION OF CARS TO THUNDER BAY UPON OPENING OF SEAWAY

Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask whether these cars, which are obviously stalled by the snow on the west coast, will all be diverted to the Thunder Bay area when the seaway is opened in a week or two?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, the objective will be to have enough cars in the movement to Vancouver to reach and maintain unloads in the order of 800 cars a day on a five-day week basis, while at the same time achieving unloads in the lakehead region of 1,700, 1,800 or 1,900 cars, which of course are fantastic new record levels.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask if these cars will be diverted to Thunder Bay and are these ships going to be waiting in the meantime while we are diverting these cars to Thunder Bay?


Otto Emil Lang: As I pointed out, it is not a matter of the diversion of cars. There will be cars in the movement to handle both record volumes.



NUMBER OF SHIPS WAITING AT VANCOUVER- PAYMENT OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that there are quite a number of ships in Vancouver waiting to be loaded. Could he give us the approximate number? Second-and the answer would interest the farmers particularly-in view of the tremendously increasing and mounting cost of demurrage, are the charges for demurrage going to be taken on by the government of Canada as a whole or will demurrage be charged to the western farmers as an expense for marketing?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not have a report as of today on the ships waiting, but I believe the number is in the order of twenties. The cost of demurrage depends, in fact, upon the total arrangement between the charterer and the purchaser of the cargo and the Canadian Wheat Board, and in many cases the burden does rest upon the Canadian Wheat Board.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a fuzzy answer. I asked in particular whether it is a fact that the large cost of demurrage, which some say has amounted to $1 million over the past few months, will ultimately be charged to the expenses of marketing by the Wheat Board and thereby deducted from the final payment made to the western producer? It is as simple as that.


Otto Emil Lang: The government of Canada does not make a practice of entering into arrangements covering the risk of doing business for any particular industry. Of course, the government of Canada has taken steps to do a good deal to improve the income position of the prairie farmers, and two price wheat is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: So the farmer has to pay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to point out to hon. members that there are some 15 or 20 members waiting for the opportunity to ask questions. For the moment, I will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF ADDITIONAL TERMINAL ELEVATORS AT PRINCE RUPERT

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board? Has the minister or the Canadian Wheat Board had any discussions or made any recommendations to the government for the construction of an additional National Harbours Board terminal at Prince Rupert? What, if any, proposals have been presented to the government for the enlargement of the harbour and port facilities at Prince Rupert?


Otto Emil Lang: There have been general discussions about the need for additional facilities, and with the persistently large movement of grain at present more and more people are accepting the fact that these additional facilities are needed. As my colleague, the Minister of Transport, indicated today, invitations to the trade are being sent out to come forward with proposals

March 23, 1972

for the extension of these facilities. Considering the way this industry operates, this would be the most satisfactory way of adding facilities.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe and return to the hon. member for a supplementary later.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that Canada produces less than 50 per cent of its lamb consumption, due to a great extent to the import duty of only half a cent per pound compared with beef products which enjoy 3 cents per pound duty, will the minister give consideration to this hard-pressed industry by creating an incentive for Canadian producers by increasing the import tariff or by the subsidization of wool?


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the minister can reply briefly to this question. It appears to the Chair to be more in the form of a representation or submission.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I can reply very briefly, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago we initiated some discussions leading to better marketing procedures and structures so that the lamb producers themselves can obtain a much higher share than they are now from a good, strong Canadian market.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the many submissions that members are receiving from sheep breeders and producers, is the government going to reinstate the stabilization board payments on wool for sheep producers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have replied a number of times in the House that there is far more money in increased returns for the producers from enhancing the market structure.



PROGRAM TO ASSIST SMALL FARMERS-POSSIBLE RE-OPENING OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the request by the Manitoba Minister of Agriculture that the minister meet with the provinces in order to reopen negotiations on the farm adjustment program which he had put to them previously and which they have not accepted, is the minister planning to meet with them before proceeding unilaterally?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, several days ago I sent an invitation to each of the provinces to try to negotiate an administrative arrangement for that program, and I do not believe we have heard from Manitoba yet.



PENSIONS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he in a position to do anything for those blind people who are being encouraged to work under LIP projects with respect to protection of their positions vis-a-vis blind allowances and other pensions, which we are now learning they are in danger of losing? I think the minister has had some representations from the Halifax area with respect to this matter.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will check the representations to which the hon. member has referred. I might advise though that I do not see a problem in terms of blind people's allowances. That really is under the Canada Assistance Plan. There is a cost-sharing arrangement with the provinces. It is administered by the provinces and there is a needs test. I would think that representations of that kind should be made to the particular province concerned.



MANPOWER


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting to pose this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but regrettably because of his illness he has not returned to the House so I will pose it to the acting minister. I realize he is quite capable but I would ask him to take notice of the question because I would not expect him to have the answer today. In light of the recent report submitted to the joint planning committee of the Province of Nova Scotia and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion recommending that the Point Edward Vocational Training Centre be closed, and in view of the inconvenience this would mean for future trainees from Cape Breton and the effect it would have on the economy of Cape Breton, would the minister report back to the House that so far as the federal government is concerned such a move will not take place, thus relieving the anxiety that this report has created?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to think about that question. My first impression is that the Department of Manpower and Immigration would not be the department determining the question of the continua-

March 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion of that centre; it would be some other department. But I am going to study the question put to me by the hon. member.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I say that, in view of the fact it was a joint committee that prepared this report, I would think the federal government must have some say in the matter.



PENITENTIARIES


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It relates to the fact that a high percentage of prison inmates require psychiatric assistance in varying degrees. Is it correct that psychiatric care for the hundreds of inmates in Stoney Mountain Penitentiary in Manitoba is provided by a single psychiatrist who is over 75 years of age and who appears at the penitentiary on two half days a week? Further, if this is the case is the government taking steps to correct what is clearly an unsupportable situation?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire on this specific subject but we certainly experience great difficulties in hiring psychiatrists. This is why, to meet this situation, we are multiplying the number of psychologists in our institutions.


Douglas Charles Rowland: When the Solicitor General obtains this information, would he be prepared to make a statement on motions indicating just what action has been taken?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not see the necessity for it but I will keep the hon. member informed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the alternatives offered by the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and various welfare measures to those who normally accept farm labour, is the minister considering any measure that would relieve the situation so that farmers can hire labour at a price they can afford? Further, is there any consideration being given to extending the agricultural workers apprenticeship program which I understand expired last Friday?
IMr. O'Connell.]


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. I will have to take it as notice.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY- CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS AT SEATTLE HEARING

Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Is the government of Canada making representations at the hearing to be held in Seattle on Friday, March 31, concerning the raising of the Ross Dam which would result in the flooding of the upper Skagit Valley in British Columbia?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was the purpose of a press release which I issued today. In effect it contains a statement of the Canadian position which I expect will be tabled at the hearing.



POST OFFICE


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of Canada's outstanding record in the field of international competition in aquatic sports, is the government planning to recognize this contribution by issuing a special stamp and, if so, will such a stamp be issued in time for the international competitions in Winnipeg on April 8 and 9?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: In what year?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This year.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: No, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: We have just about reached the end of the question period. The hon. member for Kootenay West had a supplementary to the previous question and he will be recognized for that purpose.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-TRANSMISSION OF CANADIAN POSITION TO WASHINGTON

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement made today by

March 23, 1972

the Minister of the Environment that he sees the International Joint Commission Report on the Skagit Valley as confirming the Canadian view that the flooding of the upper Skagit Valley in Canada should not take place, I would ask the minister whether this Canadian view has been officially transmitted to the appropriate department in Washington?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Minister of the Environment is of course concurred in by the Canadian government, and therefore the Canadian government's position is now well known.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to apologize to a number of hon. members who stood religiously and gallantly during the question period, in particular the hon. member for Egmont, the hon. member for Brant and the hon. member for Joliette. I have tried to make a mental note of the fact that they were not recognized today and I would hope an effort could be made to give them priority tomorrow.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My apologies, Mr. Speaker, but I believe you indicated earlier that you would return to me for a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite prepared to do so. In fairness, if the House allows the Chair to do so, we will return to the hon. member for a further supplementary, and then I believe the hon. member for Malpeque has a point of order.



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY OWNED TERMINAL FACILITIES AT PRINCE RUPERT

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thank you and the House for your patience, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board whether it has been decided that it will be government policy not to construct publicly owned grain terminal facilities at Prince Rupert, and is he attempting to persuade the private grain trade to do so? Also, what decisions have been passed on to the Minister of Public Works in terms of construction of other facilities at the Port of Prince Rupert?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Transport indicated that we were prepared to look at direct government involvement in additional facilities but that the first step would be to invite the grain trade to instal such facilities. It has been our experience that this is the most satisfactory technique, because the trade which owns the collection facilities inside the prairie region makes the best use of terminal facilities. This has been one of the difficulties with the existing Prince Rupert facility over the years, and one of the reasons it has not been used as fully as it might in lower periods of export.
Message from the Senate BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



WEEKLY STATEMENT-LENGTH OF EASTER RECESS

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House Leader if he could indicate what business the government proposes to place before the House tomorrow and for next week up until the Easter recess?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I should like to call Bill C-170, an act respecting the payment of benefits for children. Following that we would call the Explosives Act-


An hon. Member:: Speak up!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and the hijacking and piracy amendments to the Criminal Code.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader indicate when he expects that parliament will be recalled, that is, how long the Easter recess will be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated already that we would be coming back not earlier than April 10. I shall probably put a motion on the order paper later this week or early next week indicating the exact time, but certainly it will not be earlier than April 10 and probably a little later.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-3, an act to change the names of the Territorial Court of the Yukon Territory and the Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is a general understanding that if the time limitation in rule 58(13) were to obtain while the first four party spokesmen delivered their speeches, namely the mover and whoever replies for the government and the representatives of the other two parties, perhaps all speeches following could be limited to 15 minutes if that would meet with general agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we agree to this. We should like to make the usual amendment that no one will seek to speak overtime.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the chief speaker for the government could participate later he would have a longer period; is that not so?


John Angus MacLean: What I said, Mr. Speaker, was that rule 58(13) would apply and I believe that is the case.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure there is no difficulty about this point. Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Malpeque concurred in by other hon.

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
members. Is it the pleasure of the House to make this an order of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North) moved:: That this House condemns the government's failure to contribute to pensions, allowances and other benefits granted or administered by the government a yearly percentage increase corresponding to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in April of 1972 old age pensions or guaranteed incomes will be increased from $135 to $137.70 for a single person and from $255 to $260 for a married couple. This represents an increase of nine cents per day for a single person or less than 17 cents a day for a married couple. This only applies to those getting the maximum guaranteed income.
At the end of January, 1972, there were 672,960 individual old age pensioners getting the maximum supplement, and 110,176 old age pension couples receiving the maximum supplement. In other words, just less than 45 per cent of all old age pensioners were getting the full supplement and the full benefit of the 2 per cent cost of living escalator.
If the Liberal government had lived up to its promise in 1968 of a "just society" and given the old age pensioners and those on guaranteed income supplement an amount equivalent to the annual rise in the cost of living, the old age pension would have gone from $75 per month to $89.85 today-this shows how the pensioner has been gypped-and the guaranteed income supplement would have gone from $30 to $58.81. In 1972, individual recipients of the old age security pension would be receiving $9.85 more a month or $118.20 more per year than they actually do now. That is this magnanimous government. Similarly, in 1972 all recipients of the guaranteed income supplement would be receiving $58.51 instead of the present level of $55, or putting it another way, this would mean over the year a difference of $42.12 to recipients of the maximum guaranteed income supplement. The total cost of this program from January 1, 1968, to December 31, 1971, would have amounted to $230 million. The money was there, Mr. Speaker, because on December 31, 1971, there was a balance of $636 million in the old age security fund.
Now, I intend to deal with those people for a few minutes and show how they get by, because it is apparent that some members of the government think these pensioners live in luxury. The average rent for a bachelor

apartment in any of our cities or towns today is $125 a month whilst a one bedroom apartment, runs at an average of $150 per month. I have checked those figures. I leave it to the reasoning and common sense of members of this House to decide how these people live. Just how do they get by? In a city of approximately 22,000 people, typical of old Ontario, there are 15 single units renting at $37 a month and 12 units for married couples. These are subsidized, but to qualify one must have an income of $175 a month or less. I also checked these figures. Hundreds of applications are on record for low-cost housing. In that city, Mr. Speaker, there were 2,349 old age pensioners and over 1,500 of them were getting the guaranteed income supplement. I do not think I need dwell further on the bind in which those people found themselves. When you consider that, on the average, they have to spend 28 per cent of income on food and 25 per cent on shelter, you wonder how they live and by how much they must tighten their belts.
I have brought this motion forward today because of the cynical attitude taken by the government towards all government pensioners. What rhyme or reason is there for denying people their rights? What sort of government is it that will compensate people with dollars constantly eroded by inflation?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is no compassion.


Philip Bernard Rynard: What justice is there in denying old age pensioners a pension that they have paid for over the years? They paid for this pension in hard dollars, Mr. Speaker. Some were earning between $32 and $35 a week when paying into the old age pension fund. First, they paid 2 per cent, then 3 per cent, then 4 per cent of their taxable income into this fund, up to a maximum of $240 a year per person. Mr. Speaker, $961 million was raised from income tax in 1970 for the old age pensioners. Seven hundred million dollars was raised from federal sales taxes and around $250 million from the 3 per cent corporation tax. Every solitary old person contributed to these taxes; every one of them paid into the old age pension fund. By what right does anyone take away what belongs to them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: This payment is not charity. It has been paid for in taxes and there is at present a surplus of over $600 million in the fund. As I said, the older people paid into the fund in hard dollars. Yet each year the dollar purchases less. The former minister of finance, who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson), estimated that there would be over $2 billion available for 1970-71. He only paid out $1,905 million; what did he do with the balance of $95 million?
We cheat those on fixed incomes when we pay them in cheapened dollars. I wonder how much has been taken out of the OHSIP fund in the form of taxes on doctor's incomes; to what extent have medical services been taxed? When we tax the inflated incomes of certain doctors, we are placing a tax on sickness. As I said, we cheat those on fixed incomes when we pay them in cheapened dollars. Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that inflation yields more revenue for the government through higher salaries.
March 23, 1972

Nevertheless, the government has frozen the old age pension. They now call our pensioners the "Trudeau rich". I do not know who invented that label. There are about 510,000 of them in this country; I am speaking of pensioners with incomes of between $130 and $400 a month. During the past year their purchasing power declined by between $76 and $80.
If the government has been able to do this and get away with it, one wonders what else it can get away with. May I read from an editorial that appeared not long ago in the Globe and Mail. It reads:
Old-age pensions are not charity. They are not hand-outs by a compassionate Government to the destitute old. They are annuities returned to persons past 65 for investments, both direct and indirect, which the Government has compelled them to make year after year. The explanatory papers attached to Finance Minister Edgar Benson's budget speech made this clear. The country, which is at present making out its income tax returns, needs no reminder.
Each individual, as he works his way through his difficult tax return, will find that he is paying a 4 per cent tax on his taxable income, to a maximum of $240 per person per year, which is specifically earmarked for old-age security.
The article refers to a $600 million surplus in the fund, mentions the mothers allowance and blind persons allowance, and then reads:
But the basic old-age pensions were bought and paid for by the people who are collecting them.
They are collecting them, however, in money which year after year buys less and less.
The fact has not had the impact in this House that it ought to have had. Some wage earners who paid into the pension fund earned $35 a week in hard dollars. Now, some of our people are earning up to eight times as much; others, of course, are not earning quite that much. We said to the old age pensioner, if the cost of living goes up by more than 2 per cent, the old age security pension will be escalated by 2 per cent per year, maximum. Mr. Speaker, I believe Your Honour was a legal light. How would an agreement stand up in court if it provided for an increase of 2 per cent in pensions if the cost of living went up by more than 2 per cent, but not a nickel extra if it went up by less than 2 per cent? Would that not be considered as a one-sided agreement? Yet the cost of living has been rising at 4 and 5 per cent per year, and the buying power of our older people has been shrinking by about 3 per cent per year. Prices go up but pensions do not match that rise. Is that not unfair? Taking the hard earned dollars of working people who paid into the fund in hard cash and paying them with inflated dollars is also unfair. One could go on enumerating grievances.
As I said, if the government could do this in the case of pensioners, one wonders what it could do with bonds or securities of any kind. The government has broken its agreement. Mr. Speaker, perpetual bonds issued in 1935 are now worth only 40 cents on the dollar. This indicates how much their worth has shrunk. If that does not bring about distrust of government, I do not know what will. Is that the sort of honesty the government is preaching to the people of Canada? I say to the government that it creates deep distrust in the minds of Canadians by reneging on old agreements and by refusing to give the old age pensioner his rightful due. The government knows full well that rents and the cost of shelter went up last year by
Pension Increases
7 per cent and that food went up by 7 per cent. Knowing all this, why does the government deny our older people justice? The government takes the view that if the rate of inflation is 2 per cent per year or more, the pension of the pensioner will increase by 2 per cent. However, if the rate of inflation is under 2 per cent, the pensioner gets no increase. That is a pretty one-sided contract.
May I say a few words about family allowances? I expect hon. members recall that family allowances first came on the scene in 1945 when the average weekly wage in Canada was $32.50. Now, the average weekly wage has multiplied by four times to $132.72. That was the 1970 level, and represents an increase of approximately 400 per cent. Family allowances, on the other hand, have increased by only 15 per cent since 1945. How are family allowances to be dealt with? A family with one child between one and 11 years of age is to get $180, and $240 if the child is between 12 and 17. These amounts are not as great as they should be. They are at about 75 per cent of the level that would be fair.
The joke here is that they are shortchanging the family 25 per cent. There is no cost of living allowance written in, nor any escalator clause. That remains fixed. All you have to do is look around at the money that is being brought into circulation. The money supply in this country was increased by 30 percent in January and 40 percent in February. This means only one thing. We are going to have runaway inflation. It may take a few months to catch up, but it will catch up. There is no escalator clause. This party would like to see such a clause put in the family allowance scheme.
Knowing how cynically this government refused the old age pension adjustments, it is important that we do not let this government get away with anything. The same holds true for pensioners in other areas. They see the salaries of their counterparts being driven up by the fires of inflation away beyond what they ever received. They also see themselves limited to an escalator clause which is away below the inflationary figure of just under 5 percent.
I now want to deal briefly with veterans affairs. First, there is a lack of an escalator clause in pensions paid to veterans to compensate for the increase in the cost of living. This House dealt with the Hong Kong veteran. I had the privilege of examining some of those veterans. Their pension increase was long overdue because of the inhumane way they had been treated. However, do hon. members know that we have not done a solitary thing for the fellow who fought in other areas of war, those who fought in Europe, were manacled and chained in Europe, went on forced marches and starved. We have never done one solitary thing about their problems.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Can I ask the hon. member a question?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, when I am through. If you want to ask a question, go ahead and we will see what it is.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I respect the position of the hon. member, but does he not agree there was an exceptional incapacity allowance introduced which would apply to those cases he described, those who suffered

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
hardship while prisoners? In fact, a number are now receiving the exceptional incapacity allowance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many?


Philip Bernard Rynard: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to comply with that rule. I have never seen any who have been able to do that. If the hon. member has records of such cases, I would like to hear about them. I brought such cases before the medical appeal board, but nothing was done. If he has such cases, I would like to hear about them so that I can make use of them.
I want to ask the hon. member what we are doing about the fellow who shows up with an illness 15 or 20 years later that it is said is not connected with any war service or war injury. What is this government doing about that? Not one solitary thing. If he has a record of any cases of that type being dealt with, I would like to know about them. In the United States such veterans are looked after, but the government says we treat our veterans better than any other country.
The United States accepts cases of psychosomatic illness which do not show up for a period of 20 years, but had their roots in the malnutrition and hardships the veterans underwent when fighting in the war. As a matter of fact, the War Claims Commission recognized those injuries and awarded special per capita grants from money confiscated from enemy aliens. The Canada Pension Commission pays no attention to this.
Then, we have the case of the extremely disabled veteran. The Trudeau gouvernment has ignored these veterans. Twenty Liberal members of Parliament sat on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Possibly the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) was one of those. This committee recommended a $3,500 pension but the Trudeau government kept it at $2,400. Why? In committee, they were in favour of this, but in the House they were against it. This is not the first time they have done this. I can state another time when this was done. I can name the members. In fact, I see some of them here. We can compare this treatment with that given the United States veteran who receives $5,400. If any member thinks that veterans are treated better in Canada, let him get up and say so and give his authority for making that statement. In committee, the members were in favour of an increase, but in the House they were against it. Do you know all that would have cost? The hon. member for Ottawa West and I have been good friends for a long time, but even the Globe and Mail could not stand that and wrote an editorial on it. They stated that the total cost to the government would only have been $750,000. Consider the $10 million the government is spending on Information Canada.


George Harris Hees: Yes, $10 million a year.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The operating cost of the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has increased from approximately $75,000,10 years ago to over $1 million.


An hon. Member:: $17 million on the Bonaventure.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes. We could keep on talking all afternoon.


George Harris Hees: How about the hydrofoil?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, there is also the hydrofoil and $750,000 was refused these people. We can go right back to the defence department. The defence department at the same time refused to guarantee that the cost of four unnecessary destroyers would not exceed $252 million.
Since World War I, 10,000 Canadian veterans have been living in the United Kingdom. I saw some of those people in Hammersmith Hospital. They are in strained circumstances, yet the Canadian government demands that these people return to Canada and live here for one year. I ask the hon. member for Ottawa West how he proposes to transport these people. Some of them are in bed, paralysed. In spite of this, the government says that they must return here before they can receive a pension. Have you ever heard of such foolishness? Bring the veteran back? Shame. Even though some of these veterans are bedridden and paralysed, they must live in Canada for one year before they qualify and can take their veterans allowance with them. How do they make the trip? The prisoner of war suffered psychosomatic stress and malnu-tration and this is presumptive evidence of his illness being caused by war service.
In conclusion, I wish to make a few comments about foolish things we have done, such as the 2 per cent cost of living escalator. One member of this House, who used to be an honoured member of the government and a deputy premier, stated here the other day that the $150 million being spent on the Local Initiatives Program was costing countless wasteful tax dollars. He asked the question about the LIP grant being given to satanists. Satan used to be a bad word when I was growing up, but now I do not know. A grant of $25,000 was given to satanists of the Progress Church of the Final Judgment in Toronto, yet the Salvation Army, which has had long experience in handling these things, was refused a grant. Oh, Mr. Speaker, it is tiresome when you go over the list of their sins. But, you know, one of the things that does bother you is they go around the country and make statements about how many people they have taken off the tax rolls.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: How many have they put in the poor house?


Philip Bernard Rynard: It is an amazing thing. Let me give you the figures. In 1970 there were 9,195,000 on the tax rolls. In 1972 there were 9,436,000 taxpayers. Where are the 750,000 they have taken off? Why, they have added nearly 300,000 more to the tax rolls.
Oh, Mr. Speaker, I could go on at length, but I think I have probably made the point of the callousness of what they have been doing, the injustice of the whole thing, the cheating of people, taking away what was theirs. It is a government which has failed to control inflation. From 1967 to 1970 the cost of living rose by almost 14 per cent, 13.9 per cent to be exact. The 2 per cent mini-escalator clause would allow a 6.15 per cent increase. Putting it into plain words they are cheating the pensioners of this country by 7.8 per cent. That is right there, in hard, cold figures and you cannot get around it. And this is a government which had $150 million to spend on programs which were sometimes downright harmful. A long list of them was cited this afternoon. It would take all the afternoon to
March 23, 1972

tell about their sins of commission, their waste and extravagance, inflation in government spending. You know, sometimes I wonder, and I have some good friends over on the other side, good friends, I look over at them there and, you know, I cannot understand it. I do not know whether they leave their consciences at the chamber door and go to pick them up when they go out. How in the world can they justify decreasing old age pensions by approximately 3 per cent per year while raising their own salaries by 50 per cent?


Mr. Whicher:: How did you vote?


Philip Bernard Rynard: How did I vote? I want to tell you I did not vote for it. How did you vote?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: How did your party vote?


Philip Bernard Rynard: You did not ask me that. You asked me how I voted.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: You know what would have happened if you had not voted for it over there.


George Harris Hees: Come on, Ross. Stand up and tell us how you voted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who has the floor should address his remarks to the Chair, as should other members.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is an irritating subject to the Government and when people, as I have suggested, may have left their consciences outside, they are hard to get along with.
Perhaps, though, on a different note, I could appeal to those fellows over there. They are nice guys. Maybe I could appeal to them and leave these words of Shakespeare with them:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice bless'd;
It blesses him that gives and him that takes,
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest. . .
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's,
When mercy seasons justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us this afternoon is one which asks for the very least that anyone could request in the field of old age and other pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe, at least I assume, that the motion does include other pensions and allowances as well, not just old age pensions. I assume it includes veterans disability pensions and war veterans allowances; that it includes the pensions of retired public servants, and that these, in turn, would include pensions of retired members of the Armed Forces and of the RCMP. I assume it includes pensions drawn under the
Pension Increases
Canada Pension Plan and any other pensions and allowances which come under the responsibility of the federal government.
The motion is one that clearly requests that an escalator clause be attached to all these pensions and that in all cases the percentage provided in that escalator clause shall be equal to the actual increase in the cost of living. This means that old age pensioners drawing the guaranteed income supplement, and who now get a 2 per cent increase a year, would get a 5 or 6 per cent increase in line with the increase in the cost of living. It also implies that pensioners who are drawing only the basic $80 old age security benefit would receive an increase and that it would amount to between 5 or 6 per cent, reflecting the current increase in the cost of living.
I gather the motion implies that the increases which take place annually in the pensions of retired civil servants and others associated with them would also be the equivalent of the actual cost of living increase, not just the 2 per cent they now receive under the law. I take it that the proposal would also apply to benefits under the Canada Pension Plan where the escalator is again limited by law to 2 per cent. I would hope, also, that the motion would be regarded as covering certain other pensioners, for example, those of the Canadian National-they do not come directly under the government but they work for a Crown corporation. Once we get into that area we also think of Canadian Pacific employees and others. I trust I am not doing an injustice to the motion when I say that what it asks for is that all pension arrangements should contain an escalator clause and that the escalation should not be limited to 2 per cent but that it be equivalent to the actual rise in the cost of living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I indicated a few moments ago, this is the least which could be asked for in this chamber, and I think every Member of the House of Commons should stand up at 9.45 tonight and vote for this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Up to this moment I have enjoyed the applause from my good friends to the right, the members of the official opposition party. I am afraid I shall now have to say one or two things which they may not want to applaud. I hope the applause may come from the other side, from the supporters of the Liberal party, but we shall wait and see.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Quit while you're ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I always welcome a debate on pensions. I always welcome any plea made by any hon. member in any quarter of the House for an improvement in the lot of our senior citizens and retired people. But I have to say I am bitterly disappointed, today, because the Progressive Conservative party has not gone far enough. This motion today is in line with the kind of thing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has been saying as he has gone about the country during the last few weeks, namely that the federal

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
government is not doing enough for old age pensioners. But when he gets down to something precise, he says exactly the same as that put forward in this motion, namely that the pensions of our retired citizens should be increased, not just by 2 per cent but by the full amount of the increase in the cost of living. That means an increase of 5 or 6 per cent. It means that those now drawing $80 a month will get another $4 or $5. It means that those now drawing $135 a month will get another $6.75. It means for those on war veterans allowance, who are receiving, if single, $121 a month, an increase in the order of $6.
I say that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. It is a delusion to create the impression that simply by adding to pensions in step with the increase in the cost of living you have done your duty by the senior citizens and pensioners of this country. What is sorely needed and is long overdue is an upward adjustment in the basic rates of all these pensions. Shame on the Liberals for doing nothing, but shame on the Progressive Conservatives for asking only for a 5 or 6 per cent increase in the present $80 pension! The pension should be raised to $150 a month. Veterans should not be on an allowance, if single, of $121 a month, or $201 a month, if married; those allowances should be at least $150 a month single and $300 a month for a married veteran.
I could go on down the list. Pensions of all kinds presently being paid under the auspices of the government need to be reviewed, and the question asked: Are they of a reasonable amount in light of today's production, today's cost of living and today's standard of living? When you talk merely of increasing pensions in relation to the cost of living, Mr. Speaker, all you are doing is permitting older people to continue to enjoy whatever standard of living we gave them when we fixed their pension. The fact is that when we fixed their pensions we put them into the poverty bracket, and all you do by raising pensions in step with the increase of the cost of living is to keep those pensioners within the same poverty bracket. That in itself is bad enough. But, in addition to that, by increasing pensions simply by that amount we are saying to our retired citizens: "This is a wonderful age. Production is going up, standards of living are going up, people are living more affluent lives, but you older folks are not to share in those things; you have to stay with the 'keep body and soul together' pattern rather than share in the increase in our country's standard of living".
What we should be asking for today is for the raising of the basic amounts of all pensions. Before I get to the end of my time-and I am keeping my eye on the clock, Mr. Speaker-I shall be moving an amendment to this effect. I do not intend to move it at this moment but I might read it so that hon. members will know what is coming. When I reach the end of my twenty minutes, I shall move that the motion be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "Canada", the following words:
-and its failure to raise to adequate levels the basic amounts of all such pensions, allowances and benefits.
If my amendment were accepted, the motion as amended would then read:

That this House condemns the government's failure to contribute to pensions, allowances and other benefits granted or administered by the government a yearly percentage increase corresponding to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Canada, and its failure to raise to adequate levels the basic amounts of all such pensions, allowances and benefits.
I should have liked to recast the motion and to put the question of raising the basic amounts first, then calling for the full scale escalation clause, but I was afraid I would get into procedural trouble if I did that. However, the result is the same if I put my amendment at the end of the main motion. What I want this House to face up to this afternoon is not only the shame of the government for failing to do anything for the pensioners of this country, but to the inadequacy of the proposal that has come from the official opposition which asks merely for an increase equal to the increase in the cost of living.
Our position is that our old age pensioners today should have as a very minimum a pension of $150 a month; that that $150 a month should then be escalated year by year as the cost of living goes up. Starting from that level, an increase of 5 or 6 per cent would mean something. But 5 or 6 per cent of the present $80 a month, or even of the $135 that the guaranteed income supplement pensioners receive, is hopelessly inadequate. We also contend that veterans allowances and war disability pensions should be reviewed. I was pleased with the answer I got from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) the other day to the effect that consideration is being given to the representations that have been made by War Amputations of Canada for an increase in the basic rate of war disability pensions, and I hope the minister meant what he said.
The fact of the matter is that the basic rate of the war disability pension, which was set just after World War I at a certain wage standard in the Public Service, has fallen behind that standard. I also draw attention to the fact that the war veterans allowance today for a single person is only $121 a month, or $201 a month for a married veteran. Certainly, that is not good enough, even if other income up to $161 single and $271 married is permitted. Neither is it good enough just to ask for those amounts to be increased by the extent to which the cost of living has risen. I insist that those figures should be at least $150 for a single veteran and $300 for one who is married. As hon. members know, I believe we should do even better and provide a guaranteed income at an adequate level to all veterans at age 55.
I have already referred to the pensions of retired public servants. I am still excited over the fact that we finally won for them the principle of an increase in their pension after those affected have retired. I think the initial step taken by the government in 1970, providing for a considerable amount of retroactivity, was a good one; I said so then and I say so again today. But in the meantime we have had a substantial rise in the cost of living which has outdistanced the 2 per cent increases that these people have received. Salaries have gone up, to the extent that today future pensions are going to be larger than the amount many former public servants drew as salary. This is why it is time the basic amounts of pensions that people are receiving today should be reviewed. It is also time, as I have said, for the escalation rate to be raised from 2 per cent to the actual rate of increase taking place.
March 23, 1972

In the case of the Canada Pension Plan I think there, too, the 2 per cent ceiling has to be reviewed and revised. I concede that some time ago the government did put on the records of this House the appropriate notices so that this matter could be discussed by the federal and provincial governments. I hope that those discussions will be actively carried forward, because a great deal has happened to our economy since the Canada Pension Plan was introduced-and I was one of those who supported it, there is no question of that-which requires the plan's benefits to be jacked up. Here again it is not going to be enough just to ask for the amount of escalation that is proposed in the motion before the House today; we must review the basic rates.
I could go on and mention again the Canadian National pensions and Canadian Pacific pensions, as well as industrial pensions generally. I repeat the plea that I have made many a time on the floor of this House that we amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act to require industrial pensions to meet the standards we are talking about today.
The point I am trying to make at this time is that though welcoming, as I do, the motion set down this afternoon by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), I feel the real problem that not only this parliament but society has to face is this: It is no longer good enough to treat our older people as objects of charity. It is no longer good enough simply to say to them: "We have given you a certain level of pension and we shall maintain you at that level by increasing your pension to the extent the cost of living increases". The time has come when basic rates have to be adjusted, and they will have to be readjusted every four or five years.
The plain fact is that if we have a humane and decent civilization our older people have just as much right to share in the rising standard of living as those involved in producing it. A further point I have made on other occasions, and will make it again as I get the opportunity, is that we must now be thinking about lowering the pensionable age. At least we should be providing that full old age security and Canada Pension Plan benefits should be available to our people at age 60 on one condition only, namely, that they leave the labour market. This would mean a great deal to these people. Many people at that age with the other savings or pensions they have would retire if given that opportunity, and this would do something to create jobs for the younger people. There is no question but that our attempt to raise the living standards of our people in the older age brackets would call for the production of more goods and services. Those who oppose us would like to knock down our idea by saying this would cost too much. What it will cost is more production and this would mean putting more people to work in order to produce the goods. A good and decent pension program would not only do something for our older people but would also have an advantageous effect on our economy as a whole and make things better for all people including our younger people who are sorely in need of jobs today.
I see my time is running out. There are one or two points I should like to make before I move the amendment I have already read. There is only one set of statistics to which I want to refer. It is the same set of statistics the
Pension Increases
hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) used in the opening part of his speech. His figures contained one error. This, however, was not his fault. He quoted a figure from page 949 of Hansard for March 20 which was part of a set of answers to questions of mine. The figure he quoted happens to be wrong. I drew attention to it as a matter of privilege on March 21 and I have been assured by the department that it will be corrected some time soon. I should like therefore, to refer to the figures put on Hansard of March 20 with the correction to which I have referred. The figures show that 1,756,548 Canadians are drawing old age security. That presumably just about equals the number of Canadians who are over 65, counting all but those who do not have sufficient residence to qualify for the pension.
Of that number 978,068 qualify for some portion of the guaranteed income supplement. That figure is 55 per cent of the total. In other words, more than half of the people of Canada who are over 65 years of age are so poor and so needy that they now receive some portion of the guaranteed income supplement. I shall go on further. The hon. member for Simcoe North gave a figure of 110,805. That is the wrong figure which will be corrected in a few days. It should be 484,394. That is the number of people receiving the full amount. I think it is a disgrace and we should bow our heads in shame, for that figure represents 27 per cent of the people of Canada who are over age 65. Remember that in order to qualify for the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement one can have nothing else. One might have $2 or something like that, but for all practical purposes he can have nothing else. That means that of the people who today in this tremendous and wonderful land reach age 65, more than one in every four reach it in a state of destitution. They have nothing. They are able to qualify not only for old age security which presently is $80 a month, but are able to qualify for the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement.
If anything ever demonstrated the need for a massive increase in what we are doing for pensioners these figures do it. I see my time is running out and therefore perhaps I should move my amendment before I am called upon to sit down. I want to say again that I welcome this motion even though I have been critical and have expressed some disappointment at my friends in the Progressive Conservative party for asking for so little. We shall vote for the motion because it is the least that should be done, but I hope other members of the House will join with us tonight in voting for our amendment. It says not only do we want escalation according to the cost of living but we want the basic amounts of all pensions across the board to be reviewed and raised to adequate levels. As an example of what we mean by the motion, we are asking that the basic amount of the old age pension be raised right now to not less than $150 a month.
Therefore, I have pleasure in moving, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the motion be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "Canada", the following words:

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
"and its failure to raise to adequate levels the basic amounts of
all such pensions, allowances and benefits".


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is my duty to take part in the debate on the motion now before the House which reads:
That this House condemns the government's failure to contribute to pensions, allowances and other benefits granted or administered by the government a yearly percentage increase corresponding to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Canada.
I would begin my comments by mentioning two typical examples which will enable us to understand the problem.
A senior citizen of 65 came to my office in Victoriaville recently. He is severely ill and is receiving an old pension of $135 a month. He pays $70 for rent per month, which is reasonable, but he is left with only $65 a month for food, clothing and drugs.
This senior citizen is trying by every means to obtain supplementary assistance from provincial departments but to no avail, since he is told by officials that his case is the responsibility, not of the provincial government, but of the federal government from which he receives an old age pension. Anyway, every endeavour this citizen has made has been doomed to failure. In addition, he is unable to buy the necessary drugs to cure his sickness.
This a health matter of health but he is unable to buy them. The prevailing system prevents him from obtaining these drugs.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not urgently take effective steps to solve this problem we are all somewhat responsible for this citizen's predicament and even for his death, because if we refuse, as a society, to increase this aid we will all have contributed to someone's misfortune and perhaps to his death.
This case is not unique. My hon. friends are well aware that hundreds of cases like this exist in Canada but that the resources to satisfy the needs of these people are non-existent.
Let us consider another case, Mr. Speaker, that of two people who each receive a maximum pension, including the guaranteed income supplement. It gives them a total income of $255. In order to get that maximum amount, their marginal income must be minimum. In other words, after paying a reasonable rent of $70 a month, they are left with $185 a month or $46 a week, which makes $23 per person, to buy food, clothes, drugs and essential items.
If their television set-their only enjoyment-breaks down, they do not have enough to have it repaired. The same goes for essential appliances such as their refrigerator, their stove, etc.
What will we do for them, Mr. Speaker? Will we stop talking about them once and for all and take action? I am very pleased to have this debate today since it will allow us all to ask ourselves that question.
The main objective of the motion before us today is to have pensions paid to those in need, to the needy, escalat-

ed in the same proportion as the increase in the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a clipping from the newspaper La Presse of Tuesday, March 21, 1972, entitled "Trend in recent months points to renewed inflation".
Two conclusions may be drawn. First, the fight against inflation by the government in the past four years has been conducted at the expense of the low income people and has certainly not solved the problem. Just the opposite. Second, this fight has contributed directly to the increase in the seasonally-adjusted rate of unemployment and neither unemployment nor inflation have been stopped.
The conclusion was drawn that the fight against inflation has been a monumental failure and finally, the conclusion can also be drawn that those benefiting from federal social welfare programs-which will cost this year, if I am right, $619 million according to the booklet "How your tax dollar is spent" published under the authority of the Treasury Board-will not be in a position tomorrow to meet another increase in the cost of living.
According to this newspaper report, the index of beef prices has gone up. Well, that is a product necessary for elderly and poor people. We are told that the index of general consumer prices has increased, and also that the price of eggs has increased, although most egg producers are going bankrupt because of the new program. It also says that pork prices are up.
All these developments apply to both the rich and the poor in our society. For the well-to-do, there is no great difficulty in adjusting to increased cost of living and inflation, but those who have no resources, no source of extra income because they are disabled or old, are the first victims of the increase in the cost of living. And what is being done for these people? Are we merely going to talk about it? Will we do something about it, some day.
What is most expensive now? Clothes, food, shelter and finally drugs. Well, those four items I have just mentioned are those which have most consistently increased in price during the past four years. This responsible article in La Presse states that the rise in prices will continue and accelerate until it gets out of control, which, as a matter of fact, is what is now happening.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time to see to this problem. The old, the poor, the disabled need shelter, food, clothes and drugs and you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the assistance meted out to them, $135 for old age pension, with a maximum of $255 for two, is ludicrous.
Unemployment, increasingly frequent closing down of factories are all problems resulting from economic deficiencies. Today's unemployment in Canada, resulting from anti-inflation measures and creating cost of living problems, is not a consequence of saturated consumer demand or of exhaustion of production resources, but solely of nondistribution of products and services. There is no scarcity of products in Canada, Mr. Speaker. In the west, there is a wheat surplus problem. In Quebec, there are milk, butter and egg surpluses, surpluses of everything. The problem in Quebec is one of overproduction, according to learned government experts. In the Maritimes, there again they have surpluses of everything. How is it
March 23, 1972

that at the very time when there are surpluses of everything in Canada, poverty is increasing while unemployment and the cost of living continue to rise?
Mr. Speaker, to realize fully the need for an increase in old age security pensions to a reasonable level, in keeping with the cost of living, several factors should be taken into consideration. There is something I should like to mention, on the occasion of this speech, to stress the necessity of increasing old age pensions.
Canada draws its wealth from four main sources: the soil, subsoil, forests and waters. Our subsoil is so rich, Mr. Speaker, that it would be quicker to list the minerals that we do not find in it than those we do find. Therefore, the problem is not there.
Our soil is so rich that, as I said earlier, there are surpluses everywhere, in the west, in the east, in the Maritimes and in the central provinces. There is also a surplus of wheat, milk, fish, etc.
Our forests are so rich that they could be classed into two main categories: hardwoods and softwoods. The problem may be there. We have so much softwood, Mr. Speaker, that we do not know what to do with it. The main industries in that field are shutting down and laying off workers. So, the problem is not there since we have too much softwood. What about hardwood? Our stock is so plentiful that over the past 99 years we did not even have the courage to ensure the regrowth of our forests. We had so much of it that we gave it to the Americans, to foreigners, under extended 99-year leases. Again the problem does not lie there either. But where is it since we have so many resources? In our oceans, in our fisheries? Well, if we listen to the minister and study government statistics, we find out that here again we have surpluses.
In Denmark, a wee little country with a very high standard of living, at least favourably comparable with ours, they can count on one single resource: their subsoil. We on the other hand have at least four important groups of resources.
Japan has become the third commercial power in the world with a population of 122 million inhabitants living in 12 small cities. We Canadians have 22 million people thinly spread over one of the largest country in the world and so many resources that we do not know how to cope with them, yet we tolerate some one million unemployed.
We tolerate the fact that three families out of five are poor, according to the conclusions of the Croll report on poverty.
We have just begun implementing a tax reform establishing the poverty level at $3,000. On the other hand, we are not providing $3,000 a year for our old people to enable them to live decently. If we believe that the poverty level is at $3,000, let us give at least that strict minimum to the older people. I am almost ashamed to ask such a thing. That would not solve their problem, but their pension would almost be double what it is now.
Mr. Speaker, we must stop wasting our riches, stop deceiving citizens with hopes of creating employment. According to the brochure "How your tax dollar is spent", millions and millions are spent to create employment.
Pension Increases
Creating employment has become a mania. And as the government says: Let us create jobs or offers grants to create jobs, it adds in the same breath: We have too much wheat; let us set quotas. We have too many products in the east, let us establish ceilings. As a matter of fact, we have too much of everything. That is why there are so many things on the shelves of the department stores. While investing millions of dollars to create employment, the government says: Starve, for there are too many products.
Mr. Speaker, that shows that the problem lies nowhere but in a fair allocation of riches in Canada. Some may find that funny, but older and disabled people do not.
And, as I said in an earlier speech, the Unemployment Insurance Act itself-and do consider the sincerity of my remarks-is fine. Weekly benefits range up to $100, which shows that the government recognizes the impossibility of living with less in Canada. This legislation is fine in itself, but when we put it in the social and economic context in which we are compelled to live, we must conclude that it is more profitable to work nine months a year and to draw social welfare benefits or to be unemployed for the rest of the year than to work 12 months a year. We have reached the point where unemployment directly competes with work. And, meanwhile, poverty and wealth keep on increasing in Canada and there is no contact between the rich and the poor.
Mr. Speaker, our surplus production should be fairly distributed among all Canadians. Social Credit advocates a program whose purpose is to fill at all times the gap between prices of products offered to the consumers and the money in the hands of the consumers who want to get those products which they made. Such a system therefore rules out both inflation and deflation. It automatically and mathematically maintains balance between production and purchasing power. It puts money at the service of the people and forces them to assume their role, that is disposing of the production to the satisfaction of the consumer inasmuch as natural and industrial resources allow.
The Social Credit party is very funny but I can assure the House that the system that has been defended for 100 years is no longer funny. The Social Credit party is also a dedicated protector of ownership, of private enterprise. Any private enterprise has a social function to fulfill, which will inevitably be accomplished through a financial system consistent with the Creditiste proposals which advocate justice in distribution.
So, I say to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that he will never come through with a just society in Canada unless he examines the proposals regarding justice in distribution. People are fooling themselves if they do not consider distribution of wealth. What is justice? It is fair distribution or equal consideration for all Canadians. This is exactly what we are asking for.
Any individual has the triple right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness in a free country with decent standards. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we are asking for this system. The guarantee of such a right rests on the undeniable possibility of producing today all the things necessary to their achievement by using only a fraction of the human potential.

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
However, in the system that has been protected for 100 years-and you will see how this can be ridiculous-yesterday's production is bought today with tomorrow's money.
This is why most Canadians are in debt up to their neck for over $17 billion. We say, as far as today's production goes, let us buy it today and pay it today to bring this never-ending indebtedness to an end.
Mr. Speaker, we are deceiving ourselves if we believe that getting deeper into debt is the way out of our indebtedness. Anyone interested can obtain the pamphlet offered by the federal government and read at page 24 that Canada's public debt stands at $46 billion-not counting private indebtedness-and that this debt eats up 14 cents of each tax dollar paid by Canadians. This year alone, it will cost us $2,160 million in interests.
That is the financial system we are protecting. For whom? For our senior citizens? No, Mr. Speaker. For the disabled? No, Mr. Speaker. For the have nots? No, Mr. Speaker. When those people reach old age they do not face the problems which plague our senior citizens.
I would like to conclude with this: to understand the potentialities of the monetary system proposed by the Social Credit Party, let us not forget that the world is now in an era of affluence and thats-if we have poverty it is not because there are rich people but because this affluence is not equally distributed. Therefore, no need at all to strip the rich from their wealth and give it to the poor; let us simply put some technique into the monetary system and stop repeating that money is made for man. What we should do is put money to the service of man.
Mr. Speaker, we have two choices: Either we keep on degrading people or we take the steps required to encourage individuals to build and develop their country. Either we keep on protecting high finance with our citizens as slaves or we keep high finance down and we put money to the service of the Canadian people.
I will conclude by asking two questions. Why are we so afraid in this House of a monetary reform? Why are we prepared to reform anything except our monetary system?
I would like someone to reply, Mr. Speaker.


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


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the spokesmen for the opposition parties on the other side of the House, in particular to the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) who, I think, very properly has brought a well-founded resolution before the House concerning the problem of pension adjustments in a period of inflation. This is a problem which all western societies have to face now.
Indeed the record of Canada in regard to price controls in this period of, shall we say, price stability, according to recent studies has been as good as that of any of the 14 western European nations examined. But our record is not good enough. The government, with its responsibilities, has the very difficult problem of trying to create a

delicate balance between price stability and employment. So far as pensions are concerned, the problem is particularly acute. It is difficult to maintain the degree of price stability that we would all like to see because, in view of the record of our major trading partners, we generally have to stay in step with them or else pressures show up in our balance of payments, in our foreign exchange rates, and so on. But in spite of the great difficulty in maintaining a temperate degree of price stability, the problem of adjustment of pensions has to be faced. It can be faced in two ways: either in terms of an automatic escalation formula, for which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has fought as have other members of this House or it can be faced by discretionary adjustments over a period of time. This has been the procedure in the case of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Before discussing in more detail the adjustments for pensions, war veterans allowance and war pensions, I should like to make a few general remarks about the kind of statement we have heard today. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, who is in the House at present, accused the opposition party that moved the motion of not promising enough and he did a magnificent job of out-promising them. He said that pensions should not merely be escalated for the cost of living but that the old age pension should be brought up to the basic level of $150 a month and the age limit lowered to 60 years. I think this is a fair summary of one of his recommendations. Mr. Speaker, we have gone through this debate at other times in this House. If it were only as simple as that. If the only thing to be done was for members of this House to be kind and generous and pass the motion, then pensions would flow on unhindered. If life were that simple it would be very nice.
The fact is that sums of this magnitude are very consequential. I have made some calculation and it would take something in the order of $1} billion to increase the pension of everyone over the age of 65 to $150 a month. This is regardless of whether or not they get the supplement. I may be out in my calculations but I think that is approximately correct. Reducing the age from 65 to 60 would substantially increase the cost. I know that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre says that costs do not matter but he knows that increased expenditures of that amount are inflationary unless drastic measures are taken to compensate with revenue from other sources. It is not enough to give everybody what they would like. Then, why stop at $150? If we were to approve it, the hon. member would raise his sights. The fact is that these proposals in themselves are inflationary. It is like trying to solve the problem of putting out the fire by throwing gasoline on it. To those pensioners suffering from the increase in the cost of living, it is no compensation to promise measures which cannot be enacted consistent with even that degree of price stability which we have today.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been concerned about the problem and over a period of time has undertaken to adjust those pension rates which fall within its jurisdiction. Hon. members will recall that on March 17, in reply to a question from the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre, the
March 23, 1972

Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) stated that consideration is being given to representations by the War Amputations of Canada asking for an increase in basic rates of pensions. He further stated that, while basic rates of war veterans allowance are not presently under review, "an action taken in one place might have consequences in another". The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is smiling, but this is precisely the exchange that took place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope it is true.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I should add that the minister met with representatives of the association a few weeks ago. For some years it has been the practice of the government to review basic rates of both pensions and war veterans allowances once in about every two years, and to make any adjustments that might appear warranted.
Pursuant to this policy, basic rates of pension were raised by 11.1 per cent, effective September 1, 1964. Two years later, on September 1, 1966, the rates were again increased by 15 per cent. Just 16 months later, on January 1, 1968, the pension rates were raised by 15.2 per cent. Finally, just a year ago, on April 1, 1971, the basic rates of pension were again raised by 10 per cent. At the present time a 100 per cent pensioner, married and with one child, receives a pension of $4,920 a year. In addition, he may receive an exceptional incapacity allowance of up to $2,400 per annum under the provisions of last year's amendments to the Pension Act-I want to come back to this in a moment-and a further amount of up to $3,000 a year in attendance allowance. All these amounts are exempt from income tax. Furthermore, I have already indicated that the matter of basic rates of pension is under review again.
Summarizing the situation on disability pensions, I would point out that, considering only the basic rates and ignoring all the other supplementary payments, pension rates during the ten years between 1961 and 1971 have risen by 67 per cent, while consumer prices rose by only half as much, 33 per cent.
The position with respect to basic rates of war veterans allowance is very similar. On September 1, 1964 they were increased by 11.9 per cent. Exactly two years later on September 1, 1966, they went up by 11.7 per cent. A year ago, on April 1, 1971, these basic rates were raised by 15 per cent. Taking together the increases of the ten-year period from April 1, 1961 to April 1, 1971, the rise in basic rates of war veterans allowance has also been more than double the rise in consumer prices.
In the financial estimates for the year 1972-73, a sum of $232,550,000 has been requested for the payment of disability pensions and pensions to survivors, and a further $781 million for the payment of war veterans allowance. In addition, a sum of $8 \ million is being provided under the assistance fund regulations, to give supplementary financial help to those individual cases whose needs may not be fully met through the war veterans allowance program. Some people will say there is no sum of money that will fully compensate those who have risked their health or their lives in the defence of their country, and I would not deny this argument for a moment. The fact remains, however, that both disability pensioners and recipients of
Pension Increases
war veterans allowance are very much better off financially as a result of the adjustments over a period of time.
I can only say this, Mr. Speaker, that as to the future, the government intends to keep faith with these veterans. Under the policy already established, a review of rates under both plans would be made and if changes appeared to be required, legislation would be introduced in order to authorize any adjustments.
I want to say a word or two about the exceptional incapacity allowance. My good friend who moved this motion-we are quite good personal friends and I have known him for some ten years-asked the question this afternoon when he was talking about what the government had done for prisoners in other theatres than Hong Kong, and then he said that nothing whatsoever had been done. I asked about payment of the exceptional incapacity allowance. The initial review of the cases under the new legislation was completed in early January this year, and awards were made to over 1,000 pensioners, a number of whom were former prisoners of war. I do not exactly know the numbers at the moment, but there are certainly many among them. The amounts awarded vary between $800 and $2,400 per year. A 100 per cent pensioner who did not receive the award that he wanted in the first screening or was dissatisfied with the award made, may apply to have his case reconsidered.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many people for whom the measures that have been taken are not enough, but I can only say that the measures that have been undertaken are in the right direction. I had the honour of chairing a committee which made recommendations on the basis of which I believe the legislation was drafted which came into this House. It is true that the initial recommendations of the committee were for higher ceilings, but we achieved a major breakthrough in the principle involving exceptional incapacity allowances. Those recommendations were designed to deal with the kind of thing which the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) has talked about.
I should like to put on our Hansard record part of a news release. The release is dated today and is by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It relates to three amendments to the War Veterans and Civilian War Allowances regulations. Hon. members may have noted that the first of these relates to the cost of living increase affecting Old Age Security and guaranteed income supplement. This will benefit some 46,500 veterans and dependents. It means that these cost of living adjustments are now exempt as income. This matter the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised with the minister not long ago.
As I say, the benefit represents an increase for a single recipient of $2.70 a month and for a married recipient, if both partners in the marriage are drawing the guaranteed income supplement, of $5.10 a month. The new regulation comes into effect on April 1.
The second amendment removes the four-month restriction that previously applied to full time employment if earnings from such employment were to be considered as exempt income. A single recipient will now benefit by an exemption of $800 on his earned income regardless of the

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
duration of his employment and a married recipient will be entitled to a $1,200 exemption. The result of this change will be that those who are able to take advantage of this provision can now earn a total income, if single, of $2,732 annually or, if married, of $4,452 annually.
The minister announced today a third amendment which covers that small group of veterans who want to leave Canada and live outside Canada. Under existing legislation, they are obliged to apply for old age security benefits and the guaranteed income supplement, and these may, in some cases, make them ineligible for veterans allowances entitlements. At present, if they leave Canada, they lose their old age security and supplement in certain circumstances. They are not eligible outside Canada to receive war veterans allowances. The department is now-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret that the hon. member's time has expired.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, may I complete my sentence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: This amendment now permits those people, prior to departure from Canada, to replace income received through old age security with war veterans allowances and civilian war allowances, which may still be paid outside Canada. Thus they can leave Canada and take with them these allowances. They will not be deprived of benefits outside Canada.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by commending my colleague for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) for bringing forward his most valuable motion, a motion which has brought about this debate on a matter of concern and compassion. He opened by making a fine statement that was full of feeling and showed himself to be a man of concern and compassion.
It is interesting to note, Sir, that our proceedings today began with a statement from one minister. He talked about employment opportunities and other programs concerning youth. The programs are not very satisfactory, but they are all that we have today. There is something significant about the concern of the hon. member. I am sure all hon. members here have had experiences similar to mine in dealing with the great problems that face us and that face, in particular, the two groups to whom we have referred. We know of the lack of jobs for many. This lack affects especially the young, and those who are well educated and well trained.
I am sure every one of us here has a dossier on young people trying to find employment. Day in and day out I am sure every one of us hears of the anxiety of our older citizens. At a time when tranquility, security and confidence should be theirs, they are fraught with anxiety, poverty and fear. Surely, these are appalling and shameful conditions. Someone said that the war on poverty may never have got under way and that the war on inflation was a failure. That war, however, found two victims, the unemployed man and the pensioner. In a great country as rich as Canada-and we can produce all sorts of statistics to show our national riches and national greatness-far, far too many people are living in poverty. We did not need

the Senate Committee to demonstrate to us that which we already know. Many thousands of Canadians face insecurity and inadequacy in this great land. Living costs are accelerating all the time. Rents are going up; all costs are rising and the value of the dollar is shrinking, ever shrinking. For most of the people we have in mind today, there are no great unions, no powerful pressure lobbies, no pressure groups; those people are the victims, the silent, sad victims of a grossly mismanaged economy.
If we heed all the portents and read the report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we will see that this group is in for even more hardship, because that report shows that our failure in the war on inflation will soon bring its baleful results. As the parliamentary secretary suggested, those people about whom we are concerned have too often become footballs and their plight has too often been an area of neglect. It was one of the great indications of public disfavour when a former Liberal government fell after it had revealed a unique and cold lack of compassion. At that time the six buck slogan helped to bring to an end a government which had lost compassion and concern for the poor of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Their last basic increase was only 42 cents.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the party of which I am proud to be a member does not possess outstanding abilities in the field of dramatic arts-except when he is at an NDP party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Although the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) may radiate less charisma than certain other leaders, it is obvious, as he has demonstrated, that he possesses much more concern than some others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: He has made commitments to the people of this country. One of those is within the parameters of the motion we are discussing today. It was my hope, and I am sure it was the hope of the hon. member who moved the motion and moved it so well, to see every hon. member of the House giving his support to it. I had hoped the parliamentary secretary would say, "On an opposition day a motion has been moved which I and my colleagues and all other members in the House will support, so that word may go out to the poor and aged that the House of Commons is prepared to stand together on this one important subject." Of course, this step is not sufficient, but it would be one step, at least, and it would show that we are united and unanimous in supporting this just idea; for this is the minimum that we ought to do and it ought to have been done long ago for the people of this country. No pensioner should ever have been allowed to fall behind because of the outrageous neglect to include a proper escalator provision affecting pensions in a time of terrible and rising costs. No pensioner should have been denied such simple justice. Certainly, the parliamentary secretary, when he produced his statistics, could have indicated that pensioners would not be denied justice. That would have raised the status of this House in the
March 23, 1972

eyes of the people of Canada, because all would have seen that we believe in justice.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary's statistics, and they were interesting. I was reminded of the statistics my colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) mentioned. I remember his referring to a man who drowned in a lake, the average depth of which was 12 inches. Of course, there are all sorts of statistics that can be produced if one wants to go about the country selfrighteously saying to the pensioners and the poor, "You never had it so good". Anyone who says that is putting a great strain on his own credibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of thousands of unfortunate Canadians today, and if you tell them they never had it so good, you will get a reaction that is far from positive, let me assure you.
This resolution covers many people; the old, those who require security most. Instead of that, they are expressing frustration and insecurity. It concerns the veterans. They are getting older and their job opportunities are diminishing. The costs of their daily needs are increasing. I say to the parliamentary secretary that he can put forward statistics all day and all night, but I know that thousands and thousands of these people are not getting enough. They must and should get more. Let us not monkey around with statistics.
If I had time, and I do not have time today, I could point out that there are countries in the world which do a far better job for their veterans than this country. One simple indicator is that the basic rate for veterans pensions in the United States is $5,400, almost $2,000 more than Canada's basic rate of $3,504. Let the government spokesman stick out his chest over that. Time and again we run across the problems of the widow with a young dependant who is not yet through university. The other day I received a call about a fine young man with just one more year to go to obtain his University degree, but his student allowance is to be cut off. Where does the widow turn? Some hon. members who spoke before me mentioned former civil servants and other groups who are bottled in and suppressed in an economic pressure tank. Something must be done for them.
One problem that has troubled many of us, again in connection with veterans, is the heavy backlog which faces the Canada Pension Commission. I think this is a fine group of civil servants, but they cannot cope with 1,000 applications a month and do justice to them. For months the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has been appealing for additional help for the Canada Pension Commission to get through the backlog. As these veterans wait, they are not getting any richer or any younger. They are not getting action. Some of them are dying. This is the kind of thing a government of compassion would do.
There is no shortage of personnel when the government wants to expand the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Surely, a few can be found to assist the Canada Pension Commission. This is a very serious question in
Pension Increases
every part of the country, including my own. The parliamentary secretary may represent an area where everybody is content with what they get and happy when told that they are getting more than ever before. However, I have received statistics from what should be called the Dominion Bureau of Statistics but what is now called Statistics Canada. These indicate that in the city of Charlottetown, a place for which for many years it was difficult to get precise statistics, the cost of living has increased from January 1969 by 11.3 points in comparison with 6.4 for Saint John and 3.8 for Halifax.
When we ask why Prince Edward Island is excluded from the increase in feed grain subsidies, no one even bothers to give us a reply. When we talk about the transportation problems which increase the cost of living, we discover that there were 29 increases in freight rates in eight years. There is a lack of sensitivity, a lack of compassion and a lack of concern. Surely, it is the government's role in a society like ours to be the friend of those who need friends, those who suffer from the economic system most.
We talk about regional disparities, but surely disparity between groups of citizens must also be looked after as a number one priority of the government. I call upon those who momentarily occupy the seats of office in this country to take note of the wise, thoughtful suggestions contained in this motion and the compassion restraint and moderate tones with which the very eloquent, dedicated member who moved it suggested they be accomplished. The government should transcend politics for once and allow the old, the dispossessed, the poor and the struggling to see the House of Commons at its best.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, we have made our position perfectly clear with regard to this motion. We intend to vote for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: We realize that its intent is to help the old people of this country and those retired people on pension. To this extent, we favour it. However, we want to point out that between the intent and the effect there is a big difference. To merely put an escalator clause in effect at this time would do very little to rescue the elderly people from the strait jacket in which they find themselves. Nothing can rescue them from that except a revision of the basic pension.
My colleague, who more than any other man has the right to be called "the pensions advocate of the House of Commons", has already outlined the three elements which are essential in determining a basic pension. First, it should be set in relation to the cost of living. Second, it should be set in relation to the productivity of the country and, third, in relation to the standard of living prevriling in the country at the time. The escalator clause is the final feature which is necessary on top of such a basic pension. It makes sense.
I wish to refer to a letter which I recently received from an old age pensioner in Vancouver. I quote:

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
We got notice recently of a projected raise of 2 per cent but which will not take effect for us till May 1st, 1972. The raise mentioned was not only ridiculously low but why mention it so far ahead when they are nearly 30 per cent behind in the cost of living index now.
I suggest to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) that the elderly people in this country are not being taken in by his dextrous use of figures with regard to the cost of living and the escalator clause. The hon. member said there were a number of occasions when there had been a raise in the basic pension. Yes, the old age pension in particular has been raised on those occasions when it became politically dangerous not to do so, but never has the old age pension been set in relation to those factors I have mentioned. I challenge members on the government side to tell us what studies were made into any of those factors in setting the basic old age pension at any time in its history.
The hon. member for Ottawa West also referred to the fact of the government adopting the policy of discretionary adjustments. I think he may have been referring to veterans' pensions at that time. The party to which I belong is not at all enamoured of the way discretionary adjustments work in the hands of the government. We want a fair basic pension as a matter of right, one which cannot be tampered with or denied. That is the only kind of pension that is any good to the retired people of this country.
Our position on this matter is that at the present time pensions should be fixed at $150 a month or $1,800 a year for a single person. That is still well below the poverty line worked out in 1969 according to the Bureau of Statistics. At that time the poverty line for a single person was set at $1,894 and for two persons at $3,157. If that was true in 1969, then, judging by the way in which the cost of living has risen since that time, the figure of $150 is too low. Our only reason for proposing it is that we felt we had better ask for a figure at least in the same stratosphere as that which the government might accept.
Spokesmen for the government tell us the country cannot afford an increase at this time. The best and quickest answer to that assertion was given by the hon. member for Simcoe-North (Mr. Rynard) when he told the House that at the end of 1971 there were $639 million in the old age security fund. He added that this money had been contributed by the elderly people of this country and that to leave it where it was, undistributed, while making excuses for not paying decent basic pensions at a reasonable amount, was cheating them. Yes, it is cheating them and deceiving them as well. As long as we have this sum of $639 million in the fund, we have no possible justification for saying we cannot afford an increase.
The old people are not stupid. They do not believe the nation cannot afford an increase. Expenditures in connection with the Bonaventure, the Avro Arrow and other things were mentioned this afternoon. I want to say, as did the hon. member for Simcoe North, that no difficulty was encountered when it came to raising the pensions substantially of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate. I voted against that particular measure and I have the distinction of belonging to the only party in this

House which voted against it. I think this is well worth recalling when we are considering whether or not we can afford the kind of action I am urging.
In the next two or three minutes I want to let the old people speak for themselves and give their own views about living on an old age pension at this time. I have no doubt that members in all parts of the House can produce similar letters. Here is one from St. Leonard in the Province of Quebec:
Dear Mrs. Maclnnis:
I wrote you last June about my pension troubles down here in our Belle Province. At that time I told you that my wife and I were getting $135 per month between us in my old age pension and supplements plus $14 per month from Quebec, between us, for medicines. My wife is only 64, so she gets no pension. She needs new glasses and her spinal brace fixed. I attend the hospital every month for blood tests and a check-up as I suffer from heart trouble and hardening of the arteries in my legs. We were getting $149 per month. In August, 1971 my $14 from Quebec was stopped. They said we were getting too much. I was getting my medicines at the hospital at cost price but on January 1, 1972 they stopped it on the grounds that the government was not helping them enough to meet the cost. Medicine now costs me an average of $14 per month. I wrote to Mr. Munro in Ottawa. He referred me to Quebec, so I wrote to Mr. Castonguay. He referred my letter to the local office in Montreal and they sent me and my doctor more forms to fill up. But that is months ago and I guess they are still studying them yet. I have been to see them as I had my bottom teeth out in February, 1971 and I need new glasses, which they say they will help me pay for. But I am still waiting, both for teeth and glasses.
Enclosed is a letter I received from the welfare office. I wish you could read it out to Mr. Trudeau and ask him whether this is his idea of a just society.
I shall be very glad to read it to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He may find it in Hansard. This was the response from the authorities in the Province of Quebec:
Your needs were established as follows: food, clothing, personal necessities, $76; cost of room, $50; for a total sum of $126 per month. As your income from the old age pension is $135 monthly, you have an exceedent of $9 per month for your ordinary needs. However, if you need medication exceeding $9 a month for you and your wife, or a set of artificial teeth, take an appointment with your social security agent at your local office as soon as possible.
Instead of getting annoyed and saying that the Quebec authorities are failing to provide adequate supplementary benefits, and that sort of thing, I shall say that we, in this federal parliament, are squarely responsible for not having provided an old age pension which would have covered this man's needs adequately, and for not having reduced the pensionable age to 60 so that his poor wife could have adequate treatment for her dental and medical needs. The way we treat the old people is disgusting. Like the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), I am getting fed up with a government which sits smugly opposite and talks about how much better it is here than in Timbuctoo or other far off regions of the earth and does nothing to take the money which has accumulated in its coffers on trust for these people and use it to give them a decent pension.
Here is a short letter from Montreal:
We live on a basic pension of $80. We had an increase of $42 a few years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forty-two cents.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Forty-two cents.
The cost of living is continuously increasing. Rents have increased
March 23, 1972

as well, due to taxes. Of course, Trudeau is a millionaire. He does not know what it is to eat only one meal a day. I am sure he has never put his foot inside a food store. After we have paid the rent, light and phone there is not enough left for food, so we cannot afford more than one meal a day.
These are conditions which are duplicated many thousands of times over. The old people of Canada are sick and tired of inquiries, committees, task forces and white papers. They want a chance to live their last few years in a modicum of decency and dignity.
I want to read a letter, now, from my home city-it happens to be in the riding of the hon. member opposite: for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman):
The powers that be would be well-advised to hire a few old pensioners to steer things straight as there are a lot of brains among them lying dormant. Nobody pays them any attention, but they raised, fed and took care of you people without too much help other than their own make-do. Now we are old and have done our work, and in most cases we made a pretty good job of it. What do we get? The brush-off. How can any two people live and get the right care on $250 per month? We don't drink, smoke, drive a car or go anywhere for pleasure. Sure, we own our own home, but we have to provide fuel and food and sundry supplies such as transportation, drugs, clothes, glasses, hearing aids, etc, with no reserve money saved up for emergencies. Then we must keep our home in repair and replacements up to working order, attending to garden, lawns, taxes, painting and general upkeep on no extra money.
An average pensioner couple such as we are cannot possibly do all this on less than $350 to $400 per month, but this is what we would be obliged to do if we rented, and bought the other commodities over and above rent.
The 11 per cent sales tax prevents us buying building and upkeep materials, so we do without and more or less let the property run down, not even protecting our investment up to a saleable condition. I do not think it would be an impossible job for the government to pay this extra pension.
Wait until they learn about that $639 million in the old age security fund. They will certainly not have any doubts then as to whether it is possible for the government to pay higher pensions. I read again:
The causes for being in these circumstances now is the result of past government actions as outlined above and government today is still on the same track of procrastinating to the detriment of the many by so few.
The days of procrastinating on the part of this government are coming to a close. No matter when the election is called, I want to warn the government that there are well organized pensioners across this country who know the facts, who know there is money for all the things for which the government wants to find money, who are determined, if the government will not give them a fair break, to retire the government on pensions which unfortunately are far too adequate when compared with the pensions received by the old age pensioners who are now suffering in the cities and across the countryside of Canada.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tolerate that the situation of the Canadian people be made as appalling as some opposition members would like us to believe.
Pension Increases
The weakness of the non-confidence motion introduced today lies in a series of most important omissions. Mr. Speaker, it is unfair to have the Canadian people believe that this government does not deal with poverty in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfair to have the Canadian people believe that this government does not look after older people. It is unfair also to have the Canadian people believe that this government does not care for the underprivileged.
This government has published a white paper on income security for Canadians. The opposition members should be aware of that paper. It should be their Bible, so to speak, their bedside book, and having heard what some opposition members had to say this afternoon, I feel they must get acquainted with it. I intend to send it to them because I think that either they pretend to know it or, simply, they do not.
It must be stressed that the income security programs in Canada can be applied and remain useful only under a flourishing economy and price stability. Unless the system affords most employable individuals an opportunity to exercise their basic skills profitably, the national resources required for funding income security will fall short and our country will be deprived of the necessary means to help those who cannot contribute, wholly or partially, to the endeavours of the working population.
Now the government's white paper lays particular emphasis on the considerable number of income security programs which are based at present on a continuous improvement of economic growth during the last 50 years.
Our objectives are twofold: first a guaranteed income, and then the maintenance of income.
The guaranteed income reduces insecurity, temporarily alleviates financial difficulties and prevents or decreases poverty for most citizens who may expect to be part of the active population.
On the other hand, the maintenance of income is intended more directly for poor people because they cannot be part of the active population for various reasons beyond their will.
The white paper studies priorities in the light of modern problems. One of these is the existence of several important groups of people who lack resources and opportunities compared with most of their fellow citizens. Among these we find, naturally, the aged, who were discussed today, female heads of families with dependent children, the disabled and the working poor. I must say that the situation is particularly serious for female heads of families.
Now, simultaneously, some income protection programs are being increasingly criticized because they are universal. Still, they benefit all Canadians regardless of income and, in some cases, considerable amounts of money are paid to people of amply sufficient means.
Mr. Speaker, here is the challenge the government must now meet in its program: it must formulate a new income security policy that would allow assistance to those in greatest need of it, while respecting what other programs

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
are intended to stimulate the economic development on which our present social welfare system is based.
Mr. Speaker, we must now concentrate our efforts on the fight against poverty. All hon. members will surely agree with me that this must be done in such a way as to allow the greatest possible concentration of available resources in aid to those whose income is the lowest. In every possible instance, selective payments, based on income, must be substituted for universal payments which do not take into account the real income of the recipient.
Moreover, social insurance programs should be extended to areas of prevention or reduction of poverty. The result should therefore be a more stable income basis for families and individuals, and in particular for older people with low income.
Government research on the ways to reach the objectives of this new policy has been very complete and has taken into consideration the opinions and the views of various groups, especially the criticism against existing programs.
The arguments in favour of a single guaranteed income system that would replace all existing income security programs have been studied in depth. Very few programs now carried out can be eliminated without causing grave prejudices to a number of people. The old age security pensions as well as the veterans pensions cannot be put aside at present. Furthermore, we think that a complete plan with adequate payments would be extremely burdensome. Nevertheless in the white paper the Canadian government has made proposals to extend a selective form of guaranteed income.
In our opinion the best way to offset the drawbacks of the existing system is not to replace our programs by a comprehensive guaranteed income plan, as some opposition members have suggested. It seems to us that the best way to do this is to review the guidelines for income security, to reassess the priorities and the scope of our plans and to find a kind of plan which will best enable us to achieve our main goals.
Our century, Mr. Speaker, has rapidly become the century dedicated to the well-being of the individuals. And it seems curious to me that today, through the motion that has been introduced, members opposite pretend not to realize that the government is bringing the utmost attention to this.
For the past ten years, in fact, the federal and the provincial governments have implemented a whole set of welfare measures to ensure a minimum of security for Canadians and for older citizens in particular.
The progress made indicates a real revolution in comparison with the previous situation. Let us remember the darker days of the economic crisis of 1927, when citizens had to fight alone to secure their daily subsistence.
It used to be that you had to ensure your security and subsistence for your old age. Now, governments take care of that for the citizens.
Programs such as medicare, hospitalization insurance and unemployment insurance protect the citizens against

the prohibitive costs of illness or loss of a job. Other programs including family allowances, social welfare, old age security pension and its supplement, aim at guaranteeing income security.
The best part of these social measures is borne by the federal government which earmarks one quarter of its yearly estimates for social security; in other words, 25 cents of every tax dollar is allocated to social security.
Welfare programs have been so expanded and diversified that they require constant updating and adaptation to modern changes. Indeed, the hon. members who moved this motion today intended to question some of our measures. I do not blame them for that, but I think it is strange that they do not take the opportunity of pointing out what the present government is doing precisely to help our senior citizens and those who are most underprivileged in Canada.
The federal government's white paper in particular made a great deal of the fact that we have to fight poverty. It is in this spirit that the government implemented its welfare measures. It is really inacceptable that in a society as affluent as ours, compared with several other countries of the world, there should still be people who lack the basic necessities.
No government is working with more energy toward eradicating social injustice and inequality in Canada than the government led by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The just society is not only a slogan. It is made more and more real everyday to the benefit of large families, elderly people and invalids.
Canada, which is recognized as having probably the best welfare system in the world, constantly tries to keep abreast of social progress.
I can say that from the cradle to the grave, the Canadian citizen can reckon on government's assistance to provide him with financial security.
And I do not think any class of society matters more in the eyes of the present government than those people who have to leave the mainstream of active life when they reach retirement age. More than anyone else, those people are entitled to a modicum of comfort and security.
Since today's world is centered on youth, it is often difficult to integrate the aged into the modern community. Though we must assist the young generation, we should not for all that neglect those who, through their work and devotion, have contributed to build the present.
Through the old age security plan, every senior citizen is entitled to a basic pension of $80 a month. Over the past few years, this plan has undergone major changes. The age of eligibility for a pension has been gradually reduced by the government from 70 to 65. Basic benefits have gone from $75 to $80 a month.
However, knowing that this income would not be sufficient for the needs of the elderly, considering the rise in the cost of living, the Canadian government initiated another old age security plan, the guaranteed income supplement. Added to the initial pension, and subject to a means test, this supplementary pension, which amounted originally to $31.83 a month for single persons and $63.66
March 23, 1972

for aged couples, has increased to $55 and $65 respectively.
These changes now enable a pensioner to draw a minimum monthly income of $135 instead of $113.61.
At the present time, 1,750,000 citizens receive a basic monthly pension of $80. It is estimated that some 470,000 individuals will draw the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement and that 550,000 others will receive partial benefits. This means that about 60 per cent of people over 65 will benefit from that program.
I think I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time the recipients of the old age pension alone or of the old age pension combined with the guaranteed income supplement already obtain tremendous assistance from the Canadian government. Their minimum income will be greatly increased when they begin to receive benefits under the Quebec or the Canada pension plan.
I would like to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that one million aged couples are directly receiving a guaranteed annual income of $3,060 from the federal government. It can be considered as a minimum protection but is undoubtedly a complete reversal of the conditions a few years ago. I believe that we can look to the future with optimism because, as retired persons will be receiving benefits under their pension plan and the government will be continuing to improve its pension plan, our senior citizens will certainly be drawing better incomes as they deserve.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this motion. I was questioned by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) who spoke from his seat a few moments ago while the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) was speaking. He asked whether I was a socialist because I applauded the hon. lady for supporting this motion. One does not have to be a socialist to have regard for the old folk. Surely every Canadian has regard for the old folk. As a member of the Conservative party for the last 14 years, I am very proud that our party has been foremost in thinking about the welfare of the older people. I am only sorry that the income of our older people has never been brought up to the level at which I think it should be. This does not make me a socialist.
Mr. Speaker, I wish you would discipline the Postmaster General, who insists on interrupting my speech. He apparently has nothing to contribute to the debate, but still insists on interrupting.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Why don't you answer me?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I do not think it is necessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I suggest that hon. members should give the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) the opportunity of making his speech and in due course they could in turn ask questions. Obsi-ously, the hon. member who has the floor has the privilege of making his remarks without being interrupted; he is
Pension Increases
not even obliged to answer questions when they are directed at him when he has the floor.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker.
In my opinion, the hon. member has talked about a question which I asked him; I can assure him that that question will not appear in Hansard. However, I would ask him to tell me what answer he gave to my question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I must admit that the point of order raised by the minister is unfounded and, in my opinion, the best thing to do is to let the hon. member begin his remarks at least. During his speech, the hon. member could decide whether he will allow the minister to ask him a question.
The hon. member for Pembina.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the minister's desire to cut short my speech, because in the 15 minutes at my disposal what I say will not necessarily be complimentary of the government.
I was speaking of the necessity of raising the old age pension for our senior citizens. I point out that this has nothing to do, I hope, with party politics. The question is whether our senior citizens are entitled not only to the gratitude of the Canadian people but to be paid the money which they have already put into the fund. I think the point has been clearly established that in fact we are not giving them anything; we are merely custodians of a very large fund which has been put aside to look after them in their old age. They are entitled to this money and I suggest that now is a good time to give them that to which they are fully entitled.
Not only old age pensioners are referred to in this motion; there is also the question of federal government pensions. I am affected personally in this regard and hope I will be allowed to comment on the subject. There is no fairness, and there never has been, in the way federal government pensions are handled. Anyone who has served the federal government, and through it the people of Canada, should have equitable treatment. If I had time to go into cases I would explain my own case.
Hon. members might be surprised to know that one could work in the civil service during peacetime, take a job during wartime, for example in the mounted police so that one was not subject to military service, go back to the civil service after the war, and all this service would count for pension purposes. However, in my case and in the case of several others this was not the situation. The lobby on this matter is very small and I have hesitated to raise it. I do so now because it is well worth looking into. I should like to know when this question will be considered without the necessity of lobbying.
Four, five or six people are affected in this manner. When you ask the government to look into these matters they say it is impossible to go back beyond a certain date; if your pension has not been calculated to a certain date it is impossible to go back beyond that date. I do not think that is justifiable. I think it is unfair. Adjustments have been made in respect of pensions, but what kind of adjust-

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
merits? Pensions are usually adjusted on a percentage basis; therefore, if you are receiving $10,000 and there is a 10 per cent increase, you will receive an extra $1,000 a year. But if your pension is $40 a month, you get an increase of $4 a month which certainly does not lift you above the poverty level.
This kind of thing is unfair. This is not a question of petty politics at all. I am asking for equity and I hope that all parties in the House and all governments are interested in seeing that there is equity. It is no excuse for a government to say that equity cannot be given. Of course it can, and this House has the power to give it. If this House knows that inequitable treatment is given to civil servants, members of the mounted police or members of the armed forces, it is not only right but it is our duty to see that the inequity is eliminated. I should like to see justice done in this respect-and not only because I am personally involved.
Perhaps I have been delinquent in not taking up the case of the four or five people who are not able to stand in the House and speak. I am privileged to speak for myself, but I am not doing only that: I am begging that these matters be considered. They are well known to the authorities, to the civil service and to the mounted police. It is well known in every corner of Canada that people unfortunate enough to have retired 20 or 30 years ago receive a miserable pension which means they are living well below the poverty level. They are not in a position to come here and beg. I think it is my duty to raise this question. We have an army of civil servants in this country numbering hundreds of thousands. They should be interested. I beg them to look into this matter and bring forward recommendations so that these inequities can be corrected.
A few days ago we heard in the House about the magnificent treatment we are giving our veterans. I am happy at the steps that have been taken so far but I remind the House that it took us 26 years to do something for the Hong Kong veterans. Again, I take a personal interest in the Hong Kong veterans because I was there when the Winnipeg Grenadiers arrived in Winnipeg on their return from Hong Kong. I have sat in the veterans affairs committee and heard people ask what proof we have that these veterans are sick-because they have no wounds, no bullet holes! I carried off that train men who weighed 85 pounds and who when they joined the army weighed 185 pounds. What more proof do you need?
It took us 26 years to give them equity. It is suggested that we should be satisfied because we made it possible for them to receive a 50 per cent pension. I do not think we should be particularly proud of that, not after 26 years. It should be a 100 per cent pension for everyone who wants it, and certainly for everyone who needs it. These men have made heroic efforts to remain fully employed. Those boys who came back from Hong Kong were carried off in our arms, like babies, some of them blind. They made a wonderful recovery and I venture to say that for a great many of them the record is magnificent. They have gone back to Canadian public life, to the firms for which they worked, to the woods and to their farms, and to the best of their ability they have been 100 per cent productive. But they have done it with broken bodies.

It turns my stomach to hear anyone in the House or in the media say we have done a magnificent job of rewarding these people. I heard one hon. member here-I will not mention his name-point out that some of these fellows are getting $13,700 a year. That is a lie. He took the worst cases, people who are paraplegic, blind and without hope, added together the cost of their hospitalization and the miserable pittance their wives are receiving-wives who have spent 26 years nursing these hulks of humanity-and said we gave them $13,700 a year. This is about half what we get. And we call it magnificent! I do not want to call it a disgrace, and I know there is a bottom to the public purse-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I was speaking about the Hong Kong veterans and the need that many of these men still have in spite of recent improvements to veterans legislation. In 1971 we in the veterans affairs committee were satisfied that we had finally given the old section 70, the benefit of the doubt provision, a new look. We have been assured that the benefit of the doubt will in fact be given to veterans. I am not at all worried about veterans abusing this section, particularly the Hong Kong boys who have done all they can for themselves. I believe the next move is up to us. Having got them to the 50 per cent level, it is up to us to consider the possibility of their needing a 100 per cent pension.
Over the years the compensation given to soldiers has been the same. The bench-mark has been the wage level of a labourer. We have never taken into account the special skills that a man had. Take the case of a professional pianist. He is not compensated at the level of his ability to play the piano. If he loses a hand, or both hands, he is compensated strictly at the labouring level. In the year 1972 we are still paying our veterans at the labouring level, but in effect we are not paying the full average wage of a labourer in Canada. I suggest that the level is now $5,000 or $6,000, the wage that is paid to the ordinary manual labourer, the cleaner on the Hill, the person who works with his muscles.
I know the taxpayer's pocket is not bottomless but I think we should live up to the agreement we intended to carry out in the first place, namely, to compensate our veterans according to their physical disability. If only that principle were followed I am sure the present level of veterans pensions would be shown to be far below the level of that which should be expected of a generous country such as ours. I do not want to draw comparisons with other countries, but I believe we are capable of giving our veterans a higher level of compensation. One may ask where we will get the money. It is a question of priority. I cannot think of a higher priority than paying
March 23, 1972

adequate pensions to the people who defended our country and enabled us for the past 25 or 26 years to enjoy the second highest standard of living in the world.
Many veterans become unemployable as they get on in years. They are incapable of maintaining themselves at a reasonable level of health. This is where section 70 should apply, particularly in respect of prisoners of war and men who have psychosomatic problems. As a modern nation we realize that psychosomatic problems can be just as damaging as physical wounds caused by gunshot.
We have made great strides in improving veterans legislation. I am proud of the strides we have made but I do not think we can sit back and say we have done all we can. Until we use the benefit of the doubt rule completely and take the soldier's word that he is suffering because of what happened to him during war, we cannot be completely fair. From personal experience I know that the best soldiers very rarely went sick. They do not have documents to prove every time they were sick. Most of the time they never went sick even if they had pneumonia or flu. I have seen in the front line men covered with boils, a very terrible and dangerous condition which can lead to complications. These men stayed in the front line and fought. They should have been hospitalized, but they would not leave their buddies. They have no documentation to prove that they were sick, but the result of their neglect of their bodies for our sake followed into the post-war years. Some of the Hong Kong veterans-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, having been advised of what many members of the opposition had to say about pensions this afternoon, I thought it would be helpful if I dealt with the policy considerations underlying the proposals already adopted by the government and the proposals that we have formulated for the future approval of this House. When I read what many members of the opposition have to say about pensions and how they would treat them, there seems to be a continuing determination not to resolve the philosophy that they ultimately wish to adopt in this whole area. I am referring, of course, to their remarks with regard to the guaranteed annual income while at the same time talking about increasing universal payments to everyone irrespective of income. In its simplest terms, this seems to me to point up a contradiction and a failure to come to grips with the policy that can best be adopted to help those in need of assistance.
As many hon. members know, the reasoning behind our income security proposals to date has been based on three techniques designed to assist people, to provide for their security and to prevent them from living in circumstances of deprivation. First, of course, is our social insurance scheme. I am referring particularly, in the income security context of pensions today, to the Canada Pension Plan. This is contributed to by people in the work force for protection upon their retirement as well as the premature death of the breadwinner. We have orphan benefits and survivor benefits of this kind. These programs assure Canadians of additional protection.
Pension Increases
I do not think anyone would argue that no matter what technique we move to in the future, whether it be toward the guaranteed annual income or the annual income technique such as in the guaranteed income supplement, we will always require social insurance schemes like the Canada Pension Plan. This plan provides protection for those in the work force who are earning wages which mean they are well above the poverty level, but they must have the protection that in the unfortunate eventuality of the premature death of the breadwinner or the retirement of the wage earner they will not have to use up all their savings and then fall into poverty. They will always have this protection. Whether we have a guaranteed income or anything else for those in the lower income group, we will always require the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore I think we can safely put that policy on the shelf in terms of any tinkering around with it, but certainly we should consider improving it and recognize the necessity that it be continued.
The next technique we have for income security is the demogrant, the universal payment that we all know-the old age security, the $80 a month that many members of the opposition have spoken of today, and family allowances. The third technique we have in terms of dealing with income maintenance and income support programs is to combine these programs with social services. We are doing that under the Canada Assistance Plan. These are the three main elements. There is the social insurance that we have had in the past and will need in the future, the demogrant of old age security and FISP, and then social services.
I should like to deal with demogrants. As a government, we have obviously decided that in terms of bringing money to those who need it in waging a successful campaign against poverty we must change from making universal payments to everyone, irrespective of income, to a selective technique. We must have an income test-I call it a guaranteed income technique-applied to what was previously our universal demogrant program of old age security and family allowance. We are doing that now and we have done it with respect to our aged with some very beneficial results. These are the three main areas. Social insurance we are going to improve, demogrants we are changing to a more selective technique to get more hundreds of millions of dollars to those who need it, and a strengthening of services to those in need, under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Before getting down to specifics about what we are doing in each of these categories I should like to refer to the NDP position relative to pensions for our senior citizens. If I am correct, this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to the universal aspect of this question. Perhaps the New Democratic Party will have an opportunity to reply later this evening. However, it would seem that the hon. member would do away with the guaranteed income supplement as a technique to deal with our senior citizens. He would seem to say that we should follow the old age security route, the $80 a month that is paid to each of our senior citizens, and increase that to $150 a month applied across the board to some 1,700,000 Canadians. No matter whether they were in destitute circumstances or were millionaires, they would each get $150 a month.
1104

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
When you start making universal payments to everybody, for each $10 increase in old age security it costs an additional $200 million per year; that is, raising it from $80 to $90 adds $200 million, from $80 to $100 adds $400 million, and so on. It is easy to figure out what it would cost in one year to raise the old age security from $80 a month to $150 a month for everyone in this country who is entitled to it. If we brought in the necessary measures in terms of taxing people in order to obtain that additional revenue-we would presumably have to tax to get it because we are already running a deficit, as opposition members constantly remind us-what would be the position of hon. members opposite? Would they favour, in one fell swoop for this category of persons, an allocation of upward of $11 billion in one year, fully realizing that there are in this country many people other than our senior citizens who are in dire need? That does not seem to be a practical approach, especially since many people who argue that we should make universal payments talk at the same time about the guaranteed annual income.
I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not specifically refer to this in his speech this afternoon; I do not think he got around to the guaranteed annual income. Nevertheless, many people argue, in favour of universal payments being made regardless of income-and of course when you talk about $150 a month you are talking about an attractive package-and argue at the same time in favour of a guaranteed annual income. I ask, what do they mean when they talk about a guaranteed annual income in this country? That is a technique that one uses in order to bring into play the principle of selectivity so that you provide resources to those most in need. In essence, that is what the guaranteed income is, and in that case you apply an income test. You can arrive at it through a negative income tax or you can pay it out universally and get back what you have overpaid through the tax system, or you can apply an income test before the income is paid out, which in essence is what we do with the guaranteed income supplement.
Whichever way you go about it, and disregarding for a moment what you mean when you talk about a guaranteed annual income, there is no doubt at all that you will do this through a selective method because you will also determine in some way how to provide resources to people who need them most. So there is a blatant contradiction in the argument of people who advocate universal payments on the one hand and the guaranteed annual income on the other. I think such people should be forced to reconcile their positions. Which road do they want to travel?
I would seriously argue, and I do not think anyone who thinks about this will disagree with me, that we just do not have the resources to adopt the universal technique and cope adequately with poverty in this country. The white paper on income security that I brought out some time ago indicated that if we were to adopt the guaranteed annual income technique for all Canadians and provide them with an income even at the poverty levels recommended by the Economic Council, the cost would be
(Mr. Munro.]
between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion over and above what we are now spending.
Furthermore, roughly 30 per cent of the federal budget at present is being spent in this entire field. I point that out and ask those who talk in terms of universal payments and guaranteed annual income to come to grips with facts, because how can one reconcile the positions they have taken? Would they, for instance, recommend that upward of $1.5 billion of additional funds be spent on senior citizens and recommend as well that between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion be applied to other Canadians who need assistance? It seems to me that we are talking about staggering amounts of money.
One must remember, also, that the government is faced with criticism emanating from the Economic Council, various commissions and Senate committees which have gone into the question of poverty. Time after time we hear it said that a very great part of our resources is going into our income security system but that the money is not reaching those who need it most. People talk in terms of universal payments without at the same time explaining where we are to get the money. They talk about universal payments without at the same time indicating how they are prepared to reconcile that position with the guaranteed income technique.
Having said that, I should like to say that in this whole area, and especially in the area of the senior citizen, the government's record is one of which we can be justly proud. In 1957 the old age security pension was $56 a month. The Diefenbaker administration took over in 1957. That administration lasted to 1963. It raised the $56 to $65 per month. That represented an increase of $9 over a period of about six years.
When the Liberal government took over in 1963 the pension was $65 per month payable at age 70. We increased that amount considerably and brought in the guaranteed income supplement. In 1966 we introduced into the system an additional $30 per month through the guaranteed income supplement and brought in for the first time-no government up to that time had done this- the cost of living escalator of 2 per cent a year which was to be paid on top of the pension. Approximately one year ago we brought in the second biggest increase in the history of Canada in the guaranteed income supplement. We brought that $105 figure up to $135 for a single person and up to $255 per month for married senior citizens over the age of 65.
I might add that during this whole period we gradually lowered the eligible age from 70 to 65. I am advised, and I concur in this advice having done some research into income security systems for senior citizens in all other countries of the free world, that no plan of any country in the free world provides the protection for senior citizens that our plan provides for our senior citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I have not referred to the strengthening of services that we provide for our senior citizens through the Canada Assistance Plan. Many hon. members may be aware that under cost-sharing arrangement whereby we share 50-50 with provinces the costs of certain services we also share costs with respect to the provision of many
March 23, 1972

ancillary services for our senior citizens. Some of the provinces are providing drugs for our senior citizens, especially those on GIS. We are paying half those costs.
Many social and rehabilitative agencies throughout the country have been set up to help our senior citizens and we share in the cost of that service. We help in that area, to say nothing of the help we provide with hospitalization and medical care coverage. In that area we pay roughly 50 per cent of the cost to the provinces. Many of our senior citizens who are on GIS are supplied by certain provinces with hospitalization cards, with no premium required. I am talking about the provinces which cover their half of the costs through collecting premiums. As I say, we pay for half of these services. All these supplementary services are being made available to our senior citizens. I do not think any country does better than Canada in terms of assisting senior citizens. I have not mentioned the many millions of dollars-and these expenditures are increasing each year-spent on housing through Central Mortgage and Housing. In that way we are providing homes for our senior citizens throughout this country.
So when you look at the whole complex of policies designed to assist our senior citizens, I think the Canadian government and the people of Canada can justifiably be proud. We have evolved policies; we have shown originality in that field. Although we are spending in excess of $2 billion a year on our senior citizens, the money is well spent. Our older people are guaranteed a minimum income floor, and supplementary services made available through the Canada Assistance Plan are improving each year.
I also want to talk about the escalator aspect. When we gave all those receiving the guaranteed income supplement the right to an automatic 2 per cent escalation in pension payments, we achieved a breakthrough. Some members of the opposition thought so too. When people talk about people receiving $80 a month they are talking about those who receive only the old age security pension. If somebody receiving the old age security also qualifies for all or part of the guaranteed income supplement, the 2 per cent escalation applies to the whole amount, to the OAS portion as well as to the guaranteed income supplement portion. Approximately two-thirds or our senior citizens are receiving all or part of the guaranteed income supplement, thus two-thirds of them are receiving the 2 per cent escalation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not 55 per
cent?


John Carr Munro: Upward of two-thirds are receiving it. My figures indicate that almost one million citizens are receiving the guaranteed income supplement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister tabled figures on Monday showing that proportion to be 55 per cent.


John Carr Munro: We can argue about the figures later. When we talk about people not benefiting from an escalation feature tied in with the cost of living, I hope we realize that upward of one million Canadians who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement are receiving the escalation. The reason we arrived at the 2 per cent figure
Pension Increases
when it was brought in in 1966 is that when we looked at the history of the previous ten years we saw that the average cost of living increase was 1.5 per cent. I would also point out that if the cost of living should go up by more than 2 per cent in any particular year and the increase is only 2 per cent, if the cost of living increase should be less than 2 per cent in the succeeding year that short fall can be applied to pick up the overage from the previous year. It is proving to have the tendency to keep reasonably in line with increases in the cost of living.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have been waiting a long while for a gap.


John Carr Munro: I point out that in addition to this complex of policies for our senior citizens we have the Canada Pension Plan that was brought in by a Liberal government. We have recommended many changes that will improve considerably the protection of our people under the Canada Pension Plan which in many ways will be over and above the policies I have spoken of tonight. I wish to refer to some of them. We are talking about increasing the retirement benefits substantially for people covered by the Canada Pension Plan. One way of doing this is by raising the earnings ceilings.
We are talking about providing a benefit for the wife of a disabled pensioner, about providing benefits for the children of disabled pensioners, and a substantial improvement in the widow's pension. We are talking about substantial improvements across the board. It is a governmental declaration of intent. We are now meeting with the provinces with regard to improvements in the Canada Pension Plan. I hope that in the foreseeable future we can also come forward with meaningful changes in this area.
I wish to point out one other thing this government has recently done with regard to assistance for our senior citizens. As many members will recall, there was a special $500 exemption for those over 70 years of age. We increased that to $650 and lowered the age qualification for the exemption to 65 years of age in the recent tax changes. This means, in effect, that up to one million Canadians who are receiving all or part of the guaranteed income supplement because of their income bracket will not pay any tax at all. That accounts for a substantial number of the upward of one million Canadians who we removed from the tax rolls entirely as a result of the proposals of the former minister of finance.
There have been tremendous changes and improvements over the past few years to our guaranteed income supplement. This is protection for our aged. When you take that in conjunction with the Canada Pension Plan and the improvements that have been recommended, add to that the additional resources both human and financial that have gone into services for our senior citizens under the Canada Assistance Plan, and the financial policies in terms of removing a tremendous number of our senior citizens from the tax rolls, I think it is a record of which the government can be justly proud and for which we should make no apologies to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
25104-11),

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, over the years the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has sat in this House I have developed considerable affection for him. But that will not cause me to be diverted from the subject before us this evening. I listened to the minister bring forward a long series of red herrings such as the universal approach to old age pensions, the guaranteed annual income and various other benefits. However, none of these is the subject of this debate. The resolution which we are discussing reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government's failure to contribute to pensions, allowances and other benefits granted or administered by the government a yearly percentage increase corresponding to the percentage increase in the consumer price index for Canada.
What is referred to in the resolution is a very important and basic principle. When a government makes a commitment to individuals, that commitment should be honoured in the real value in which it was made and should not be discharged in debased coinage. That is what happens in a period of inflation. If you think about it for even a few moments you will realize that almost all government commitments are made in terms of absolute dollars. The result is that a commitment to pay a pension at any level, or any other commitment that is stated in dollars, has a decreasing value as inflation decreases the value of the dollar. Although the government may be adhering to the letter of its own law, it is not adhering to the spirit of the law.
The results in a period of inflation are as follows. Not only are the government's commitments to individuals almost invariably measured in an absolute number of dollars, but government receipts or expected receipts are almost always calculated in terms of percentage of income. What is the result of this? On the government's receipts side of the ledger, a period of inflation has the effect that basic exemptions in taxation are measured in absolute dollars. As inflation continues, the real value of those exemptions goes down, so that in terms of real value the tax burden imposed on individuals or corporations increases in absolute purchasing power without the legislation being changed at all. The government's take of the gross national product automatically increases.
On the other side of the ledger, the paying out side, the government discharges its commitments in what is in effect debased coinage at a much lower real value than that which existed when the commitment was made. The government benefits from this in a bookkeeping way because in a period of inflation the government's tax receipts go up but its commitments to pay out do not go up in the same proportion. It is in a position of affluence, so to speak.
The trouble with governments over the years, particularly this one and perhaps even more the previous one, has been that in a period of inflation or what may be called buoyancy they are well off as far as receipts are concerned. With regard to what they have to pay out, they become prodigal. They think of setting up more boards and studies and hiring more and more civil servants who are put to work at jobs that are ever decreasing in importance and benefit ratio to cost as far as the country as a whole is concerned. In those periods the overhead to be borne by government increases at a tremendous rate.

Then we encounter a period in which this trend disappears; the government is hard up and is forced to run a deficit to stimulate the economy. Surely this is a time when we ought to do our national business in a more scientific manner.
In present circumstances, every government has a vested interest in inflation for the reasons I have stated. If the value of the dollar decreases, it can discharge its obligations in cheap money. Surely this is wrong in principle. I am reminded of the story told about a medieval weaver who had a lot of cloth to sell. In those days the measure of a yard was the distance between the king's nose and his thumb when the arm was extended. It so happened that the heir apparent was a runt, so the weaver tried to kill the king in order that he could settle his obligations in short yards of cloth. This is the way in which this government and governments before it have operated. I think we ought to do better than that.
The resolution suggests, therefore, that when a government enters upon an obligation it should discharge that obligation in terms of the real value at the time it was made, and not in cheap dollars. The present practice of governments making commitments prior to a period of inflation and then discharging them as inflation decreases the value of the dollar is really an example of Indian-giv-ing. The administration brags about the goodies it handed out and soon afterward people find that the value of those goodies has shrunk to 80 per cent of what it was originally. The administration then brings it back to perhaps 90 per cent of the original value and then brags about its performance again.
Who suffers when the government pays off its obligations in cheap money? One such group includes the aged, because a lot of the aged are poor. The aged in Canada account for an appallingly large proportion of the poor. Thirty-two per cent of all families whose heads are aged between 65 and 69 are poor. Forty-nine per cent of all unattached individuals aged between 65 and 69 are poor. Sixty-seven per cent of all unattached individuals over the age of 70 are poor. These figures for 1969 are supplied by Statistics Canada.
Another group which suffers in these circumstances includes the veterans of our country. In 1919, when the basic value in real terms of veterans pensions was set, it was decided that it should be the equivalent of the wages of an unskilled worker in the civil service. Recently, members of our armed forces received a deserved raise in pay. Their pay was brought up to parity with that of the civil service. The pay of a private soldier was increased, retroactive to October 1, 1971, to $5,760 per year. Mr. Speaker, the basic rate of pension for a single pensioner is only $3,504. The differential is $2,256.
The Woods committee on veterans pensions recommended that the amount fixed for a 100 per cent pension should continue to be directly related to the earning power of a man in the class of an untrained labourer as determined by the average wage for this type of employment in the public service. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs approved this recommendation in its report to the House of Commons on June 22, 1970. A
March 23, 1972

sampling of public service pay scales indicates that the average basic pay of such employees as of October, 1971, was $4,551. So the basic pay of a veteran has fallen away behind this figure. I believe it is $3,504 at the present time.
This is a further illustration of the erosion over the years, due to a decrease in the value of the dollar, of a basic value which was established originally. When the disparity is made up, it is never made up entirely. In any case the adjustment is always made late and the value of the new scale begins to decrease almost immediately. Bearing these points in mind, I have great pleasure in supporting the motion criticizing the government for failing to recognize the principle, which is justice, nothing more.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, even briefly. I do not think anyone in this chamber is unaffected by the appeals we receive through the mail and personally from our constituents and others who live in this wonderful land but who are not sufficiently endowed with its worldly goods.
Responsibility for dividing the wealth of the nation rests upon the government, particularly with respect to the wealth which accrues to the treasury through taxation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has this evening presented to us the case for the government. The division he has outlined is a sensible one and one I can support-a division of resources between various programs which are directed mainly to those who are in greatest need. This, however, is but one point of view, I would suggest. I believe there are others which would bear investigation and I intend to come to them in a few moments. Before doing so I should like to refer to comments of previous speakers concerning veterans in general and Hong Kong veterans in particular.
In the case of Hong Kong veterans, Mr. Speaker, you will recall it was only a matter of a few months ago that this House agreed that the Hong Kong veterans were to be given special treatment in view of their disabilities and the treatment they suffered while prisoners of war. They have now been awarded a sufficiently large percentage of pension to ensure that their widows are given protection when they pass on. The widows of their comrades who have already passed on are, I believe, now better looked after than they were before. I think this has been a very great achievement which was not the result of the efforts of any one member of the House but of general agreement among all members of the veterans affairs committee. I think this has been a real step forward.
I was also pleased to receive in the mail this evening additional evidence of another step forward taken by the veterans affairs committee in the form of the decision in the first appeal presented to the Pension Appeals Board recently set up by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing). I am glad to say we are now seeing how the benefit of the doubt clause is being applied to those for whom it was designed.
As mentioned earlier by my hon. friend opposite, too many veterans are inadequately documented. Possibly the
Pension Increases
worst documented group, as I have told the House previously, are the veterans who served overseas. The best documented veteran in the world is the man who did not leave Canada or get far from his Canadian base. Therefore, my sympathies lie entirely with the badly documented veteran who saw service overseas, and I am very pleased that he now has the benefit of the additional protection that has been given him by this parliament. I think this has been another very great step forward taken by the House.
I should now like to come back to a final matter in connection with veterans affairs before I pass on, in the very few moments I have left, to the question of pensions generally. I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs as forcefully as I can-I think this lies within the ambit of this debate-the fact that domiciliary care for veterans is very much a federal problem. If provinces choose not to provide domiciliary care facilities for their older citizens, certainly for veterans, then I think this government-indeed, any government-as well as this House and the country have a responsibility to provide them. Recognizing this, I hope it will be one of the steps the new Minister of Veterans Affairs will take during his term of office. I also hope it will be one of the matters to which the veterans affairs committee will apply itself very diligently in the weeks ahead.
The matter is becoming a very pressing one. Veterans of the Second World War are requiring domiciliary care. They cannot get it from the provincial establishments and they cannot afford to obtain it privately. So where are they to go? That is a question which at the moment is unanswered and it can only be answered by this House.
In conclusion I wish to speak about pensions generally. I think we are all receiving letters from our constituents who find it a problem to make ends meet in these days of inflation. I should like to read one of these letters to the House. It arrived today and is written by someone who lives in Victoria whom I will not name. He writes:
-I wish to draw your attention to the situation of retired civil servants who are restricted to an annual pension increase of only 2 per cent at a time when those presently employed are being awarded 7 per cent, 8 per cent and even more each year.
If MPs. can claim $8,000 per year, and if employed personnel can prove a need for increases on their present high salaries, surely the need is much more obvious for those of us who reached retirement age when salaries were much lower.
The following is the most moving, Mr. Speaker:
As the present trend continues, each year reduces our standard of living and makes the prospect of growing old rather terrifying, which is hard to understand in this richly endowed land of ours.
If nothing better can be done, surely our Pensions should at least be tied onto a cost of living bonus, or failing this an increase in the old age pension somewhat better than 42 cents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, my time is short and I do not want to be cut off having not made my particular point, which is this. In my view the question of pensions is one which should be tied in, not to the cost of living index, because I do not think that is really adequate, but to the current pay of the position a person held when he retired. As I said to the minister earlier, this is another point of view. Expensive though it may be, it will be a cost on

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
private enterprise or on government enterprise. I think it essential that this step be undertaken, otherwise we shall continue receiving letters of the kind I just put on the record, the contents of which in my view are very justified.
I have a great feeling for elderly people, a large number of whom live in my riding. We are all growing older. I can understand what this correspondent means when he says that the prospect of growing old is rather terrifying. I can quite see his point about the effect inflation has had upon the income he tried to establish for himself for his retirement years.
There are many other letters I could read, and if I have time I should just like to read one other which demonstrates the point I have been trying to make, on the spur of the moment, perhaps not as adequately as I might have made it had I had time to prepare my speech. However, I have at least done my best.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You have done very well indeed.


David Walter Groos: The letter reads as follows:
I am a widow and receive the old age pension, $80 per month, but not the supplement.
Obviously, this letter comes from a lady who tried to set her house in order before she and her husband retired.
Had my husband, who, unfortunately, did not live to receive a pension, and I not worked extremely hard and saved so that in our older years we would have enough to get by and not be dependent on anyone for help, I am afraid life would have been very difficult indeed. With the cost of living going up as it does each year, and living on a fixed income, I am finding it increasingly hard to manage. Actually it is necessary to deprive myself of many necessary things in order to keep my independence and not be a burden on anyone.
This is someone I respect and admire.
Is it not possible to give the 65s and over some consideration so that we who are living on a fixed income can again have pride of place in the community.
I know my time is up, Mr. Speaker, because I can see you giving me the eye.


Mr. Rose:: Continue.


David Walter Groos: Therefore, I shall have to sit down in spite of the invitation from my hon. friend on the opposite side of the House to continue. I know the rules of this debate: my time is limited to 15 minutes. On the other hand I hope the words I have spoken will fall upon the receptive ears of the ministers concerned.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, first of all, I was very much impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos). I only wish the exigencies of our parliamentary procedure would enable him to put his vote where his convictions obviously lie, that is, in favour of the motion and the amendment, because I believe he made a most eloquent and moving plea for precisely what is in those documents. I shall not blame him if he yields to the general practice in this place of voting according to party, but certainly his remarks would be even more impressive if he joined those

who support the motion and the amendment because they are clearly in line with what he said.
I did not have the opportunity to hear the whole of the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), but I heard enough of it to note the tone of extreme complacency about the record of the government in this field. The minister said that he thinks the Canadian government has reason to be proud of what it has done for the old age pensioners. He said that the Canadian people have reason to be proud. I note that the minister is not in the House now, but perhaps he will read the record of this debate. I wish to give him some news. The government may be proud, but the people of Canada are not proud of the record in respect of what we have been able to do for our old age pensioners. They are disappointed. In fact, I am prepared to assert that nothing else the government has done or has failed to do has created more disillusionment in this country than its treatment of the old age pensioners.
I took the trouble to make a survey of opinion in my riding. I asked two questions which are relevant to this debate. A number of other questions were asked as well. I asked whether government old age pensions and old age assistance are to low. This is a very simple question. There were 562 answers to the question. There were 514 affirmative answers and 48 negative answers. So out of a sampling of nearly 600, the number of persons who believe old age pensions are too low is in the ratio of five to one. Then I thought that perhaps the people who answered this question might be interested because they themselves might be recipients of old age security or assistance. I asked if that was the case, and it turned out that only 90 persons were in that group and 411 were not.
If this sampling of opinion is sound, and I believe it is, I say that the vast majority of the Canadian people wish us to do more for our old age pensioners. Then I asked another question. These questions were under a number of headings. I asked: "How do you rate the performance of the federal Trudeau government in the following areas". The three choices I gave were "very good," "satisfactory" and "poor." Then I listed each area of performance of the federal government. In the area of security for senior citizens, 33 answered "very good", 158 answered "satisfactory" and 342 said "poor". I might say that some included other adjectives; some said "lousy" and some said "disgraceful". They expressed themselves very clearly in that way although they were not asked to do so in the questionnaire.
This sampling in my own constituency indicated that the performance of the government in that field has been poor. I suggest that the minister, instead of basking in the sort of complacency he exhibited today, should seek the opinion of his constituents and find out whether the performance of the government in this field is as good as he made it out to be.
I would have been perfectly content so far as this debate is concerned to have said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) expressed, as he has on a number of other occasions, precisely, eloquently and clearly the position I take on behalf of my constituents in respect of the old age pension and other forms of security. But, and I recognize that what I say may be purely repeti-
March 23, 1972

tive, there are too many in my constituency who are deeply and personally concerned with this matter to make it adequate for me to say merely that I repeat and accept the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, although I do wholeheartedly accept those views. There are too many people in my constituency who have worked hard all their lives, who have struggled to build their homes, who have struggled to bring up their families, who have contributed to this country and who find under the present situation that they are strained, that they are pressured, and in some cases are even starved because of the situation in which they now find themselves.
I should like to say I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in what I understood him to say, that is, we in this party believe a very minimum that should be done at this time is that which is set out in the motion we are debating. That motion asks that all pensions include an escalator clause corresponding to the increase in the cost of living. I would say that is indeed the very minimum we could ask for. Every time the cost of living increases and the escalator clause we have of 2 per cent does not equal the increasing cost of living, we are taking something away from the old age pensions that the Canadian people have promised to the older people of this country. We are depriving them of something to which, in my view, they are entitled. I do not think we should be satisfied with that sort of performance; I think it is inconsistent with the clear promises of the parliament, the party and the government which originally produced the plan, and it is unworthy of the Canadian people.
I accept the motion and I accept the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It deals with the failure of the government to raise to adequate levels the basic amount of all personal pensions, allowances and benefits. I share with my colleague surprise that the official opposition in its motion paid no heed to this particular problem. I share with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the belief that an increase to $150 a month for a single person and $300 a month for a married couple is not one dollar too much. I believe this country can afford it. The minister said it represents a colossal figure and extra taxation at a time of deficit. I remind the minister and members of the House that for 500,000 people who are receiving the full supplement at the moment the increase is only from $135 to $150 per person.
I also repeat, because it bears repeating, that those
500,000	people, because the supplement is so small, arrive at a position of complete destitution. For another 500,000 there is an increase from an average of about $125 to $150, and only for 700,000 is there an increase from $80 to $150. It seems to me that this is not only justice, this is not only the carrying out of contractual moral obligations to our older people; it would be a fillip to the economy. The effect of this would be expansionary at a time when we need expansion, and where could expansion be more justly and properly devoted than to relieving the hardships of the older people of this country?
I think it was in 1970 that the government froze the pensions of some 500,000 old age pensioners who did not receive the guaranteed income supplement at $80 a
Pension Increases
month. This increased pensions at that level by 42 cents a month. The government has done very little else that has done more to discredit them with the people of this country than that increase of 42 cents a month. This increase did not even reflect the increase in the cost of living up to that time. As for the cost of living which has risen and will rise in the future, no increase has been or will be made in that amount.
I say that this is contrary to the principle of universality adopted in 1950. The contract of the government has been broken. The principle for old age pensions as adopted was that pensions should escalate with the cost of living. That legislation and its continuance constitutes, in my view, a breach of faith. Ministers of government such as Miss LaMarsh, then minister of national health and welfare, Mr. Pearson, then prime minister, and Mr. Benson, then minister of finance, have stated from time to time that all future old age pensions should automatically be increased according to the increase in the cost of living. This pledge to our older people has been broken. I urge that old age pensions are not a matter of charity but a matter of right. Payments into the old age pension fund are partly out of the general revenue, it is true, but much of the amount is raised by the pensioners themselves through income tax and sales tax.
When this legislation was introduced, and since that time, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that the effect of the government's legislation was to take from the rich and pay to the poor. I suggest that that is not a fair description of what has happened. In fact, there has been a redistribution of poverty. Forty per cent of all those who receive the old age pension get no guaranteed income supplement and have no increase at all. Perhaps 10 per cent of them have substantial means but the other 30 per cent, amounting to half a million people, have incomes of between $3,500 and $4,000 a year. Are these the rich from whom more is to be taken in order to benefit the other people? I suggest that this is a complete mistake.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has repeated many times in the House that this party stands for a basic pension for all people over 65 years of $150 without any means or income test. We in this party do not propose to go back on that part of our policy. In fact, we wish to go forward and reduce the age at which old age pensions would be paid, thus distributing income at this time. I conclude by saying that we are anticipating an election fairly soon and I say to the government that they will be the ones to suffer if they allow the election to come on without changing their attitude, without adopting either the motion put forward by the official opposition or accepting the amendment of this party.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say something about the motion put forward by the official opposition. What the motion means, of course, is very simple to everyone in the House of Commons tonight, namely, that all Canadians on pensions are not getting enough money, particularly our senior citizens who are commonly called old age pensioners and those who spent a long time in the army and are now entitled to the war veterans allowance.
Other hon. members who have taken part in the debate referred to those who are fortunate enough to be on the

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
Canada Pension Plan, who receive widows allowances, family allowances, and so on. I do not think there is a single member in the House of Commons who would not agree that pensioners, whether they be old age pensioners, veteran pensioners or any other pensioners, should obtain more money. All of us accept that fact. When I look back over the years, and one does not have to go back too far, I realize that old age pensions in Canada were initiated on a means test at $20 a month. I remember when it was increased to $40 a month for pensioners who had reached the age of 70. That was within the last 25 years or thereabouts.
In those days our older people were the ones who, like our senior citizens of today, had helped to make Canada great. They were pleased and proud of the fact that what they had done in life was appreciated by the taxpayers of Canada and they were most happy to accept the $40 a month, which of course is a mere pittance when we think of what is being done today. I remember sitting in the Ontario legislature when the hon. Walter Harris sat on the government side as minister of finance in the House of Commons and on that budget night raised the old age pension given to persons at the age of 70 from $40 to $46 a month. I remember the sneers that greeted the statement of the minister of finance which were expressed in the press throughout Canada and by members of the opposition who said that he was simply not giving enough. On looking back, most people would agree with them.
What happened that members of the opposition, and indeed members of my own party, as my hon. friend to the left suggested, agreed that that was not enough? You may remember that we had an election. Our Conservative friends to the left-I certainly regard them as my friends-immediately raised the old age pension to the magnificent sum of $55 a month, and before they called another election they raised it to $65 a month for all Canadians, for the wealthy and the poor, at age 70. There were many of us-I was one of them and I am sure there are many such people on my side of the House-who agreed that it was nice to get a pension increase. It was a large sum, but let us look at the situation today. Hon. friends to my left are talking about a heaven; they are not talking about the old age pension as it is today or as it was yesterday. They have suggested that we have a heaven on earth but they have not suggested the figure that would be appropriate to the situation in Canada today.
I say with all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that if the government of Canada offered the old age pensioners $200 a month, the very next day hon. members to my left would be up in the House of Commons asking for $250 a month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friends to the left clap. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to them that we all want old age pensioners to get $250 a month, but we are realistic. We think of the sons and daughters of our senior citizens who have to pay taxes to raise huge sums of money so that the government of Canada can pay it out to our senior citizens. What is the situation now? What has changed from the time the Conservative party formed the government

of Canada? Members of the Conservative party are the very people who had the gall to stand up here today and say we are not giving enough to the pensioners, yet they sat here under the Conservative government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), a government which gave pensioners the magnificent sum of $65 per month on which they had to pay income tax-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -and that was at the age of 70.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Let us look calmly at this for a moment because I do not want to hurt my hon. friends to the left; I only want to tell them what is going on in the world. They gave the old age pensioner $65 a month at age 70, and today those in need in Canada at age 65, not 70, are getting $135 a month absolutely tax free.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Of course we want to give them more, Mr. Speaker. There is not one member of the Conservative party who does not want to give them more and there is not one member of the Liberal party who does not want to give them more. But give us a chance. We raised the pension from $112 to $135 this year. Next month, in April, it is going from $135 to $137, and the year after that when we are again returned to power we will raise it again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If hon. friends to my left want to be fair, and I know most of them are fair, they would say, "Let us raise it to $200. We know that when we were in power we gave them $65, and you people have done a good job by giving them $135." They would point out that this year the government of Canada, from the taxes paid by the ordinary citizen, is turning over $2,270 million to our senior citizens. Not bad, Mr. Speaker, I say. Of course, this money should go to them, because who made Canada great? I will tell you who made it great. It was our fathers and mothers and our grandfathers and grandmothers. It was the same people who made Canada great when the Conservatives were in power, yet they gave them only $65 a month at age 70. The Conservatives' argument that we are not giving enough will simply not be swallowed by our senior citizens. They will remember what the Conservatives gave them and they will tell the Conservatives, "You did not give us enough."
There are other things that we have given our senior citizens, that we have given my father and mother, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law. It wasn't until the year 1959 that we had a hospitalization insurance plan in Canada and it wasn't until a few years ago that we had a medicare plan in Canada. Let us look at things and how they really stand today with regard to hospitalization and medicare. This year the government of Canada is turning over to the provinces-quite rightly, and we say it with pride in our voices-$660 million in medicare payments and $950 million under the hospitalization plan. Some 15 years ago we did not turn over one cent for these purposes.
March 23, 1972

Where is this money going? It is not just going to the people who are 21 years of age and under. It is not just going to the people who are 35 years of age and under. For example, some of it is going to the senior citizens in the province of Ontario who as of January 1, 1972, just 60 days ago, do not have to pay one nickel for hospitalization or medical services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hales:: That is if a man doesn't make over $2,500.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If he is getting $135 a month he is not making $3,500, and he does not pay one nickel. I will tell you who promised that to them: it was the Tory party of the province of Ontario. There are many things we could discuss tonight, Mr. Speaker. I could emphasize once more that not enough has been done for our senior citizens. We all know that. We all want to do more for our fathers and mothers. In that respect we agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who if he had lived at the time of our Lord would have been the thirteenth disciple because he wants to give everything away. But you cannot give everything away. You have got to speak about reality. You have to remember that our sons and daughters are the people who have to pay the taxes. You have to remember that our sons and daughters want to give us much as they can, but there comes a time when they can only give so much and the people in Canada who work hard become tired of paying taxes.
I haven't the slightest doubt that when the next budget comes down every opposition member, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, will stand up and say that the government is charging the people of Canada too much in taxes.


An hon. Member:: Pitiful!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Somebody to my left says "Pitiful," but it is not pitiful for the senior citizens of Canada who have the highest old age pensions of any country in the world. I agree it is not enough but it is the highest anywhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I want to close by comparing the old age pension system here with the system in the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the world. For comparison I will take someone who lives in the great city of Detroit, a city of two or three million people, and someone who lives in a smaller but still great city, the city of Windsor in Canada. What happens to a man in Detroit who reaches the age of 65, who has no money and does not come under the American social security plan? I remind hon. members that 5 per cent of all Americans do not come under that plan. He goes on relief from the city of Detroit and from the state of Michigan. But a man aged 65 who has a wife and who lives in Windsor faces a different prospect. As of today he draws $255 a month and next month he will draw $260. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should be proud of that accomplishment.
Pension Increases
Anyone can criticize. Anyone can say "too little, too late". This afternoon I heard my hon. friend say, "I did not vote for the wage increase of Members of Parliament." Of course, he has the right to say that. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how did his party vote on that issue, and why was he not here to vote-


An hon. Member:: That was not the question.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If we are going to talk politics, let's put all the cards on the table.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I want to see the joker, and I saw one this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta).


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, it looks as though I have the honour of ending the debate tonight. Coming in after a rousing, arm-waving speech such as was just delivered by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), I am inclined to wonder what there is left to say. He seemed to paint a picture of a Utopia that does exist, so we need not do anything about it.


An hon. Member:: He was factual.


Jack Burnett Murta: I for one do not believe this to be true. I believe that the hon. member for Bruce may have overstated his case. I think that one of the greatest injustices that has occurred in the so-called just society that we have heard so much about since 1968 is that our old age pensioners have been treated so callously by this government. I think this is a fact that virtually everybody in the House realizes. The beating that inflation has dealt to retired people living on pensions is causing monumental problems to say the least. If any group of citizens ever had good reason to complain, I sincerely believe it is our senior citizens. Not only has our entire population seen their dollar shrink with inflation, but they have seen the standard of living of employed people going up. This is due not only to increased wages but to improved pension benefits for employees.
Mr. Speaker, an employee who retired in 1956 has suffered a 30 per cent loss in the purchasing power of his pension dollar while his younger counterpart has received a 35 per cent increase in the same period. In the various levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, pensions for retired civil servants have increased by as much as 40 per cent to replace the loss in purchasing power. This makes it difficult for the federal government, at whose doorstep the responsibility for inflation is ulti-
1112

March 23, 1972
Pension Increases
mately laid, to explain to the Canadian people, especially old age pensioners, why federal retirees get pension increases whilst nothing is done to replace the loss of purchasing power for the rest of the Canadian population.
I have some amazing facts that show just where Canada's poor people stand in terms of age. These are 1969 figures issued by Statistics Canada and show that aged people account for an appallingly large portion of Canada's poor. Where the head of the family is aged between 65 and 69,' 32.8 per cent are poor'; where the head of the family is aged 70 and over, 46.7 per cent are poor; 49 per cent of all unattached individuals aged 65 to 69 are poor, and an amazing 67.1 per cent of all unattached individuals aged 70 and over are below the poverty line. At the end of 1970, a monthly pension of $79.58 was payable to everyone age 65 and over who meets the residence requirements. A monthly supplement of $31.83 was payable to each pensioner who has no other source of income, and a partial supplement was payable to those with other incomes of less than $64 a month.
The white paper and subsequent legislation at the end of 1970 changed these arrangements. Effective April, 1971, old age security pensions were to be frozen at $80 with no annual cost of living increase, and the guaranteed income supplement was to range up to $55, single, or $95 for a married couple with an annual increase on a fiscal year basis instead of calendar year basis, as previously, of up to 2 per cent for cost of living increases. Calculations of the 2 per cent annual increase were to be made on the combined OAS and GIS total, not just on the GIS payment itself.
This means that people getting the old age pension plus the maximum guaranteed income supplement will be getting, starting April, 1972, $137.70 per month, single, and $260.10 for a married couple. This represents an increase of $2.70 per month, $32.40 per year, or less than nine cents per day for a single person, or an increase of $5.10 per month, $61.20 per year or less than 17 cents per day for a married couple. These annual increases of $2.70 per month, single, and $5.10 per month for a married couple do not accrue to everyone but only those getting the maximum GIS.
At the end of January, 1972, 672,960 old age pensioners were getting the maximum supplement and 110,176 old age pensioner couples were receiving the maximum supplement. This means that only 44.5 per cent of all old age pensioners at this time were getting the full supplement and, therefore, the full benefit of the 2 per cent cost of living escalator.
Taking it one step further, what if the Liberal government had in fact embarked on a just society in 1968 as it promised and, in line with such a goal, had arranged for old age security pensions and guaranteed income supplements to be increased yearly at a rate corresponding to the annual rise in the cost of living which the Progressive Conservative party has advocated in the past and which we are talking about in this debate? I contend that if such a plan had been instituted, the $75 OAS monthly pension and the GIS monthly payment of $30 in 1967 would have risen on January 1, 1968, by 3.6 per cent to $77.70 and $31.08 respectively. By January, 1972, the cumulative
[Mr. Murta.j
effect of these annual raises would have brought the OAS pension to $89.85 a month and the GIS to $58.81.
What does this mean in dollars and cents, in bread and butter terms for Canada's pensioners? I agree with the hon. member for Bruce who said that all members of the House are concerned about this matter. In 1972, Mr. Speaker, all recipients of the old age security pension would be receiving $9.85 more a month, or $118.20 per year, than they now receive. The cost of embarking on such a program would not have been prohibitive. You cannot talk about pie in the sky, as some members of the House tend to, because you must remember that the money must come from somewhere. Someone must pay and that someone is the taxpayer of Canada.
I contend that from January, 1968, to December, 1971, the revised old age security program would have cost altogether about $230 million, a load that the old age security fund could easily have borne. On December 31, 1971, the balance in the old age security fund was $636.1 million. In 1972, the cost would have been another $49 million or $50 million and the guaranteed income supplement changes would have only cost an extra $46 million in the four-year period between January, 1968, and December, 1971. There is no doubt that such a scheme if implemented would have benefited Canada's old people tremendously over that period.
I have tried to point out that the problem certainly is not insoluble. If an escalating factor of the kind I have talked about were added to the old age pension-and I think I have talked in realistic terms-the old age pensioners of whom we have spoken today would benefit greatly. This kind of escalation should not be given as a privilege, Mr. Speaker, but as a right. We must introduce legislation to give people this right. It is a right that should not be denied to anyone living in Canada.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I speak in support of the amendment to the motion. I listened to the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) with interest. I closed my eyes for a few moments and thought I heard, as he was speaking, the ghostly voice of the late Mackenzie King. In no sense of the word has the government dealt with the problems of the old age pensioners with merit. As one travels around Assiniboia one finds small communities in which people live in squalid conditions. They are old age pensioners. I think that the amendment deserves the support of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(10), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of supplementary estimates (B), interim supply and any bill or bills based thereon. The question is on the amendment to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That the supplementary estimates (B) of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1972, presented to the House March 7,1972, be concurred in.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-175, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public

service for the financial year ending March 31, 1972, be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-175, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1972, be read a second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I presume the President of the Treasury Board is prepared to give the House assurance that the bill is in the standard form?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That this House do concur in interim supply, as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $2,399,125,993.20 being the aggregate of-
(a)	Three-twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, laid before the House of Commons on February 23,1972, $2,224,679,688.75.
(b)	An additional eight-twelfths of the total amount of Consumer and Corporate Affairs item 25, relating to the Prices and Incomes Commission, (Schedule A) of the said estimates. $312,666.64.
(c)	An additional five-twelfths of the total amount of Finance item 20, relating to the Department of Insurance, and Treasury Board item 10 (Schedule B) of the said estimates, $26,150,416.65.
(d)	An additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Energy Mines and Resources item 25, relating to the Atomic Energy Control Board, Manpower and Immigration item 10, Transport items 40, 50 and 85 and Treasury Board item 5 (Schedule C) of the said estimates, $86,819,000.00.
(e)	An additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Finance item 5 and Manpower and Immigration item 5 (Schedule D) of the said estimates. $51,113,000.00.
(f)	An additional one-twelfth of the total amount of External Affairs item L40, relating to the Canadian International Development Agency, Indian Affairs and Northern Development item L60, Post Office item 5, Privy Council item 1, Secretary of State item 70, relating to the National Arts Centre Corporation,
Division
 NAYS Messrs:
Lajoie
Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldt)
Laniel
Leblanc (Laurier)
Legault
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacEachen Mcllraith McNulty Mahoney Marceau Marchand (Langelier)
Munro
Noel
Olson
Ouellet
Pelletier
Pepin
Portelance
Pringle
Reid
Richardson Roberts Robinson Rochon Roy (Laval)
Serre
Sharp
Smith
(Northumberland-
Mi'ramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford
Stewart (Cochrane)
Sulatycky
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudel
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Walker
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting
Yanakis-94.
March 23, 1972

Supply and Services item 10, and Transport items 65, relating to
the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, 90, relating to the Laurentian
Pilotage Authority, and 115, relating to the Pacific Pilotage
Authority, (Schedule E) of the said estimates, $10,051,221.16.
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending
March 31,1973.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill No. C-176, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1973, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-176, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1973, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Honey in the chair.
On clause 2-$2,399,125,993.20 granted for 1972-73.
Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may put a question to the President of the Treasury Board? Since this is interim supply, does the minister give the usual undertaking that the passing of this bill does not interfere with our rights to discuss these items?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is clearly understood, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Power to raise loan of $3,000,000,000 for public works and general purposes.
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
May I ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) whether he can assure us that in the near future we shall have the opportunity of discussing the $3 billion loan mentioned in clause 5, at an unknown interest rate?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that a final determination of the interest rate has been made in
Interim Supply
respect of this loan, but I suggest to the hon. gentleman that his question would be answerable in the committee studying the matter.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board, who apparently did not understand my question, when precisely shall we have an opportunity of discussing that matter? I understand that will be in committee, but in view of the current situation, when will this debate take place?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I believe I did understand the question, but I do not know exactly when committees will be sitting, specifically the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs committee.


Mr. Bell:: On another point of order, Mr. Chairman, I see that under clause 5 the limit is $3 billion which the Minister of Public Works cannot exceed. We all know that this is an election year. Would the President of the Treasury Board guarantee that the Minister of Public Works will not go over $3 billion?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please!


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedules A to E inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 24, 1972