1972-05-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts-Mr. Reid.
[Editor's note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in the two official languages copies of "Cannabis-A Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs."



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT BY PREMIER BOURASSA ON FEDERALISM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, under Standing Order 43, a motion concerning a matter of public interest.
Referring to the answer that the Prime Minister gave yesterday about a letter dated March 11, 1972 that he addressed to the Premier of Quebec concerning the suggestion of prior negotiations between both governments on any decision directly or indirectly involving the province of Quebec, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House in order to move, seconded by the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Blouin):
That the Prime Minister put on record the said correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Joliette under Standing Order 43.
This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion cannot be put since there is not unanimous consent.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave of the House to propose a motion concerning a very urgent and pressing matter arising from the continued deterioration of postal services. The urgency arises from the fact that the provincial government of Alberta has now been forced to enter into a contract with a private mail courier for service between the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. This move has been necessitated to improve communication between government departments which, through normal mail services, has degenerated to the point where departmental efficiency is seriously affected. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko):
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be instructed to immediately investigate into all aspects of mail delivery service throughout Canada and, in particular, the service between the cities of Edmonton and Calgary.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-212, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (rules).

May 17, 1972
Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable the representation commission to extend the variation in the rules that permits the 21 ridings in schedule III of the Canada Elections Act to be treated differently from other ridings. Instead of the 25 per cent variance now provided with regard to the population of these ridings, the representation commission would be entitled to depart from the electoral population quota to the extent of 50 per cent for the 21 large ridings in schedule III.


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

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

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount contributed (a) by employees (b) by the government to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the period April 1,1970 to March 31,1971?
2.	What was the total amount paid out of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account, during the period April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971, in the form of pension supplements and to how many individuals were such pension supplements paid at any time during that period?
3.	What was the balance at credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account as at March 31,1971?


Hon.   C.M. Drury@President of the Treasury Board: Table I of the Report on the Administration of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 as tabled in Parliament on March 29, 1972 is hereby presented in answer to all three parts of the question.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account 1970-71
Receipts
Contributions-Members of the Plans*	 $12,842,714.17
Matching Contribution-Government	 12,329,433.25
-Other	 521,074.39
Interest	 163,631.61
Total	 $25,856,853.42
Disbursements
Annuities**	 $19,056,718.94
Withdrawal of Contribution	 189,706.77
Net Transfer to Other Pension Funds	 23,788.49
Total	 $19,270,214.20
Excess of Receipts over Disbursements (Balance March 31, 1971)***

'Those making contributions include Members of Parliament, the Public Service, the Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
[DOT]'Numbers of individuals to whom these supplemental annuities were paid during the period was approximately 73,000.
[DOT][DOT][DOT]Since 1970-71 was the first year of the operation of the account, this figure is the total balance at credit at March 31, 1971.


CNR-PENSION FUNDS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money in the books of the pension funds of the Canadian National Railways as at (a) December 31,1969 (b) December 31, 1970 (c) December 31, 1971?
2.	What rate of interest was earned on these funds during (a) 1969 (b) 1970 (c) 1971?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to these funds during the years ending (a) December 31, 1969 (b) December 31, 1970 (c) December 31,1971?
4.	What amount of money was added to these funds from employee contributions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1969 (b) December 31,1970 (c) December 31,1971?
5.	What amount of money was added to these funds as regular or current contributions by the Canadian National Railways during the years ending (a) December 31, 1969 (b) December 31, 1970 (c) December 31,1971?
6.	What amount of money was added to these funds in any other way by the Canadian National Railways during the years ending (a) December 31, 1969 (b) December 31,1970 (c) December 31,1971?
7.	Is money owed to the above funds by the Canadian National Railways and, if so, how much and what arrangements are being made to meet such debt?
8.	What was the total amount paid out of the above funds in pensions during the years ending (a) December 31,1969 (b) December 31,1970 (c) December 31,1971?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	The total amounts of the investments, cash and other current assets in the books of the Pension Trust Funds were: As at 31 December 1969, $789,349,551; As at 31 December 1970, $818,203,051; As at 31 December 1971, $870,758,014.
2.	To calculate the yield we have used Statistics Canada formula and the information requested in Question (1) and (3). Under this formula, the investment is deemed to be: Opening Investments etc., plus closing Investments, etc. less Earnings. On this basis, the yield is: 1969, 5.61 per cent; 1970, 3.05 per cent; 1971, 5.55 per cent.
3.	Net earnings on investments of the Pension Trust Funds were: Year ended 31 December 1969, $41,835,484; Year ended 31 December 1970, $23,984,003; Year ended 31 December 1971, $45,103,796.
4.	The amount of money added to these funds from employees' contributions were:
Employees'
Contributions Refunds	Net

Year ended 31 December 1969 27,663,135 Year ended 31 December 1970 29,883,023 Yearended31 December 1971 36,848,878
4,759,081 22,904,054 4,533,904 25,349,119 6,196,345 30,652,533


5.	The amount added to these funds as regular or current contributions by Canadian National Railways was: Year ended December 31, 1969, $31,297,991; year ended December 31, 1970, $32,634,760; year ended December 31, 1971, $39,494,641.
6.	Payments by Canadian National Railways against the Unfunded Liabilities in accordance with the Pensions Benefits Standards Act: Year ended December 31, 1969, $326,422; year ended December 31, 1970; $600,152; year ended December 31, 1971, $2,326,714.
7.	As at December 31, 1971 Canadian National Railways owed the fund $2,681,944. This represents the normal monthly clearance paid off in January 1972 arising from Company and employee contributions less pensions paid and refunds.
8.	Total amounts of the pensions paid out of the Pension Trust Fund were: Year ended December 31,1969, $50,335,506; year ended December 31, 1970, $53,714,534; year ended December 31, 1971, $65,022,721.


CMHC-COMMITMENT FOR RICHMOND SQUARE HOUSING COMPLEX
Mr. Ryan: 1.	What was the total commitment of CMHC to the developers of the Richmond Square CMHC housing complex?
2.	What amount of the loan has been advanced?
3.	Are the mortgage payments in arrears and, if so, in what amount?
4.	For what reason has the part of the complex which does not appear to have settled not been completed and occupied?
5.	Has a decision been taken to condemn or demolish the project in whole or in part?
6.	What firms have been developing the project and are any of them in bankruptcy as a result of Richmond Square errors in planning, engineering and inspection?
7.	Is a lawsuit in progress with respect to the Richmond Square development and, if so, who are the plaintiffs and the defendants?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1.
The total commitment of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the Richmond Square housing project is $2,308,500.
2.	The total amount advanced on the loan to date is $1,324,681.14.
3.	The loan is not yet on repayment and mortgage payments are not, therefore, in arrears.
4.	The apartment building functions with common elements of heat, water, electricity and elevators. The faults that have caused part of the building to settle must be rectified before the sound part is completed and occupied.
5.	No.
6.	The project has been developed by Stanton Wright and Gino Bottero carrying on business in partnership under the firm name and style of Chesterfield Realty Limited. This firm, or its principals, are not in bankruptcy.
7.	An action was commenced on May 4, 1971, in the Supreme Court of Ontario by Chesterfield Realty Limit-
Questions
ed, as Plaintiffs, against Turland Construction Limited, J. T. Donald and Company Limited, and Jack N. Grosman.


COST OF ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the cost to date of constructing the St. Lawrence Seaway?
2.	Of the total cost, how much has been recovered by the federal treasury?
3.	What is the rate of interest charged by the federal government on the outstanding loans?
4.	What is the total amount of accumulated interest on the loans made by the federal government to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and what is the outstanding indebtedness of the Authority at the present time of both principal and interest?
5.	What were the total receipts of the Authority from tolls for each of the years since the Seaway has been in operation?
6.	Is it the intention of the federal government to alter, in any manner, the system of repayment of the outstanding obligations of the Seaway Authority?


Gérard Duquet: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
1.	Total Construction Cost to 31 December 1971.*	(000's $)
Montreal-Lake Ontario Section	 336,744
Welland Canal	 101,622
Welland By-Pass	 144,570
582,936
Includes interest during construction $36,431.
2.	None.
3.	Average Interest Rate applying to Outstanding Loans %
as at 31 December 1971	 4.5528
Interest bearing loans	
(000's $)	%Montreal-Lake Ontario Section	
337,900	4.3549Welland Section	
146,350	7.2652484,250	5.2345Interest free loans-Welland	
72,500	-556,750	4.55284.	(000's $)
Accumulated Interest
Total Acrued	Paid	Out- standing Interest	Out- standing Loans	Total Debt 31/12/71Montreal-Lake Ontario Section	214,294	133,147	81,147	337,900	419,047Welland Section	34,901	16,469	18,432	218,850	237,282249,195	149,616	99,579	556,750	656,329Includes interest during construction	36,431	17,999	18,432	
May 17, 1972
Questions
5.	Tolls and Lockage Charges
(000's $)
Montreal-
Lake Ontario	Welland	TotalSection	Canal	Receipts(Tolls)	(Charges)	1959	.... 7,105	1,224	8,3291960	.... 7,156	1,327	8,4831961	.... 8,086	1,462	9,5481962	.... 8,914	641	9,5551963	.... 10,730	-	10,7301964	.... 13,545	-	13,5451965	.... 15,481	-	15,4811966	.... 17,282	-	17,2821967	.... 16,356	926	17,2821968	.... 18,141	1,756	19,8971969	.... 15,636	2,502	18,1381970	.... 18,599	3,545	22,1441971	.... 20,041	4,347	24,388177,072	17,730	194,8026.	The government has under study the Seaway Authority's financial structure to determine whether its obligations should be changed to be in line with a realistic assessment of anticipated revenues. Although the Seaway Authority has, since 1959, returned over $115 million to the Federal Government, over and above operation and maintenance costs on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section, it has not been able to meet its total interest liability nor repay any portion of the original cost of construction. As a result of the shortfall in interest payments, the outstanding indebtedness of the Authority has risen to the point where it is no longer reasonable to expect that future toll revenues can meet the obligations of the Authority under its existing financial structure. In 1970, the U.S. Government revised the financial structure of the American counterpart to Canada's Seaway Authority, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, so as to require the Corporation to only cover annual operation and maintenance costs and repay the original capital costs of construction-accrued and future interest obligations were waived. This approach, along with other proposals, such as those contained in the Carr Report, present themselves as possibilities for altering the present system of repayment of the outstanding obligations of the Seaway Authority.


DARTMOUTH PUBLIC WHARF
Mr. Forreatall: With respect to the reply to Question No. 127 at page 1277 of Hansard dated November 18,1970 (a) what were the conclusions of the consulting firm's report (b) what recommendations have been received to date by the government from the management of Halifax Harbour (c) what action is contemplated in the immediate future?


Gérard Duquet: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: (a) The consulting firm's report was inconclusive as to whether the wharf should be demolished or repaired, (b) Decision on repair or demolition of Dartmouth Pier be deferred until completion of harbour resource study which is underway and expected to be completed by May 31, 1972. In the meantime the scrap metal and unsightly material have been removed from the wharf, (c) See (b).


ASSISTANCE UNDER PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, how many cash advances were made in the years (a) 1969-70 (b) 1970-71 (c) 1971-72?
2.	How many cash advances were declared in default in (a) 1970-71 (b) 1971-72?
3.	How many recipients were declared in default as a result of Section 13(c)?
4.	How many of those in default have made deliveries according to available quota?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. (a) 122,080; (b) 51,332; (c) 34,239 to May 8, 1972.
2.	(a) 13,000; (b) 13,500.
3.	11,000.
4.	The deliveries associated with these cases range over a three year period. The cost in terms of manpower and time to provide an answer to this part of the question is prohibitive. It is estimated by the Canadian Wheat Board that at least three man-hours would be required to examine each producer's delivery records for the three years to determine if every delivery opportunity had been utilized. The total requirement to investigate all defaulted advance payment accounts would exceed thirty thousand man-hours.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT-NOTICE OF DEFECTS IN VEHICLES
Mr. Mather: Has the Department of Transport required that auto makers recall and bear the cost of repairing vehicles with safety related defects and, if so, on what authority?


Gérard Duquet: Under section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act it is an offence for a manufacturer, distributor or importer to fail to give notice of any defect in the construction, design or functioning of a motor vehicle or its components that affects or is likely to affect the safe operation of the vehicle and of which he is aware. There are no specific requirements under federal law requiring a manufacturer to correct safety defects in vehicles or to bear the cost of such work.


COMPENSATION TO JAMES RICHARD CROSS
Mr. Godin: Has the government recognized the anguish and hardships endured by the British diplomat James Richard Cross during his detention by the FLQ and, if so (a) was an amount of money offered to Mr. Cross as compensation (b) is this amount being paid on a monthly basis or was it paid as a lump sum?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: (a) The anguish and the hardship suffered by Mr. Cross at the hands of the FLQ, and the courage with which he endured his terrifying experience, are indeed recognized by the Government of Canada as they are by Canadians. The calm discipline of Mr. Cross and the bravery of his wife and daughter during that

period attracted the admiration of persons throughout the country. This recognition and admiration has been communicated to Mr. and Mrs. Cross by the government but compensation in the form of money was not felt appropriate. None has therefore been offered by the government, (b) Not applicable.


WHEAT PAYMENTS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What was the total amount disbursed by the Wheat Board for final wheat payments for the 1970 crop year?
2.	How many producers received payments in each of the Prairie Provinces?
3.	In how many cases did the farmers receive no payment because the amount to which each was entitled was applied to the outstanding balance due by him as advanced payment?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. $74,456,984.
2.	Manitoba: 33,509; Saskatchewan: 132,281; Alberta: 47,987.
3.	5,706.


FAMILY ALLOWANCE PLAN
Mr. Robinson: Under the new family allowance plan, what steps is the government considering whereby an individual who is ineligible according to his previous year's income tax return but who has subsequently become unemployed may claim allowances?
Questions


John Carr Munro: A person who becomes unemployed may have entitlement to Family Income Security Plan benefits based on an estimate of the reduced family income.


CMHC PAYMENTS FOR PROJECTS IN WESTERN PART OF MONTREAL ISLAND, 1968-71
Mr. Trudel: 1.	What projects has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation financed in the constituency of Montreal-Bourassa since June 1968?
2.	What projects has CMHC subsidized through the Societe d'habitation du Quebec since June, 1968 in the constituency of Montreal-Bourassa and what were the amounts involved in each case?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1.
See table following. CMHC statistical data are not kept on the basis of federal electoral constituency, but are based on municipality, rural and urban, and on municipal county. The data in the attached table are, therefore, a close approximation to the constituency of Bourassa.
2. Subsidy payments made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to Quebec Housing Corporation for public housing projects have not yet included projects in the western part of Montreal Island. There are six projects with 705 units eligible for subsidy in that area.
Net NHA Activity in the Western Part of Montreal Island, 1968-1971
Montreal City, West Part1	Montreal North
Items	Loans	Units	Hostel Beds	$000	Loans	Units	Hostel Beds	$000Approved Lenders (Section 6)	
53	301	3,495	14	86	701CMHC Home-Owner and Rental (Section 58)	
5	4	_	-28*	165	182	2,321Low Rental (Section 15)	
5	145	497	6,767	4	799	104	9,571Public Housing (Section 43)	
5	520	-	6,828	1	185	-	2,567Total CMHC	
15	769	497	13,567	170	1,166	104	14,459TOTAL	
68	1,070	497	17,062	184	1,252	104	15,160
'North of the C.P.R. tracks and Outremont; west of D'Iberville St., Montreal North and the former St-Michel. !Reduction and cancellation of loans approved in a previous year.


FREIGHT TRAIN SCHEDULES TO RIVERTON, MANITOBA
Mr. Rowland: 1.	What is the scheduled frequency of freight trains to Riverton, Manitoba?
2.	If there is no scheduled frequency, what has been the average frequency per week of freight trains into Riverton over the past two years?
3.	Over the past two years, has Riverton been without a freight train for a period of one week and, if so, on how many occasions?
4.	Over the past two years, has Riverton been without a freight train for a period of more than one week and, if so, on how many occasions?


Gérard Duquet: 1. No regularly scheduled service.
2.	1.4
3.	Yes, 26 times.
4.	Yes, 16 times.


SASKATCHEWAN COMPANIES UNDER JURISDICTION OF LABOUR STANDARDS BRANCH
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	How many companies in the Province of Saskatchewan fall under the jurisdiction of the Labour Standards Branch of the Canada Department of Labour?
2.	How many such companies are there in the other provinces, excepting the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec if the figures are not readily available?

May 17, 1972
Questions


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: 1. Information is not available in this form. For administrative purposes, a list has been prepared of establishments in each province. The number in Saskatchewan is 3,105.
2. The number of establishments in the other provinces are as follows: British Columbia, 2,208; Alberta, 2,406; Manitoba, 1,899; Ontario, 6,390; Quebec, 5,174; New Brunswick, 551; Newfoundland, 288; Prince Edward Island, 179; Nova Scotia, 973.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-GUIDELINES FOR REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Does the Department of Transport have guidelines for regional distribution of funds allotted under its Main Estimates 1972-73 for major capital projects and, if so, what are they?
2.	Of the major capital projects (by location), has Saskatchewan been allotted only three tenths of one per cent of the total amount although its population is four per cent of Canada's total and, if so, for what reason?


Gérard Duquet: 1. No. The Department of Transport's capital budget as reflected in annual Estimates including those major projects identified in Main Estimates 1972-73 is based on execution of projects required to meet operational commitments.
2. As explained in (1) the major capital projects to be undertaken in 1972-73 in Saskatchewan or other provinces is not based on regional distribution of funds related to population but to operational priorities.


REGIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS BRANCH
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Is there an office of the Labour Standards Branch of the Department of Labour located in the Province of Saskatchewan and, if not, for what reason?
2.	How many business trips per month are made to Saskatchewan by personnel of the regional offices in Winnipeg and Edmonton to inspect companies under federal jurisdiction and how many trips are made to investigate complaints?
3.	Are there plans to open an office in Saskatchewan within the next five years?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. No.
The Labour Standards Branch was established in 1965, and based on available information it appeared that adequate coverage for the Prairie Provinces could be given from the Edmonton and Winnipeg offices.
2.	During the first quarter of 1972 three trips were made into Saskatchewan from our Edmonton office, while 8 trips were made into the province from our Winnipeg office. On each trip, complaints are investigated or routine inspections are carried out in the area covered by each trip.
3.	Not known at this time. However, the Labour Standards Branch is presently conducting a study to determine whether the boundaries of the regional offices should be altered or additional offices established.


CMHC-RENTAL SCALE FOR PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	On what date was the present rental scale for public housing units implemented by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	When is it expected to implement a new rental scale?
3.	What factors were considered in establishing the existing scale?
4.	What new factors are being considered?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1.
The present rental scale for public housing projects was implemented by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on April 21,1970.
2.	A date has not been established for the implementation of a new rental scale.
3.	The existing scale is based on the philosophy of relating rent to income, with the proportion increasing with higher income levels. A maximum rental of 25 per cent of income applies at the upper end of the scale. Other factors taken into consideration include family composition, patterns of family expenditures, changes in prices and incomes, working spouses, one-parent families, and the degree of services provided.
4.	A change from the basic philosophy of relating rent to income is not comtemplated.


LOW-INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many low-income public housing projects have been built in each province and how many self-contained units does each provide?
2.	What is the average size of each project?
3.	How many are over 10 units in size?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Public Housing Projects Financed Under the NHA, 1950-19711
Province	Federal-Provincial Rental Housing, 1950-1971 Section 40	Public Housing, 1965-1971 Section 43	Projects	Units	Hostel Beds	1000	Average No. of Units	No. of Projects with 10 Units +	Loans	Units	Hostel Beds	$000	Average No. of Units	No. of Projects with 10 Units +Nfld	... 13	1,179	15,662	91	13	8	335	6,124	42	8P.E.I	... 4	74	-	1,068	18	4	1	8	-	99	8	-N.S	. .. 37	3,101	-	38,328	84	36	27	451	-	5,945	17	25N.B	... 6	685	-	6,269	114	6	59	1,639	-	22,297	28	58Que	. 1	796	-	7,997	796	1	161	13,802	174	175,415	86	161Ont	... 75	6,599	-	65,041	88	75	592	48,079	734	635,969	81	588Man	... 3	568	-	7,203	189	3	84	4,695	80	54,876	56	79Sask	. .. 76	1,906	-	21.278	25	74	2	22	-	288	11	2

May 17, 1972

Questions
Public Housing Projects Financed Under the NHA, 1950-19711
Province	Federal-Provincial Rental Housing, 1950-1971 Section 40	Public Housing, 1965-1971 Section 43	Projects Units	Hostel Beds	woo	Average No. of Units	No. of Projects with 10 Units +	Loans	Units	Hostel Beds	$000	Average No. of Units	No. of Projects with 10 Units +Alb	... 15	838	57	10,875	56	15	50	1,998	28,149	40	24B.C	... 35	4,524	154	46,899	129	35	-	-	-	-	-	-N.W.T	... 9	151	-	2,667	17	6	-	-	-	-	-Y.T	... 1	40	-	643	40	1	-	-	-	-	-	-CANADA	... 275	20,461	211	223,930	74	269	984	71,029	988	929,162	72	945
'New and existing housing.


COST OF MARIJUANA PROJECT UNDERTAKEN AT CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. Peddle: 1.	What was the cost of the special project to grow marijuana undertaken on the Central Experimental Farm last summer?
2.	What was the purpose of the project?
3.	How many pounds of cannabis were harvested and for what purposes was this used?
4.	How much of the harvested cannabis was burned?
5.	How much of the product was stolen?
6.	Were any thieves apprehended?


John Carr Munro: 1. $21,000, from May to November 1971.
2.	(a) To have a supply of Canadian-grown standardized cannabis available for research purposes in Canada. (This is one of the recommendations of the "Interim Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs".), (b) To determine the botanical and chemical characteristics of a number of different strains of cannabis from different geographical locations, with particular reference to wild cannabis strains found in Canada.
3.	Total harvested and manicured cannabis is 602 pounds. (300 pounds of male plant material and 302 pounds of female plant material). The cannabis has now been standardized, and research into the chemical and botanical characteristics is underway.
4.	Total cannabis burned: 12,700 pounds. This includes all the fibrous stocks and inferior cannabis plant material not required for research purposes.
5.	Seven plants, non-drug strain, lost.
6.	Yes.


NEAR COLLISION OF NEWFOUNDLAND TRAWLER &quot;ZONNEMAIRE&quot; WITH RUSSIAN SHIP
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to raise at the next meeting of the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries in June 1972 the question of the reported near collision of the Newfoundland trawler Zonnemaire by a Russian ship?
2.	Were Canadian fisheries officers refused permission to board the Russian factory ship involved in the incident?
3.	Have officials of the Department of the Environment investigated the charge that powerful spotlights from the Soviet ship curtailed vision by officers and men of the trawler Zonnemaire?
4. What steps are being taken by the Government of Canada to avoid such incidents in the future?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: 1. The matter will be discussed between the Canadian and USSR representatives attending the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) Meeting in Washington, D.C. during the period May 25-June 2, 1972, with a view to reaching agreement on procedures which should avoid such incidents in the future.
2.	Upon receipt of the message suggesting discussion at ICNAF, the Canadian fishery officers did not request permission to board the Soviet factory ship.
3.	Officials of the Department of the Environment have investigated the incident and have been unable to establish intent on the part of the Soviet vessel to curtail by searchlights the vision of officers and men of the trawler Zonnemaire.
4.	See reply to No. 1.


CMHC LOANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES FOR THE AGED IN KAMOURASKA
Mr. Dionne: What were the amounts of loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction of homes for the aged each year 1965 to 1972 in the constituency of Kamouraska?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In 1967 CMHC financed one project for housing elderly persons in Kamouraska County for $464,000, providing four housing units and 68 hostel beds, and one project in L'lslet County for $256,185, providing four housing units and 32 hostel beds. In 1970, CMHC financed two projects for elderly persons in L'lslet County for $532,000, providing 76 hostel beds. CMHC statistical data are maintained on the basis of municipality, rural or urban, and municipal county.


CMHC LOANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES FOR THE AGED AT ST. EUGENE AND STE. PERPflTUE
Mr. Dionne: What were the amounts of loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction of homes for the aged in the communities of St. Eugene (Lamartine) and Ste. Perpetue (Kamouraska county) for each year 1965 to 1972?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation assisted in the financing of a home for elderly persons in St. Eugene

Questions
municipal county of L'lslet, in 1970 in the. amount of $266,000, providing 38 hostel beds. CMHC also assisted in financing a home for elderly persons in Ste. Perpetue, municipal county of L'lslet, in 1970 in the amount of $266,000, providing 38 hostel beds.


AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN HOURLY BASE RATES
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Does the Department of Labour compute "Average Annual Percentage Increases in Hourly Base Rates for Negotiating Units of 500 or More Employees Excluding Construction" (a) under Treasury Board jurisdiction (b) under Part V of the Canada Labour Code jurisdiction (c) under provincial jurisdiction (d) for all contracts and, if so, what are the simple average annual percentage increases for each category for the years 1968,1969, 1970 and 1971?


Abram Ernest Epp: (a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) yes; (d) See annex following.
Average Annual Percentage Increase in Hourly Base Rates for Negotiating Units of 500 or More Employees Excluding Construction by Jurisdiction All Contracts Settled in Any Given Year
1968	1969	1970	1971	Jurisdiction	No. of Agts.	No. of Empls.	Average Annual % Increase Simple	No. of Agts.	No. of Empls.	Average Annual % Increase Simple	No. of Agts.	No. of Empls.	Average Annual % Increase Simple	No. of Agts.	No. of Empls.	Average Annual % Increase SimpleProvincial	267	465,840	8.4	262	513,885	8.5	262	451,645	9.2	268	370,025	8.8Federal	49	267,705	7.2	89	284,180	7.0	41	128,735	7.6	67	282,505	7.5Treasury Board	16	117,055	7.3	61	177,370	6.4	17	78,770	7.3	35	113,305	7.0Labour Code-Part 5	33	150,650	7.2	28	106,810	7.9	24	49,965	8.1	32	169,200	7.9All Contracts	316	733,545	8.0	351	798,065	8.0	303	580,380	8.8	335	652,530	8.2


GRANTS UNDER THE BLUEBERRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. McGrath: What are the names of the recipients, by province, of grants under the blueberry producer assistance program by the Agricultural Stabilization Board?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: As of April 28, 1972, the following number of claims had been paid to eligible blueberry producers under the Fresh Blueberry Stabilization Order:
	Number of
Province	Claims
Newfoundland	209
Prince Edward Island	15
Nova Scotia	436
New Brunswick	116
Quebec	545
British Columbia	165
	1,486
The actual names of recipients is considered to be confidential information.


CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to establishing a Parliamentary committee to concern itself with national capital matters?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: No.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 57 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND INDIANS REGARDING JAMES BAY DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all papers including correspondence between any Indian band, provincial or national Indian organizations and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and/or any officials in his Department regarding the James Bay Development.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 10, 33, 44 and 51.


COPY OF STUDY BY DAVID WILLIAMSON, REGARDING THE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE SKILL DIGIT LEVELS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by David Williamson, Ottawa, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis to determine skill digit levels for all of the occupations listed in the Occupational Demand Guide".
[Mr. Basford.)
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Mr. David Williamson's work was part of an ongoing internal departmental appraisal in the assessment of the skill ratings of occupations used as one of the selection factors in evaluating applicants for immigration to Canada. Since no formal report was prepared, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, since no formal report was prepared I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


REPORT BY OPERATION INDUSTRIES FOR DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION, 1967-68, RELATING TO MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Operations Research Industries, a study and recommendations on the design of a management-information system supporting the departmental planning, programming and budgeting system, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the report requested was prepared by a private firm of consultants for the department in 1967-68, and it contains matters confidential to the department. I regret it cannot be tabled and I would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, it took a long time to find that out. I call for the question.


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COPY OF REPORT ON LOW COST HOUSING BY PROFESSOR MELVIN CHARNEY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for the tabling of the Report on Low Cost Housing prepared by Professor Melvin Char-ney for a task force on low cost housing appointed by the Minister of Urban Affairs.
Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the report referred to was one of the background papers prepared for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as part of the study of low-income housing. The final report on this study of low-income housing is now being prepared and will be presented to CMHC at an early date, at which time a decision about publication will be made. On that basis I ask the hon. member to consider withdrawing his motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, since there are usually substantial differences between final reports and studies made, I cannot agree to that suggestion. I think the people
25316-25?,
Motions for Papers
of Canada are entitled to all the information contained in all these studies.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Question!


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO SECOND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN ONTARIO
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51-Mr. Howe:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, special study reports between the Government of Canada or any department thereof and the Government of the Province of Ontario relating to the question of the second international airport in the Province of Ontario.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government subject to the reservations which were discussed with the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the wish of the House that notice of motion No. 51 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: On a point of order, Mr. Soeaker, may I refer to notice of motion No. 40 which has been on the order paper since March 13. Could the Secretary of State not supply some of this information, if not all, because much of it was published more than a month and a half ago?


Mr. Speaker:: While the matter is being considered, perhaps the Chair might recognize the hon. member for Regina East on a point of order.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the parliamentary secretary to look into notice of motion No. 18 which was filed on February 24 of this year. We still have no response from the government. I suggest that it is a clear infringement of the rights of hon. members when the government refuses to acknowledge these motions and take some action on them, it is a clear infringement of members' rights. I think we have the right to expect a more prompt response from the government.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, at the hon. member's request last week, I looked into notice of motion No. 18. We have made progress in preparing the reply and would expect to be able to table the reply very soon.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, someone has just accused me of having an English accent; I do not think that is correct. Could I be told when the documents sought in motion no. 15 will be supplied? This request is for applica-

May 17, 1972
Motions for Papers
tion forms, photographs and letters leading to the issuance of passports to Yves Geoffroy and Carmen Parent. The motion has been on the order paper since February 24.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have the hon. member back from a parliamentary course in London. We will look into the matter.


An hon. Member:: He is the only one who failed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that not all hon. members will want to rise about motions on the order paper. I see that three or four hon. members seek the recognition of the Chair. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to repeat my inquiry regarding question No. 305, which the parliamentary secretary said he would look into.


James Alexander Jerome: We looked into question No. 305, Your Honour, and expect to be prepared to answer it next week.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the parliamentary secretary about motion No. 42 which simply calls for the tabling of a single document. The motion has been on the order paper since March 15 and the parliamentary secretary said he would look into the matter. I wonder if he has any report to make.


James Alexander Jerome: We will do it, Your Honour.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he can tell me when question No. 240, standing in my name on the order paper since March 1, will be answered. It deals with a straightforward, uncontroversial question regarding the unit train experiment. When may I expect an answer?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of the number and will comment next Wednesday.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I refer again to questions 255 and 278, of March 2 and March 6. Has any progress been made on them?


James Alexander Jerome: I have made a note of them.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the order paper, No. 425, asking for perfectly harmless information about financial assistance to some 95 corporations in Canada. Since we may have an election before long, I wonder whether steps can be taken so that I may get an answer soon?


James Alexander Jerome: I will make a note of that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the report on cannabis that he tabled a few minutes ago. Specifically, what is the position of the government with regard to the recommendation of the commission that the prohibition against the simple possession of cannabis should be repealed?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the government has, through me, just received the report from the commission this morning and we have not had a chance to consider it yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the minister's great interest in this whole subject and the length of time during which these questions have been before the government and the people for consideration, when will the minister be making a statement in the House with regard to the government's position on these recommendations?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will have a chance to study the report and consider it very seriously. It has very serious implications in terms of a social problem in Canada of tremendous concern. As soon as we have gone through that process, I am sure an announcement will be made. I would not want to leave the impression, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, that a great deal has not been done by the government to combat this problem. That is far from the truth.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the minister has a guilty conscience because I made no reference to that at all. When is the minister going to stop horsing around with regard to this report and make a statement on the government's position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway on a supplementary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, listening to the Minister of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was rising on a supplementary.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: It is not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the way he seems to vacillate. Will he now make a clearcut statement and advise the House whether he will be prepared, after studying the report, to make a
May 17, 1972

statement in the House on this subject and, in particular, set out whether he is in favour of the majority report or the minority report?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, we will carry on with as constructive action as we can as a government to combat this problem. When we have had a chance to study the report we will take the appropriate policy decisions amd make them known at that time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is it the minister's intention to leave this matter until after the election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LE DAIN COMMISSION REPORT ON CANNABIS-POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it the intention of the minister to refer the report to the appropriate committee for study and report to the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as to the procedure as well as the decision of the government on the substance of the report, I again indicate that we just received the report this morning and it is premature to make any declaration at this time. As soon as we have had a look at it and have discussed the matter, perhaps we can then offer greater clarification.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that cannabis was grown at the experimental farm for research purposes and that research is presently being carried out, can the minister tell us whether he intends to make a policy announcement prior to the completion of these experiments or is he going to consider this aspect in addition to the report?


John Carr Munro: Sufficient marijuana was grown for necessary experimental purposes on the experimental farm last year to make it unnecessary to repeat the operation.


An hon. Member:: Is any left over?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Having regard to the fact that between April, 1971 and April, 1972, the cost of food used in the home rose by twice as much as the cost of living generally, will the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the government has measures in hand designed to help low-income consumers?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken many measures of particu-
Inquiries of the Ministry
lar interest to low-income families, the aged and the disabled. I think the hon. lady will agree that this should be our first priority.


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the fact that only two groups of people benefited from the budget-the aged and fulltime students-would the Acting Prime Minister urge upon the government the necessity of convening immediately the joint parliamentary committee on prices to go into this matter of rising food prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Winona Grace MacInnis: What are we to say when we go out to talk to low-income people who are desperate?


Mr. Baldwin:: Tell them to wait until election day.


ALLEGED INCREASE IN PROFITS OF SAFEWAY AND GEORGE WESTON-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Bearing in mind the excessive profits made by many of the food companies, such as Safeway and Weston, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether he will cause these excessive profits to be investigated and instruct these companies to roll back their prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not the intention of the government. The profits of these companies are taxed under the laws of Canada as approved by this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall return to the hon. member in a short while but I am anxious that we should complete the first round of questioning.


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Finance Minister, but, as he is absent, I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
As there is some question of an international monetary reform through consultations and co-operation between countries, would the minister tell the House if the drawing rights will be accepted as a priority process to stabilize the balance of payments between countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these supplementary drawing rights have proved to be a very useful supplement to international liquidity. They will be continued. I believe they are being established as equivalent to gold.


Henry P. Latulippe: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

May 17, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the minister also tell us if member countries have adopted a definite plan of action geared to monetary reform, or if they prefer to keep the dollar as a reserve currency?


Mitchell William Sharp: The whole subject of international monetary reform is under most active study at the present time. It was under the Group of Ten, and I believe the group will be enlarged to become a group of 20. Canada is one of the countries which hopes that these consultations will be successful.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
It was announced recently that the minister would meet with the Quebec premier about the James Bay Indians' claims. We learned later that the meeting had been postponed. Could the hon. minister tell the House when he intends to meet the Quebec premier and what will be his main subject of discussion in supporting the interests of the James Bay Indians?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I had the opportunity of conversing with Quebec Premier Bou-rassa. He told me that he had to postpone the meeting. I do not know whether the new meeting will take place Friday or next week. We were able to discuss over the phone his intention of having work begin immediately in the Grande-Riviere area only, which will indeed reduce the number of Indians who will be affected. I hope we will discuss that problem and the situation of the James Bay Indians at the next meeting that will take place on Friday or early next week.


Martial Asselin: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In the light of those conversations with the Quebec premier, is there anything indicating that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would not give his support to the Indian people who want to lodge an appeal before the court in that case?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no indication of that. I said that I would help Indians at any time because it is my duty to do so, but I am happy to see now that because the Quebec government has decided to start working projects solely in the Grande-Riviere region only one third of the Indians involved will be affected.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.


DISCUSSION OF TREATY RIGHTS BY MINISTER WITH NORTHWEST TERRITORIES NATIVES IN LIGHT OF MACKENZIE HIGHWAY PROJECT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Is the minister negotiating with the Indian Brotherhood in the Northwest Territories regarding native rights, particularly in connection with the proposed highway, and has he made a specific proposal in cash terms, say something of the order of $42 million?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in January to meet with the representatives of the Northwest Territories Indian Brotherhood. We talked about that problem. I told them that the policy of this government was to see that treaties are respected and that if Indians wanted to choose their lands we intended to abide by the treaties. So far the Indians have not seen fit to proceed in this way. Like the Leader of the Opposition I saw the newspapers this morning but I have not yet received any official message from Mr. Wahshee.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND YUKON-INQUIRY AS TO CASH OFFER TO SETTLE ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister made any offer to the brotherhood in the Yukon territory or in the Northwest Territories of a specific cash settlement for the extinguishment of aboriginal rights, including treaties 8 and 11?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-CO-OPERATION BETWEEN OTTAWA AND QUEBEC
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development give the House an assurance that his department will provide all possible co-operation to the province of Quebec to ensure the realization of the James Bay development project?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is to the Indians living in the James Bay area, and I have given them the assurance that I will do the utmost to help them benefit to the maximum from the development of the James Bay area, and this without their usual way of life being too much affected.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister arising out of the presentation of a petition on behalf of 60 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member.

Is the hon. member for Abitibi rising on a question of privilege?


Gérard Laprise: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I requested permission to ask a supplementary question to that of my colleague from Charlevoix on the James Bay hydroelectric project and as this project will be carried out in my riding, I suggest that I have a right to this information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall be happy to recognize the hon. member in a moment. For the time being, the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Yukon. As soon as we have disposed of the hon. member's question and the supplementaries that may be asked, I shall be happy to get back to the previous question and to recognize the hon. member for Abitibi.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister arising out of the presentation to the Governor General last Monday of a petition signed by 60 per cent of those eligible to vote in the last federal election in the Yukon asking for dissolution of the present session of the Yukon Territorial Council and the holding of immediate elections. Have the Acting Prime Minister and the government considered that petition and, if so, what action does the government intend to take?


Mitchell William Sharp: To my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the matter has not yet been discussed by the government.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since under the provisions of the Yukon Act the Governor in Council has the power to dissolve the council and instruct that new elections be called, is it his intention to advise his colleagues in the Privy Council to follow the request made by 60 per cent of the eligible voters in the Yukon, dissolve the council and call a new election?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not received officially a request signed by Yukon citizens, but may I be allowed to say at this time that The Yukon Territory Act provides for elections every four years. If the majority of
Inquiries of the Ministry
the inhabitants of the Yukon are displeased with the elected candidates they can do what all voters do in a democracy: that is, change elected representatives in the next election.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that 60 per cent of the eligible voters can hardly be called a minority. In the copy of the letter that I received from Democracy for Yukoners it is indicated that not only the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition but also the minister himself received a copy of the petition. I wonder whether he would make inquiries of his officials forthwith and advise the House, perhaps tomorrow, of what action he intends to take?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very much surprised that the Yukon delegation did not go to the trouble of meeting me. I was not even asked to meet them. I therefore have a feeling there is more interest in playing politics than in being serious.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi on a supplementary to the question put a moment ago.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to retain a bad impression because of the reply the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave a little while ago, when he said that the Grande-Riviere project, which was announced last night by the Premier of Quebec, would involve only one third of the Indians of the area.
Did the hon. minister mean that this one-third of the Indians of the northern part of the James Bay basin is less important that the two-thirds of the Indians of the southern part?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, that third is not less important, but nevertheless it is easier to deal with one-third of the Indian population of that area than with
6,000	Indians. It is my intention to protect those 2,000 Indians, just as I intended to protect the 6,000.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and arises out of the information conveyed to the House by the hon. member for Vegreville with respect to the deteriorating postal situation in Alberta and the negative response

Inquiries of the Ministry
of the postal unions to the recent offer of the Treasury Board in the current negotiations. When will the minister be making a statement in the House on these matters in an effort to cast some kindly light on a darkening situation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (president of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can rise to the poetic heights achieved in the question, but I would say that when casting light will help achieve useful results, it will be cast.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I shall address to the Acting Prime Minister, or perhaps the President of the Treasury Board would convey my message to him. Will he make a statement on these matters in view of their urgency, as illustrated by the fact that a provincial government has found it necessary to establish its own courier service?


INQUIRY AS TO WHEN LEGISLATION ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISING WILL BE PROCEEDED WITH
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare that is related to earlier questions in regard to one aspect of the drug problem in Canada and what the government may be intending to do about it. Can the minister indicate when he intends to proceed with the legislation he introduced last year calling for an end to all the disease-promoting cigarette advertising in Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this depends entirely on the progress we make in respect of current pending legislation before the House. As the hon. member knows, we already have under consideration not only the old age pension legislation but the legislation affecting family allowances which is pending before the standing committee.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wished to direct to the Prime Minister but in his absence I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he advise the House whether the Prime Minister has yet screwed up enough courage to call a general election by the end of this week-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -or does he still intend to cling to office and continue not to face issues such as unemployment and inflation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is entirely out of order, and I think he owes the Chair some respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


George Harris Hees: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


George Harris Hees: Quiet, please. If the noisy rabble on your right would not make such a deafening din, Mr. Speaker, we on your left could hear Your Honour when you get to your feet and call for order and obey your instructions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will certainly not pursue the matter. The hon. member normally co-operates with the Chair, but when he asks this kind of question I cannot help but notice that he looks the other way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: There has been a request that I repeat the question because of the noise.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could come back at the time of adjournement.


George Harris Hees: Thank you.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. In view of the fact that Dominion Stores has reported an increase in its profits for 1971 of some 300 per cent over the previous year, with a similar increase for the first quarter of this year, indicating that the increase in the price of food is not necessarily related to the increase in the cost of food, I should like to ask whether the government has any intention of having an investigation made by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs into the increase in the price of food to determine whether these increases are justified or represent exorbitant profiteering?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if there is any evidence that these prices have risen because of a lack of competiton in the system there is provision for remedy, and of course the minister and the agency responsible would make the necessary investigations. But if it is a question of some businesses being more profitable than others, I think the hon. gentleman would agree that this happens from time to time and that at

some times profits are lower while at other times they are higher.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that practically all the large chain stores have shown very substantial increases in their net profits, will the Acting Prime Minister undertake on behalf of the government to have the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs look into this matter to determine whether there is an absence of competition or collusion between food stores in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. That is what I said in my first reply.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the high hopes of many fishermen in Atlantic Canada concerning a conservation program to be established at the next Law of the Sea Conference, will the minister indicate whether he has had recent consultations with the other countries involved and whether a date has yet been set for this important conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been holding consultations about the Law of the Sea Conference. We are still very interested in having it proceed as was originally envisaged, and that is the purpose of our interventions. Whether we shall succeed, of course, is not entirely within our control.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to one I directed a few days ago to the President of the Treasury Board regarding a Public Service competition held in the Cape Breton area to fill positions that may occur in the next year in Sydney and North Sydney. As we all know, these eligibility lists are good for a period of one year. I have information to the effect that those who qualified in this competition, numbering in all 20-odd, have now or will be advised that as of June 15 their chances will be gone and the positions will be filled by those who qualified in a previous competition requiring bilingualism. I should like to repeat my question of the other day. Will the minister enlighten us on this subject and advise us what we can tell these men who have already qualified but who are not going to get the opportunity of filling these positions in the Public Service?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did cause an inquiry to be made. As the hon. gentleman knows, the establishment of this list and the competition is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission, not that of the government, as administrator. The Public Service Commission assured me it would investigate this story from Halifax and make a report. I have not yet received it.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the problem is not in Halifax but in Cape Breton, particularly in Sydney and Sydney Mines, will the minister assure us that these 20-odd people will not be discriminated against by not receiving employment because of the fact they are unable to speak two languages?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I can give assurance that there will be no discrimination, but I would rather wait until such time as the Public Service Commission reports before making any kind of statement.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.

I should like to ask the minister to advise the House whether the Saskatchewan bill prohibiting the ownership of farm land by other Canadians and foreigners has been brought to his attention and, if so, has he received advice about its constitutionality?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the bill has indeed been brought to my attention and I have sought comment on its constitutional validity. Although it is only in the bill stage, it does seem to me that if it is not unconstitutional it ought to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the minister say he is looking into the constitutionality of a bill that has not yet been passed. It has been put over until the next session, as I understand it. It is a bill against ownership of farm lands in Saskatchewan by "foreigners" which includes all the rest of the people in Canada who do not live in Saskatchewan. In view of the fact the government of Saskatchewan is asking for representations to be made concerning this bill, will the minister, as the custodian of the judicial conscience of Canada, bring to the attention of the government of Saskatchewan the fact that this type of legislation is most disruptive and entirely out of keeping with our concept of Canadianism?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
2354

May 17, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give serious consideration to the recommendation of the right hon. gentleman. It is perhaps a little unusual to look at the constitutional validity of a bill when it is still in bill form, but in this particular case there is a declaration by the Saskatchewan government that it will be made retroactive to last April 1 when it is eventually passed.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence from the House of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. Does the government intend to bring in legislation to remedy the horrendous mess in the field of immigration which has resulted from government inaction over the years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is obviously not acceptable from a procedural standpoint. It is an argument.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I substitute another question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that it is entirely in order or in keeping with the traditions of the House to ask a question which the hon. member must know is out of order and then ask permission to ask another question. I will make an exception in favour of the hon. member in this case and allow him to ask another question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to do anything about the situation that has arisen in the field of immigration? Does it intend to bring in legislation soon on that subject?


Hon. Allan I. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: The answer is yes. When the legislation will be brought in is uncertain at the moment, whether in this session or the next-probably the next.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Do the managers of the Mauricie national park follow directives from the minister when they recruit their employees exclusively through the Manpower Centre in Shawinigan, which does not serve at all the Champlain constituency where 75 per cent of the park is geographically located?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the declaration of the hon. member is not entirely true. They are also in touch with the Manpower Centre in Grand'Mere which covers part of the Champlain constituency. In any case, the minister in charge of this department is not the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.



RAPESEED-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF QUOTAS FOR DELIVERY TO DOMESTIC CRUSHERS

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the minister prepared to reconsider his position and the position of the Canadian Wheat Board with regard to the delivery quotas for rapeseed, particularly for rapeseed delivered to domestic mills for crushing into rapeseed oil and rapeseed meal?


Otto Emil Lang: The exact quotas both to producers and elevators, Mr. Speaker, and producers at processing plants are a matter which is handled by the Canadian Wheat Board and which is considered and reconsidered by them constantly in order to ensure that appropriate supplies are available to processors consistent with the principle that, generally speaking, equitable delivery opportunities should be offered to all producers in the prairie region.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the minister aware that deliveries are not equitable to the domestic crushing mills, and has he considered the constitutional question with regard to the delivery of a product to a processing plant in the same province and his authority to intervene in that regard?


Otto Emil Lang: A variety of legal questions touching on that matter have been raised and brought to my attention. I know of nothing that is going on that can be attacked on legal grounds.



ACTION TO RE-ESTABLISH INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of recent discussions held between top level agricultural spokesmen for both Canada and the United States with respect to the re-establishment of the International Wheat Agreement, what initiative, if any, is the Canadian government taking to re-establish this agreement which is so important to world wheat producers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we discussed this matter on a bilateral and multilateral basis with the other countries. There is an arrangement within the present International Grains Arrangement for the working body to agree at any time to reconvene a meeting and to attempt to establish fair pricing. That would be the
May 17, 1972

body which would meet at an early date and look at the question again.



REASON FOR TRIP BY MINISTER TO WEST COAST

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of the trip he made to the west coast over the weekend, can he advise what the purpose of that trip was, and has he anything to report to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the trip, which was reviewed in the House in the question period on Monday, was to have a close look at the rail facilities at the coast, and at the way they service the relevant terminal facilities, in order to lay a basis for further decisions about improving our capacity to go after new record volumes of grain exports.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Can the minister advise the House whether he was accompanied by some Liberal candidates from the province of Saskatchewan and whether they rode with him on the plane?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIRPORTS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has his department undertaken studies with regard to the expansion of Vancouver international airport on Sea Island and is the department planning to acquire the other residential properties on the island?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as expansion is concerned there are what I might describe as long-range plans for expansion when and if it becomes necessary. At the moment we are moving ahead with the acquisition of various properties on Sea Island in order to have the land available when the time comes. I cannot be specific in my answer as to which particular properties are being acquired unless the Leader of the Opposition has some specific property in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair might recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville who had a supplementary he wished to ask some time ago. If he does not want to refer to that matter, perhaps he might be recognized on a new question.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



SUGGESTED REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST INTENTION OF RAILWAYS TO INCREASE POTASH FREIGHT RATES

['No, Mr. Speaker.']
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Transport now that he is in the House. I think it is quite important. In view of the announcement this week that potash freight rates will be substantially increased on June 1 and in view of the protests from both the industry and the premier of Saskatchewan that the railways should not go ahead with this decision, can the minister tell us whether or not he has contacted the railways and asked them to rescind that decision? If he has, can he report to the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows that neither I nor the government have any authority to roll back a proposed freight increase by either railway other than under the terms of the National Transportation Act. There are a number of cases in the west to which I referred the day before yesterday having to do with appeals that have been lodged with the Canadian Transport Commission. This may very well be one of them or may be affected by those appeals. If such is the case, the CTC will decide whether or not in fact there is a case in the public interest for holding down the rates.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the minister undertake to investigate the matter and report to the House tomorrow?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement by Washington last Friday regarding the trans-Alaska pipeline, has the Canadian government had any discussions with Washington regarding sovereignty of the passage of oil from Alaska to the continental United States through the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline? If so, can he tell the House what these were?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand the question. Perhaps it could be repeated; perhaps I misunderstood.


William Gordon Ritchie: Has the Canadian government had any discussions with Washington regarding sovereignty over oil passing through a pipeline from Alaska to the continental United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, there has not been any discussion, but I understand secretary Morton said that one of the reasons the TAPS line is approved is that the
2356

May 17, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
oil would under that proposal not pass through any foreign country. That is all I know.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Secretary of State.
Does he intend to grant additional funds for the Opportunities for Youth Program in order to give satisfaction to a greater number of students who are disappointed when their projects are rejected?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State.

Yesterday, the hon. member for Athabasca and I asked the right hon. Prime Minister about the situation concerning the Toronto Indian centre and other Indian centres across the country which are saying that promised funds have been held up and they have had to close their doors. The Prime Minister said he would refer the question to the minister. Is the minister now in a position to explain the situation?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have taken emergency measures and I believe that some funds will be received tonight by these friendship centres which find themselves in the most difficult situations; anyway, the government is now considering a larger proposal, involving the whole question.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY NATIVE BROTHERHOOD FOR FUNDS TO REHIRE STAFF

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State with respect to the lack of funding of the Northwest Territories Native Brotherhood and the fact that they have had to lay off half their staff as a result. Has the minister received representations to this effect from the brotherhood and, if so, will he make funds available forthwith so they can rehire their staff?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we have any representation from

the particular group to which the hon. member refers. I will conduct an inquiry without delay. This government is certainly not willing to let these institutions have overwhelming difficulties.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning Bill C-183. In view of the fact that the Fisheries Council of Canada contends that clause 107(1) of the bill defining fishermen as independent contractors and employees is ultra vires of the parliament of Canada, since this is legislation relating to property and civil rights which are wholly within the jurisdiction of the provinces, is the minister aware of this and has he had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the law officers of the Crown?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the submission of the Fisheries Council. I have been aware in the past that the section, in the minds of some, lacks constitutionality, and I simply point out that in the view of the department it is a constitutional provision. That is why it is in the legislation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that there appears to be legislation dealing with labour contracts and negotiations in the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and in light of the submission made by the Fisheries Council which indicates that the government and the council are at loggerheads, is it the intention of the government to seek clarification as to the constitutional validity of the clause involved?


Mr. O'Connell:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act, be read the third time and do pass and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rondeau (p. 2333).
May 17, 1972
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By virtue of the special order adopted by the House last evening-


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to what appears to be a typographical error. During the course of last evening's very rapid proceedings there was a final suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that section 9, the amendments to which appear on page 5 of the amending bill, need not contain the subsection (1) reference. I want to draw to the attention of the House that there are subsections 2 and 3 in the bill, and therefore subclause (1) is indeed required. If it is agreeable, I think we might put that technical matter right before proceeding to the vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I presume the minister means those subsections are in the act.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, the original section 9 has three subsections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since we are apparently dealing with a minor typographical matter, I think it would be the unanimous wish of the House that we act on the suggestion of the minister.
In conformity with the order of the House adopted last night the question will now be put on the bill before the House. The question is on the amendment to the main motion. Mr. Lang, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, moved that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act, be now read the third time.

And on the amendment moved by Mr. Rondeau:
That Bill C-2 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the purpose of reviewing clause 44 and particularly paragraph (a).


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. All those in favor will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 16, consideration of Bill C-207, to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and motion No. 5 (Mr. Rynard).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the House adjourned last night, a point of order had been raised in relation to motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). The suggestion had been made that this motion might be difficult to accept from a procedural standpoint. I have looked at the matter and, before making a ruling, I am prepared to hear argument in relation to the point which I made last night.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have read with interest your remarks. I am afraid that Your Honour probably reread them, too, and they are probably so fresh in Your Honour's mind that it would be pointless for me to try to persuade you to take a contrary view. With regard to motion No. 5,1 will not attempt to persuade Your Honour to make a ruling other than the one you indicated last night you would make. I am prepared to accept Your Honour's ruling on that. When that is disposed of, I would like to speak to amendment No. 6.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the disposition of the House, a ruling will be made formally. Referring hon. members to citation 246 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, I have to conclude that the motion cannot be put. I might say that I see no particular difficulty in relation to motion No. 6. Unless hon. members interpret it another way, there should be no procedural difficulty in at least having the motion put at this time. If hon. members agree, it can be put at this time.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North) moved:: That Bill C-207, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by striking out the word "is" at lines 14 and 24, page 2 and substituting the words "shall not be less than".
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this amendment, I am firmly of the opinion that there has been an injustice done all along the line, starting in 1967 when the old age security pension was fixed at $75. At that time, we brought in the guaranteed income supplement. There was a 2 per cent escalator clause added at that time, providing the cost of living went up by 2 per cent or more. Nothing was added if it did not go by 2 per cent. In 1971, the old age security pension was frozen at $80 per month, with the addition of 42 cents to the $79.58, but without the addition of any escalator clause. As a matter of fact, the guaranteed income supplement was, and always has been, tied to an escalator clause providing the cost of living went up by 2 per cent or more.
As we review the years since 1968, we find that the cost of living has gone up by leaps and bounds. To give an example of this, in 1971 the cost of housing, which is very essential to the people we are speaking about, went up 7 per cent. The same applied to the food and the clothing they required. These are three specific items, the cost of which increased last year so these people were gypped to the tune of 5 per cent on those items alone.
We then go back over the years they have been getting a 2 per cent increase. It is my feeling that these people have been dealt with very unfairly because the difference between the 2 per cent and the actual rise in the cost of living still has not been added to the old age security pension or the guaranteed income supplement. These people are still behind the eight ball. This is something we have to look at. The government is holding back all these
May 17, 1972

people. The same applies to some of their bonds and other securities.
It is a fact that certain people are not treated fairly by the government. I include middle class people today in that group. There may be a man and wife who both work and earn $12,000 per year. With our present inflation, in the space of four to five years the purchasing power of their income may go down by $2,000 to $10,000. To keep up with this rising cost of living, they probably receive increases in their salary which the government, by way of income tax, magnanimously drains off. Therefore, the same thing applies, only in another way, to the middle income earner this year. He will find out that there is no reduction in taxes, but an increase of 3 per cent. I deplore the fact that people are not treated fairly by the state. I do not care whether it is a Liberal or Conservative government, let us be a little more honest about what we are doing.
Governments today seem to have a built-in interest in people getting salary increases so that they can drain off more taxes. They even seem to have a built-in interest in inflation. This again hits those people on fixed incomes, particularly the people we are speaking about today, the old age pensioners. This wrong can be corrected by an order in council without any problem. It was with this in mind that I brought this amendment before the House. I hope that justice will be done.
If we go back to the figures, we find that while the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has said we have brought these people almost to the affluent stage, by using last year's figures we see that they are still far below the poverty line as set by the Economic Council. Let us do what is fair and square, and restore to these people their rightful pension. The present Liberal government has departed a long way from the principle established by the government in 1952 when the universal old age security pension was set at $40 a month. They not only did that, but they increased it from time to time. If memory serves me correctly, they did this when the gross national product was $21 billion. Today, our gross national product is close to $100 billion, five times as much. It was a Liberal government which brought that in; not only that, Mr. Speaker, but it was universal in its application.
I ask for the support of all my fellow members of the House of Commons in this effort to ensure that an injustice is righted and that these older citizens who have done so much to build our country are treated fairly, and that the product of this differential is restored to them as from January 1, 1967.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say just a few words on this amendment. I agree with the proposition the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) is advancing as far as it goes, but I cannot see how his amendment will achieve the purpose he has in mind.
The amending bill, as it now reads, says the escalation is to be a certain amount. That amount, at the present time is 3.6 per cent more than it was last year. The amendment would change it to read-"the escalation shall not be less
Old Age Security Act
than that certain amount." In other words, it shall not be less than 3.6 per cent. I do not see any difference between that and just saying it is 3.6 per cent. If this is simply a pious statement expressing a hope that somehow or other the amount of the escalation might be higher-


Philip Bernard Rynard: It may be pious, but it is honest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall not go into that. If it is merely a statement expressing a hope that somehow or other the amount might be higher, then perhaps we had better vote for it. But if we do, it will be in the knowledge that it does not mean anything, since the bill has already set out what the escalation is to be.
I agree with the hon. member that the escalation now to be applied to old age pensions should be much greater than it is. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) asserted in committee the other day that the $82.88 pensioners will now get is 8 cents more than they would have received had the old escalation formula been continued, the one in effect until December, 1970. However, under questioning, his deputy minister admitted that if the pension had been escalated by the full amount of the cost of living increase since $75 was fixed some years ago, the amount of the pension would now be over $90. This is what we should be trying to achieve, and we will support a proposition to that effect. At the same time, I say again it is not enough simply to fiddle around making minor adjustments in the escalation factor. What we need is a substantial increase in the basic amount. The hon. member's leader has already made it clear that he does not subscribe to the proposition that the basic pension should be $150 a month. We take the position that that is what it should be. I suggest, therefore, that this proposal for a few cents or a few dollars more is really not good enough.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this amendment presented by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) in connection with Bill C-207, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I agree with all those who have indicated that this is good legislation. It is legislation which is long overdue. The minister has admitted, through his sudden conversion to the principle of linking old age security payments to the cost of living index, and by making an increase retroactive to January 1, 1972, that the existing legislation in this area is not adequate to meet the needs of the present day. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the minister did not go all the way in terms of retroactivity to the date on which the basic pension was established at $75 coupled with a 2 per cent escalation factor.
The history of the Liberal party in connection with old age pensions has not shown that party to be too expansive or too generous. Many of us can remember the episode in 1957 when the old age pension was raised from $40 to $46. We can also remember the drastic and well deserved results of the following election when "Six-buck" Harris himself went down to defeat, together with the majority of the Liberal party of the day. We sometimes wonder whether history is repeating itself.

May 17, 1972
Old Age Security Act
The bill before us concerns Canadians, many of whom suffered the effects of two world wars and the worst depression in world history. Many of them have become self-sufficient, and have been able to acquire sufficient resources of their own to see them through the years of their retirement. However, thousands of Canadians who have retired in the last few months are finding their life savings so badly eroded by inflation that a few dollars can make the difference between comfortable retirement and a bare existence. Had the escalation clause in this legislation been linked directly to the cost of living, the basic pension would now be $90.53. In other words, recipients will still be eight dollars short of the sum they should actually be receiving each month, notwithstanding the minister's own view that in arriving at the amount of old age security payments the cost of living is a necessary criterion.
As I say, we sometimes wonder whether history is not repeating itself. In 1957, $6 was given under this legislation.. Today, it is $8. The legislation still falls short. I realize that on July 1 an old age pensioner will receive a cheque for $97.28. However, on August 1st his cheque will be reduced to $82.88. In other words, he will get a bonus for one month. I do not know how near we are to an election, but I feel recipients of old age security payments will not be led astray by this attempt to bribe them with their own money, money which was due to them many months ago. According to the minister, this concession will cost an additional $166 million. Looked at within the whole spectrum of social security spending, which is within the neighborhood of $5 billion, this is not such a large sum. I say to the minister: Think again, and amend the legislation further, even at this late stage in such a way as to bring the basic old age security pension up to at least $90.53, the amount pensioners should be receiving had the escalation clause been instituted in 1967 when the pension was set at $75.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I was anxious to comment briefly on the amendments moved by our colleague the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) to the effect that old age security pensions provided by Bill C-207 be increased.
Mr. Speaker, we attempted, yesterday, through an amendment, to express a different way of looking at old age security pensions. One of these motions provided for the payment of these pensions at age 60, rather than 65. The second aimed at extending the old age income security provision to persons less than 60 years, of age provided the spouse has reached the prescribed statutory age of 60.
It is known that the bill introduced by the minister provides for old age security pensions to be paid at 65, while we would like them to be payable at 60.
A third motion followed and aimed at the total cancellation of the guaranteed income supplement which is nothing but administrative "tampering" that is extremely costly and gives practically nothing more to senior citizens. Later I shall quote figures to clarify this point.
We ask that the guaranteed income supplement be cancelled, and that $200 a month be paid all senior citizens, and this without inquiries, administrative manipulations,

forms or complex calculations, such as Bill C-207 proposes.
It has been said that those motions entailed expenditures of public money-


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not wish to offend the hon. member and I would be interested to hear his remarks, which seem to be about his party's policy with respect to this legislation, more appropriately on third reading if the hon. member wishes to expound his philosophy again. However, in respect of this amendment I understand that the rules of relevancy apply, and I fail to see how his remarks relate to the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The point raised by the minister is well taken. At the time the minister rose the Chair was examining the bill and amendment, while hoping that the hon. member would bring his remarks to bear on the amendment itself, which did not seem to be the case.

When the minister rose on a point of order, the Chair was in the process of studying the clause of the bill and the amendment, and felt that the hon. member was digressing from the subject before the House, namely the amendment at the report stage, to which the rule of relevancy applies specifically and stipulates that the debate must bear formally on the amendment and the clause before the House.
Obviously, the Chair cannot, under the circumstances, prevent the hon. member for Lotbiniere from rising and making opening remarks but, I wonder, whether in so doing he did not digress, and whether he should not keep his remarks for the debate on third reading; I would invite him, for the time being and if at all possible, to stick to the amendment and the clause before the House.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to offend you or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (M. Munro) but as I maintain that my remarks pertain to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Simcoe North which provide for an increase in certains amounts provided for in the act; my opinions refer to them. That is why-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair regrets to have to interrupt again the hon. member, but I want to remind him that the House is considering but one of the amendments moved by the hon. member for Simcoe North, that is Motion No. 6, which proposes to strike out, on page 2 of the Bill, the word "is" and substitute the words "shall not be less than". Therefore, this is a very specific and rather restrictive amendment.
I find it difficult to allow the hon. member to carry on with his comments on amendment No. 7, which is not yet before the House at this time.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I must say again I can hardly understand your explanations. I shall read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) so that you may be sure that I know what it is about:
May 17, 1972

That Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by striking out the word "is" at lines 14 and 24, page 2 and substituting .the words "shall not be less than".
Now, what can one read in line 14 Mr. Speaker? I quote:
4. (2) (a) for a month in the fifteen-month period commencing with the month of January, 1972 is the amount obtained by multiplying
(i) the basic amount of such pension,
Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, when one is talking about multiplication and division, he is talking about figures. That is precisely what I have been doing since the beginning of my remarks.
Besides, the marginal note says:
Basic amount of pension
and further on:
Annual adjustment of basic amount of pension
Therefore I am justified in speaking of the basic amount and I maintain it should be $200 a month, for all older people in Canada and without any means test. That is why I believe I am complying with the rule of relevance.
I come to the same conclusions upon reading line 24 of the same clause. Indeed one can read in the amendment and I quote:
and substituting the words "shall not be less than".
As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, subtractions and additions concern the basic amounts and I maintain once more that I am complying with the rule of relevance.
I said we brought forward that kind of amendment because we thought that the basic philosophy of Bill C-207 did not correspond to the real situation of older people in Canada.
The philosophy behind this bill and the amendments submitted by the member for Simcoe North on parts of clauses 3 and 4 has demonstrated how complicated it is to give money to our senior citizens and help them.
Those clauses provide for all kinds of mathematical complications, reports, inquiries; each time his financial situation will change the old age pensioner will have to declare it, etc.
Mr. Speaker, granting a guaranteed income supplement is based on a wrong principle. Instead of helping our senior citizens by giving them increased financial assistance, without government bickering, we set a minimum basic amount and, taking into consideration the economic situation as determined by the government, we raise as much as possible the guaranteed income supplement which will be added to this basic amount.
Under the government philosophy it is more important to grant a minimum basic amount and a maximum guaranteed income supplement and thus determine whether elderly people can survive or not. This is quite ridiculous. We believe that we should simply increase the basic amount up to the maximum intended by the government, including the guaranteed income supplement, and give it to all senior citizens whatever their income, without any inquiry and bickering so that they may enjoy the security of a minimum income.
I do not know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare understands what I am trying to tell him but
Old Age Security Act
I am strongly opposed to the fact that he will not be able to pay this money to the elderly since it is going to be swallowed up by the administration of the basic amount and of the guaranteed income supplement.
Mr. Speaker, so much for the remarks I wanted to make and, as you have noticed, they were quite related to the clause under study.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). I think the amendment is a realistic one in that what the hon. member is endeavouring to do is to provide the flexibility that the government may need and which is not inherent in the present legislation. What the hon. member for Simcoe North is endeavouring to do is give recognition to the fact that the figure proposed by the government is unrealistic. It is a long time since the cost of living in Canada has increased by only 3i per cent a year. Whether the government likes it or not, and whether it wishes to talk about its great battle to control inflation, the fact of the matter is that it has not controlled inflation and it is not in the neighbourhood of 3i per cent.
The hon. member for Simcoe North is saying that even though the Liberal party does not recognize this fact, the Progressive Conservative party does, and that if the Progressive Conservative party were in office it would put in this bill the type of escalating clause which would guarantee to the people that the purchasing power of their dollars would be as high this year as they were last year, and as high next year as they are this year. This party recognizes that $80 today has a devil of a lot less purchasing power than $80 had a year ago, and certainly a devil of a lot less than $82.80 had a year ago.
It is very easy to get confused about old age security pensions and guaranteed income supplements, Unfortunately, I am sure that sometimes the public does not recognize the difference. The significant difference between the two schemes, as far as I am concerned, is that Canadians have contributed to this pension fund and have a right to receive their fair share from it. It is not something the government is handing out, it is something to which they have a right because they paid for it. Every Canadian, through his contribution to income tax, has paid for an old age security pension. This is just the same as any pension scheme a person in Canada might have with a company for which he has worked. He does not have to come as a supplicant to this government on bended knee in order to receive $82.80 per month in pension. This government has an obligation to pay this money because the old age recipient has contributed.
What bothers me is that this government, when it eliminated the escalator clause, was saying to the old age pension recipient that he was not in fact going to receive an amount equivalent to what he contributed. The government was saying that it was, in fact, precluding these pensioners from receiving the amount they thought they were contributing and would receive. This government and previous governments has taken certain moneys with

May 17, 1972
Old Age Security Act
a certain purchasing power from the old age pensioners of today and tomorrow.
My leader spoke about constant dollars in his speech on the budget debate on Monday. If we look at this bill from a constant dollar point of view, we find that the value of the dollar the government pays to a recipient of old age security when he qualifies at age 65 is less than it was when he contributed through taxes, in spite of the clause proposed by the government containing the 31 per cent escalation. It could well be that the escalation in the cost of living will be twice as high as the 31 per cent stipulated by the government. This is exactly the same situation as that in respect of the 3 per cent perpetual bonds, through which the government is robbing the people of this country blind.
What the hon. member for Simcoe North is suggesting to the contributors to the old age security fund is that we will recognize that they are contributing constant dollars toward old age security and that they will receive constant dollars. In other words, the dollars contributed toward old age security will be of the same value as the dollars received when they qualify for old age security. That is our commitment to the old age security recipient now and in the future. That is what we are interested in and that is the reason we have proposed this amendment.
It may be that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) could suggest another method of doing the same thing. Our difficulty is that, in endeavouring to propose amendments to a piece of government legislation, you must take the legislation as you find it and amend it in the best way you can. I believe the hon. member for Simcoe North has endeavoured to do that. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a better idea as to how this can be done, and if he proposes such a way, I know that the hon. member for Simcoe North will, as will every other hon. member of the Conservative party, support such an amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you vote for a $150 basic pension?


Robert Carman Coates: I am not opposed to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just your leader.


Robert Carman Coates: I am speaking for myself right now. What I am saying is that we would like to see the old age security recipient in this country receive justice. He is not going to receive justice under this legislation, nor will he receive it when getting an extra $2.80 per month. There are ways and means, and certainly sufficient funds, to see that these recipients do get justice. I cannot for the life of me understand why this government is not willing to give the old age security recipients what they need and have a right to receive. I do not believe the government's proposal will accomplish that, but I believe that the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Simcoe North is a step in the right direction. It could meet the situation if properly applied. There may be other ways of doing this, and I do not argue with that. There is always more than one way to accomplish something. I suggest that this amendment would provide a more equitable deal for the old age recipients of this country than the proposition contained in the legislation now before us.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of listening to the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) and of reading the clause of the bill the hon. member would choose to amend. I must say I fail to see what significance the amendment will have. The clause of the bill states what, in fact, the escalation is to be. The effect of the hon. member's amendment would be to make this escalation not less than what it is in fact to be. I question what impact this would have.
That being my view, I do not intend to go into the substance of some of the allegations, comments and observations of the hon. member and others. If they are relevant, I think it is not with reference to this particular amendment but rather to third reading, and I will be more than happy to take advantage of my opportunity of rebuttal on third reading, if these views are expressed again at that particular time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Rynard) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Before I render a decision on motion No. 7 put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), perhaps I should give notice of the first impression of the Chair regarding the acceptability of this motion. In my opinion, it would require additional expenditure on the part of the Crown and on this basis I would have difficulty in accepting the motion. If hon. members have opinions on the acceptability of that motion I would like to hear them. Otherwise, I will make a decision at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is fair that I should argue this one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You won when you did not argue.


Gerald William Baldwin: with an amendment which might seem at first blush to infringe upon the Crown's right to initiate expenditures:
This is obviously, I think, a broad amendment, since it would force the Crown to incur additional expenditures.
Using that as a yardstick, I suggest that this amendment does not in fact force the Crown to incur additional expenses because there are certain safeguards written into it. In the first instance, it provides that there is to be an instruction to consider the advisability of inserting therein the following clause. This is the old, traditional method, which we have used in the House for a great many years, of dealing with the question of advisability. It may well be that in considering the advisability the committee may seek a legal opinion. The law officers of the House may be present, and they may say to the members of the committee that what they seek to do they cannot do because of certain rules and certain statutes. I call that to your attention in the first instance, Mr. Speaker.
Your Honour is aware of the fact that there are several types of amendment on third reading referring matters back to a committee. Some of them contain a direction that the committee do something. This is not one of them. This is a direction that it be sent back to the committee with an instruction to consider the advisability of doing something. With all due deference, I think it would be drawing a long bow to say that a committee cannot be urged by the House to consider the advisability of doing something, even though the Chair may have a fairly strong view that what they may urge to be done might not be proper.
Then, I go to what is set out in paragraph 2 of the amendment which reads:
No order may be made under subsection (1) until the proposed text of the order has been laid before the House of Commons by a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the making of the order has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
I take it that that is a safeguard which is written into this amendment by which the House will be instructing the committee to ensure that all proper and legal steps are taken. It may well be that Your Honour or any member of the House cannot exclude the possibility that in committee, as a result of persuasive and eloquent arguments which are made by members of the committee, the government may be persuaded that what we are proposing to do is sensible and generous. I recognize that may be very difficult, because one thing we know about this government is that so far it has not been kind, compassionate or generous in dealing with old age pensioners. But I do not rule out the possibility that eloquent and strong argument in the committee might well persuade the government to change its mind. If the government saw fit to change its mind, and to support an amendment of this kind, it could affix legality to it through the text of an order to be laid before the House of Commons by a member of the Queen's Privy Council.
Finally, the third paragraph of the amendment reads:
Expenditures required under an order made under subsection
(1)	should be paid for out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament.
You have to read into that the words "to be appropriated by parliament pursuant to the laws of this land".
Old Age Security Act
I suggest that if you put all this together, what you have is a recommendation from the House to the committee to consider the advisability of inserting this clause, but to do so only on the understanding that all of the things which have to be done to provide it with a cloak of legality are in fact carried out. That is the limit of the recommendation. I would have no hesitation at all in doubting the acceptability of the amendment if the bill were to be referred back to the standing committee with a direct instruction that the following clause be inserted therein. But when the safeguards are written into it, then the House is in fact saying to its faithful committee: "attempt to improve this bill but do so only when you can do it by the proper steps which need to be taken under the constitution to make it effective."
Having in mind the impediment which is faced by members of the House in attempting to secure a better form of arrangement for old age pensioners, I suggest that the Chair should be vigilant and alert in trying to find ways and means of construing my argument so as to make this amendment acceptable.


James Alexander Jerome: I wonder if the hon. member was speaking on motion No. 7, because I fail to follow his argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, we are on motion No. 7.


Gerald William Baldwin: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I poured forth all this eloquence with respect to another amendment. I simply ask that when the time comes I may be able to refer to what I have already said. When I came into the House, I was under the impression that the House was dealing with another amendment. If we are dealing with motion No. 7, my words were poured into the arrid atmosphere. My argument has no application, and so far as we are concerned I think the motion should be put.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have only the briefest com ment to make with respect to motion No. 7. It appears to me to call for a straight, across-the-board increase in the amounts to be paid under one classification in clause 10, and appears to fly directly in the face of the recommendation, and therefore is clearly out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Possibly at this time I should express my regret to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for not calling him to order. The Chair had been trying to follow his argument and, at the same time, look at the clause itself. I do not think I succeeded in finding any connection that would change the decision of the Chair. After what was said by the hon. member for Peace River at the end of his remarks, the Chair can only repeat that this motion would result in increased payments from public funds. If hon. members refer once more to Beauchesne, citation 246, they will see arguments there that are quite eloquent as to the nonacceptability of such an amendment at this time.
Accordingly, if there are no more motions the Chair will put the motion for concurrence.


John Carr Munro: that Bill C-207, to amend the Old Age

May 17, 1972
Old Age Security Act
Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and social affairs be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion for concurrence agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that the House gets an opportunity to preview an amendment, but on this occasion hon. members have had a good opportunity to look at one. The amendment that I intend to move has been dealt with by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It is that the bill be referred back to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, with an instruction to consider the advisability of inserting therein the following clause:
The Governor in Council may, by order, increase the Old Age Security pension so as to reflect the full increase in the Consumer Price Index since the 1st January 1967-
What we are seeking is simple justice. I find myself facing quite a paradox. Not being a lawyer and able to examine two sides of the coin, I am simply examining the right side and looking for justice. While this amendment may not meet all the legal requirements of the minister, it does satisfy the consciences of most of us, and I would say his conscience also. I know he is bound by some tentacles which hang on to him pretty firmly or else he would agree to accept this.
How in the world can we sit in this chamber and not give the justice that we should to those people to whom we have denied the right of escalation according to the increase in the consumer price index since 1966? This is not right; it is not fair. We are asking for fairness so that these people may know they have been justly treated. The longer I sit in this chamber and watch governments, Mr. Speaker, the more I see a tendency to cheat. I know that in balancing things, decisions have to be made. A government has to cut expenses somewhere or else increase taxes. The present case demands simple justice. The amount of money necessary would be small. I am no economist but under the present proposal old age pensioners are being cheated out of about $10 a month. It is time we took steps to rectify that.
I would ask the minister to support me right down the line on this amendment. If necessary, the bill should go back to committee to provide that no order will be made under subsection (1) until the proposed text of that order has been laid before the House by a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. Surely this amend-

ment is in order, both from the legal standpoint and the conscience standpoint, and so I move it, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has no motion in front of it.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to save time by not reading it all. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be
referred back to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare
and Social Affairs with an instruction to consider the advisability of inserting therein the following clause:
'(1) The Governor in Council may, by order, increase the Old Age Security pension so as to reflect the full increase in the Consumer Price Index since the 1st January 1967 to date with adjustments to the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
(2)	No order may be made under subsection (1) until the proposed text of the order has been laid before the House of Commons by a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the making of the order has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(3)	Expenditures required under an order made under subsection (1) shall be paid for out of moneys to be appropriated by Parliament.' "


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I think this would be the right time to invite hon. members to comment on the acceptability of the amendment. I have to question a certain aspect of it, but before rendering a decision I would invite hon. members to comment. This, of course, would include the hon. member for Peace River who has already made some comment on it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I made my argument at the wrong time. It was because I came into the House hurriedly after attending to important business, and I thought we had reached this stage of the bill. However, no harm has been done. It may be that what I said in advance will have convinced the Chair and the Chair's advisers and, if so, I have nothing more to add.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, may we have a copy of the motion please?


Gerald William Baldwin: It is very simple.


John Carr Munro: We are having some difficulty with the writing, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has a copy that he could let us have so that we can be certain of the wording.


Gerald William Baldwin: We only had three copies, Mr. Speaker. We thought it would be accepted without any argument, so we do not have any more copies available.


John Carr Munro: I wonder if I might ask the hon. member for Peace River to look at his copy. I am reading the amendment and five lines down it reads "consider the advisability of inserting". Then, he has crossed out "inserting the following" and put in something else. Can he tell me what he inserted there?
May 17, 1972


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I must share in the good things of life. Would the minister be kind enough to repeat his request?


John Carr Munro: If the hon. member would be kind enough to read the fourth and fifth lines of his amendment which start, "with an instruction to consider the advisability of inserting". I am not clear what comes after that.


Gerald William Baldwin: It reads, "instruction to consider the advisability of inserting therein the following clause".


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the rather ingenious argument of the hon. member for Peace River on motion No. 7, and I thought that we might have the pleasure of hearing it all over again but apparently that is not to be so. It appears that his contention is that this is really not a specific instruction for the expenditure of additional moneys. I believe he relies entirely on the phraseology "with an instruction to consider" as saving him from the application of that particular rule. I do not think it does in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as he indicates further on what those instructions are to be. They are quite specific; that we are to increase the old age security pension. We are not just to consider the increase, but to consider it in very specific terms as follows:
-so as to reflect the full increase in the consumer price index since the first of January, 1967 to date with adjustments to the guaranteed income supplement.
If one takes just the component dealing with retroactivity to 1967, those instructions are quite clear, quite specific. They call for additional expenditures, a function that cannot be performed by other than the government. This amendment would necessitate the additional expenditure of many millions of dollars. With sufficient time, I could obtain an estimate of the amount involved. Certainly, the retroactivity feature, if tied in with the escalation for the cost of living going back to January 1, 1972, we estimate would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $80 million.
I would want to check my figures, but if I am correct in that, hon. members can readily understand the additional expenditure required to take the retroactivity of the escalation back to January, 1967. If I am correct on the $80 million figure, we are probably talking about several hundreds of millions of dollars in the application of this particular feature, not even taking into account the adjustments to the guaranteed income supplement, if the amendment means more than merely the retroactive escalation of the old age security back that long.
I might indicate as well that, while we are dealing with the rather monumental additional expenditures called for by this particular part of the amendment, when you add that to the expenditures we are already committed to with reference to this particular bill in the sense that it calls for expenditures of some $250 million to $280 million, to say nothing of the cost of the exemptions announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for senior citizens, we can see that this type of impact over and above what is already planned would be very serious indeed.
I must say that since the amendment is so specific as to what the committee is to do, what additional expenditures there will be-and it is possible to estimate very precisely
Old Age Security Act
what those expenditures would be-I fail to see how the hon. member for Peace River can any longer rely on the generality of the words "an instruction to consider". For that reason, I think it is quite obviously an inappropriate amendment at this particular time, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat what I said, although if I am pressed I will repeat part of it. What the minister has said demonstrates the wisdom of a course of this kind. The minister has been making an argument in this House, which I think is the wrong place to make it, against using the words in the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), "the advisability of inserting therein the following clause".
If this amendment were passed, what would happen? Let us cast our minds ahead. The committee would be seized of jurisdiction by reason of the direction of this House. It is quite plain that there is no firm, mandatory direction to the committee to insert it, but to consider the advisability of inserting it. That involves several things. First, should those words be inserted? What about the question of cost vis-a-vis benefits to the people involved, the old age pensioners, the people of this country who are so detrimentally affected by inflation? The minister might be able to appear before the committee and make a convincing argument, as he has attempted to make here, that it would not be advisable to do it. If he were successful the committee would reject the amendment.
On the other hand, if he were not able to convince the committee that it would be advisable to do it, then they could make a proposal to insert those words but, as I repeat, with the safeguards I have referred to before and which make it quite plain that it cannot be done unless all the requirements are met which have to be met when we deal with matters of a financial nature. We have been a little ingenious, and we have had to be. We are not yet the government but time will shortly cure that. Until we are the government, in dealing with these matters we are compelled to make propositions of this nature.
I would go a step further. If one looks at the financial recommendation which appears on the bill itself, it is couched in fairly vague terms. The first few lines read:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Old Age Security Act; to fix the basic amount of the old age pension at $80 per month-
There has been no attempt to change that. I continue:
-and to provide that it will be escalated annually to reflect the full amount of any increase in the Consumer Price Index with the initial escalation-
I draw Your Honour's attention to the words, "to reflect the full amount of any increase." There is a strong element of vagueness and variability about this, Mr. Speaker. The act attempts to define Consumer Price Index in clause 1 as follows:
'Consumer Price Index' with respect to any fiscal year or any twelve-month period means the average of the Consumer Price Index for Canada, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, for each month in that fiscal year or twelve-month period,-

May 17, 1972
Old Age Security Act
You can search the Statistics Act from one end to the other and you will not find any definition of Consumer Price Index. The Statistics Act provides that the statistician-I forget his title-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It should be her title.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes-can, by the direction of the minister, in this case the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), publish certain statistics dealing, inter alia, with the prices of goods and services. That is all you will find in the act. Statistics Canada has every right to vary the method used to fix the index governing price and wage increases, or the changes which occur in prices and wages from month to month. It has every right to vary the method used for arriving at the value of the index. We might find, as was found last year-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am not sure that the hon. member is debating at this time the procedural acceptability of the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It seems that he is debating the matter itself, as if we were discussing the amendment and not its procedural acceptability.


Gerald William Baldwin: With all due respect to Your Honour, to hon. members of the House and particularly to the minister, let me say that even if we were to accept his argument, and I do not and I have given convincing reasons to show why the Chair ought not to accept it, and look at the financial recommendation which accompanies the bill, which the Chair must look at to determine whether there is any variation between what this amendment proposes and what His Excellency proposed, we still will not find that distinction which I submit is necessary. I say that because the financial recommendation must be considered together with the legislation governing Statistics Canada and the definition of Consumer Price Index.
After all, the Consumer Price Index is to be the basis for varying the escalation in the old age pension. Because of sloppy draftsmanship, the government will permit in future years considerable variations to arise in the interpretation of what should be the increase in old age pensions pursuant to changes in the cost of living. The Consumer Price Index is determined by Statistics Canada in a variety of ways. The methods used to determine the Consumer Price Index may be changed at any time. Therefore, the term Consumer Price Index is not a statutory definition. One will find, therefore, on reading the terms of the recommendation, that the recommendation itself is not too clear. The language of the recommendation is not so clear as to prevent our including another variable in those elements which are to be taken into calculation in arriving at pensions. However, that is going beyond the point that I need to raise.
Let me return to what I said before. The committee is being instructed to consider the advisability of something. It may decide that it is not advisable to do it, in which case that settles the matter. On the other hand, if it decides that it is advisable to do something, then, according to the

amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe North, it must observe certain safeguards. There are certain safeguards which ensure that this amendment will not be inserted in the act until certain conditions are met. First, an order must be laid before the House by a member of the Queen's Privy Council, and the making of the order must have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons. Second, expenditures shall be paid for out of moneys to be appropriated by Parliament. The latter wording I submit ought to be construed as "to be appropriated by Parliament according to the law of this land."


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask Your Honour to consider one or two brief comments I will make about the procedural acceptability of the motion in addition to the remarks that were made by the minister. I submit that if the amendment were accepted by the House, it would offend directly against two or three precedents.
As the bill is now being considered at the third reading stage, it has gone through clause by clause examination in the standing committee, at which time members enjoyed the opportunity to propose amendments to the bill, if they so wished. Several amendments were proposed at that time. In addition, pursuant to the rules, amendments were proposed in the House at the report stage, after proper notice had been given. There the Chair had the opportunity to consider the procedural acceptability of those amendments. Motions to increase the amount of the pension were ruled out of order. One, which was debated this afternoon, was accepted by the Chair. The point is that substantive amendments to the bill can be put only at certain times. They can be put either in committee or at the report stage in the House, after proper notice has been given.
This amendment, in my view, is not an amendment which seeks to change the motion for third reading of the bill, although it would do that by an indirect route, but is a substantive amendment to the bill itself. I submit that what the hon. member in that regard cannot do directly he ought not to be permitted to do indirectly. He is proposing at this time an amendment which goes to the very substance of the bill. I submit, therefore, that this is an amendment affecting not the third reading motion, but the substance of the bill itself, and it cannot be permitted at the third reading stage.
Second, the amendment intends, as the hon. member clearly said, to increase the amounts which would be paid under the Old Age Security Act. That intent is not directly evident. The language of the amendment is ingeniously couched and would lead, indirectly, to that end. Here, again, the hon. member is attempting to do indirectly what he knows he is not permitted to do directly, namely, through an amendment to seek to increase amounts paid as pensions. To achieve both these procedurally illegal objectives, the hon. member has ingeniously proposed an amendment which, if accepted, would send the bill back to the committee and, further, send it back with the specific direction as to what the committee must do. That, I submit, is the final, fatal flaw in the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, not at all.
May 17, 1972


James Alexander Jerome: I see the hon. member shakes his head. He suggests that his amendment does not give a specific direction to the committee but, rather, asks the committee to give consideration-


Gerald William Baldwin: To the advisability.


James Alexander Jerome: -to the advisability of doing something. In other words, he is not asking the committee to consider the bill in its entirety but is asking it, instead, to confine its attention to one subject only, the contents of his amendment. I submit that that specific direction to the committee constitutes a fatal flaw in the amendment which the hon. member proposes.
For those reasons, I submit that the amendment cannot be and ought not to be accepted. Its acceptance would destroy existing precedents and would constitute a most dangerous new precedent, by permitting substantive amendments to be introduced at the third reading stage, which otherwise would not be permitted. Further, the precedent would permit bills to be referred to some body, with a specific direction that something be or be not done. This amendment would be a substantive amendment at this stage. Its flaws, I submit, are fatal to it and I submit it is out of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is fatal for us to suggest anything the government does not like.


John Carr Munro: Even if you have tried it twice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I did not decide to speak in this procedural debate until my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome), took the floor. His attempt to say that you cannot move amendments on third reading which would refer a bill back to a committee makes it necessary for me to defend the right that has been exercised in this House a good many times. Some day I should like to take him to the library and show him bills considered in the last century, when neither he nor I were here, that were subjected to third reading amendments between 40 and 50 times. Therefore, the business of referring bills back to committee from third reading is not something that was dreamed up by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
The reason I was thinking of sitting this one out is that I cannot get excited about amendments that propose to raise the amount that old age pensioners are getting from $82.88 to $90 or something like that. What is needed is a change in the bill to provide a basic pension of $150 a month. If I knew of any way to bring in an amendment that would force this House to vote on that proposition, the amendment would be made but, frankly, I see no way in which that can be done, under our rules as they stand.
Even though I am not excited about this amendment, for I think it is a case of trying to put up something to cover the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has declared himself against the $150 a month pension, I think there is a procedural case to be made for this amendment. So far today, most of the talking has been off the cuff. That is usually my style as well. For a
Old Age Security Act
change, let us look at Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 415(1), and I quote:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
The reference there is to the committee of the whole, but if the bill has been before a standing committee, it is common practice that that is the place to send the bill back. The rest of citation 415(1) simply says that the motion is not debatable. Citation 415(2) reads:
Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation; in the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration, but in the former case the Committee can only consider the clause or amendments or instructions referred to them.
Surely, there is an implication in 415(1) and (2) that it is possible by way of an amendment on third reading to ask that a bill go back to committee with a request that such and such be considered. That is what the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) is asking, that this bill be not now read a third time but that it be sent back to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering a certain aspect of the bill.
There is another citation or two along the same line, asserting the right of referral. Your Honour may say quite frankly that there are also some citations that raise doubts. This is why we have Speakers-to resolve these differences. Citation 415(4) reads:
On the third reading of a Bill, an amendment to refer back to the Committee of the Whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.
That imposes a certain limitation. The same kind of limitation appears in citation 418 which reads:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
In other words, if this amendment sought to change a principle, not a detail, that was approved on second reading, or sought to put into the bill something that is not already contained in the bill, in principle, then it would be out of order. As the hon. member for Peace River pointed out, the subject matter of this amendment is already in the bill. He referred to the hon. member's recommendation for provision for escalating of the pensions paid under the Old Age Security Act to reflect the full amount of the cost of living increase. I suggest that the hon. member for Simcoe North is not importing any new idea. The bill already provides that there shall be an escalation clause, different from the old 2 per cent ceiling that we had, related to the actual cost of living. This amendment simply proposes a change in detail as to how that escalation is to be put into effect.
Speaking procedurally, it seems that this amendment does not offend citation 415(4) or the sentence I read from citation 418 from Beauchesne and that it is supported by citations 415(1) and (2). In substance, I still do not think that the amendment deals with what we should be dealing, but I have to support the hon. member's right to put such an amendment.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May 17, 1972
Old Age Security Act
Considering the eloquence displayed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as well as their competence in this matter and their excellent work in the Committee on Procedure and Organization, I do not think I have to repeat what they have said. I would like to recall not a precedent but something that was done yesterday when the House was considering a motion to refer a bill back to the committee on third reading. That motion was as follows:
That Bill C-2 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the purpose of reviewing clause 44 and particularly paragraph (a).
That amendment was accepted by the Chair, which shows that, in his argument, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) does not take into account as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, the right of an hon. member to move such an amendment on third reading, in accordance with section 415 (1) and (2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment we moved yesterday was substantive and tended to give quite detailed instructions to the committee. It even attacked the principle and contents of clause 44. If one refers to yesterday's debates, the Chair with the House's consent had accepted that amendment which has been put to vote today. I would think therefore that the parliamentary secretary's argument that the hon. member should be refused the right to bring in this amendment because it is a substantive amendment with detailed instructions has now been refuted in less than 24 hours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their contribution in helping the Chair make a decision. I agree that the amendment before us is well drafted in that it could be looked at as a proper case.
I listened to the arguments of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that statistics from Statistics Canada might not correspond to the consumer price index for all kinds of reasons. This was getting into the debate itself which the Chair cannot do and cannot use as an argument.
In my opinion, the decision that has to be rendered at this time is based on two points. The first point is to try to determine whether the amendment departs from the principle adopted on second reading. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) referred to an amendment that was accepted by the Chair last night. That amendment proposed to refer a bill back to committee to amend one particular clause. Over the years, it has been the practice to accept a six-month hoist amendment or refer a bill back to a committee for the purpose of reconsidering one particular clause.
In this case, the Chair is wondering whether the amendment would not tend to change the principle which has been approved on second reading. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to citation 415 of Beauchesne at page 287. He even read paragraph

four of that citation which, to my mind, is very clear. I might perhaps repeat it:
On the third reading of a bill an amendment to refer back to the Committee of the Whole must not tend to change the principle approved on second reading.
Basing myself on this paragraph, I find myself wondering whether the committee itself would have the power to deal with such an amendment. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment which has been proposed is really one which brings in a new subject, a new approach, if one considers the debate which has taken place and the study which has been carried out at the earlier stages.
Again, if we read citation 418, we find a similar thought expressed in the following terms:
The question for the third reading is put immediately after the report from the Committee of the Whole. All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
The Chair is wondering whether the proposal made in this amendment does not involve a new matter, a new approach to the bill itself.
Hon. members might also refer to Beauchesne at the bottom of page 275 where the rules which govern reasoned amendments are set out. We find that the first principle to be taken into consideration when drafting or accepting an amendment is the rule of relevancy.
There is another aspect with which the Chair has to be concerned. It is the financial aspect. I wonder whether the amendment, in the form in which it is presented, is not seeking to do indirectly what the hon. member cannot do directly. Citation 246(3) of Beauchesne, 4th edition, makes it clear that hon. members should not try to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. I think I should read this paragraph:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication to which the royal demand or recommendation is attached must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
Although the other citations from Beauchesne, 415 and 418, made me hesitate about accepting the amendment before us, having regard to the rule of relevancy, my decision is confirmed by what is contained in Citation 246. Looking again at the amendment I can only conclude that it puts forward a new financial proposition, one which I cannot accept at this time.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, involves all the outdated social security system that we know.
Social security in Canada costs increasingly more to all governments and therefore to the Canadian taxpayers who assume the charge through their taxes. In spite of all the speeches from government members, social disparities persist. In spite of the investment of billions of dol-
May 17, 1972

lars, even in Canada, there are still some people who go to bed hungry and among them there are often old people.
The bill which is in third reading features three things. First, it provides a cost of living escalation clause. As a matter of fact, it is an excellent piece of legislation and I want to commend the minister for it.
For a long time, there have been requests for the escalation of social assistance rates based on the cost of living, since the first to suffer from inflation were the sick, the disabled, the war veterans and the elderly people who, moreover, were subjected to an income ceiling set by governments granting them pensions, which resulted into serious injustice.
That is why I welcome the provisions which are found in Bill C-207 for escalating old-age security pensions in line with the rise in the cost of living.
Where I do not agree is on the basic amounts granted and on the principle of the guaranteed income supplement.
In fact, a basic amount of $82.88 will be granted to anyone aged 65. In order to receive more money, forms will have to be filled in and returned for the expert calculations of public servants who will establish what is the amount of the supplement, in accordance with the cost of living index. At any rate, the maximum amount to be granted after these lengthy and complicated calculations will be $150 a month, including the amount based on the cost of living.
I do not know of any unmarried person who can live on $150 a month in Canada. Out of $150, $60 a month must be deducted for housing which leaves only $90 a month to the pensioner for food, clothing and drugs. They have to live 30 days on that. We know that older people are often in need of drugs which are very expensive.
Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration which would raise monthly pensions to $150 for single persons and $285 for married couples is not realistic. It does not take into account those who are victimized by the present economic situation. In fact, this light increase is not geared to the cost of living.
Everybody is aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that in Canada housing, clothing and food are the most expensive things. Now, these three items of our everyday life are precisely those which are first affected by inflation, by the increase in the cost of living. The moment we begin to feel the increase in the cost of living, we can see immediately the bad effects it has on rents, which older people are unable to control. These people are just like everybody else: they must live with the lease system and put up with rent hikes. Though old, they cannot go to the corner store, to the grocer's, and say: I do not want prices to go up. Being frozen at $150 a month, their income is clearly insufficient and they are compelled to suffer the increase in the cost of living without any kind of protection.
The government will tell me that I am wrong, that under the legislation they will get an increment geared to the cost of living, but I shall answer right away that the proposed 3.6 per cent progressive boost based on the cost
Old Age Security Act
of living only applies to this maximum amount of $150. This means that the increase in the cost of living is only taken into account for the total amount of $150. Now then, with $150, as I said earlier, a person cannot live decently in Canada. This does not even represent the bare minimum with which one person can have three square meals a day.
This is why I said at the beginning of my remarks that the government's philosophy in speeding up the passing of this bill-and I am not the least surprised about it-can only bring more misery and poverty in Canada, that it is nothing but a bandaid treatment which does not settle the problem at all and which can only maintain people in poverty because what they are granted under this legislation does not meet their requirements, at this time.
Mr. Speaker, since 1962, we have been calling for this escalation in old age security pensions according to the increase in the cost of living. This is the first principle that we support. Secondly, we suggest that the basic amount of old age security pensions should be equal to the minimum income that a person requires to live decently. We are urging that senior citizens be granted a basic amount equivalent to the minimum income that a person must have in order to live decently and cope with the rising cost of living.
This is why we have moved amendments at the report stage to improve the bill, to change its intent, its philosophy, to get us out once for all out of this mesh that generates poverty and social inequalities. Is it any wonder that after 10 years, in spite of the billions of dollars invested in social security, social inequalities are still with us? Is it any wonder that poverty continues to exist in a country as rich as ours?
Mr. Speaker, it is significant because pensions are inadequate and do not take into account the minimum a person requires in order to live decently. As a result, people get no help, but only crumbs with which they manage to keep body and soul together. It is unfortunate, and we find it shocking, considering the tremendous wealth of our country, that all Canadians should be the victims of the financial system that controls everything.
Mr. Speaker, we are asking, in plain words, so that the other side will understand, that the old age security pension-and this was the purpose of the amendments we moved-be statutorily available to people at 60 instead of 65. Why? Simply because, on account of what is going on in our ridings, a person of 60 who has the bad luck of losing his job-a fact which accounts for economic insecurity in Canada-has a very hard time finding another job, some proper means of living. Actually, it is impossible.
A Canadian age 60, Mr. Speaker, is almost incapable of finding a job. Now, a person who loses his job through illness-and it is a known fact that that illness strikes more often at that age-has no chance of finding another decent job. This means that no help is available and that he must rely solely on himself for his livelihood, in order to meet his needs and obligations, with the result that he must manage to survive for five years, from 60 to 65, with the hope of living until then and getting the old age security pension at 65, as provided in the bill.

May 17, 1972
Old Age Security Act
Mr. Speaker, the minister is in front of me and I ask him why the government refuses to lower the eligible age to 60, since, anyway, this government, as former governments, has found nothing worthwhile not only to keep people of 60 or 65 working, but above all to enable them to survive while waiting for their pension.
This is why the eligible age has to be lowered to 60. Another reason is that the labour market can no longer absorb all the young people who are looking for work and are qualified to fill available positions.
On the other hand, we can find on the labour market in Canada hundreds of people aged 60 or 65 who would like nothing better, after having gone through two economic crises and two wars, than to retire. Considering they have to go on working in spite of their age and their ailments, not only will they be "penalized" where unemployment insurance payments are concerned, but they will not be eligible for an old age security pension until they reach 65. Thus, those people are not only forced to keep on working, sometimes until their death, but they are also deprived of a well-deserved retirement. It is not that the labour market should get rid of those people, but it is high time that we should treat Canadians properly. Those people have done more than enough to build our country, and we now have a duty to assure them of a well-deserved retirement.
This is why we strongly request that the eligible age for old age security pensions be lowered to 60. Is it not proper that we should allow those people to enjoy a well-deserved retirement?
There is a second point with which I wanted to deal and which I am surprised to see has been overlooked. In order to make myself clear, I am going to give a very specific example. Let us suppose that a 65-year old person receives his old age pension and that, for a valid reason, he decides to stop working, or that he loses his job- considering how little job security we now have in Canada. This person comes back home and applies for an old age security pension. The maximum she can get, together with her spouse, is $285. If she is alone and if her spouse is not entitled to it, she will draw $150. The person being retired and her spouse not being 65, she will not be entitled to the old age security pension. So, this couple will not get $285 a month, as is the case for a couple when both are entitled to the pension. Thus, because these persons are not both 65, they are penalized and cannot really benefit from the increase that is being announced with such noise. In this particular case, the measure cannot be efficient.
This is why we ask the government not only to consider this proposal but to act and grant an old age security pension of $150 to any person whose age is less than what is prescribed in the present act, provided his or her spouse is entitled to it. Thus, if the husband retires and his wife is only 59 or 60, she will not have to work to keep the family afloat. This pension would enable her to retire also and live happily with her husband.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this proposal is worth considering.


Mr. Cyr:: Perhaps that would not be accepted by Quebec.


André-Gilles Fortin: The hon. member for Gaspe is saying that perhaps it would not be accepted by Quebec. My answer is that the federal government should at least consult Quebec before taking this step. We should avoid raising more constitutional issues that do not settle the matter, as it has just been done.
Quebec Social Affairs Minister Castonguay says the problem is that the federal government, in a particular sector, gives a pension which results in financial difficulties for those who support the retired people and that the government of Quebec, despite its illimited spending capacity, cannot solve the problem and has therefore a feeling of frustration.
Many of these problems could be avoided if we would agree to give $150 a month to the spouse of those who will get the old age pension at 65, unless we bring the eligibility age down to 60 as we would like. We could avoid many problems and allow this couple to live decently.
Finally, the third proposal that we also defend strongly is the following; according to the provisions of Bill C-207, the old age pension that will be granted by the government is ridiculous even if it includes a supplement geared to the cost of living. This means inquiries, forms to be filled, correspondence, administrative intrigue, in one word more bureaucracy. There is already enough of that, not only as far as the government is concerned but also for the population in general.
We suggest that we should quit bothering people and start really helping them by granting the basic amount to each elderly person in one monthly $200 payment. I understand that some members will object that the government does not have enough money to give $200 a month to the elderly.
Mr. Speaker, with the $150 the government intends to give them, these people will not be able to live any better. By giving them $200 a month, they would have enough minimum income security to meet their legitimate needs.
Where would the money come from, Mr. Speaker? Today, it costs over $13,500 million, unless I am mistaken, to finance the federal, provincial and municipal welfare programs. And most of that money is spent in administrative costs. Those amounts are therefore not paid to the people for whom they are intended. That may seem unbelievable to some of my colleagues. Yet, I invite them to consider the fact that to finance the guaranteed income supplement, the old age security pensions, the allowances to the blind and the disabled, the program for the professional rehabilitation of the disabled, manpower mobility, adult training allowances, student grants, assistance to the immigrants, clearing up of the downgraded zones, veterans's pensions, Indian and Eskimo affairs, welfare services, research, all those services cost $1,097 million, of which no Canadian sees a single penny. That, Mr. Speaker, proves that we have reached the point where bureaucracy dominates the legislature and the government.
That is why we say this must cease, that the problem should be settled once and for all by giving people direct-
May 17, 1972

ly, without inquiry, once they have reached the age of 60, $200 a month without any supplement. Thus, Mr. Speaker, and for the sake of consistency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be not now read for the third time but be referred instead to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for the purpose of considering the advisability of:
(a)	Lowering to age 60 eligibility for the old age security pension;
(b)	Granting the old age pension to every person, even if his age is lower than the provisions of the present act, whose spouse receives a monthly pension by virtue of the said act.
(c)	Abolishing the concept of the supplement and fixing the basic amount at $200 a month.
-and $150 a month for the spouse under 60.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could perhaps indicate, for the information of the Chair, if he feels that this amendment is acceptable according to Standing Orders. The hon. member will admit that an almost identical amendment was moved a few moments ago by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). My colleague, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), who was occupying the Chair at that moment, outlined the precedents and referred to the Standing Orders applicable in such cases. I am afraid that his decision then is also applicable on all counts to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
However, I would be happy to listen to any comments on the matter.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to refer you, in support of this motion, to citation 415(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which reads as follows: Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation; in the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration, but in the former case the Committee can only consider the clause or amendments or instructions referred to them. When material amendments are desirable, the order for the third reading may be discharged, and the bill recommitted to introduce the amendments in Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to base my argument on that paragraph to which I will come back in part.
Yesterday, as you will recall, we brought in an amendment tending to refer Bill C-2 to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs so that section 44 be completely deleted from the bill. Your colleague ruled that the amendment we brought in yesterday called for a redrafting of section 44, which was not the case, Mr. Speaker.
The amendment we moved yesterday tended only to delete this paragraph from the section.
Along the same line, Mr. Speaker, we attack the bill in its third reading without any limitation. I quote from the citation:
Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation, in the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration;
The motion that I move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska, tends to question the very principle of the bill, its philosophy, not the principle of granting financial assistance to old people, but the one under which the basic payment and the guaranteed income supplement are established.
Old Age Security Act
Then, Mr. Speaker, we question the age factor. The bill provides for the payment of a pension to any person who reaches age 65. I ask that the committee examine the possibility of lowering the statutory age to 60.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for an escalation of this pension in line with the increase in the cost of living, for the single person as well as for married couples.
The bill does not provide for the payment of a pension to the spouse of the old age security pensioner.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) pointed out, there is some flexibility in the bill itself which will allow for an increase in the pensions.
My motion is to the same effect and in the same spirit. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is relevant since it is substantive, since it deals with the principle of the bill and is non-limiting.
I shall repeat in concluding what you have so well understood, and I am positive about it: Whenever a bill is to be referred, the whole bill may be reconsidered.
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am after, so that our senior citizens in Canada may get true income security instead of some fictitious social security.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre addressing himself to the point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker I rise to say only a brief word. I like the substance of this amendment much better than the substance of the amendment we had a while ago. I argued that it should have been in order, but we lost on the ground that it went a little beyond what was in the bill. All I can say with regard to this amendment is that if I had thought it was possible at this stage to bring in an amendment to provide for a substantial increase in the amount of the pension, to lower the eligible age and to provide benefits for spouses who are younger, you would have had such an amendment from me long ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am rather suspicious that perhaps this is exactly what would have happened.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere for his comments.
I am afraid the hon. member has failed to differentiate between the two types of amendments: the one which allows the House to consider the suggestion that a bill be referred to a committee for one of its sections to be re-examined or reconsidered, and the other one which is called reasoned amendment in English and which is used by a member to indicate why he intends to vote against the principle of the bill.
The reasoned amendment here gives a detailed account of the reasons why the hon. member intends to vote against the bill as such on second or third reading. There is no question then of referring the bill to a committee but simply of saying why the House should vote against the bill as such.

May 17, 1972
Old Age Security Act
I think that the hon. member is aware of the precedents in this respect.
The other type of amendment suggests that a clause of a bill be referred to a committee for consideration and it is possible of course to give instructions to a committee to consider any clause. Unfortunately, the instructions to be given to the committee must comply with our Standing Orders and a well established precedent is that which is found in Beauchesne in citation 415.1 should like to quote from it and to refer hon. members to paragraph (4). I quote:
On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the Committee of the Whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.
418. -On the second reading of a bill, an amendment may be moved expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution, or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees or commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or the opinion of judges. This cannot be done on the third reading because it is not directly connected with any provision-
The principle expounded by the author of citation 418 is to the effect that there should be a strict relevance in the case of an amendment moved at the third or second reading stage.
The 3rd paragraph of citation 246 of the 4th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads as follows:
(3) The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all... not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications-
I do not want to read the whole paragraph, but in quoting paragraph 3 of citation 246, I wanted simply to remind the hon. member that it is not possible to instruct the committee to do something the House itself cannot undertake, which the committee cannot be authorized to do, that is to amend the financial orders of the Crown.
I could read other citations, including No. 252, but I do not think it is necessary to do so. It is obvious to me that hon. members could, if they so wished, simply move an amendment to the effect that a particular clause of the bill be reconsidered. A motion to this effect would be acceptable, contrary to that moved by the hon. member.
Moreover, I sincerely believe that it violates our Standing Rules and I do not think that it could be acceptable to the Chair.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate on third reading will be very brief indeed. I note that there are a number of hon. members who are anxious to make contributions to the debate at third reading stage, and that some of them have spoken already on second reading. I believe there are a small number of hon. members who have speeches to make not of very long duration, but undoubtedly of substance. It now being 17 minutes to six o'clock it would seem entirely possible that we are very close to concluding third reading of this very important measure. That being the case, my only purpose in inter-

vening in the debate is to move, pursuant to Standing Order 6:
That the hours of sitting be extended beyond six o'clock this day until debate upon third reading of Bill C-207 is concluded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought there was an agreement that we would sit beyond six o'clock for a little while to continue debate on this bill, hopefully to finish it, and I wonder if that is not the better way to do it. I am prepared to sit beyond six o'clock in order to finish this bill. I think many hon. members are prepared to do so, and I believe we could arrive at that conclusion this way rather than by use of a sledge hammer.


James Alexander Jerome: I am not trying to do by sledge hammer what was under discussion. I know that the idea of sitting beyond six was under discussion at the time that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) proposed his amendment. However, since the time was running out during which such a motion could be put, I felt it was appropriate to get the floor at this time. I would much prefer to do it by agreement.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I had attempted to get the floor before the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), and I was going to preface my remarks by saying we were prepared to sit until 6.30, and that there had been some discussion along those lines. That was the first sentence I was going to utter.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, our party does agree to sit for a few minutes after six o'clock. But I wonder why such strong pressures were brought to bear lately to have this bill passed hurriedly when it is such an important one.
I would not like the members to be muzzled owing to the swiftness with which some want this bill to be adopted. We are willing to keep sitting, but not after 6.30.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously there is no agreement. I would think in that case-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been said, I wonder if there could not now be agreement reached in public that we sit until 6.30 and take a reading at that point.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is open to receive that suggestion. The suggestion is that the House proceed to sit until 6.30-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And take a reading at that point.


Mr. Speaker:: -and the question be put at that point?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I really did not mean that we would end the debate, but at that point we re-assess the situation to find out if we could finish in another eight or ten minutes. I am trying to find a way to end this debate today, and to do it happily by agreement.
May 17, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, there is no agreement. If there is no agreement the Chair has to put the motion. I will inquire if there is agreement.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) has indicated that there is no agreement. Therefore the question is-


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I tried to explain a few minutes ago that we were willing to have the House sit until 6.30. If at 6.30 the discussion is over, we could proceed with the vote. However, if at 6.30 o'clock, some members want to have the floor, I would not wish to prevent them from doing so. The debate could be resumed to-morrow because I feel the sun will rise again in the morning as usual.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that that objective can easily be achieved by passing the motion and stopping the debate at 6.30, which would accommodate everybody's point of view.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is obvious to the Chair that the only thing to do is to put the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You blew it, Jim.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Mr. Jerome, seconded by Mr. Watson, moves pursuant to Standing Order 6:
That the hours of sitting be extended beyond six o'clock this day until debate upon third reading of Bill C-207 is concluded.
Are any members objecting?
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: There being more than ten members objecting, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose you have to learn the hard way, Jim.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat what I said before, and add that if the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) had not intervened I would have completed what I had to say by this time. However, we are still prepared to sit until 6.30.
We have in the past waived the notices which have been required. We have been co-operative. We have done all that an opposition could do with respect to expediting this bill, still retaining our right to debate intelligently and responsibly what we think are errors and defects in the legislation. If we did anything less than that we would not be discharging our duty to our constituents and to parliament. And having said that, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this party is still prepared to sit until 6.30 with respect to this measure. I hope that the measure will pass, much as I dislike many aspects of it. And it probably will pass, either by 6.30 or certainly by some time early tomorrow afternoon. It will then go to the other place, and no doubt will become law.
Old Age Security Act
Let me say very hastily that there are three aspects of the bill which disturb me, despite the fact that it is going to pass and that we are not opposing its passage. In the first place, so far as the amounts are concerned, the government has shown itself to have all the characteristics of a shabby, mean, petty-fogging, Scrooge approach to the older people of this land. There is no question about it. Those are the facts. Having calculatedly brought about a measure of inflation in this country to which the older people were exposed as the first victims, and having resisted strongly all attempts from this side of the House-in a non-partisan manner I include members from all opposition parties-over the months and years to expand the spending power of the older people who are in need of increased pensions to make up for the difficulties which inflation has brought upon them, the government has persisted in its attitude. The government voted against our motions to amend existing statutes, motions which all parties on the opposition side launched through the medium of opposition days, and the traditional motions with respect to the Speech from the Throne and budget. Our proposals have not been accepted and everybody on the other side, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) down, has voted against them. However, some improvement in the pension position of the elderly is being made and we propose to support it.
The second thing I dislike about the bill is the way it has been introduced. I repeat what I said about the attempts made by the opposition to improve the lot of these people and the rejection of those attempts by the government. Then suddenly, in what appears to be the dying days of Parliament, we are told "Take it or leave it; it has to be through by a certain day and we require from you all forms of acceptance in order that the bill may receive Royal Assent by this Friday". This is not a way to govern this country; this is not a way to pass legislation which is so badly required for the benefit of the old people of this land. I resent having to give my approval under these circumstances and against this background.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there has been a problem in relation to the constitutional issue, the federal-provincial aspect and the abrasive attitude of this government in its approach to the other provinces, in particular the province of Quebec. In this regard I should like to quote from an interview with the Prime Minister published today in the Toronto Star. The interviewer said:
I was wondering too, and I don't want to ask phoney questions about election dates and so on, but it has crossed my mind about the effect of calling an election if this Quebec problem continues over the months.
I say here, Mr. Speaker, that there had been some discussion, as there has been in the press and in the mind of the Prime Minister, about the attitude taken by ministers in the Quebec government on this bill and the lack of consultation on it. There had even been public threats of resignation by Quebec ministers. The question continues:
I wonder what would be the effect of an election with Quebec in this state of semi-turmoil?
This is the answer:
It's hard to say but my guess would be that it would rather serve the cause of federalism and hopefully of our government-

May 17, 1972
Old Age Security Act
Our Liberal government, of course.
-to have that kind of an election, because I think the people of Quebec want to be reassured that there is at least one strong government somewhere. And if we are campaigning in Quebec and saying: "Look, you may be having troubles locally but don't worry; the country is in good strong hands; please vote for us", I think it wouldn't be disadvantageous to us.
I am sure Premier Bourassa is saying to himself "With friends like these, who needs enemies".
The province of Quebec made its position clear with respect to this bill. I do not necessarily share their views, but there has been abrasiveness and divisiveness between the two governments. In these circumstances, the leader of this government which is trying to push through this bill, publicly makes this cold, calculated statement. With this background, Mr. Speaker, it irks me very much to have to give my approval to this bill but I do so, as do my colleagues. We know the increase is not enough, and it is not given under the circumstances it should be, but we know that these people need it desperately. In these conditions, we propose to do what we can to see that the bill passes and that, hopefully, it will receive Royal Assent within the time required.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to briefly resume my position concerning Bill C-207.
During the debate on second reading, I explained with enough detail that the government behaved in an equival manner when it introduced point-blank this legislation aimed at increasing the old age security pensions. Some errors and, above all, the omissions of the last session are being remedied to a certain extent.
No doubt pressed by the imminence of the next general election, the government did not really try to improve the Old Age Security Act or to provide greater purchasing power to people 65 or over. It was satisfied with some window dressing. It did stop to consider the case of married couples aged 60. And yet, how many times did we urge the government seriously to consider this possibility? They did not care at all about the serious consequences that such a decision might have on the Quebec government, and on this point, I agree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) hides behind a so-called correspondence that they refused to table at the beginning of the afternoon. This is why I speak of a so-called correspondence with the responsible authorities of the Quebec National Assembly.
At a time when unrest prevails in the province, they stir the fire by provoking, arrogantly-this is the very expression used by Premier Bourassa-the Quebec ministers, Messrs. Castonguay, L'Allier, Toupin and Cournoyer. It is very nice to say that they are always ready to consult and co-operate with the Quebec government. It is clear, however, that they could not care less. This is the way to increase social inequities.
Concretely, what does this mean? A Quebec social welfare pension of $135 for persons aged 60 to 64 inclusively. At age 65, the federal Department of National Health and Welfare grants them $285 per month. That difference of

$150 is what provoked the Quebec government: it was too much for Mr. Bourassa's cabinet.
I cannot but deplore this situation which could have been avoided if our suggestions had been heeded. I feel sure that if we take away from the Quebec Social Affairs Department responsibility for all families where parents are aged 60 to 65, we will be helping Quebec out of a difficult situation and we will be helping to create the famous just society for which the Canadian people are still waiting.
Mr. Speaker, those were the remarks I wanted to make on third reading.
I should like, on behalf of the people of the riding I am pleased to represent in this House, to indicate that we are, of course, ready to support an increase in the old age security pension, but that we regret the questionable conduct of the government under the present circumstances. And we are all longing for more justice, more equity, more security, to be established, as soon as possible, for all Canadians. That is why we insisted so much for the minister to implement our suggestions, in view of the fact that our amendments were rejected.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, before you call it six o'clock, may I ask permission of the House to revert to routine proceedings in order to table a committee report?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Foster.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-207, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, among the people we all represent the saddest, surely, are those of advanced age who are unable to fend for themselves and who go through all forms of privation in
May 17, 1972

trying to retain their properties. I know several. In my constituency, Halifax-East Hants, there are people who will eat only one meal a day instead of three. Those people will do almost anything to retain the place in which they have lived over the years. It struck me, when we were considering the formula involving the consumer price index, that perhaps we are not really achieving justice for Canadians from coast to coast; so, I went to the consumer price index itself to see what it involved. It is my impression, having looked at the formula on which the consumer price index is based, that it simply does not provide a sufficiently good answer for the plight of the old age pensioner.
Let me refer to the Canada Year Book for 1970-71, and especially to page 1059, where one will find a section devoted to the consumer price index. I will not read all of it, but I will read enough to prepare a foundation for my argument:
The purpose of the consumer price index is to measure the movement from month to month in retail prices of goods and services bought by a representative cross-section of the Canadian urban population. For a particular article or service, a price index number is simply the price of the article in one period of time expressed as a percentage of its price in a reference period, usually called a base period. However, indexes for individual goods may be combined to form indexes representing prices of broad groups of goods and services. Thus, the consumer price index relates to the wide range of goods and services bought by Canadian urban families. The index expresses the combined prices of such goods each month as a percentage of their prices in the base period 1961.
The group of goods and services represented in the index is called the index 'basket' and 'weights' are assigned to the price indexes of individual items for purposes of combining them into an over-all or composite index. The weights reflect the relative importance of items in expenditures of middle-size urban families with medium incomes. The basket is an unchanging or equivalent quantity and quality of goods and services. Only prices change from month to month and the index, therefore, measures the effect of changing prices on the cost of purchasing the fixed basket.
Having laid that foundation, let me make a telling point against the use of the consumer price index. I continue quoting from that article:
The basket and weights now used in the index are based on expenditures in 1957-
That was 15 years ago, Mr. Speaker. I continue:
-of families of two to six persons, with annual incomes of $2,500 to $7,000, living in cities of 30,000 population or over.
The injustice lies in this, Sir: That index is not a proper representation of the type of cost that the older person is apt to encounter. For one thing, the older person is apt to incur higher medical costs than a younger person may encounter. Or, he may need special clothing, special nursing care, or the like for coping with the problems associated with old age. In short, the problems that the older person faces are not the same as the problems that the population in general face.
Second, Sir, the cost of living, as reflected by the consumer price index, is not the same everywhere. Living costs in small towns are apt to be different from those of our great metropolitan centres. That is simply not taken into account. For instance, property taxes will vary, and the like. So, I suggest that there is real weakness here in using the consumer price index formula. That formula
Old Age Security Act
arrives at one figure. It is inflexibly applied from coast to coast and does not take into account the varieties of experiences that older people may undergo.
Third, I say that the index is not sufficient, because the floor itself is not sufficient. The floor should be put at around $100, instead of at the figure that is proposed. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because the formula, again, does not take into account another great fact of life, namely, that poverty levels have been established in Canada; and, so far as I can determine, the poverty level is at least $250 or $300 per person higher than amounts being proposed in this particular measure. So on the basis that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, I will support the bill; but may I say that it is only a small step forward and that a better step could have been taken. We might have adopted something better than the consumer price index as a measuring tool, something that would be more representative of those classic studies that have been carried out in the last 10 or 15 years involving the poverty level, below which Canadians should not be allowed to exist.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the third reading of this bill, I have a few remarks to make. The first is about the government's insistence on having this bill passed so hastily. I wonder why and we will try to find the reason.
First, this bill was passed on first reading and referred to the committee last Friday, that is, May 12 at 5:40 p.m., at the end of the day and of the week. The bill was considered the following Monday, namely Monday last, even though committees seldom sit on Monday, and the report was immediately submitted at 5:50 p.m. This means that the government is quite anxious to have this bill passed, and even though it will help considerably our senior citizens, I do not think the government should insist so much on having the Senate deal with it so soon. The hon. senators will only have to repeat their memorable feat of a few months ago when they railroaded the tax bill. I am convinced that this bill will get the royal assent tomorrow night.
At all events, it seems to me that the Canadian people will soon have to choose a new government. This is why we should expedite this bill. At last the Canadians will be able to elect a real government which will set up a real system, the one that the Canadian people want.
The present social and economic system prevents the weak, the handicapped and the aged from having access to the tremendous wealth of our country. We, Creditistes, believe that Canada has the necessary economic resources to enable all Canadians to live above the poverty line.
All the remedies applied in Canada in the past to solve the problem of poverty have been applied at the income level. Attempts have been made by both governments and labour unions to increase personal incomes, but nobody has ever thought of increasing the purchasing power, or at least of keeping it from decreasing all the time as is the case at present.

May 17, 1972
Old Age Security Act
Statistics Canada recently published a very significant table in this regard.
If the price index is considered on a basis of 100, we see that in 1947, we could buy with 65.6 cents what costs $1.33.4 today.
Mr. Speaker, this means that every time the cost of living rises, the purchasing power is reduced, especially for older people and all those who cannot earn their living. They are pitied but are only given meagre pensions or welfare allowances.
This is why the Social Credit party has been urging for a long time that older people's rights be recognized. We must not grant them pensions as we give charity. No. They have rights, and it is these rights that we want the government to recognize.
In 1965, the committee for the advancement of older citizens gave evidence before a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on the new Canada Pension Plan. Here is what was said at that time:
We are taking the liberty of saying openly that we do not want an increase in the cost of living, we want a decrease. The increase in prices is a direct cut in benefits, thus reducing all income and mostly the income of those who live on small private pensions. A cost of living adjustment of $2 cannot compensate the increase in prices.
Further on, it says:
We urge that adequate provisions and arrangements be included in the new legislation to ensure that all pension plans provide a minimum basic pension of $100 a month. We also request that the age limit for both plans be brought down to age 60 for women and age 65 for men, when full benefits should be paid.
Not just a portion of the allowance, according to the wealth of individuals or the savings they may have achieved! I shall discuss that point later on in my speech.
I continue to quote:
Old-age pensions were introduced in Canada under economic conditions very different from those now prevailing. In those days, old-age pensions were hand-outs, bare pittances subject to means tests, to keep body and soul together at age 70. When the fire of life was barely a spark, and life expectancy was much shorter than today.
Mr. Speaker, this is no longer a question of charity to older people. It is a matter of right which we seem to forget. Instead of thinking about things and goods that Canada has to offer to older people, we think in terms of dollars. As the government is "broke" it does not show much generosity to older people.
I quote from the White Paper on Income Security in Canada tabled a few months ago by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). It says on page 1, first column:
This occasion, when new income security policies are being considered, affords an opportunity for a statement of purpose and basic policy. Although any new initiatives are necessarily limited by what is economically feasible-
Can we see the existing needs? The government's new initiatives are being paralyzed by the economic situation. We are thinking in terms of dollars. There is no consideration as to what may be offered and as to what the country is in a position to offer, be it for food, housing, clothing, any kind of services. We think of the expenses that the country can afford.

And in the center column, we find this-I think it is precious, Mr. Speaker-and I quote:
Unless the system gives most individuals capable of working the opportunity to productively exercise their initiative, the national wealth to finance income security will not be generated, and the country will lack the means to assist those who cannot participate fully or partially in the labour force.
Why the "unless"? Do Canadians refuse this productive exercise, Mr. Speaker? Is there something wrong with the system in the eyes of those who wrote the white paper? They seem to have doubts about the system.
Mr. Speaker, if there is something wrong with the system, let us change it and let us allow the elderly to receive what they are expecting.
In 1967, I submitted to the House a motion which provided that both spouses would simultaneously receive their old age pension.
On May 7th 1971, I again insisted that when someone receives his old age security pension, even if his spouse has not reached pension age, the latter has a right to take advantage of this pension as well as the former. In my opinion, if two persons live on such a pension, even if it is now being increased to $150, it is still not enough.
Then, if the spouse were also to receive the old age ssecurity pension, we would allow at least the couple to live decently upon retirement.
When I put forward this motion on May 7th, 1971, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare said about me:
-aroused my curiosity to the point where I wondered whether the speech he delivered so masterly
"would not fall in the darkness and void of times".
The member for Hull should have said instead that the speech made by the hon. member for Abitibi "would not fall in the darkness and void of the liberal party". That would have been far more accurate, for we are still at the same point as we were then, and the liberal party overlooks the spouses of persons 65 years old.
With the low increase it now grants to our senior citizens, which in fact does not exceed $12.30 a month, the government thinks it can call an election next week and go to the people hoping that the old people will crawl before it, before the liberal party, and carry it back to power.
Mr. Speaker, I think and I hope that the government is wrong. In view of the way the government keeps on insisting on that increase in income, and the participation of the guaranteed minimum income, we, of the social credit party, request that the pension be universal irrespective of whatever other income our senior citizens might have.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I should like to submit two cases out of the hundreds I have dealt with during the past few years. Let us take the case of a man from La Sarre, my own city, a close neighbour of mine. He has reached retirement age. Having worked hard from age 12 or 13, he saved, managed carefully all his life. He and his wife were never seen in taverns or theaters. They deprived themselves of amenities all their lives and thus managed to put
May 17, 1972

aside a few thousand dollars. Today, they are being penalized for their thrift.
This man invested his savings through a bank, in bonds and shares in companies. He therefore receives interest or dividends on his investments. He has to pay income tax on this income. Furthermore, he and his wife are denied the supplement to which others will be entitled and which, under the new legislation, would amount to some $1600 a year for the two of them.
Mr. Speaker, the government penalizes those who save money during their lifetime and takes possession of those savings.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an injustice for these persons, and this is why we ask that this pension be granted to any person aged 60 or more, without discrimination.
The same situation exists in the case of people aged 65 or more who want to keep on working. For instance, one individual in my riding had a contract for the distribution of mail. After I had considered his case with him, he found out that he was working for nothing, that is, the guaranteed income supplement that he and his wife were losing was roughly equivalent to the amount that he would have earned distributing mail for 52 weeks. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this is unfair for an individual who wants to serve his country.
I think that Canada can and must grant our senior citizens a decent pension enabling them to live as they wish, to keep on being happy as they wish and they must not be deprived of this.
Lastly, the chairman of the Canadian Pacific, Mr. Crump, has retired. I assume that after spending more than 50 years with this company, including more than 20 years as chairman, Mr. Crump does not have to worry about his financial status or his leisure. However, Mr. Speaker, there are not very many Canadians in the same situation as the chairman of the Canadian Pacific. Most
Old Age Security Act
people have been taxed during most of their working years and reach retirement age with no income, except for a few of them. And when they do get some income, when they have saved something, they are penalized one way or the other.
This situation must cease as quickly as possible, and this is why we have introduced these amendments which have been rejected. I think that the people of Canada will accept these amendments in approximately two months from now.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I see the time is rapidly approaching 6.30, which was the magic hour; I do not think we can really complete this business tonight. I have had discussions with hon. members in other parties and we are agreeable, if the House wishes, to an order of the House being made now, which would provide that all questions be put to dispose of the third reading tomorrow after not more than one hour of debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is that agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Although we would still be prepared to continue to sit and finish this bill tonight, if that is not possible we are prepared to agree to this order being made. I would hope that in the hour's debate tomorrow I might get five or seven minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Me, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being past six o'clock the House will adjourn until tomorrow at 2 o'clock p.m.
It being twenty-eight minutes after six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
2379

Thursday. May 18, 1972