1972-05-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. This motion arises out of the revelation yesterday that the United States government is planning to apply countervailing duties against tires exported to the United States by the Michelin Tire Company of Canada. Such action could lead not only to a further major disruption of the Canadian tire industry in central Canada by causing Michelin to dump all their tires on the domestic market but, beyond that, to the complete undermining of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion's programs in eastern Canada and elsewhere, whose success is largely dependent on the availability of the U.S. export market.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the hon. member will now indicate what the motion is that he proposes for consideration by the House.


John Edward Broadbent: I will do so right now, Mr. Speaker. I was just coming to the motion.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That at the next sitting of this House the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion make a statement on motions which will indicate what the government intends to do to cope with the very serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity; therefore the motion cannot be put.



ISSUANCE OF PERMIT BY UNITED STATES FOR ALASKA PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following motion under the terms of Standing Order 43:
In view of U.S. Interior Secretary Morton's decision to permit construction of an oil pipeline in Alaska to carry oil to giant tankers for shipment along the coast of British Columbia involving inevitable spillage of oil and the desecration of our western waters and beaches, that this House urge the Prime Minister to make direct and immediate representations to the President of the United States urging a reconsideration of the decision to permit pipeline construction.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF TAPS TANKER ROUTE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek consent to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), arising out of the decision of the United States Department of the Interior to grant a licence to construct a pipeline in Alaska and, consequential upon that, to move oil by tanker down the west coast. There is an urgent and pressing necessity for this country to attempt to determine, first, what the opinion of the public is and, hopefully finding it opposed to this route, to thus attempt to consolidate it. I would therefore move:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be authorized immediately to travel to British Columbia for the purpose of hearing witnesses regarding the proposed oil tanker route from the State of Alaska to the State of Washington and that the necessary staff do accompany the said committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the government has scuttled this proposal as well as the other one?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

May 12, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement made outside the House in another city by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the government is ready at any time to accept applications for building pipelines from the Arctic down the Mackenzie Valley, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister when it became government policy to accept such applications at any time.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, there have been a series of studies of the ecological requirements. We have spent a great deal of money and a great deal of time as well as a great amount of human resources on such studies. We have come to the conclusion that at the present time these studies have proceeded to the point where we are prepared to extend an invitation to corporations or government agencies to build a pipeline in that area on the basis that we can thereafter establish the necessary requirements in respect of the ecological necessities based upon the studies we already have.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister when the government reached the decision that the ecological studies have proceeded far enough that the government is now prepared to receive such applications in view of the repeated statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the House that the government expected to be in a position to receive such applications by the end of the year?


Arthur Laing: I think the Minister of the Environment might answer this question more capably than I.


Frank Howard: Or any other question.


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: As the
hon. member knows, we do have a three-year study under way costing approximately $13 million-


Mr. Lewis:: $15 million.


John (Jack) Davis: -which began 18 months ago. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said, we believe that by this fall we will have enough background information to prepare ecological maps for the north. We will not have all the information we need by this fall but we think we will have sufficient information to reach definitive conclusions as to pipeline routing in 1973. Meanwhile, of course, the oil and gas companies are themselves collecting a great deal of biological and other information which they will include in their submissions when they apply to the National Energy Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could explain to the House how it is that the new position taken by the government of Canada, of which we heard for the

first time yesterday, that it is now prepared to receive applications for an oil line down the Mackenzie Valley has only been announced after the United States announced that it is going to authorize construction of the Alaska pipeline involving shipment down the west coast. Would the minister try to give some explanation in reply to that question?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that the open invitation was extended only after the announcement of Mr. Morton.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That was the first time we heard of the policy.


Arthur Laing: Included in the letter which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wrote to Mr. Morton was an invitation, because he said there should be no reason why regulatory and governmental considerations could not be given in an expeditious manner commencing with an application filed by the end of this year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, by the end of this year.


Arthur Laing: This is indicative and confirms what I have been saying, that the studies we have undertaken thus far indicate to us the requirements that we are going to make when an application is made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Tell that to the marines!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is obviously debate at this point. The hon. member for Skeena on a supplementary.



PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF PAISH STUDY RESPECTING POSSIBLE OIL SPILLS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Inasmuch as it appears that the United States Department of the Interior has determined that it is favourable to the Alaska pipeline and the tanker route down the west coast and that this route is the one that will be used, can the Minister of the Environment say what steps the government is taking, and when, to put into effect the recommendations of the Howard Paish and Associates study, released by the minister a few days ago, which relate to protecting us from oil spills that might take place?


John (Jack) Davis: The
study to which the hon. member refers makes explicit the threat to Canada of large tankers moving into the inland sea between Vancouver Island and the mainland. We have been working closely with the Department of Transport and with our opposite numbers in the United States to endeavour to establish a scheme to ensure safety of navigation and to deal with oil spills. At the same time we do not want to appear to accept the inevitability of tankers moving into the Puget Sound area. We are determined that this not be the case.


Frank Howard: The minister very adroitly evaded the question. I asked him what steps he is taking to prepare for putting into effect the recommendations of
May 12, 1972

that particular study? Are we making any plans internally within the structure of the Canadian government, or is everything going to depend on what decisions are reached in conjunction with the United States?


John (Jack) Davis: We have our own plans and, as the hon. member knows, we have what might be called a crisis management organization in the Department of the Environment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baldwin:: There is lots of room for that.


Mr. Fairweather:: Have you got one for the government?


John (Jack) Davis: In other words, we are co-ordinating not only the studies of a preventive nature but also with respect to possible oil spills in the Puget Sound area. But as I said before, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to accept the idea or give an indication that we accept the idea that tankers will be coming into that area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we really are getting into a debate on this subject. We might return to the matter in a short while. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR LIST OF AMERICAN COMPANIES MAKING USE THEREOF

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce some questions arising out of the statement he made yesterday that approximately 1,500 United States companies have registered under DISC. During the statement he mentioned only three, namely, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, whose names had already appeared in the press. Would he inform the House whether he has information about the names of other U.S. firms which have registered under DISC, that is, of the 1,500 he mentioned yesterday and, if so, would he undertake to table a list of the names of such firms?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister oi Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we have other names of United States companies that are establishing DISC companies at this time. We get this information sometimes through Canadian subsidiaries of these U.S. companies. As I reported already to the House, we are trying to devise a system by which we would ask for identification of these companies when they export goods to Canada. I will look into the suggestion made by the hon. member as to the publication of the information we have.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House what it is that he has to look into? If he has names, as he has said he has, would he tell the House why he
Inquiries of the Ministry
could not directly undertake to give that information to members of parliament and to the people of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, to be frank, the United States government does not appear to be very keen to publish the names of these companies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dieienbaker:: Why?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I prefaced my answer by saying, to be absolutely frank on the subject-


John George Diefenbaker: Why are you so considerate of them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Second, Mr. Speaker, the information that we get is only hearsay some of the time. As I indicated yesterday, in analysing the situation with respect to U.S. automobile companies, there is a substantial margin of nuances in the different cases. You have companies, as I indicated yesterday, that have formed DISC'S and are using them. Others have formed DISC'S but do not know exactly what they are going to do, and there are others that have not applied at all. I would be afraid of providing inadequate information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to do a responsible job. If hon. members on the other side would like to be irresponsible, that is their choice.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that it is not responsible to keep parliament and the people of Canada in the dark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That is cowardice rather than responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that he was recognized for the purpose of asking a question.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that this development in the DISC program holds out a very serious threat to the jobs of Canadian workers and to production in many areas in this country-electrical, petrochemical and others-what steps is the government taking now to obtain the necessary information both from Canadian companies that are subsidiaries of U.S. companies and from the United States department itself? Surely Canada is entitled to know who is going to cut its throat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question has developed into an argument, but perhaps we might allow the minister to reply to that part of the hon. member's statement which was a question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, when I hear my friends of the NDP moralizing, I always think of that man in the Bible who said "I thank God that I am not like other men".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

May 12, 1972
Inauiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not care what part of the Bible the minister cites or quotes from but he might also read Shakespeare and learn that the evil that men do lives after them except that it is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a point of order, perhaps he might indicate what it is. We are obviously going nowhere fast.


David Lewis: What I want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, is that when we ask questions of the minister he can make his childish political cracks if he likes-


An hon. Member:: Order.


David Lewis: -but he ought also to try to answer questions if, as the minister says so self-righteously, he is responsible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River.



ELECTIONS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister or the acting government House leader. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister yesterday deliberately blurted out details of a bill which has just been approved in cabinet with regard to election expenses, can the Acting Prime Minister or the acting government House leader indicate when parliament will be allowed to see that bill? In view of the fact the Prime Minister said not long ago that the bill would not be presented because it would take too long to put through at this session, can any indication be given to the House of how much time the government intends to devote to the passage of this bill?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made note last night, I think, in a speech to a group of people that it was the intention of the government to bring forward a bill dealing with election expenses. He gave no details of any kind. I would expect that the bill would be presented to the House some time next week.


Gerald William Baldwin: Could the Acting Prime Minister find out and let the House know soon how long it is expected it will take to pass this bill in light of the Prime Minister's statement and whether it is going to take priority over the legislation dealing with foreign investment?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the length of time taken by the bill would depend upon the people who sit on the opposite side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize that there are supplementaries to the previous question. I was under the impression that the hon. member for Peace River was rising on a supplementary. Before returning to the previ-

ous subject the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Compton.



VISIT OF JAPANESE INDUSTRIALISTS-ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN BUSINESSMEN IN MAKING CONTACT

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since a group of Japanese are presently visiting Canadian cities to buy Canadian products or to study the possibility of associating with Canadian firms and develop products for markets, does the minister intend to resort to publicity to enable Canadian businessmen to meet these Japanese industrialists?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the executives of three important Japanese firms have been touring Canada and met industrialists with whom they hope to do business. I do not think that people in general are interested in meeting them but should there be any businessmen who have not yet been contacted they only have to advise my department and we will do our utmost to accommodate them. In any case, this is what is being done at the present time.



ALLEGED LACK OF AGGRESSIVENESS IN MAKING SALES IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA-ACTION TO RECTIFY

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the public criticism by Czech officials of our lack of sales aggressiveness as a nation in their country. Can the minister indicate whether there have been similar criticisms from other nations and whether the department is taking immediate steps to rectify this very serious situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, you will never achieve perfection when it comes to eagerness in promotion. That kind of remark is often made and I have made some observations myself in the same vein. With respect to Czechoslovakia-I take it the hon. member is asking about Czechoslovakia-70 per cent of the trade of that country is with other socialist countries. The five-year plan anticipates that a little less than 50 per cent will be in that direction, so obviously the room for western industrial countries is limited. We are doing our best to promote Canadian goods there, especially with the new trade promotion measures announced recently. If the hon. member has any suggestions I will be delighted to look at them.


Harold Warren Danforth: As it is government policy to send representations and demonstrations to trade fairs and as Czechoslovakia has indicated that it would welcome such a presentation by Canadian industry in Czechoslovakia, will consideration be given to putting Czechoslovakia on the list?
May 12, 1972


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, each year we participate in a number of fairs which we select on the basis of the benefits they could bring to Canada. In the last few weeks I have announced a new program, as the hon. member knows under which my department will pay 50 per cent of the costs of single companies which participate in fairs in which the Canadian government does not take part. This should encourage those companies which are interested in going to specialized fairs.



EXPLOSIVES ACT


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who ought to be present, according to the roster, but is absent except in spirit. In view of the legislative program in general now before the House and the strong opposition that has been voiced by organizations such as the Winnipeg Game and Fish Association and the Manitoba Wildlife Association, as well as by Mr. Murray McMaster, president of the 16,000 member Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation to Bill C-7 amending the Explosives Act, would the Acting Prime Minister suggest to the minister that, in view of the strong opposition of at least
35,000	sportsmen on the Prairies to this bill which they would consider to be an infringement upon their rights as free citizens and sportsmen, this bill might be put off until the next session of a new parliament.
Mr.Speaker: Order, please. The Acting Prime Minister may, of course, reply to the question, but I take the liberty of bringing to the attention of the right hon. member and of hon. members that the question deals, of course, with a bill now before the House which has received and is receiving consideration. This should not preclude the Acting Prime Minister from replying to the hon. gentleman's question.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the right hon. member has the capacity for making very impressive representations, and this one will be taken into account as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot pass that up without saying that the hon. gentleman has proven that he makes a very good Acting Prime Minister.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the very serious threat of floods in the Fraser and Thompson River valleys-snowpacks indicate potentially
Inquiries of the Ministry
worse floods than have occurred at any time since records have been kept-can the minister advise the House whether he is watching the situation and whether his department and/or other government departments are ready to take any necessary action?


Gerald William Baldwin: Of course the government is ready. It will pass a bill.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that our water management people are keeping an eye on the situation and that we are in close contact with the provincial government. I might also add that the runoff situation is not necessarily as formidable as the hon. member has suggested. Much will depend on temperatures, winds, etc. over the next few weeks.



ADEQUACY OF FLOOD PREVENTION MEASURES IN LOWER FRASER RIVER VALLEY

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. Can he say whether he is satisfied with flood prevention measures so far taken, particularly as they affect the lower part of the Fraser River and Fraser Valley?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows there is some procedural difficulty in a question merely asking a minister whether he is satisfied with the status of a situation. The minister will be allowed to reply, but I do not really think that this is a proper form of questioning.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are not entirely satisfied. There is a diking program under way which will not be completed for several years. Until it is complete we will not have an adequate insurance policy to cover flooding in the lower Fraser Valley. We are, however, working closely with the province. We have contacted the provincial authorities with regard to an imminent flood. Their answer really is: Don't call us; we will call you if we are in difficulty.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Inasmuch as the Department of Supply and Services awarded a salt contract to an American firm in preference to awarding it to Canadian suppliers, and as the price lists of the American salt company which received the contract indicate that the company is offering salt for sale in Canada at prices which constitute dumping, will the minister cause an inquiry to be made into whether the said salt supplying company is guilty of dumping and whether the Department of Supply and Services purchased American salt in preference to Canadian salt at prices which constitute dumping?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister oi National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the hon. member's representation and will see that my officials have the matter he has raised looked into.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO GRANT TO PROJECT IN TOWN OF SIMCOE

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question ought to be directed to the Secretary of State but in his absence may I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Will he be so kind as to investigate a grant of $7,765 under the Opportunities for Youth program to a project in the town of Simcoe? One of the objects of the project is the publishing of an underground newspaper, a copy of which I have here, and the language is such that it could not be read in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Maclnnis:: I will bet the Prime Minister read it.


William David Knowles: I exclude such notable exceptions, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister to have this grant investigated. I have the particulars here but will not take the time of the House to put them on record.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the hon. member's question to the attention of the Secretary of State.


William David Knowles: Would the minister consult with the Under Secretary of State, Mr. Leger, with whom I have communicated this morning and who has some details on this matter? There is some urgency involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WELFARE


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. I apologize for not having given him notice of it. May I ask, is there any government organization called "Welfare Systems of the House of Commons" which claims to have a mandate to poll various people who are receiving welfare assistance? I ask this question in view of requests to my office regarding the validity of this so-called poll.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will understand that this does not fall under my jurisdiction, but I might say that personally I am not aware of any such organization.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I wonder whether I could impose on the good offices of the minister and ask him to investigate this problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course that is a representation.



PUBLIC ORDER


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence.
Because of the rather special situation now prevailing in Quebec could the minister tell us if the Quebec government has contacted him or his government and if negotiations were entered into for the intervention of armed forces should this prove necessary?


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: No,
Mr. Speaker.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, is the minister ready to co-operate with the Quebec Minister of Justice and give him the necessary assistance in due course?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, before the government of Canada can use the armed forces there has to be a request from the province.


Mr. Peters:: Do not use the War Measures Act again.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether reinstatement of the War Measures Act in Quebec is being contemplated?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the complex problems at present facing the fishing industry at the international level, is the minister giving any consideration to establishing as a priority item an international fisheries section within the department because of the increasing involvement of international laws and negotiations with the Canadian fishing industry, as recommended to him by the Fisheries Council of Canada?
May 12, 1972


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the fishing industry recognizes that our approach to offshore problems on a wide front, including pollution and conservation of the living resources of the sea, is really paying off and that this is consistent with the recommendations of the Council. Fisheries matters cannot be separated from environmental matters.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Will the minister be taking any action on the recommendation of the Fisheries Council of Canada that Canada formally withdraw recognition of jurisdiction of the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries over exclusive Canadian fishing zones since ICNAF is setting quotas inside Canada's 12-mile limit?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if ICNAF had any authority in our own exclusive fishing zones. As the hon. member knows, these zones have been extended in recent years. In our international discussions we are concerned with catches outside our own exclusive fishing zones, outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for example.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for York South has a supplementary to the previous question. If not, the Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition and then the hon. member for York South.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-DECISION OF GOVERNMENT TO ACCEPT CONSTRUCTION APPLICATIONS-SETTLEMENT OF LAND CLAIMS OF NATIVE PEOPLE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to question the Acting Prime Minister a little further with regard to the sudden about-face in connection with the pipeline in the north. Does the decision to accept applications mean that the government has decided there are no land claims of the native people that require settlement or does it mean they have been settled? I ask this question because when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was questioned as recently as May 1, he said: These questions are hypothetical; nor have we decided whether a pipeline will be built or not, but we certainly hope one will be built. Now that the government has decided to accept applications and has decided in principle that a pipeline will be built, can the Acting Prime Minister state what this indicates as far as native claims are concerned?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, an application is still an application. Also, we are dealing here with a corridor as outlined by the Prime Minister in his announcement in Edmonton. The corridor in that area is a very tiny fraction of the area in which the Indian and other native people are involved. I am told that in the case of TAPS in Alaska there are only 20 square miles involved. I would assume from that that there will not be more than 40 or 50 square miles involved in putting a corridor down the Mackenzie Valley. Until we get these things in proper perspective, it is a little out of the way to
Inquiries of the Ministry
talk about the rights of people who are scattered throughout the entire area.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister reminds me of the girl who was only a little pregnant. I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the corridor spoken of by the Prime Minister runs from the Mackenzie River into Alaska.


Arthur Laing: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we have no right to talk about a corridor into Alaska.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right.


Arthur Laing: I find it difficult to answer this kind of question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the difficulty of the Acting Prime Minister or any member of the government answering questions in these circumstances, but I remind the Acting Prime Minister that the government has now decided to accept applications for a pipeline from Alaska.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition would agree that this is debate. The Leader of the Opposition might ask a supplementary question, which would ease the task of the Chair.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would even like to ease the task of the government. Having reminded the Acting Prime Minister that the pipeline for which the government is seeking authorization not only runs up the Mackenzie River but across to Alaska, I now ask him whether that means the government has decided there are no significant Indian claims to land in that area or that any such claims have already been settled?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, one would have to know the geography of that area. There is a flat plain across the Arctic. If American oil were to come by way of the Mackenzie, it would come across that flat plain to the Yukon. The mountain range that would then be encompassed and dealt with would not be the Brooks range, but the British mountains in the territory of the Yukon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You have all that information now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will have to recognize the hon. member for York South. I appreciate that this matter is important, but I am sure it will not be settled between now and the next few days. Supplemen-taries can be asked at the next sitting of the House. If there is time, I will return to the hon. member for Athabasca.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE

May 12, 1972



U.S. IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ON MICHE- LIN TIRES ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE OF INCENTIVE GRANTS-REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION- GOVERNMENT ACTION

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of reports that the United States intends to impose countervailing duties against Michelin products destined for the United States in part, so the report indicates, because Michelin received grants under DREE, and in view of the fact the reports indicate that similar action is contemplated in Washington against products of other firms that have received or may receive grants under DREE, will the minister give the House any information he has on the subject and also indicate what steps, if any, the government is planning to take to deal with this rather serious threat to Canadian jobs and exports?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the subject is not new. It has been debated between Canadian and American representatives on a number of occasions in the past. We now have a new situation, notice of countervailing. As I said in the House yesterday, there is a period of 30 days after the notice is issued for representations to be made, and further representations will be made by the Canadian government to the United States government in this respect.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether his answer confirms the report that these countervailing measures by the United States are not only contemplated against Michelin products but also against the products of other firms receiving grants under DREE?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard about countervailing against other companies. The subject in recent times has been Michelin. I assume I am now answering questions on behalf of the Minister of Finance who is responsible for tariff matters. I will bring the question to his attention. If he has heard of other companies against which action has been taken, I am sure he will want to inform the House.



HARBOURS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has any progress been made with regard to the possibility of extending the season in the port of Churchill so that additional shipping may be arranged out of that port? Also, can the minister indicate in what area, if any, progress has been made?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in three areas, I would suggest. First, we have established a port authority largely made up of local residents in Churchill to help us in the preparation of a plan which would involve the technical aspects, that is,

dredging, icebreaking and the like. Second, we have our own study going on at the present time of the ice conditions, particularly at the mouth of the river. Third, and perhaps most importantly in terms of getting a short extension of the season which would nevertheless be important, is an invitation which has now been accepted to a key group of insurance underwriters from around the world to visit the area and see what conditions are like. That will be done this summer, as far as I know.


Stanley James Korchinski: In light of the fact that studies were conducted three or four years ago which indicated there was a possibility, would the government be prepared, if the marine insurance companies are not willing to lower their insurance premium rates to extend the season, to put its money where its mouth is in order to prove that it is possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might reply briefly to the question though it sounded more like debate to the Chair.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is more like putting its money where the mouth of the river is. The problem is not that simple. We are examining the possibility of working with insurance underwriters, and this is why they are going to the spot to see for themselves.



CHURCHILL-SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF EXTRA FREIGHT COST BY GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE SHIPMENTS FROM PORT

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the extra cost of freight for charter parties through the Churchill port, has any consideration been given by the government to the suggestion, as I recall, by the Hudson Bay Route Association that the government of Canada absorb the extra cost of freight insurance that has to be paid on shipments through Churchill? If that could be done it would greatly increase the volume of shipments of wheat and other products through that port.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. member would realize that to give him as full an answer as his question deserves would take a lot of time. A short answer is yes, we have looked at this alternative but we are satisfied, and I think I can also satisfy the right hon. member, that the other two steps have to be taken as well, that is, insurance and the question of water depth.


John George Diefenbaker: As well?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, as well.
May 12, 1972



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. It is a repeat of the question I put to him on Wednesday relating to discrimination in freight rates affecting the movement of rapeseed meal east and west in Canada. The minister said he would examine the matter and answer later.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I did. I understand that four appeals have been lodged under the appropriate procedures before the Canadian Transport Commission. If the hon. member is interested in the names, they are the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Agra Industries Limited, Co-op Vegetable Oils Ltd. and Western Canadian Seed Processors Limited-that is, western rapeseed crushers. These are all appeals under section 23 of the National Transportation Act. Hearings commenced on April 24 and are still proceeding.



ELECTIONS


Mr. Las Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I return to a matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River and ask the Acting Prime Minister whether or not the legislation that he said would be introduced some time next week concerning election expenses will be based on the recommendations in the report of the special committee on election expenses which submitted its report to the House on June 4 last year? If so, will the legislation include provision for some form of disclosure of contributions, as recommended by that committee?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that the question anticipates an order. If the Acting Prime Minister wishes to reply briefly to the question he will be allowed to do so, but I have serious doubts as to its procedural acceptability.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman would want to be kept in a state of anticipation of seeing the bill when it is printed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in light of what Your Honour says, with which I agree most thoroughly, there is some problem here because of the fact that the Prime Minister saw fit to disclose some of the provisions of that bill yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we have reached the end of the question period. I understand the right hon. gentleman has a supplementary.
Old Age Security Act


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the disclosure made outside the House, which of course is a contempt of parliament-


Edgar John Benson: You did it all the time.


John George Diefenbaker: It would not be a contempt to the former Minister of Finance because he was used to doing that sort of thing. However, I am speaking to the Acting Prime Minister now. Has the cabinet passed the necessary resolution in order to make possible the introduction of the legislation to which the Prime Minister referred?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, if we were on the benches opposite, as we were years ago-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gerald William Baldwin: You will be soon.


Arthur Laing: -I would get from the right hon. member the same kind of answer as I am going to give him. I have nothing to say.


John George Diefenbaker: That reply just shows how ridiculous was the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-207, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I might refer to the ruling that I indicated I would make when this matter was before the House on Wednesday last. At that time the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) proposed an amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-207, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, in the following words:
This House, deeply conscious of the need to increase the Old Age Security pension so as to reflect the full increase in the consumer price index since January 1, 1967, to date with adjustments to the guaranteed income supplement, is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of introducing appropriate amendments to effect such changes to the present limited terms of the bill.
At that time, as recorded at page 2154 of Hansard, the Chair indicated that he had certain misgivings about the form of the proposed amendment and suggested that the amendment did not appear to meet the requirements of a reasoned amendment, either in form or in purport. At page 527 of May's Seventeenth Edition three rules are set
2218

May 12, 1972
Old Age Security Act
down concerning the categories or, better still, the forms of a reasoned amendment. The descriptions of the categories or forms of that kind of amendment are as follows:
(1)	It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from , the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
(2)	It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
(3)	It may seek further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence.
The learned author goes on to state:
Such amendments have tended in modern times to become rather stereotyped and are confined generally to the first two categories.
Although category (3), as described by the author, may have become obsolescent in the British House of Commons, a type of that category of amendment continues in our practice under the form of a motion to refer the subject matter of a bill to a committee. Citation 386 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition makes reference to that.
As stated on Wednesday last, and again in the description of reasoned amendments as found in May, the proposed amendment is not contrary to or opposed in any shape or form to the principle of Bill C-207, nor is it opposed to progress of the bill. It does seem to me that unless some of the conditions which I have outlined are met, the motion proposed by the hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe cannot be deemed to be a reasoned amendment. I therefore regret that I cannot accept it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when the first part of my speech on Bill C-207 at the second reading stage was interrupted by the six o'clock adjournment on Wednesday, I was commenting on the way in which the government is exploiting the plight of our senior citizens and at the same time playing fast and loose with the political process. I had intended to bring before the House a number of quotations from the record to show how often this government has said no to any increase in the basic amount of the pension, how often it has said no to putting the escalation on a basis equal to that of the actual increase in the cost of living, and how often it has said no to the restoration of the escalation to the basic amount of the pension. However, partly because both in this debate and in the debate on the budget other members are putting these items from the record on Hansard, and partly because there are other things I want to say, I am going to omit the extensive reading of the record that I had planned.
I would simply say that the last occasion, according to my research, when the minister was asked directly if the government was prepared to increase the basic amount of the old age pension was on Thursday, February 24, 1972, as recorded in Hansard at page 208.1 had put the question to the minister, and Hansard records this reply:


Hon. John C. Munroi (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention in this regard, but I would remind the hon. member that the last time we dealt with this matter, about a year ago, we brought in the second largest increase in Canadian history.
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forty-two cents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
I may add that the last occasion when this House voted on the precise question of escalating pensions according to the actual rise in the cost of living was on Thursday, March 23, 1972, and, as other members have already pointed out, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and all the rest of the Liberals who were present voted against that proposition at that time. Now, just before an election, we have this conversion. We welcome it. Even though we may feel there is cynicism in it, we feel that the small benefits being provided in this legislation should get to the people concerned just as soon as possible. If the earliest that these benefits can be given to them is in the cheques they receive at the end of June, I trust the House will give this legislation speedy passage so that technicality can be achieved.
Actually, what flows from the criticisms we have been making of the government for its cynicism, and the way it is doing things on the eve of an election, is the simple fact that the escalation should never have been taken off the basic old age pension, that the escalation should have been put on a basis equal to the actual rise in the cost of living and that there should have been a substantial increase in the basic amount of the pension long ago.
I should now like to comment on some of the features of the legislation which is before us. In a number of instances, I shall be expressing my pleasure and approval. In other instances, I shall have to complain very strongly that the bill does not go far enough.
The first thing I want to say by way of approval concerns something that is not in this bill but is in the budget proposals, namely, the extra exemption to be allowed persons 65 years of age and over which is to be increased, effective January 1, 1972, to $1,000 a year. This is a welcome increase, but I still think that those who are asking for higher exemption levels for our senior citizens are on the right track, except that I would recommend very strongly that relief from taxation for senior citizens should be achieved not by the method of higher and higher exemption levels, but by the method of a tax credit. What is really required is an amendment to the income tax law which would provide that persons living on pensions shall pay no income tax if their incomes are below $3,000 single or $4,500 married. I use those figures because they are the figures a number of organizations have been presenting, and because I think they are very responsible. We welcome the slight improvement in this area, but let the government not think it has gone as far as it should.
The second thing I should like to say is that we welcome most strongly, and perhaps this is the feature of this bill which in terms of principle is most important, the breaking of that 2 per cent ceiling. For the past several years, it has been a crime the way in which we have given old age pensioners an increase of 2 per cent when the cost of living was going up 4 per cent or 5 per cent, so that they were actually worse off in the end. This change that has now been made is, in fact, long overdue, that is putting the escalation on a basis equal to the actual percentage increase in the cost of living. However, I am in full sympathy with those to my right who have been pressing the
May 12, 1972

point that something should be done, and their amendment that was ruled out of order was to this effect, to make up for the short-fall our pensioners have suffered since the escalation provision was established. The government has introduced retroactivity in another area, and this is an area where retroactivity should have been applied. The best way to have made up the short-fall that our pensioners have suffered because of this limited 2 per cent escalation would have been to make a substantial increase in the basic amount of the pension itself. We are back to our contention that the basic $80 figure should now be a figure of $150 a month. It is also our view that it should be made available at age 60, as I have contended many times.
The other comment I wish to make about the escalation of the old age pension and all pensions is that some day we have to get to the point where escalation is related to something more than just the cost of living. It ought to be related to the rise in the standard of living, the rise in wage rates or the rise in the gross national product. When all you do is give pensioners an increase equal to the rise in the cost of living, you merely permit them to continue to purchase the same standard of living they were able to purchase when they retired. In the meantime, conditions improve, society becomes more affluent, the standard of living goes up and it is not humane, decent or civilized to say to our older people: You are not to share in the increased standard or the increased benefits you helped to make possible.
Let me say quite clearly that it is a welcome breakthrough to get beyond that 2 per cent ceiling and to get the escalation attached to the actual increase in the cost of living, but it is by no means the last word. What we have to get is an escalation that permits retired people not only to be able to keep up with the rising cost of living, but permits them to share in the rising standard of living which society produces, because when our retired people were working they helped to make that possible.
The next thing I should like to say is that we welcome very strongly the fact that the escalation provision is being restored to the basic pension, which is now $80 a month. There was no rhyme or reason whatsoever to the position the minister took in this House in December of 1970, when he took the escalation off that basic $80 figure. We are pleased it is being restored. We share the views being expressed pretty generally throughout the country that the figure of $2.88 which is all it amounts to this year, is very small. I said the other night that this change will not help the government win an election, but of course that is the reason they are going into retroactivity, because that will result in these people having six times $2.88 or $17.28 in their pockets at the end of June.
Even after we express our approval of the fact that escalation is being put back on the basic pension, let it be said as strongly as we can say it that this is not the answer to the adequacy of the basic pension. The reason $2.88 is not a sufficient increase is that $80 was not an adequate basic pension. An increase of 3.6 per cent would not be bad if the basic pension were already $150 a month. One of the pitfalls in this kind of thinking is that the government may believe it can say to the country that it has now
25316-17;
Old Age Security Act
solved this problem, has taken it out of the political arena, and has placed pensions on the basis of being increased year after year according to the rise in the cost of living.
There are two things wrong with that. One is that it does not relate to the standard but only to the cost of living. The other thing is that we are talking about escalating a basic rate which in itself is inadequate. This is not the answer to the organizations across Canada, to those of us in this House and to pensioners generally who call for a basic pension of not less than $150 a month.
There is a provision in this bill which is now before us to which reference was made in a question and answer the other day which we welcome, namely, amending the act to provide that persons who have qualified in Canada for the old age pension may, after age 65, go elsewhere and continue to draw their pension provided they have had a certain length of residence in Canada. The old rule was that such persons had to have lived in Canada for 25 years after age 21. According to this bill, that is being changed so such a person, over 65, can go elsewhere and draw the pension without having to return to this country, provided he has lived here for 20 years after age 18. This is a laudatory modification which some of us have been requesting for a long time. Indeed, we asked for this long before the hon. member who made the request the other day came here. We think it makes sense, particularly when there is a desire on the part of many people, for health or family reasons, to go to warmer climates or to the countries from which they came in the first place.
Even though he is going behind the curtain, the minister is still within the sound of my voice and I hope he is listening. When the minister was making this change why could he not also have made a change in the 40-year rule. I refer to the rule which makes it possible for a person to live in Canada for most of his life, then go elsewhere before age 65, apply for the pension from another part of the world and get the pension without coming back to this country provided he has resided 40 years in Canada after age 18. When this rule was brought in, many people did not obtain a pension until age 69 or 70, and the 40 years did not seem to be too long a period. However, now that pensions are payable universally at age 65 and the applicable period is from age 18 to age 65, which is 47 years, one must still have 40 years' residence in Canada.
What I think is particularly unfair in this regard is the situation which develops as between a husband and a wife. If the minister cannot find it possible to change the rule in its entirety, perhaps he could find it possible to change it in respect of husbands and wives. There might be a situation in which a husband and wife go to the United Kingdom or to some other country. The husband may be able to meet the 40-year rule when he reaches age 65, but the wife, because she is a few years younger, does not meet the rule and is unable to receive the pension. This produces a difficult marital situation. If the wife returns she has a pension, but if she stays with her husband she runs the risk of being a widow without a pension. I am not making up this situation. I am familiar with cases of this nature. It would seem to me at a time when the government is cutting five years off the 25-year rule it should also be cutting five years off the 40-year rule. I

May 12, 1972
Old Age Security Act
place this before the minister and hope he will give it consideration.
I notice that quite a change is being made in this bill in respect of the basis for the escalating of pensions. In particular, I am referring to the fact the Old Age Security Act used to provide that the pension index for the purpose of this act is the pension index spelled out in the Canada Pension Plan. That provision is being abolished. We are now to have a new pension index or formula for the Old Age Security Act. There are two differences. One of course is that in this act we will take a different 12-month period from that which is taken for the Canada Pension Plan. The other difference is that the Old Age Security Act does not apply the 2 per cent ceiling, while it is still being applied in the Canada Pension Plan. My plea is that the same thing that is being done in respect of old age security should be done in respect of the Canada Pension Plan. When people are retired and draw both the old age security and the Canada Pension Plan, the money comes to them in one cheque. I think it is a little ridiculous for these people to be given an escalation of that joint pension part of which will be escalated by 2 per cent on the basis of one formula and part of which will be escalated by 3.6 per cent or some other figure on the basis of another formula. If it is correct to remove the ceiling from the escalation with respect to the old age security, I suggest it is correct to do it in respect of the Canada Pension Plan. I hope this will be given favourable consideration at an early date. Mr. Speaker, I see my time is running out. I wonder if I might have just a few more minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is consent, the hon. member may proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I have two more points. I shall just state them. I am now pleading for justice and fair play. I will say more on this matter at a later date, but I mention it now by way of a caveat. I am concerned about the position of war veterans under this legislation. Bill C-208, which we may be debating later this day, provides for the ceiling on the war veterans allowance to be increased only by the amount the allowance itself is escalated. This year that will be 3.6 per cent. In the case of a single veteran it could be $4.35 and in the case of a married veteran it could be $7.23. I suggest, despite the things I think about this government, that it cannot and will not leave it that way. It would be utterly unthinkable for those receiving the war veterans allowance as well as the guaranteed supplement not to get the full $15 that would be available under the Old Age Security Act amendments. I see some very significant heads being shaken over there. I am not going out on a limb. I am not making any assertion about this, except that Bill C-208 does not meet the problem.
It may well be that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) when he introduces that bill will tell us of plans of the government for an order in council to exempt this $15 in the same way it exempted the $2.70 which was available in the month of April. Now, I see a certain head going up and down, so I hope that is correct. I just want to plead that this be done. If it is not done, the desire some of us have for both these bills to receive speedy passage will be lessened a bit in respect of the other bill, not this one. It does not affect this one, but it is a serious matter in the

bill respecting veterans. But we must see to it that the experience of the past, when the gap has been narrowed between what was available to veterans and what was available to civilians, should not be repeated in this case. The veteran should get the full advantage of the $15 increase in the supplement to the old age security pension as well as the full advantage of the 3.6 per cent increase he will get in his war veterans allowance.
I said I would not abuse the time that was given to me, therefore I must sit down. I will just close on this note. Welcoming as we do the improvements that are provided in this legislation, I want to make it extremely clear that the failure to raise substantially the basic amount makes this bill really inadequate. The time has come for the basic pension to be $150 a month, universally available to our people and available at age 60, and for that $150 a month pension to be escalated annually in accordance with the rise in the standard of living which is possible because of what our senior citizens have done for this country. That goal is still to be met. That goal will still be fought for by the pensioners themselves, by their organizations, and by many of us in the House of Commons. It is a goal which I believe we shall win, and I hope we shall win it soon. In the meantime, small as these improvements are, they must not be held back from our people a day longer than is necessary. Therefore, we hope that this legislation will soon be passed and enacted by parliament. Whether or not an election issue is involved in the consideration of this measure is beside the point. The point is that our older and retired people must get these increases right away. But I say to them: carry on. I also say that we shall carry on the battle for a really adequate pension system for all the people of Canada.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of our party (Mr. Caouette) pointed out again yesterday, we are of course in favour of increasing the old age pensions, although we fail to understand why the government members voted against the Social Credit proposal to do so two years ago.
Still, we feel that this bill smells strongly of elections. It is too sudden. It suffers from weaknesses, omissions if not errors, which I shall point out. Of course, we are aware of the need to give senior citizens of 65 or more a decent living. In fact, thousands of arguments can be invoked to prove that those who have reached 65 have in fact earned the pensions they receive.
We therefore have no objections to that increase; on the contrary, we have been requesting it for a long time. But we do not agree with the government, in fact we say it is illogical when it refuses to fill the gap which occurs at one point in the life of the old couple when they reach age 55 or 60. That is why we have insisted time and time again on the possibility of granting a pension to the two spouses when one reaches 65, regardless of the other's age.
This seems so obvious to us that the fact that it is not taken into consideration strikes us as illogical. We need only look at the case of a couple who have both reached 65. Last year they received $255, compared with $260 this year; under this bill they will be getting $285.

Mr. Speaker, when both spouses are 65, when they live in their own home or apartment, $285 is a very reasonable amount.
But where there is lact of consistency and even of plain common sense is when one of them is 65 and the other 60, 62, 63 or 64, in which case only $150 is paid for both. Why assess the pension for one couple aged 65 at $285 and the pension for another couple, one of which is 65 and the other 64, at $150?
Mr. Speaker, it does not make sense. That is why we have brought the matter up so often, even submitting amendments to deal with it. We even at one time, proposed a motion which was debated in this House, but unfortunately defeated.
Mr. Speaker, we are not demanding anything fantastic or miraculous. What we are calling for is plain common sense. Someone could retort: Then it is up to provincial governments to look after those who have not reached the age of 65. Of course we agree with that.
But upon looking closely at the criteria applied, *or instance in the province of Quebec, we find they are below decency level, they are actually not pensions, but pittances. And for two persons who have not reached age 65, the Quebec government through the Social Affairs Department grants on the average only $130 or $140. These are the criteria in Quebec.
Therefore, two persons of 64 receive presently from the Quebec Social Affairs Department about $135 or $140, and at 65, they will draw $285. This gap is tremendous; in fact, the amount is then doubled.
As representatives of the people, we are made aware every day of scores of casess involving people who have not enough money to pay for their food, electricity and telephone. They come and ask us to plead with welfare officials, asking them to improve their standards of living.
On June 16, 1971, I wrote to the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, Mr. Claude Castonguay, a letter clearly showing the ambiguous and illogical situation which prevails presently. I quote:
Dear sir:
You are no doubt receiving numerous letters to protest against the changes made in your department last fall. All those who find their cheques reduced, sometimes cut out altogether, become angry, frustrated and sometimes more sick than they were before.
I also wish to protest. You will, however, allow me to do so in a positive and constructive way by offering one suggestion.
We are still in the same country, as far as I know, if on different sides of the Ottawa river. Why then not accept as a vital minimum what the federal government grants as old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement.
A married couple, aged 65, is entitled to $255 per month. That is at the present time a decent minimum. Your department allows about $130 to two persons under 65 and without any income. Values in Quebec are different from those in Ottawa.
This pruning game in which your regional offices are indulging aggravates the poor people on welfare, all the more so because they seem to be received off-handedly when they are not simply thrown out or, still, they are refused an interview. Being poor and out of work is hard enough without adding the insult of a bureaucrat urging a middle age widow, for instance, to "look after herself". Why all these insulting investigations, these nosy checkings, these unaccountable delays when the only thing to do is to check
Old Age Security Act
income tax returns, something which should be made compulsory anyway?
Hoping that my comments will help you I remain
Yours truly,
M.P. for Champlain.
Mr. Speaker, I took the trouble to read this letter addressed to the Quebec minister in order to show you how much we want to close those gaps. In 1968, there was a great deal of talk about a just society. Is it fair that a married couple of 60, 61, 62, 63 or 64 cannot live with $130 a month, when it is acknowledged that from now on, the vital minimum will be of $285 at 65? Is there any justice in this? I shall be told that this is a provincial matter and that Quebec has only to increase its social welfare allowances. I agree, but the two government levels should show enough understanding to co-ordinate all their efforts along the same line.
I realize that the reactions of the Quebec Premier, Mr. Bourassa, and Minister of Social Affairs, Mr. Castonguay, were directly related to the letter which I read a few minutes ago. And this is how we are once more getting involved in a useless dispute and in such ambiguous situations that we are wondering where they will lead us.
I should like at this point to quote the comments of the Quebec Premier, Mr. Bourassa, on last Monday's budget statement, as published in La Presse on Wednesday, May 10, 1972.1 quote:
Quebecers aged 65 and over may welcome the Turner budget but it is going to create a serious problem for the provincial government with respect to those aged 64 and less who will not benefit from Ottawa's new gifts in a field of joint jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, those, clearly are the words of the Premier of Quebec. So there is a problem. It comes from lack of co-ordination between the two levels of government. I do not mean by that the government is not justified in increasing pensions, but that the government is wrong not to co-operate better with the parties involved. It might have solved the problem by accepting our suggestion that the pensionable age be brought down to 60 and that it be granted automatically to the spouse when one of them reaches the specified age.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Castonguay's reaction was in the same vein. May I quote again from La Presse of Friday, May 10:
Income Security Policy Unachievable
I am quoting from Mr. Castonguay's text.
The announcement, in Monday's federal budget, of new fiscal and monetary benefits granted to elderly people is, in our view, proof that it is apparently impossible to achieve an income security policy as consistent as was required, integrated, and permitting a fair distribution of resources.
How is it that no thought was given to avoid such things? It is due, Mr. Speaker, to the haste, on the eve of a general election, to distribute more money in order to earn votes. I see no other reason. Why allow this further bickering between different levels of government? I shall again quote Mr. Castonguay when he stresses-


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker-

May 12, 1972
Old Age Security Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Albert Béchard: This is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he will allow a question?


René Matte: At the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to reply to the hon. member.
Mr. Castonguay further said this:
Last year and in 1970, Mr. Castonguay stressed, when the last amendments were made by Ottawa to the Old Age Security Act, the escalation principle had been rejected. The reason given was that any amount in excess should be paid through the guaranteed income supplement.
I fail to understand, he added, why a year later, they reconsider this principle which had been accepted a year earlier, as far as the escalation of the old age pension is concerned.
Whether Mr. Castonguay is right or wrong, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say. In his dealings with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, were there really any mention of these matters?
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what prevents these two levels of government from coming to an understanding. Nobody knows. One thing is sure, and it is that this increase which is quite necessary and of which we fully approve is unfair to those who have not yet reached age 65 and who must be satisfied with crumbs.
They will argue, not without reason, that the Quebec government must assume its responsibilities. However, when the federal government, through an amendment to the constitution, took over areas which come under the sole jurisdiction of the provinces, specifically old age security and family allowances, it was to compensate- and I agree-for the weak provincial governments in those days. Strangely enough, this happens when both governments have the same political colour.
Mr. Speaker, this situation the federal government has taken over by entering the field of old age security pensions should normally come under provincial governments. We understand Mr. Castonguay referring to integration when we know that Quebec alone must be concerned about supporting those who are not yet 65 and who have no income. I do not say that Mr. Castonguay has the solution. I am just saying that we have been suggesting the solution for a very long time. Recently it has been suggested here, before this House, that everybody should have a guaranteed minimum income which would do away with the welfare programs each Canadian province must implement.
In fact, a guaranteed minimum income for everyone would not be more expensive than the costly and disastrous application of the present social welfare system. That is the solution. When we finally realize that the basic principles of our financial and economic system must be changed, all these problems will be resolved. In the meantime, it is important that every one be treated fairly, as we are involved in this situation.
In particular, I blame the Quebec government for evading its responsibilities. I also blame the preceding governments of that province for acting likewise. It is for this

reason that the federal government has taken over more than its share of the fiscal field and it must reimburse the provinces by intruding in areas over which they have exclusive jurisdiction. However, I blame the provincial government for not accepting its responsibilities.
In 1960, we saw that government under the administration of hon. Jean Lesage, asking for 100% of personal income taxes and 100% of estate taxes. We witnessed the fact that its successor, hon. Daniel Johnson, reiterated his demands for 100 per cent of income taxes. If the Quebec government applied this program, I am sure the federal government would have to give in.
Hon. members will remember that in 1952, for instance, when the then premier of Quebec, Maurice Duplessis, established the 8 per cent provincial tax for the first time, the federal government, led by Louis St-Laurent, reduced the federal income tax by 10 per cent.
I therefore advise the government of Quebec, if it wants to solve its problems, to assume its responsibilities, and if it needs 100 per cent of personal income tax, to go ahead and take it. I will then insist that the federal government reduce the federal income tax by the same percentage. Only in this way shall we be able to satisfy and to please everybody.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, the minister should consider immediately introducing two small amendments to his bill in order to help a large number of families. One of these would be very simple: it would consist in making eligible for an old age security pension couples in which only one spouse has reached the age of 65. The other amendment could also be acceptable: rather than raising the amount of pensions to $285-and I am not saying that this is exorbitant-it might have been preferable to bring down to 60 the age for pension eligibility and to leave the amount at $260 per month.
Mr. Speaker, there are still some things which do not make sense. As the Creditiste leader pointed out yesterday, do 60 year-old people pay less for clothes or for food? No, they do not; they pay exactly the same price. We would be solving a great problem by accepting these suggestions.
If we analyze the budget carefully, we realize that the extra $300 million of $400 million will be given with one hand and taken back with the other, since the 3 per cent tax exemption granted last October is automatically going to be abolished. This is once again mere window-dressing. They seem willing to increase the old age security pensions and even the family allowances; on the other hand, however, they take back the increase through taxation since the 3 per cent exemption will be removed.
Mr. Speaker, removal of this 3 per cent exemption practically offsets the surplus granted. This amounts to giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Mr. Speaker, our wish is that as many Canadian citizens as possible may live in modest comfort, but obtaining employment is so difficult at the present time that people aged 60 find it impossible. Nonetheless, it is desirable that these people should get some income. This is why we should like all couples and single people, in fact all Canadians aged 60, to be entitled to the old age security pension.
May 12, 1972

Unfortunately, it does happen for instance that in some families with 7 or 8 children including several still attending school-which is extremely costly-the father, aged 60 or 61, can no longer work because of his age, his lack of the necessary skills or any other reason. At that stage, he has to apply to the social welfare agency whose benefits, I repeat, are not fair, being mere handouts.
It is wrong to suggest, as does the Quebec Department of Social Affairs, that a couple's expenses for food, clothing and personal effects amount to $78 only.
Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that such things happen. We should find here an opportunity of solving at least the problem of senior citizens aged 65 or more, and I wonder why the government should refrain from doing it. We would thus remedy a serious injustice and, by the same token, help the provinces which are facing empty coffers and are unable to meet the demands due to the huge number of applicants for social welfare either because they cannot find a job, or have not been employed long enough to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I think that these suggestions are not exaggerated and that they should be seriously considered. I am ready, Mr. Speaker, to answer the question directed by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard).


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I for one have ceased long ago to believe in the sincerity of the Social Credit's theory and the speech made by the hon. member for Champlain bears me out in my conviction.
I would like to ask him how he can reconcile the principle which he has expounded fairly strongly a while ago in the course of his comments, to the effect that social security should fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, with the following statement he made in the same breath, towit: We have advocated and still do-as our leader has stated it himself-the payment of $1,200, $1,800, $3,000 and $5,000 to senior citizens and the needy.
Could the hon. member tell us where the Creditiste logic is in such a statement?


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member loses his temper without any reason. I clearly stated in my speech that, when a government does not assume its responsibilities, something must still be done for the people. I am pretty sure that at the time the federal government decided to deal with the old age security, it was trying to palliate a difficulty at the provincial level.
I shall now answer to the second part of the question put by the hon. members, stating that social assistance falls under provincial jurisdiction. I do agree, and when we establish general standards and say that we must get a guaranteed minimum income, it is the responsibility of the federal government to co-ordinate such action throughout Canada and in every province. There is no mystery in there, and I do not understand why the hon. member finds it inconsistent.
Social security falls under provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government's part is to ensure co-ordination,
Old Age Security Act
in order to do justice to all citizens of Canada. But the administration must be left to the provinces. This would be an ideal solution. We all advocate administrative decentralization so that people from every part of this country may get better service. However, we still bring in our own solutions to problems in every area. We represent the same citizens as provincial members, and we are concerned by the welfare of the people living in our respective riding, like any provincial member. At this time, we are seeking together to find appropriate solutions, either at the provincial or the federal level.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice rising on a supplementary?


Albert Béchard: No, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am pleased to find that the hon. member admits that this area is under federal government jurisdiction but I would like to ask him a question.
Since he too seems upset by the pension increases mentioned in the budget statement, could he tell us if his party is considering presenting before implementation the program which his leader recently prepared in the province of Quebec so as not to interfere into this field?


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the plan prepared by our leader is included in the current program of the Social Credit Party of Canada. It is understood that, should the provinces so decide, the administration of social security programs will of course be administered by the provinces provided they keep to the basic standards set up for the country as a whole. The program of the Social Credit Party of Canada even specifies that it will be up to the provinces to decide whether they will implement it themselves or leave its administration to the central government. This is the genuine federalism which we want. We submit that each province should enjoy self-determination so as to be able to decide how they want to administer the program or have it administered by the federal government.
I repeat that there is no mystery in that and nothing illogical. We are preserving our basic principles while proposing solutions to the social problems facing all the provinces.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a remark and ask a question.
If the hon. member reads what he just said, he will realize that there is a tremendous difference between his administrative decentralization and political decentralization. What he said is pure denial of federalism. It would be good thing for him to think it over and adjust his views.
My question is the same as that of the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard). How can there be federal jurisdiction in those sectors when the exclusiveness of provincial jurisdiction is being proclaimed?


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, it is really comical since we are discussing a federal law in the federal Parliament and not

May 12, 1972
Old Age Security Act
in the Quebec National Assembly, a law on old age security which undeniably belongs to the field of welfare. We are now dealing with something pertaining to social security. In normal conditions, had it not been for the weakness of the Quebec government, it would never have been introduced. The federal government would never have had to do anything with it. But let us take for granted that the circumstances were such that at a certain moment the central government began to administer old age security pensions and family allowances. One must admit, and the hon. minister should also admit it, that that really belongs to the social security field which should normally be under provincial jurisdiction. However, on account of a precedent and an amendment to the constitution the federal government takes care of it. So why would the central government, which is supposed to ensure co-ordination throughout Canada, not establish social security standards that the provinces could apply? I do not see any inconsistency there.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a good deal of pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate. May I congratulate the minister on what he has done in this bill. I do not think that any trained seal could have taken the flip flop that he has so quickly and so well and come back here in his chameleon coat and presented what he has. But it is heartening to see the government is finally reacting to public opinion and demands, even if it means it has had to make a complete shift in policy. For let us make no mistake about it, this is a complete shift in policy. If anybody doubts that it is, I will document all the motions and debates we have had in the House as recorded in Hansard. Otherwise, I shall not refer to that, because I believe the minister realizes as well as I do the complete shift in policy that has taken place. The government is finally acknowledging the fact that in not providing for an escalating feature it was not compensating people for dollars constantly being eroded by inflation. As I have said, we now see with pleasure the compassion of the government in reversing its previous attitudes to this question.
A little less than seven weeks ago, namely on March 23, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) rejected the Progressive Conservative's appeal to the government to contribute to the pensions, allowances and other benefits granted or administered by the government

a yearly percentage increase corresponding to the percentage increase in the consumer price index for Canada. On that night the minister voted against the appeal, and I am going to quote later what he said. Today, the House of Commons is in the incongruous position of having the same resolution introduced by none other than the minister himself. What miracle wrought this conversion from a steadfast no on March 23 to an ecstatic yes on May 8? I would venture to guess that the government got a tremendous number of letters from people all over the country and that the senior citizens organizations were making their voices heard.
As a matter of fact, the minister had some interesting comments to make on March 23. He dismissed our request for fairness to be shown Canada's 1,800,000 recipients of the universal old age pension and our pleas that he raise pensions to a decent level and peg them to the rise in the cost of living. As reported at page 1103 of Hansard for March 23, the minister said:
As a government we have obviously decided that in terms of bringing money to those who need it in waging a successful campaign against poverty we must change from making universal payments to everyone, irrespective of income, to a selective technique. We must have an income test-I call it a guaranteed income technique-applied to what was previously our universal demo-grant program of old age security and family allowance.
So, between March 23 and May 8 the minister suddenly discovers that the old age pensioners deserve a better break and adjusts their payments by granting a cost of living increase, as we argued on March 23. Perhaps the minister found much sympathy within his own party for the Conservative motion, and I venture to suggest that is one other reason he had this sudden conversion.
The minister mentioned certain programs and went on at length to deal with what the Liberal party had done over the years for our senior citizens to stimulate them mentally, to create jobs in areas where they would be adept at handling them, and he also mentioned what the pensioners were doing now. Stimulating them to do something is a very good plan. They have shown over and over again, by presenting their own case and grouping together, strength and faith in themselves in bringing their problems to their members of parliament. That the minister has gone along with this type of activity among themselves makes it all very worth while.
In many instances the pensioners have presented case histories to back up their position that they were living in poverty. Our elderly people have just as much right to share in the rising standard of living that has taken place since the last world war,-this was a point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- having suffered and accepted the hardships of the thirties that preserved and laid the foundations for what we have today. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went on to say that there were other things besides the cost of living index, and referred to the gross national product, the quality of life and other matters. But all this goes back to the thirties.
It is not necessary to go into this in detail, although some of us do forget that in the thirties the old age pensioners of today earned from $20 to $50 a month in the labour market. Even professional people like doctors ready to go into practice earned from $100 to $150 a
May 12, 1972

month. School teachers were earning from about $300 to $600 a year. These were mighty hard-earned dollars, and on this money they lived, raised their families and made a contribution to Canadian history and the Canada that we have today. It is interesting to note that the gross national product in 1933 was roughly $3.5 billion. Today, it is well over $90 billion and perhaps as much as $100 billion, some 30 times as great. This is some indication of how our people lived in the thirties.
The minister, who I notice has left the Chamber, conveniently forgets that his party has a poor record in respect of looking after old age pensioners. He would have us believe his party is the only party which is concerned about the old age pensioners and others on fixed income and that only they have done anything for them. Let us go back a little and take a look at the record. It is sometimes a good thing to be reminded of what has happened. The opposition confronted the government from time to time with the poverty situation of many of our older people. Over and over again, we moved motions to have the benefit increased, only to have the motion defeated and the old age pensioners denied their rights. As late as March 23, 1972 the minister, in pious platitudes, denied them what he was finally forced to give them. I shall not use the word "bribe" because I do not want to do so. I will not be cynical enough to use that word, even when there is an election before us. I would point out, however, that there is such an aura surrounding the situation.
There are 1,800,000 old age pensioners, and this could be a very persuasive reason for the government to do something about the situation. I should like to take the minister back a little since he has been quick to place on the record the suggestion that the Liberals were the only ones who had done anything for the old age pensioners. I would like to think that everyone here has tried to make a contribution to our senior citizens. Let us go back to the year 1956 when the pension was $40 a month. The Liberals at that time brought in an increase of $6 a month. The slogan at that time was "The six-buck boys". The gross national product then was roughly $33 billion. Then the Conservative party was elected in 1957 and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) became the Prime Minister. At that time the old age pension was immediately increased another $9, bringing the pension to $55 a month. Today, the gross national product is three times what it was then. The old age pension was then universal. Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the interruption of the minister. He should stand up and repeat it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I just observed that the population had increased also.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Well, Mr. Speaker, if it has increased, what is the problem? We added on an extra $9 which brought up the pension to $55 a month. What is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) trying to say.


Mr. Mahoney:: You did not give them another increase in six years.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, we did. The hon. member should do his homework. The Conservative party immediately
Old Age Security Act
raised the pension. The gross national product today is three times what it was then. What about the great record of the Liberal party to which the minister referred? The pension is not universal now. The Liberals have deserted the guidelines of their forefathers. The pensioners will take a long look at the last four years, and the so-called just society which had denied them their rights. They have been denied the rights they paid for through income tax in the amount of $961 million in 1971, $700 million in federal sales tax and $250 million from the 3 per cent corporation tax. They have been denied what is their right.
I wonder whether the minister recalls that it was through the efforts of the right hon. member for Prince Albert that Mr. Pearson was urged to keep his election promise made in 1963 to increase the pension by $10. But that was not a gift either, because very shortly after that there was an amendment to the Income Tax Act which brought up the tax another one per cent for old age pensioners to match the $10. Therefore, they received nothing. Then, the minister refers to the income supplement of $105 per month, with an escalator clause of 2 per cent. If the cost of living did not rise by 2 per cent not a nickel would be given to the pensioners. What a deal! The minister boasts about it being a first, but he forgets that his government had another first. No government previously had deliberately set out to cause unemployment in order to control runaway inflation. We have more unemployment than ever before and inflation is still with us. Why was he so miserly with that first provision about which he boasts? The senior citizens have been made to scrape the bottom of the barrel because of a 7 per cent increase in the price of food, shelter and clothing.
Let us not boast of arrogance and unfairness to our senior citizens. We pleaded with the minister to tie the increase to the cost of living. The old age pensioners pleaded with him. Their sons and daughters, who were the heaviest taxed in history and who had more deductions from their payroll than any other generation in history, pleaded with him, as they themselves found inflation eroding their dollar until it was hard to make ends meet and do anything for their parents. The government boasts about lowering the pension age to 65. What a mess the minister would have been in today had he not done so in view of the rampant unemployment.
Then, the minister goes on to talk about the $30 per month guaranteed income supplement that was introduced in 1966. This only went to the old age pensioners and senior citizens who had nothing else on which to live. The minister forgot to state that of every dollar earned, the government took 50 per cent in tax. He forgot to state that the $75 old age security pension which the government froze at $80, with the inflation we have had, today would be around $90. He starts off at January 1, 1972 still gypping the old age pensioner by $9.85 per month or $118.20 per year, if my mathematics are correct.
The minister speaks about what he is doing to relieve the problem senior citizens face in the field of housing. Well, I wish to dwell on that for a minute. Before I do so, however, I should like to refer again to the change in the guaranteed income supplement. It will be of no benefit to Canada's veterans who are in receipt of the guaranteed
2226

May 12, 1972
Old Age Security Act
income supplement because 50 per cent of the additional money they receive through the guaranteed income supplement will be deducted from their pension. The $15 a month they receive from the welfare department will be deducted from the amount they receive from the Veterans Affairs Department. Nowhere in his budget does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) estimate the saving to the government as a result of the lowering of the pension by $15 a month to 46,500 veterans. I ask him the reason for this. Let us keep in mind also that the government announcement has been very misleading.
Most Canadians believe that the guaranteed income supplement is to rise by $15 a month from its April, 1972 level. I would like the minister to correct me if I am wrong when I say it will not do so. It is the combined old age security-guaranteed income supplement payment that will go up by $15. I wish to ask the minister whether that is correct, and if not I would like him to clarify that point. There is only an increase of $9.42 per month for a single pensioner, not the $15 per month that the minister told us about here. I am sure that people do not realize this, and I wonder how many members of the minister's own party realize it. Married couples who each received a GIS payment of $50.05 in April 1971, will now receive $9.42 per month more, a payment of $59.62. Although these are good additional sums, the point is that GIS recipients will be getting less than $10 a month, although they have been led by the government to believe that they would be getting an extra $15. Can we blame them if they feel cheated when their first GIS cheque arrives under the new system? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) are guilty of misleading Canada's old age pensioners. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare will tell us whether or not this is intentional. Such behaviour is almost fraudulent, for no efforts have been made by them to correct the mistaken impression which their announcement originally and intentionally gave.
The minister spoke about what he did in the field of housing, but he forgot to tell us that this was only marginal assistance. He should get down to brass tacks. Let us consider a typical small Ontario city. I picked out at random a city which has 2,349 pensioners of whom 1,500 are on GIS. The average rent for a bachelor apartment in that city is $125 per month, and the average rent for a one bedroom apartment is $150 per month. The construction of how many of those units was subsidized? In that city, only 15 single units renting at $37 per month were made available to old age pensioners, and only 12 units for married couples. I want to point out to the minister that only 39 people benefited out of the 1,500 who were on the guaranteed income supplement. Let the minister not mislead the public. We must realize that probably 50 per cent of the total income of those pensioners was spent on shelter. In the case of a single person, only about $50 a month is left to cover food, clothing and the other necessities of life. If that is the good life about which the Minister of National Health and Welfare speaks, then I do not want it.
The minister referred to the Canada Assistance Plan. He says that, surely the Canada Assistance Plan will

cover the costs if the provinces and the municipalities are short of money. This is the minister's ace in the hole. He does not say it is a shared cost program, and if the provinces or the municipalities do not have the money, why does the minister not take care of it?
The minister also spoke about drug care. He forgot to tell us that this is not a compulsory program, that provision of food, shelter and clothes is compulsory, not drugs. If that is not so I would like him to tell us. Let us quit fooling the people. The minister spoke as if he had a drug care plan. He says that if the provinces or municipalities can pick up the tab, he will match it, but how many of them are in the financial position to do so?
Then, the minister spoke about chronic care homes. This is a subject that concerns me. Instead of hearing platitudes from the minister, I would have preferred him to say why the chronically ill who need nursing round the clock have to pay a deterrent fee of $3.50 a day in Ontario. He did not mention that when he spoke about all the benefits that were given to the old people. Surely, under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government will pay half of the balance of what is left after the provinces have paid their share. What is the cost? The Minister of National Health and Welfare surely has those figures. I believe it is around $15 a day.
Now, I would like to dwell for a minute on the Canada Pension Plan. When the pensioners receive their pension under the Canada Pension Plan their guaranteed income supplement payments will be reduced. The minister neglected to tell us that also. There are many things that he passed over. The minister spoke about the talents of the experienced executives. I was glad to hear him refer to that because I think it is worth while to point it out. He did not mention that there were many doctors who had retired but who are now in Africa, South America and the British West Indies doing valuable work teaching some of their students the art of surgery. As a matter of fact, Dr. McClure is now in Viet Nam doing valuable work. He is a very well known surgeon. I mentioned my own profession but there are many other fields such as public health, social services and industry from which experienced people who have retired can be of assistance. This is the area into which we should be mainstreaming all our retired senior citizens who are able to carry on physically and mentally.
The minister also spoke about the adequacy of pensions. He did not state that they have recently become adequate only because he knew that he would be in trouble somewhere along the line. We must make provision for a quality of life that has changed over the years. All we have to do is to think back to the standard of life 30 years ago. The advance in technology has brought about many changes in our life. This is why I believe that pensions should be tied to the gross national product rather than just to the rising cost of living. We believe that this measure is worthwhile and we on our side welcome it. I am glad that we have been able to put sufficient pressure on the minister and that finally he has seen the light. After having made those observations regarding the minister's stubborn refusal to listen to the plight of the old age pensioners, let me say that I am pleased that he has taken

this step. Criticisms have been made frequently by members of the House as well as by the press.
Here is an article from the Winnipeg Tribune. It deals with the Gallup Poll, that frightening thing. It mentions the leader of the Conservative party who met 600 old age pensioners in British Columbia and talked plainly to them about their problems. Then, it goes on to say:
The Trudeau government has acted shamefully toward the aged. The last increase in the universal old age pension amounted to 42 cents. For needy pensioners (those receiving supplement) the increase was limited to 2 per cent regardless of the sharp rise in living costs. The cost of living had risen at least 3.5 per cent. As a result needy pensioners are worse off now than they were a year ago.
Is this the just society?
I want to remind the minister of that and to tell him that there are a few things in this bill that we will be examining. Since I like the minister, I am pleased that he has taken another timid step. I congratulate him on that small step.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, C-207, is entitled "An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act." It will have a profound effect on the lives of some 1,800,000 Canadians who are over 65 years of age. I understand that of these, some 995,000 receive part or all of the guaranteed income supplement. In his budget speech on Monday night, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said, when speaking about the old age pensions, that the budget was designed "to render justice to those people in our community who have been hurt by the rise in the cost of living and who have no way of fighting back."
Sir, this proposal to tie the old age pensions and guaranteed income supplement to the cost of living index represents a most significant step in our social policy program. There was provision under the old program to pay 2 per cent escalation to counteract the effects of inflation, but this only applied to the guaranteed income supplement recipients. This 2 per cent could never completely satisfy in the long haul because in many years the cost of living index rose much higher than that. Thus, a substantial lump sum payment had to be applied every few years to compensate for this.
The same principle applies to the old age security part of the pensions. People receive this pension as a matter of right. They contributed to the program in years gone by when they were paying their income tax, and now they are entitled to receive the benefits. I believe that with the escalation factor applied to this basic $80 a month figure, the benefits will be much more fair. If this pension is to be paid with cheap dollars, then there should be more of them. This is the only way to see justice done to our pensioners.
The opposition is deriding the small benefits that will be given through the increase to the old age security pension recipients as if it is paid as a lump sum increase, which of course it is not. It is only the increase in the cost of living, so that our old age pensioners can buy in 1972 the same amount of things that they did in 1971 with their old age pension benefit. Anyone who has paid interest on a loan
Old Age Security Act
or mortgage has learned how only a few percentage points add up over a period of time, especially if the interest is compounded. The benefits to be paid under this escalator clause for this increase in the cost of living are applied so that there is this compounding effect.
However, at the same time if the change in cost of living index is a negative one, the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement will have a floor under them so that they will not decline. So, we have the happy situation of the escalation to counteract inflation, and no decrease should our cost of living move downward as it would in a severe recession.
There is also provision in the bill for- people to reside outside Canada for more than a six month period and still receive the OAS, providing they can show that they have lived in the country for at least 20 years after the age of 18. The old rule was that a person had to reside in Canada for a period of 25 years after age 21. I am sure other hon. members know of old age pensioners who, due to health reasons or family circumstance, had to be away from Canada for more than a six months period. But under the old regulations they had to return to Canada in order to continue to receive their old age security pension. This change will benefit these people.
The benefits themselves under old age security and the guaranteed income supplements can amount to $15 per month for a single person and $30 per month for a married couple. This brings the maximum benefits to $150 per month for a single person, and $285 per month for a couple. This represents about an 11 per cent increase. Further, these combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits will be subject to the escalator factor in future years. If the cost of living index should rise as high in 1972 as it did in 1971, namely, 3.6 per cent, the maximum combined pension benefits would be increased by about $5 and $10 per month respectively for the single and married recipients, starting next April.
In his budget speech the Minister of Finance also mentioned that the special exemption for taxpayers over 65 years of age will be increased from $650 to $1,000. This, added to the basic exemption of $1,500, plus $100 for charitable gifts, will give a total exemption for single taxpayers 65 years of age and over of $2,600 per year. For a married taxpayer the amount is $2,850 plus $100 plus $1,000, making a total of $3,950. These benefits and exemptions are retroactive to January 1, 1972. This special exemption also applies to taxpayers who are blind and v/ho are confined to bed or to a wheelchair.
The minister also said that a program will be brought forward to be called "New Horizons for the Aged." I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) will soon give the details of this program to the House. In my constituency we have several senior citizen clubs, including those at Bruce Mines, Blind River, Elliot Lake, and Mindemoya. These provide opportunities for fellowship and friendship to the senior citizens who participate in them. Especially important is their ability to speak as a united voice for senior citizens when making their views known to various levels of government and community agencies. However, I dare say there is more untapped talent, experience and common sense in these groups than in any of our other communities. If this
25316-18!

May 12, 1972
Old Age Security Act
program will release some of this talent, and mobilize it for community development, it will be one of the best programs we have ever seen brought forward in this House.
The bill before us today, Mr. Speaker, will substantially improve the lot of almost 2 million Canadians, 2 million of our most valued citizens. It does this not only through immediate lump sum increases in the guaranteed income supplement, but also by providing regular increases to compensate for the ravages of inflation. I commend the House on the spirit of co-operation shown between the various political parties to see this bill passed so chat the benefits may be paid as soon as possible. I hope this spirit will continue so that the benefits may be in the hands of those who have made such an outstanding contribution to our country by the end of next month.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take too much of the time of the House this afternoon as we are rather anxious to see this bill get through the House today, but I feel I should say a few words on Bill C-207, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. This bill will receive my support as it incorporates a principle for which we have been fighting for many years. This principle is that the actual cost of living increase be added to the basic pension every year. This yearly addition to the pension will at least maintain the purchasing power of the pension and will be welcomed by our senior citizens. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the increases in the guaranteed income supplements are also needed and welcomed by the members of this House and, I am sure, by the old age pensioners who receive them.
I should like to take this opportunity, however, to express my disappointment at the failure of the government to increase the basic old age security pension. There is no reason why a very substantial increase could not have been enacted by the legislation before us. This government talks about a just society and about priorities; in my opinion adequate living standards which are certainly tied in closely with income, should be a top priority in any just society. Adequate income standards for our senior citizens, who pioneered in every part of our nation and who have laid the very economic base upon which we depend today, certainly should be at the top of the list of priorities. This was not evident in the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on May 8.
The pension case for the New Democratic Party has been ably placed before this House by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I fully endorse the remarks he made earlier in this debate. There are, however, several points about which I would like to speak briefly as they say that repetition is the mother of learning.
The points I should like to deal with very briefly, Mr. Speaker, are those which illustrate the need for an immediate increase in the basic old age security pension to $150 a month and the need to amend the Income Tax Act in order to give these pensioners tax exemptions of at least $3,000 for a single person and $4,500 for married couples. In addition, I should like to speak about the future of the old age security pension. I believe that this

pension should have an automatic escalator clause built into it. Prior to today we were always asking for part of this escalator clause to include a cost of living index, but another factor should be built into it, namely, consideration of the increasing gross national product. I do not think this can be done every year, Mr. Speaker, but certainly senior citizens who live in Canada are entitled to the benefits of the increasing productivity of our nation. There could be a very simple amendment made to the act to indicate that if the gross national product of Canada increased by a certain percentage a year or over two years, there would be an automatic increase to the pensioners living in Canada. This sharing of our gross national product is something to which I feel this government should pay more attention than it has in the past. We know that as far as pensioners are concerned, the sharing of the gross national product or the increasing prosperity of the Canadian nation is not taken into consideration.
May I return to the matter of the basic pension? I should like to point out that we have received a large number of communications from organizations all across Canada. These are organizations of senior citizens and deal with their problems. There is no doubt that senior citizens from one end of Canada to the other are, for the most part, in need of a sharp increase in the basic pension. The cost of living has been going up and there are many other costs which increase as we get older. There are things around the home where we have to depend more than ever on other individuals, such as home repairs. All this adds up to a need for more income for pensioners. There is no doubt that our nation is able to pay a basic old age security pension of $150 a month. We can do it. I am suggesting to the government that they look very seriously at this aspect of the Old Age Security legislation and see if they cannot come up with a substantial increase to grant at least part of the $150 amount which pension organizations and members of this House have been requesting.
There is one other point I wish to make before I sit down, Mr. Speaker. Tied in to all this, the increase in the basic pension, the protection of the income of our senior citizens by raising the amount on which they will pay no income tax and the establishment of a proper built-in pension which will include the increasing gross national product of the nation, the government should give consideration to lowering the pensionable age to 60. This is long overdue. I suggest that for a start this not be made a compulsory retirement age but individuals could be given the option of retiring at 60 and receiving the old age security pension. I trust that the minister and the government will look very seriously at this suggestion. It has been raised by a number of members in this House and as time goes on, especially with the extremely high unemployment which we see in our nation, groups and individuals are beginning to realize that we should be moving along these lines.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take any more of the time of the House. I can assure you that while we welcome the legislation before us we feel it has not gone far enough. Our group will continue to press for what we consider to be some basic reforms in this pension legislation. We serve warning on the government that whether we are back here for another session before the next election or return when the election is over, that our
May 12, 1972

members will be pushing for those basic reforms which we are suggesting could and should be brought about by the government today.
In closing I can assure the House that this legislation will receive my support. I only regret that it does not go further at this time.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, some of the measures of Bill C-207 are very much overdue. Such measures as there are, have been brought forward as a result of much pleading, goading and beseeching by the opposition. Also, there has been considerable help from Father Time who inexorably is bringing closer a federal election. The government has finally put on its cloak of compassion, that cloak which Liberal governments seem to put on for brief periods every three or four years.


Gerald William Baldwin: Also the cloak of false virtue.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: On April 26 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), while talking about other legislation before the House, said as reported at page 1697 of Hansard:
As many hon. members know, the Economic Council of Canada, the Senate report on poverty, the Council on Social Development, to say nothing of numerous other studies, have all indicated that in this country perhaps four to five million Canadians are living below the poverty line and that something must be done to alleviate their situation.
In that speech the minister recognized that large numbers of people in Canada live below the poverty line. Despite that, the combined increase in old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement as proposed is not large enough, for those who depend for their sole support on such government assistance will still live at standards considerably below the recognized poverty line.
The government is being inconsistent. Anyone who depends for sustenance on his old age pension and supplement is to all intents and purposes like an employee of the government. Surely it is consistent if the government on the one hand recognizes the level of the poverty line and on the other pays these needy people amounts that will keep them living at a standard considerably below the poverty line. I am not proposing to pick figure out of the air, although I suggest that ie precisely what the government has done.
In past years, as I have said before, the government has handed out pensions and other social benefits for political reasons; there is no question about that. I hoped this measure would remove those benefits effectively from the political arena. I imagined that we might move away from the concept under, which every three or four years governments use these benefits for promoting their own political purposes.
If benefits are to be improved, it is logical to begin at a starting point and not at a figure which may have been pulled out of thin air, whether it be $130 a month, $140 a month or any figure like it. This legislation does not contain a logical starting point. Rather than going along with any figure that the NDP might pull out of the air, I would suggest that the reasonable starting point is that
Old Age Security Act
established by the Economic Council of Canada, namely, the poverty line. Perhaps our starting point ought to be slightly above that because any lower figure will not bear scrutiny.
There is another area that I want to touch on briefly. I think it is a tragic circumstance that the people to whom I am about to refer have not been recognized in the legislation before us. I am talking about the husband, for instance, who has reached the age at which he is entitled to the old age pension and supplement, possibly, if he has no other means of livelihood, and whose wife has not reached that age; she might be any age under pensionable age. I am thinking particularly of wives who are not yet 65 and do not possess an earning capacity. I know the minister can say that the man who has reached 65 will be treated as a single pensioner arid must look elsewhere for the necessary sustenance if he is to keep alive and maintain a roof over his head; in other words, he must look to the provincial welfare agency.
Mr. Speaker, a great many old people do not find it easy to approach such agencies. I have personally known of male pensioners who decided to stick it out, possibly for four or five years, until their wives became eligible for pension. It is not fair to ask such people to undergo these ordeals and I think their plight ought to be recognized. I realize that there must be a starting age for eligibility for the old age pension and I do not suggest at this point that 65 is not reasonable. Neither do I suggest that the basic age be changed. However, I am sure the minister will recognize that a man is obligated to support his wife and family. Perhaps the minister could work out a formula involving the old age pension supplement which would take into account a man's obligations.
The government has said that it recognizes for all time, through this measure, the impact on our older citizens of rising living costs. We are told that a formula is to be established for automatically increasing benefits each year as living costs rise. The increase is to be connected to the consumer price index. If you ask a pensioner with no income save his pension and supplement what he knows about the cost of living, he will tell you that he does not know very much about the consumer price index, about the Economic Council of Canada or bodies like it. He will tell you that for him increases in the cost of living mean increases in the cost of keeping a roof over the head of himself and his wife. He will tell you that living cost increases mean more expensive food, clothing and all the other necessities of life.
These are the matters that concern him. He is not greatly concerned about statistics, about the consumer price index or anything like that. If the government really wants people with no means except pensions and supplements to cope with increases in living costs, it must make it possible for pensioners whose spouses have not yet reached pensionable age to meet rising living costs and live in dignity. I am surprised that the government has not recognized the importance of this point. At one point I thought they had. I do not know how many people are in that category, but the number must be fairly substantial. I do not know what their political impact is and I do not really care. I merely recognize that a fairly large segment of our people live under these tragic circumstances and I

May 12, 1972
Old Age Security Act
want the government to recognize this problem and correct it.
These are the only two observations I wish to make. I welcome the improvement. However, I do not think the base has been established in any firm way: I think it has just been pulled out of the air, which leaves it open to more politicking. Perhaps the next study will tie the base to the poverty line or a little above it. Now that the government is suggesting it is being improved and taken out of the political ring, I think we should have a sound base. The established poverty line or a little above it seems to be the most sensible base.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on Bill C-207. In general, I welcome the amendments to the Old Age Security Act. In my constituency there are over 8,000 pensioners. I receive a lot of mail and many representations from them. In the past, pensions have been far from adequate. Many pensioners are living in poverty; their housing conditions are deplorable. This bill recognizes the need to help these people. I wish legislation of this type had been introduced into the House several years ago; I feel it is late now.
I wish to make two points which I hope the minister will take into consideration for future amendments to the legislation. We should be talking in terms of an early retirement for our older people. I receive many representations from people who want to retire at age 60, partly because of the problem of finding employment and partly because in an age of technology and cybernation there is less and less reason for people to work beyond age 60. I urge the minister to amend the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to allow people to retire at age 60 if they wish. Many citizens in this country would like us to move toward this goal now.
Second, the pension for senior citizens should be raised to $150 per month. The basic pension of $80 is much too low. I note that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said that $150 a month would be too costly. I disagree. I urge that the basic pension be raised to $150 per month and that there be a cost of living escalator clause. I find it very encouraging that many pensioners in this country are now starting to organize pressure and lobby groups. There is the Pensioners for Action Now group in British Columbia, and a similar group in Saskatchewan. Some of the credit for pension improvements must go to these organizations. I encourage pensioners to organize and put pressure on the government in every way possible.
The money needed to raise pensions to a much higher rate is available. Other groups in our society receive these benefits. There are tax write-offs to corporations. Surely we can spend more money to help the old age pensioners of this country. They deserve it and should have it. I hope the minister considers these two very important matters and does something about them in the near future. I refer to the need for an earlier retirement age and a higher basic rate of pension.
[Mr. Peddle.)


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly; I will just say a few words.
Not only shall I not condemn this government, but I shall congratulate it for having introduced this measure tending to increase the old age security payments. We know that this increase will be welcome, but it should have been granted a long time ago. In fact, we have been calling for it for several years and, a few months ago, we put considerable pressure on the authorities requesting that this increase be granted.
However, Mr. Speaker, why are pensions being increased? Because the cost of living is rising. Is this a valid reason?
At the present time, we are wondering, on the one hand, why the cost of living is increasing and, on the other hand, why the government is not doing anything to stop it.
The increase in pension will certainly be offset by the increase in the cost of living to such an extent that we shall have to start all over again within the next few months. Following this increase, our senior citizens will witness an increase in the cost of living, an increase in the rates of the homes in which they live, and will find themselves in the same old predicament.


Albert Béchard: Why, then, increase the cost of living?


Henry P. Latulippe: We are asking for a pension increase and a price adjustment.
If we could bring about a price adjustment and, thus, prevent an increase in the cost of living, the pensions would be justified and increasing the pensions would do a great service to the public.
Pensions are being increased but the cost of living is also rising. There is no solution to all that. We certainly agree with pension increases, but, at the same time, we deplore the increasing cost of living. The government must at all costs find a way to adjust prices through compensated discounts which could be deducted from the total surplus of national production.
National production will reach about one hundred billion dollars in the 1972-73 fiscal year, whereas consumption will be about sixty billion dollars. Production prices should be sixty billion dollars because, through a logical approach, the government could decrease prices and have the 100 billion dollars production sold for 60 billions. Through other methods, the government could also issue credits to provide or increase pensions which would keep the cost of living from increasing.
Mr. Speaker, we would avoid cost of living increases through price readjustments and a total readjustment of production and consumption. We could then achieve something. We could arrive at a certain level of stability that would allow products to be sold more easily, in increasing the purchasing power and at the same time price increases would be avoided.
In view of the present economic situation, we are all happy that our senior citizens will get an increase to the guaranteed income supplement. But they will be all the more unhappy to realize eventually that they do not profit
May 12, 1972

by this increase, that prices go on increasing and that the purchasing power diminishes even more.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to open their eyes and to consider the proposed solutions. If they do not find better solutions, they can always examine those which have been proposed and try to implement them.
We are pleased with the increase but, at the same time, we deplore the fact that this will not solve the problem. There is no possible solution on that side. When pensions are increased and services improved, it is also necessary, in order to balance the economy, to find a logical, technical and philosophical means of preventing an increase in the cost of living. Yet, former governments have never thought of it. They have never stopped to consider the problem, to study that philosophical and technical economy which would solve the problem once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, our economy is like a giant motor without a throttle-value: it runs either too fast or too slow. Here is the solution we propose: let us fix a throttle-value on that economic motor which is very good, very powerful and has everything it takes. But our system has no controls. We suggest that the big economic motor be equipped with a regulator to maintain some price stability.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat what has already been said, as I do not want to hold up the business of the house. We are very anxious, like all hon. members, to see passage of that pension increase. We are anxious, like all other hon. members, to see our senior citizens receive that increase.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-207. I will not be long, so as to enable other hon. members to speak today if they so desire.
There are a couple of points missing from the bill which are an oversight of the minister, either foreseen or deliberate. One relates to a problem with which I am sure we are all familiar; it exists among aged couples pretty well universally. Because the habit in this country is for men to marry women younger than themselves, it follows that married men reach pensionable age sooner than their wives. It is also a fact of Canadian life that most women in their later years do not earn any income because traditionally their work is confined to taking care of the household, this so far being a non-paying position, speaking in general terms.
My first suggestion for improving this legislation is to ask the government to consider seriously extending the pension to the wife as well as to the husband as soon as the husband becomes of pensionable age. I have numerous acquaintances in my constituency, men who are aged 65-most of them agricultural workers, of course, my constituency being an agricultural one-and are retiring, with no other source of income. They have to support themselves and their wives on one pension. As I am sure even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who is here today, will admit, the pension being paid one person is not even sufficient to make adequate provision for his needs, and when he is also obligated to
Old Age Security Act
provide for his wife the situation becomes very difficult. Indeed, in view of the cost of rent, food and clothing the situation becomes impossible.
In some cases a man who qualifies for pension is forced to continue working until his wife reaches pensionable age, in which case he loses his guaranteed income supplement; or the wife is forced to go out to work until she receives a pension. Because many wives are not accustomed to going out to work, an extremely large burden is placed on the household until the wife reaches pensionable age. Therefore I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) why he neglected to consider this aspect of the pension plan. I am sure he is aware of the problem I have described. It is possible that he may have considered but rejected the idea. If this is the case, I should like him to state why he has rejected it and how he expects two people to live on one pension, at least until the wife becomes of pensionable age. If the minister does not expect them to do that, what else can they do? Is the wife supposed to apply for provincial welfare until she receives a pension, or should she go out to work to augment the family income?
The second point I wish to make relates to the agricultural policy of this government. The government's policy is designed to remove farmers from the land. As we know, a large number of agricultural workers in Canada are of middle age and are getting close to retirement age. Generally speaking, they are the ones most vulnerable to the difficult economic conditions our farmers are facing today. The people who are quitting the farms, through no choice of their own but because economic conditions are such that they can no longer earn a living on the farm, in most cases are in the 55 to 65 age bracket. Quite often they are unsuited to retraining and to relocating in order to take other jobs. In many cases their health is such that they cannot accept labouring work or work of an unskilled nature.
I suggest that in cases where farmers, as a result of economic conditions brought on by this government, are forced off the land, their pensionable age be lowered to 60 or 55. I do not think that is unreasonable. The contribution of these people to the building of this country, to the feeding of our people, and the amount of physical labour they have performed up to the time they are forced off the land, certainly warrants some kind of reward by way of an early pension which would allow them to retire from the land with some dignity and without the undue stress and strain involved in trying to become retrained for other types of employment.
Those are the two main points I wish the minister to consider. A wife should receive a pension as soon as her husband becomes pensionable. Second, in respect of farming people who have been forced off the land because of difficult economic conditions in agriculture, the age at which they become eligible for pension should be lowered from 65 to 60. I think this would serve a very useful purpose and the number of people involved, in relation to the whole, would not be very great.
Earlier today the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) made some unkind remarks, as he usually does

May 12, 1972
Old Age Security Act
when someone from our party is speaking, about the failure of the government headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to do anything about increasing pensions for our senior citizens.
I have before me a resume of pension increases since pensions were introduced in 1952. It shows that from 1952 to 1957 a Liberal government raised the pension from $40 to $46. In 1957 it was immediately raised to $55 a month when the new government came into power. Five years later, in 1963, it was raised to $75. From 1967 to 1972 the basic pension was increased to $75, and then to a grand total of $80. So we can see that the generosity of the party the hon. member represents is not very great.
We recognize that some of the changes contained in Bill C-207 are quite useful. The idea of bringing in an escalator clause is good, but I am not convinced that the way it is set up will accomplish what is intended. I hope that when we have before us the regulations in this regard the matter will be clarified.
I conclude by saying that our senior citizens have been responsible for building this nation to the state in which it is today. In many parts of our country the senior citizens arrived in wilderness areas as pioneers. Through their efforts, physical, emotional and otherwise, they converted the wilderness into beautiful, productive country. Many of them were able to save sufficient funds to be comfortable in their old age. However, many were unable to do so, and it is in respect of this group that I emphasize the country owes them a decent living in repayment of their contribution to the conversion of what was wilderness into a beautiful, developed country.
I note the minister has left the House. He probably found my remarks boring. However, I plead with him to seriously consider the two suggestions I have made and urge that he endeavour to bring in appropriate amendments to the bill before it is passed by the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House long because we want to get this bill through the House today. It will go to the committee, where I hope it will be dealt with very quickly. I join my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who in commenting on the bill referred to the sheer cynicism which is evidenced by bringing it forward at this time. I also join my colleagues on this side of the House who have made brilliant speeches and have adequately dealt with the bill.
I stress the difficulty we experience in respect of legislation of this kind in attempting to meet our commitments. This measure has been subjected to amending motions by our party and by my friends to the left. These amendments have been voted against time and time again by hon. members opposite. Now we are confronted with the legislation, under these circumstances, because of sheer political banditry. It is precisely the same as the other circumstance I raised today about these issues being parallel.
While being interviewed on January 9, 1972, by Mr. Peter Desbarats, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was asked about a number of bills which I believe included this bill, and also about election expenses. I put this

matter to the House because the principle is precisely the same. At that time the Prime Minister said:
Well, quite candidly, one is a question of time. We did tackle this problem along with many others. We didn't bring it to the point where we could introduce legislation in time for the next election, which would have had to be many many months ago in order that the old election machinery and the electoral officers and so on be able to readjust to whatever new laws we . .. So, it's something we would have had to do, you know, a year ago to become effective.
Later in the interview the Prime Minister said:
We have a very good report by Hyliard Chappell which came out a few months ago, it came out too late to be passed through Parliament in time to be effective for this present election.
But yesterday, on this note, the Prime Minister said:
-this very morning in cabinet we approved a bill doing exactly those things-limiting campaign expenditures and having the state pay at least part of the bill of election expenses ... so I consulted Don Macdonald and we decided to blow it tonight.
The bill is to be introduced on Tuesday. Under these conditions it is very difficult for this party and the opposition in general to conform with the view of the government with regard to the legislation which is to be introduced. I mention this matter in the hope that it might be an object lesson to my friends opposite, so that when they come to the serious problem of introducing legislation to this House they will do so having in mind the needs of the country rather than political cynicism.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be even more brief. In view of the credit just claimed by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) for the Conservative government's $10 per month increases in the old age security pension in 1962 and 1963,1 think we should all regard with a great deal of seriousness the allegations of political cynicism emanating from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

Arthur Laing: that Bill C-208, to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowance Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, to provide for the annual adjustment of pensions and allowances payable thereunder, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
May 12, 1972


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do not know whether there has been general distribution of copies of the bill. I do not have one. Perhaps there has been a selective distribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have mine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I see that the hon. member has now received a copy.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this bill will be relatively brief because although the measure is an important one it is quite simple and straightforward. My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in his budget speech on May 8 announced that legislation would be introduced to provide for the annual adjustment of veterans pensions and allowances to reflect changes in the cost of living. This bill will give effect to that undertaking.
In the past there never has been any clear principle governing the general changes made from time to time in the amount paid in veterans pensions or allowances. In recent years the rates have been reviewed every two years or so, but the basis and the exact timing of the reviews were never before spelled out and made public. Veterans and their families, or widows, had no certainty as to the amounts of the payments they might receive from year to year.
This bill will for the first time remove that uncertainty. It spells out clearly the fact that the pensions and allowances will be adjusted annually, that when changes based on living costs are warranted they will take effect on January 1, and that the amount of these changes will be arithmetically and automatically determined by the movement of the consumer price index. The adjustment will be made as of right. No longer will it be necessary for veterans organizations to come and plead for a review to recognize the shrinkage in the real value of veterans benefits because of price increases. The review will be statutory and annual and governed by the principle recited in the legislation itself. The bill, therefore, is a new landmark in the veterans' charter.
Hon. members will have noted that this is an omnibus bill to amend five different statutes, but the principle in all cases is the same. The first statute involved is the Pension Act, under which disability pensions and various allowances are paid to veterans, and also pensions are paid in specified circumstances to the widows or orphans of veterans. I should like to emphasize that the new principle of automatic escalation will apply not only to the pensions themselves but also to the various periodic allowances arising from this act. This includes attendance allowance, clothing allowance, dependant parents allowance and also the new exceptional incapacity allowance that was first enacted about a year ago.
Another point which I would like to stress is that the present bill relates only to the question of changes related to the cost of living; in other words, to the principle of escalation. Veterans organizations have also been making representations to the government with regard to the basic rates of pensions. In other words, apart from the periodic changes in rates there is also the question as to whether or not the pensions stand on the right base. I
Pension Act and Other Acts
want to say clearly that this question of basic rates is under careful study. At this time I cannot predict the outcome of that study but I do want to point out that the present measure should not be regarded as being prejudicial in any way to the review of this question of basic rates. They are two different questions.
The second statute affected by this bill is the War Veterans Allowance Act, and here too the method of escalation will be the same. As in the case of other recent increases in this allowance, the statutory ceilings will be increased by the same amounts and not by the same percentages as the maximum allowances; in other words, the margin between the maximum allowances and the total income ceilings will remain unchanged.
Another matter of considerable interest in this connection is the question of how the current increases under the Old Age Security Act, also announced in the budget, will be treated for purposes of war veterans allowance. I am pleased to announce that the government intends to seek authority from the governor in council for a regulation exempting these increases under the Old Age Security Act so that they are not treated as income when computing entitlement under the War Veterans Allowance Act. These veterans, therefore, will quite properly qualify for the increases both as veterans and as citizens.
The third statute involved is the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, which relates to various groups of quasi-military personnel such as merchant seamen, auxiliary services personnel, firefighters and the like. These groups will enjoy exactly the same kind of escalation both with regard to disability pensions and with regard to civilian war allowances.
The fourth statute is the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, which provides for tuition fees and living costs of qualified young persons. Here again, the escalation will be automatic and will conform with changes in the consumer price index. The fifth of the statutes affected is the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that exactly the same kind of escalation may apply, as of January 1, 1972, to those who may be in receipt of treatment allowance. Hon. members will recall that the purpose of treatment allowance is to raise the payment made to a disability pensioner up to the equivalent of 100 per cent pension when he is under treatment in hospital for his pensionable disability.
Mr. Speaker, I promised to be brief. I have described the substance of this bill. It is simple but it establishes an important new right. Hon. members will certainly agree that Canada's veterans should not be expected to make supplication in matters of this kind. Cost of living changes are measurable and it is self-evident that they should be met by a standardized procedure such as that defined in this bill.
I should like to make one other point. Officials of my department are already making provisional arrangements for the issuance of cheques to cover the retroactive aspect of all these adjustments, and also to amend the amounts of subsequent cheques in accordance with the provisions of this bill. While I cannot say at this time exactly when the amended cheques can be distributed, I can assure the

May 12, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
House that the revision will be completed at the earliest possible moment.
I apologize to the House for directing my attention almost totally to the notes with which I was provided, but hon. members will realize that this is quite a complex matter with which I am still trying to become familiar.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order only to point out to Your Honour and the House that members of our party who are particularly interested in this matter are unavoidably absent today, in the belief that the previous measure would have taken a little longer than it did. However, we are quite happy to let the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who will be speaking for his party, precede us if it is understood-we are not asking for an order to be made-that members of our party will be allowed to speak on Tuesday after the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has completed his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the position of having to say a few complimentary words in at least two directions. First of all, I am grateful to my friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), for allowing me to speak ahead of a representative of the official opposition. I can understand the absence of the several members of that party who would be speaking on this matter, since they did not expect it to be reached this soon, but I dare to suggest that the views I shall express are probably the views that they would express if they were here this afternoon.
The other pleasant word I want to offer is to suggest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) that if the speech he made this afternoon is-and I believe it is-a sample of the attitude he takes toward veterans affairs, he ought to reconsider his decision about not running again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I grant that as a Liberal he might have trouble getting elected in Vancouver South, but let us assume he could get elected somewhere, and if the Liberals were still in power I would hope he might continue in his position as Minister of Veterans Affairs. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because when suddenly it became obvious that this bill was going to be reached this afternoon I made some quick notes about the points I wanted to make and the questions I wanted to ask. The minister dealt with each one of them, and not only dealt with them but dealt with them very satisfactorily. That is why I wish he were not retiring.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that this is an area where it is not unusual for there to be this all-party approach, because it is true that in the veterans affairs committee we seem to have less partisanship than in almost any committee of the House. We meet in that committee, some members as veterans and some of us not, deeply conscious of our debt to those who have served us in a number of wars, and it is our supreme desire as members of the committee to see that the best possible deal is provided for our veterans.

I said, Mr. Speaker, that I had made a few notes about questions which the minister has answered already. But even so, may I underline the points that have now been made clear. I think the most important thing he said in his few remarks was that the cost of living escalator being provided by this legislation is not a substitute for an adjustment in the basic rate of pensions. I trust that applies to all pensions and allowances, those under the Pension Act, under the War Veterans Allowance Act and under the other pieces of veterans legislation. As the minister must know, because there have been some press releases already from veterans organizations, the notion that this 3.6 per cent increase might be what the minister has been talking about lately when he has referred to possible increases in veterans pensions has been very annoying, and veterans have said that this is not good enough. They are absolutely right and the minister has answered that he agrees.
I said the same thing earlier to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), that the cost of living increase to be added to the basic $80 pension must not be a substitute for increasing that basic $80. I thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs for making it clear that the escalation, according to the cost of living, being provided in this piece of legislation is an extra and not something that is offered in substitution for an adjustment in the basic rates.
I trust that the review of the basic rates which is going on will be pursued diligently. I suppose that if the minister is going to stay with his determination not to run in the next election it means he does not have to go out on the campaign hustings. He can still be Minister of Veterans Affairs until the date of the next election, so he can stay in Ottawa and see to it that the department works hard on this question of basic rates.
I plead that when the department is discussing basic rates it should consider not only the disability rates under the Pension Act but also the basic rates set out in the War Veterans Allowance Act and the rates of various other allowances. The minister is moving his head to indicate that that is correct. Even though I seem to be spelling it out in full, Mr. Speaker, I think it is most important that it be spelled out. If the minister had not said what he did, we would be blasting him now. It is extremely good to see that these cost of living increases, to be made annually on a statutory basis, will not now or in the future be a substitute for an increase in the basic rates.
I still make the same comment about escalation in relation to this bill that I made in relation to the old age security pension. I still do not think it is good enough to escalate only according to the rise in the cost of living. That is better than no escalation at all. It is better than an escalation limited to 2 per cent. But I think our veterans in particular are entitled to share in the increased standard of living and that some day we will have to tie this escalation to a better formula than the rise in the cost of living.
A second note I made was to ask whether these increases would apply to all the pensions and allowances, and two I had in mind were the special incapacity allowance and the treatment allowance. By mental telepathy, or perhaps just by coincidence, the minister mentioned both of them and underlined the fact that what is being pro-

posed in this bill is provision to escalate, according to the cost of living formula, all the allowances that are paid under any and all of the statutes respecting veterans.
Those were two of the points that I noted down. The third was one that I spoke about this morning when we were debating Bill C-207, the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, namely, the question of the ceiling on the permissible income that applies to recipients of the war veterans allowance. As I said this morning, Mr. Speaker, if one looks only at the terms of Bill C-208 there is a terrible deficiency because all it permits is for the permissible income ceiling to be increased by the same number of dollars that the allowance payable is increased as a result of the application of the formula. A single veteran's maximum allowance is $121, and 3.6 per cent of that is only $4.35. A married veteran's maximum allowance is $201, and 3.6 per cent of that is only $7.23. If that is all that were to happen, if permissible income ceilings were to be increased only by those figures, then we would have the war veterans allowance recipient getting no advantage from the $15 or $30 increase in the guaranteed income supplement provided by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his legislation.
The minister has met that point most satisfactorily. He tells us that an order in council will be sought to exempt the extra $15 or extra $30 from the provisions respecting the ceiling, in the same way as for a number of years the 2 per cent addition has been exempted. This means, if I took the minister correctly-I want to get one more nod of the head from him-that in addition to the provision in the bill itself for raising the ceiling by $4.35 single and $7.23 married, there will be an order in council raising it by $15 or $30 so that the war veterans allowance recipient this time will get both. He will get the 3.6 per cent increase in the allowance he is receiving, and he will also get the benefit of the extra $15 under the guaranteed income supplement, which means that this year the single war veterans allowance recipient who is at the maximum can anticipate an increase of $19.35-that is, $15 plus $4.35- and the married war veterans allowance recipient who is at the maximum can anticipate an increase of $37.23, the $30 guaranteed income supplement and the $7.23 increase in the war veterans allowance as a result of this bill. If the minister will just nod his head to that, I will be very happy to call it four o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the minister nods to anything, I shall have to call it four o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask the minister to be ready to nod his head when we come back to this bill on Tuesday. Four o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.
Marine Resources Development Study



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Haliiax East) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the development, encouragement and maintenance of a coordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national program for the recovery and use of the resources of Canada's sea coast waters and continental shelves; and to this end, effectively utilize the scientific and engineering knowledge and skills of the public service and government agencies and co-operate with private investment enterprise in the exploration, technological development and industrial use of the resources of the marine environment of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate for the third time in the last two years an opportunity to address a few remarks to the chamber on the question of the resource that is the ocean around us. I first raised this matter on November 30, 1970, I had an opportunity to deal with it again on December 3, 1971, and I appreciate this further opportunity today.
In a world where the natural resources of the land are becoming more scarce, and where the pervading threat of famine is constant, the ocean and all its possibilities take on a new light. Throughout world history the ocean has played a major role in the life of countries. It has been alternately an avenue for transport in global commerce, a natural barrier contributing to national security and independence, and an arena for conflict. In the seventies the ocean is again emerging at the centre of world power. Not only are submarine missile systems a most important, if not the most important, component of military power nowadays but growing interest in the resources of the continental shelf and the possibility of exploiting these resources on a commercial scale opens up the perspective of a scramble for the sea between nations. In such a context, the whole nature of the sea is altered. However, if the resources of the ocean carry with them frightening consequences, they also generate positive economic effects. The present trend of countries toward the exploitation of the resources of the continental shelf, for example, opens up new, wide possibilities.
For a country such as Canada, where the continental shelf covers an estimated 1,470,000 square miles-an area equivalent to 38 per cent of the total land and freshwater area of the country-the future seems bright. For once, the east coast shall not be excluded from that bright future for its continental shelf covers an estimated area of
430,000	square miles, or over twice the immediately adjacent area of the four Atlantic provinces.
The mineral potential of the ocean certainly lives up to expectations. It is estimated that each cubic mile of sea water contains about 166 million tons of mineral salts; and when one considers that the ocean contains 317 million cubic miles of water, the resources seem astonishing. Chlorine and sodium constitute 84 per cent of these salts; another 9 per cent is constituted by five other elements, magnesium, sulphur, calcium, potassium and bromine, and some 50 or more elements make up the remainder.

May 12, 1972
Marine Resources Development Study
But even more impressive are the unexplored resources of the ocean bed. Manganese nodules from the deep ocean floor, for example, have been estimated by Dr. John Mero to contain, in total, enough copper to supply industry for
6.000	years, aluminum for 20,000 years and manganese for
400.000	years at the 1960 rate of consumption. Even in our progressive age, the age of change, these proportions seem quite astonishing and astounding. The ocean is also very interesting in the field of oil and gas exploitation. These two elements represent more than 90 per cent, by value, of all minerals obtained from the ocean and have the greatest potential for the near future.
At the moment, offshore sources are responsible for 17 per cent of the oil and 6 per cent of the natural gas produced by western or non-communist countries. Projections indicate that by 1980 a third of the oil production- four times the present output of 6.5 million barrels a day-will come from the ocean. The increase in gas production is expected to be comparable. These projections are particularly interesting for Canada. Indeed, while the actual exploration of oil is still at an early stage, research and geophysical surveys have been carried out for 20 years now by such institutions as the Geological Survey of Canada, the Bedford Institute, and Dalhousie University.
In 1960 the first offshore permits were issued for oil exploration, and since then the petroleum industry has spent millions of dollars on actual exploration, construction of rigs, and so on. The first wells drilled six years ago, two off the west coast, two on the Grand Banks and one on Sable Island off the east coast of Nova Scotia, have demonstrated to us the capability for which we are striving. We now know, for example, that all the land on the continental shelf off the east coast, and particularly within the jurisdiction of the four Atlantic provinces, is under exploration permits. This is an indication of the fact that we are indeed striving.
With this accrued emphasis on the mineral resources of the ocean, techniques in diving and in living in the sea take on new light and importance. Progress has been impressive in the last few decades. While the nineteenth century saw the first practical versions of the modern, closed diving suit, scuba apparatus and the development of the submarine in its modern form, the twentieth century has seen technological advances of all kinds from the bathyscaphe to the aqualung, from saturation diving to the underwater bases of Conshelf and Sealab. It also saw the first nuclear submarine, Nautilus, put out to sea in 1955, and the deepest descent in the ocean-a descent to 35,800 feet on the floor of the Marianas Trench-in 1960 by two men, Jacques Piccard and Lieutenant Don Welsh.
At the moment, basic means to explore and utilize the undersea world are considered the prime requisites of marine technology. These range from survey equipment to power sources, from materials for more reliable equipment to mooring systems, buoys and surface support platforms, from biomedicine progress to environmental information. Considerable technology already exists for the penetration by man himself, assisted by various devices, to depths ranging from 500 to 1,000 feet. The United States commission on marine science, engineering and resources considers that it is realistically possible for the United States to utilize the continental shelf and slope to depths

of 2,000 feet within ten years, and to achieve a similar capability to depths of 20,000 feet within 30 years. This advanced technology does not in itself produce significant changes in industry, but it certainly opens up new avenues. Desalination, sub-bottom and deep water mining, power generation from waves, currents, tides and thermal differences are only a few examples of future possibilities.
What does Canada need to do or focus on in the future? Certainly research is very important to explore new possibilities and to find ways of exploiting the resources already discovered. And, as both the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada have stated, research in Canada adds to productivity and profit in industry. At present, the federal government spends about 7 per cent of its research and development budget on marine science. While such a percentage seems high when one considers that marine research represents only 1 per cent of the national research and development expenditure in Great Britain and West Germany, it is not enough.
The federal money is channelled mainly through three departments, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Transport. Basic research has been successfully undertaken but very little effort and expenditure has yet been put on methods of exploiting the resources of the sea itself and the continental shelf. Such practical applications as continental shelf laboratories, deep exploration submersible systems and test facilities should be included in the present study with respect to marine science.
However, while research is central to Canadian development of the continental shelf, a clear statement of Canadian goals in the field of marine resources is very much needed to provide guidelines for future development. Our southern neighbour, the United States, has already made extensive examination of the uses of the sea in relation to national goals. Indeed, the commission on marine science, engineering and resources reported to the President in 1969 in a document entitled "Our Nation and the Sea". The commission clearly stated: "The nation's stake in the uses of the sea is synonymous with the promise and threat of tomorrow".
Translating that to our own scene, for Canadians the promise lies in new economic opportunities, a great stimulus to business, industry and employment and new sources of minerals and food. It lies, also, in expanding the nation's horizons and in strengthening its international position and peaceful collaboration among nations. The threat lies in the potential destruction of large parts of the coastal environment and in the further deterioration of recreational facilities, coastal shell fisheries and fisheries on the high seas. There is also the threat that unbridled international competition for the sea's resources may provoke conflict. That we do not want. I suggest that with careful and prudent planning such extremes can be avoided.
The report does not confine itself to defining the relationship between the uses of the sea and national goals; it also sets out definite goals that the United States should

aim at fulfilling in the next 30 years. Among these goals is the capability to utilize the continental shelf and slope to depths of 2,000 feet within ten years and a similar capability to depths of 20,000 feet within the next 30 years. Such a definitive statement has been avoided in Canada and this, I think, is regrettable. It is high time that our country incorporated in its national goals a consciousness for the sea and a development plan to exploit the resources of the ocean. That plan must be developed in a manner which will meet our demands in respect of the ecology of the areas I have mentioned.
The 1970 report of the committee on marine science and technology could very well be used as a starting point in a major program of marine science. The committee suggested various mechanisms in the process of the formulation and implementation of a national marine policy. In my opinion, the first stage should be reached through a widely representative national board on marine activity that would make recommendations to the minister responsible to the House for science policy. The implementation and co-ordination of such policy should then be the responsibility of bodies or agencies with marine or maritime interests, such as, for example, the existing Canadian Committee on Oceanography.
I might add that the Canadian Development Corporation should be brought into the picture. This Crown corporation would be responsible for organizing marine development and innovation projects in industry. It would also be responsible for the rapid establishment of a solid technological base and for the promotion of marketing products and services at home and abroad. Marine environmental problems would be kept under review by the proposed environmental council reporting directly to the office of the Prime Minister. It is only through such structures, Mr. Speaker, that Canada will be able to set up a concrete and definite marine policy.
Given the growing importance of the ocean strategically and commercially and the vastness of the continental shelf, a great potential lies ahead and we should take steps now to ensure a rational and profitable exploitation of these resources. The time of decision is here. Multiple pressures force the nation to turn to the sea and multiple opportunities await the seaward-turning.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion before the House in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) is most interesting. If I may give an outline of it in precis form, it says that the government should consider developing a national program for the use of the resources of our sea and marine environment. I think that in his speech the hon. member gave an excellent outline of his ideas and told us about the potential of our sea bed and marine resources.
I am sure hon. members are aware of the vast resources of Canada's continental shelf and of the resources adjacent to our sea coasts under the surface of the sea. I am referring to mineral resources and particularly to oil about which the public has heard so much lately. These resources are to be found in the Arctic, off the west coast and off the east coast, the part of our country about which the hon. member was speaking. Of course, an equally important part of these resources is to be found in the waters themselves, namely, the fisheries resources which
Marine Resources Development Study have been important to this country historically and still hold an important place in our economic life.
These resources, however, are under pressure from many sides. This pressure comes principally from overharvesting and the destruction through pollution of the life-giving qualities of this milieu. It is this last threat that I wish to deal with briefly this afternoon. It is not feasible within the short time allotted, or even if there were considerable time at our disposal, as well as a large staff, to begin scratching much more than the surface of the subject of marine pollution.
Pollution in the coastal ocean-I refer to that part of the ocean over the continental shelf-arises from injections of waste by industries, municipalities, towns and villages along our maritime coasts as well as from the discharge of inland pollutants through tributaries and rivers flowing into the ocean. Considering the immense volume of the ocean and the relatively puny amounts of waste generated by man, it is surprising that these wastes cause such profound changes in the coastal ocean. The coastal ocean is relatively shallow and narrow and consequently there is a limited amount of water in the region to absorb the waste flowing into it.
Although waste disposal operations in coastal ocean areas are not a worldwide problem, they are serious for many developed countries. The coastal ocean is especially rich in marine life, providing most of the world's fish production and about 10 per cent of the world's protein. Coastal and estuarine waters and marshlands provide the nutrients, nursing areas and spawning grounds for two-thirds of the world's entire fisheries harvests. Seven of the ten most valuable species of the American commercial fisheries catch spend part of their lives in estuarine waters.
The high productivity of estuarine areas is illustrated by the following example. The maximum yield of Georgia estuarine waters has been estimated at ten tons of dry organic matter per acre per year, nearly twice that of the best agricultural land and seven times that of the Grand Banks. Pollution is an ever increasing threat to the estuaries. Land filling, dredging, dumping and marsh draining have seriously reduced these areas. In the past 20 years in the United States, dredging and filling alone have destroyed 7 per cent of that nations important fish and wildlife estuarine habitats.
The reasons for the pressures on coastal zone usage are clear. There is a major shift of population from rural areas to the cities and many are located in coastal regions in one form or another, either salt water or fresh water. Private housing has and will continue to exercise the greatest demand for shore property, but there are other needs that must be met. Heavy industry, for example, traditionally is located on the water's edge where it seeks a cheap source of industrial water and transportation. It also provides a simple solution to waste disposal problems and ready access to raw material. Pollution abatement requirements have lessened somewhat the desirability of a waterfront industrial location, but recent trends in shipping have increased the demand for deep water frontage.

May 12, 1972
Marine Resources Development Study Deep water access will be essential to the future competitiveness of many of our Canadian industries.
Electrical power production has constantly increased over the past, roughly doubling each decade. This means that by the year 2000 we will require approximately eight times more hydroelectric energy power than we have at the present time. Fossil and nuclear-fueled generating facilities require vast amounts of cooling water, and the location of these plants must take into account the problems and potential benefits of warming the local waters in relation to ecological balances, recreation, and so on.
We know there is serious pollution in estuaries and that coastal fisheries and shellfish beds are contaminated. We do not have the evidence at hand to state categorically that pollution in causing damage to the ocean itself. We do know it poses serious threats to marine nursing areas and, potentially, to ocean fisheries. International attention has been attracted to this problem. Scientists are involved in and working with various committees and international organizations such as the Food and Agricultural Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization and the World Meteorological Organization.
This week, Mr. Maurice Strong, a prominent Canadian who is Secretary General to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, was in Ottawa. Hon. members will have read in the newspapers that Mr. Strong is pursuing very energetically his goal to achieve a greater degree of international co-operation in this field. However, the newspapers did not highlight the fact that Mr. Strong voiced satisfaction with Canada's role preparatory to the conference. Mr. Strong said, in effect, that to date Canada has been one of the major contributors. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Corbin), who could not be here today, in his capacity as chairman of the preparatory committee recently toured the country to receive briefs from interested groups and individuals. Their opinions will help form a strong Canadian position at the conference.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that while I agree on the importance of effectively utilizing the scientific and engineering knowledge and skills of the public service and government agencies in order to maximize the use and protection of the resources of the marine environment of Canada, I consider that the degree of co-operation already achieved is impressive. This country is not only a leader in this field but it has accepted and has played a major role internationally.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that this motion would be debated this afternoon. If I had kept in touch I might have done the same sort of work that obviously the previous two speakers have done. I should like to compliment the mover of the motion, and the hon. member who just completed his remarks, on the work they did in preparing their speeches.
I questioned the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie) about what Canada should be looking at in a specialized sense. The minister listed this field as being one with great potential. He stated that we had

sufficient expertise and a great deal of fresh water and sea coast, as well as areas where the water is not very deep, to enable Canada to specialize in developing new industries. I am thinking of the specialized area of oil drilling; this might be one area in which Canada could contribute significantly. We might even make economic use of this expertise in order to obtain benefits beyond those which other nations have achieved.
We have a submarine which might be used in drilling offshore. I am also thinking of the problems in this area. We can see the need for a program such as is suggested. I talked to an oil man just a few days ago. He told me about some of the problems of his company with regard to drilling for oil. He spoke about the problems they may have drilling in the middle of Hudson Bay, where the water is very cold. An oil spill there would obviously create a great problem. These people are learning much as they go along.
I think there is merit in the motion before us, in the sense that the knowledge gained by one company might be used by another, particularly when we consider the amount of oil and natural gas in Canada, the Arctic Islands, Hudson Bay and off the east and west coasts. A co-ordinated study such as the hon. member suggests would be very valuable to all concerned. I am dealing with only one area, oil. An over-all study of the problems associated with drilling for oil would be worth while, especially when we consider the Arctic Islands and the great stretches of water between them. When you have a natural resource, you take advantage of it. This is one of the reasons we should support the hon. member's motion.
I am a Saskatchewan farmer and am therefore not very familiar with fish farming. However, we do have fish in our Prairie slews. To date fish farming has been only an experimental program, a conversation piece and a bit of fun for the people involved. The results have been good, and I believe that if we adopted this approach on a larger scale to the waters of our coasts it could bring huge returns in an economic sense. But we must apply ourselves to a consistent program of fish farming.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I read carefully the motion of the hon. member which, incidentally, deals with a topic of the highest importance for the Canadian economy, namely the better use of our marine resources and others which will inevitably contribute much to our economy.
I have no intention of treating lightly the motion before the House this afternoon, but may I be allowed to ask where the mover of this motion has been these past few years. I understand he has dealt with mines, especially offshore deposits, but where was he when the government made giant strides in the control of Canadian fisheries? Either, he does not wish to recognize what Canada has done, or else he was not interested in that field of almost daily concern to the Canadians and epecially the government.
Dealing only with these resources which, in my view, are the real wealth of the sea, that is the living resources, I shall make a quick review of the initiatives taken by
May 12, 1972

Canada, both through our laws and regulations, the participation of the federal Department of Fisheries in studies and discussions with national fishing organizations, and through its very active and continuous participation in the proceedings of international agencies such as ICNAF, the Conference on the Law of the Sea, etc.
Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, have a very special and privileged position in the history of Canada. This is the most ancient Canadian primary industry. I suggest to the numerous members present this afternoon that the first international agreement between Canada-as an independent country-and a foreign country was the halibut treaty signed with the United States, in 1923, for the protection of halibut reserves in the Pacific ocean.
Moreover, the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, created in 1898, is the oldest research organization sponsored by the Canadian government.
The importance of commercial fishing in Canada-it has to be admitted-has relatively decreased for some time and the advent of the industrial era which thanks to God invaded our country brought about scores of industries of all kinds that took away an important part of the people who were practising agriculture and fishing.
In spite of the considerable industrialization that our country has known, fisheries remain, Mr. Speaker, of very great economic importance for our coastal provinces. Canadian fishermen catch over 150 species of fish or shell-fish around our harbours on the Atlantic Northwest and the Pacific Northwest. Fishermen and the Canadian fishing industry have invested $200 million for the purchase of boats, equipment and gear of various sorts and investments in land facilities exceed $100 million. Some
80,000	Canadians are employed in an industry directly related to fishing. Of those, roughly 30,000 depend directly on the catches for their livelihood.
Mr. Speaker, it is advisable to point out at this stage that, for a large number of fishermen from the east coast of Canada, including those in my riding, Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine, this direct reliance on fisheries is total, since it is their sole source of income. Hence, the pressing necessity to take adequate measures even if they are strict.
If we want to assure to an important sector of the Canadian population a continuous and sufficient supply of this natural resource for future generations, the federal government and the provincial governments, which in some provinces have jurisdiction over fisheries, have the duty to take action.
As I said earlier, Canada and the Fisheries Department in particular have certainly not been lagging in that field. You will remember, for instance, that after the failure of the Law of the Sea Conference of 1958 and 1960 to settle the issue of the extent of the territorial sea and the limits of jurisdiction over fisheries, despite efforts and campaigns conducted by Canada in favour of the proposal establishing the territorial sea of 3 miles with the addition of the fishing area of 9 miles and then the formula of 6 miles plus 6 miles, the Canadian government did not hesitate to go forward.
Marine Resources Development Study
Those who were sitting in the House in 1964-and you were one of them, Mr. Speaker, although you are primarily concerned with the sporting point of view-will remember that as a result of this failure, the Liberal government elected in 1963 and the Minister of Fisheries, hon. Hedard Robichaud had suggested the adoption of an exclusive fishing area of 9 miles contiguous to the 3 miles of the territorial sea. Thus, Canada has been one of the'strongest advocates of this proposal.
As the many members present here this afternoon are aware, this courageous action of the Canadian government has not been readily accepted throughout the world. However, we can say that the contiguous area established in 1964 to protect our domestic fisheries is now recognized under international law.
But the latest developments in the field of the fishing industry have been marked by the sophistication of fishing boats and equipment both in Canada and in the other countries involved in this industry. Moreover, the alarming extermination of certain species meant imminent extinction for some of them because of overexploitation by Canadian fishermen and well-equipped foreign fishermen who came and still come with huge factory ships to rake the bottom of our seas and catch this natural ress-ources, to the extent that the government and particularly our fishermen grew exceedingly disturbed. This demonstrated that the 12 mile exclusive limit for fishing, excellent 10 or 15 years ago when we had affluence, no longer has its original magic character.
Faced with the indecision of international organizations as to the establishment of efficent legislation intended to protect our fisheries in general, particularly our off-shore fisheries, the Canadian government felt once more that it had to take unilateral while always bearing in mind the interests of the fishermen, of the Canadian citizen and consequently of Canada as a whole.
Therefore we have seen this government introduce a series of amendments to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act establishing exclusively Canadian fishing zones in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for instance, as well as in the Bay of Fundy, the Dixon Entrance, the Hecate Strait, the Queen Charlotte Sound on the Pacific coast. At the same time and under the same legislation, Canads extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 miles.
Of course, this Canadian initiative has not been accepted by all countries. There are varying opinions in this respect. Canada could have gone farther and claimed historically and geographically, full sovereignty on what is known as the "special water expanse". But the government has elected to guarantee our exclusive jurisdiction over fishing and, through another legislation, over pollution control in order to avoid any clashes that would jeopardize the forthcoming 1973 Conference on the Law of the Sea.
On the other hand, the interests of other countries directly affected by Canada's action have been taken into account and negotiations have been initiated with them with a view to obtaining that they phase out their traditional fishing practices in Canada's offshore waters.
Today, Mr. Speaker, it is heartening to note that the negotiations in regard to fishing, aiming at the withdrawal

May 12, 1972
Marine Resources Development Study of some countries that have been traditionally hosts in our waters are making headway and that many agreements have already been signed with these countries whereby they accept to withdraw from our waters beginning in 1978 or 1980.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government's position at this Conference on the Law of the Sea could be outlined, but I believe that other hon. members are very anxious to expound their views on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall), which has allowed us to show up the federal government's policy.
Much has been left undone, as I said before. However, I believe the Canadian government has adopted a positive stance and is aware that our fisheries must be protected so that our economy, our fishermen and Canadian citizens who derive a livelihood from this industry may continue to support their families in this way, and that action must be taken which, while it may sometimes seem drastic, is in the best interest of Canadians and Canada.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and as my colleague from Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bech-ard) gave such a good start to the debate on fisheries, which are one of our main resources in eastern Canada, I should also like to continue in the same vein.
As the hon. member has indicated, the government has taken many steps to protect our coastal waters and show that Canadians are interested in Canada's continental shelf. This country is ahead of many others in this field.
It is well known by all that many problems arise both on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts with respect to mineral and marine resources development.
The province of Quebec and, as was pointed out earlier by the mover of this motion, that of Nova Scotia have been exploring the marine subsoil for several years in the hope of finding oil. Those provinces want to derive high revenues, some day, from offshore oil fields. However, if there were revenues to be obtained, a conflict was to be expected between provincial and federal jurisdictions concerning offshore rights.
The federal government took the lead and offered to share with the provinces any revenues which might be derived from offshore mining. This may be the best way to solve the conflict, since under present conditions, particularly where regional economic expansion is concerned, the Canadian government levies even higher taxes from the have provinces to distribute them to the have-not provinces of the Atlantic and Quebec.
Therefore, if revenues have to be shared between the have and the have-not provinces, any revenues that might be derived from offshore mining in Canada will have to benefit all Canadians and all provinces.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion before us is to allow the federal government to maintain on a national scale a long term and well coordinated program for the collection and use of our coastal water resources. The

federal government must continue its research operations aiming at the maximum utilization of the resources along the Canadian shore line. But as always the scientists' first priority must be the protection of our environment. In fact, the hon. member mentioned this in his motion.
At the annual meeting of the National Council of Marine Leagues in Canada which was held in Ottawa on April 14, 1972, Mr. A. W. May from the Department of the Environment made a speech on the conservation and protection of our marine resources, and his introduction is worthy of mention. Mr. Way stated, and I quote:
The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west.
The wholesomeness of the sea was taken for granted when J. A. Ritchie's words were inscribed in the stone above the main entrance to the centre block of our Parliament Buildings some fifty years ago, but is now a matter of some concern. Expressions of this concern from a wide variety of sources have resulted in widespread public awareness and sympathy for the problem but, perhaps inevitably, there is some backlash and a feeling in some quarters that the problems are overstated and overemphasized. I suggest that they are not. Although I may be preaching to the converted in this forum, I hope I will at least leave hon. members with a more detailed appreciation of the problems we face in protecting the marine environment and its resources, and the attitudes and actions of the Canadian government in meeting these problems.
With the exception of a very narrow strip adjacent to coastlines, the oceans have never belonged to anybody. Their use for various purposes has been free to all, and the concept of freedom of the seas is a very old one in international law. This freedom has traditionally included freedom for ship navigation and overflights, freedom to use the sea bed for cable laying, freedom to fish and freedom to conduct military operations. As the nations of the world look more and more to the sea as a source of minerals and of protein, as well as a convenient place to get rid of domestic and industrial wastes, it has become apparent that the old concept of freedom of the seas includes freedom to pollute and freedom to overfish and must be called into question.

Mr. Speaker, on account of that freedom to pollute our waters and to overfish on the continental shelf, as Mr. May so well pointed out in his statement, eastern Canada is faced with a serious problem: commercial overfishing by certain countries in the North Atlantic.
North Atlantic salmon catches have been decreasing alarmingly in the last few years. The number of catches, in commercial as well as in sport fishing, decreased by 45 per cent in 1971 compared to previous years.
The federal and provincial governments have been worried for many years about such a decrease and many people expressed their opinion about that.
Following years of studies of our coastal waters and of the eastern continental shelf, it was discovered that such a decrease was due to commercial overfishing in the North

Atlantic as well as to the introduction, during the sixties, of boats equipped with drifting nets in the waters near Port aux Basques, in Cabot strait.
The Gaspe salmon that could escape from Danish nets off the coast of Greenland was caught by Newfoundland fishermen. The Gaspe people are blaming the Newfoundland fishermen as much as Denmark for overfishing.
Danish and Newfoundland fishermen are draining this resource which reproduces more in Quebec because of its numerous salmon rivers, several of which are being developed at great cost by the province.
Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes remaining to me, I would not want to stray from the subject. It is worth mentioning that our coastal waters and continental shelf contain an important resource, marine life, which includes salmon.
Fisheries are undoubtedly one of the greatest resources in eastern Canada. There is one species of fish which travels thousands of miles off our coast. For those hon. members who do not know about the habits of the Atlantic salmon, I would like to say that its spawning grounds are to be found in the inland waters of the North Shore, Gaspe, Newfoundland and New Brunswick. When about three years old, salmon travel to the coast of Greenland and they return, at six or seven years, to spawn in the rivers where they were hatched. In the course of this four-year trip to the North Atlantic it used the Belle-Isle and Cabot straits to reach the international waters.
I avail myself of this opportunity to tell you that fifty years ago, salmon could be found in Great Britain, Europe and the Scandinavian countries. As these rivers are polluted as well as those in the northern United States, we now find clean waters only in the rivers of Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
A hundred years ago, it was customary to find salmon at the mouth of the Hudson River, in New York, as well as
Marine Resources Development Study in the St. Lawrence, Rideau and Ottawa Rivers. We could even find salmon near Toronto.
The International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries which represents 14 countries, was requested to study this problem of overfishing. The Danes were fishing Canadian salmon without violating any international law. We had to convince them to put an end to the excessive fishing that they were carrying out since 1965.
The Canadian argument at the 1969 Conference was that "the country where salmon spawns should be the only one constantly responsible for its fate, no matter where that fish happens to be at a given time". Consequently, this argument was dismissed by Denmark and West Germany.
The review conducted by the Department of Fisheries on salmon born in Miramichi River shows that 44 per cent of the catches were made by the Danes, and 19 per cent by Newfoundlanders.
As the Danes up to now have been quite reluctant to accept quotas, and since the Quebec government has taken steps to apply the regulations that proved necessary to preserve the few fishes left and allow them to spawn in the rivers, on March 14 last, in the committee on fisheries and forestry, I asked the minister to apply rather strict regulations to the fishermen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. More recently, the minister announced that restrictions were to be imposed on fishing south of Newfoundland as well as in the Cabot Strait.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on talking about our well-known salmon fishing industry but as it is five o'clock, I think it is time for me to conclude, even if I should return to that subject on another occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. May IS, 1972