1972-05-10

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege concerning the failure of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to make himself available at reasonable times to appear before the Standing Committee on Regional Development, despite assurances to the House and the committee, to answer questions concerning the apparent failure of the minister to comply with section 16 of the Regional Development Incentives Act and the manner in which delays in appearances by the minister are preventing the committee from carrying out its responsibility to examine the estimates of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
The facts are as follows. Section 16 of the Regional Development Incentives Act states:
The Minister shall, within 40 days after the 6th day of August, 1969 and monthly thereafter, or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first days thereafter that parliament is sitting, submit to parliament a report respecting the administration of this Act.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion gave his interpretation of his statutory obligations in the House and in the standing committee on June 6 and June 16, 1969, and also on February 28 and 29 and on April 27, 1972. These statements made it clear that the minister undertook to give accurate and up-to-date information on grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act.
On April 27, the minister promised the Standing Committee on Regional Development to clarify as soon as possible the issue of a grant of $6.1 million to McCain Foods Limited, a grant which was not reported to parliament. On the same date the minister agreed to attend before the committee again at the earliest opportunity, possibly on May 5. Since that time the committee was informed that the minister was not available on May 5 and that his next appearance would be on May 18. Subsequently, that date was changed to May 17, and yesterday the chairman of the standing committee informed the members that this date had been altered to May 24. A relevant factor to be considered by members of the committee is the real possibility that the House may be dissolved before that date. Thus, the minister may not appear before the standing committee at all. It is apparent that at least in one case involving a grant of $6.1 million section 16 of the Regional Development Incentives Act has been breached. It is clear that for some reason the minister finds it inconvenient to clarify the issue before the proper forum, namely, the standing committee, as soon as possible.
Another question must also be considered. I submit that the instance just mentioned raises the probability that the minister has failed to report to the House as required by law other grants involving considerable sums of public funds. Only the minister can deal with these matters and some members of the committee have pressed for further appearances by the minister last week and this week at committee and subcommittee meetings.
It should also be noted that under the rules of the House the estimates are referred to committees for examination. Under the rules estimates must be reported back to the House before May 31 regardless of the stage of consideration. If a minister is unwilling to appear before the committee at reasonable times and on a sufficient number of occasions, it is impossible for the members of the committee to carry out their responsibilities in examining spending estimates before they are voted on by parliament. If such examination is thwarted it strikes at the heart of parliamentary institutions and infringes on the rights of members. If Your Honour finds that I do have a question of privilege, I am prepared to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the question of ministerial appearances before standing committees during consideration of spending estimates be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and report thereon and that the committee give particular study to apparent delays by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in making further appearances before the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East has given the Chair notice of his intention to raise the matter to which he has alluded by way of a question of privilege. The hon. member knows, as I am sure the House does, that the question of ministerial appearances before committees of the House is as old as confederation, actually as old as parliament, certainly going back longer than 100 years.
What the hon. member is bringing before the House at this time and what he would like the House to consider further, either directly or through one of its other committees, is certain proceedings of a committee. There is a long established rule and it is the tradition of the House that matters before a committee are dealt with by that committee, and if any difficulty arises during the course of the proceedings of any hearings held by the committee this should be indicated either in the committee's report or in the course of debate in the House on the report submitted by the chairman of the committee on behalf of its members.
There is also an alternative aspect to this matter. The hon. member seems to put in question the conduct of the minister in relation to the administration of his department or the application of his statutory obligations. Obvi-

May 10, 1972
Business of the House
ously this ought to be placed before the House in the form of a specific charge. All hon. members know how this has to be done. Certainly it cannot be done indirectly by way of a motion of the type submitted by the hon. member.
I would suggest that nothing would be gained by having a dispute between certain members of the committee and the minister brought to the House for consideration by way of a question of privilege. I might add that this matter was brought to the attention of the House previously under the guise of questions or a motion under Standing Order 43. When the Chair was invited to rule on the matter the Chair suggested at that time, and I do so again today, that this is a matter for consideration by the committee itself.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Gervais.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about the business of the House. I have had meetings with the opposition House leaders and there is a general disposition to proceed as quickly as possible with the amendments to the Old Age Security Act and the veterans bill. It is understood that all members want to have these pension increases in the hands of the pensioners as early as possible. I am advised that if these increases are to be in their June cheques and in the hands of the pensioners by the end of June, it would be necessary to have the bill passed by the end of next week. For that reason I am asking that the customary notice be waived and that we begin second reading of the Old Age Security Act amendments today. Because of the time factors affecting the receipt of the pensions, I think hon. members will see the validity of making this special arrangement in this particular case.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to agree that this be done and that these long overdue amendments be now brought in. I would have

preferred to give this consent several months ago. However, there has been one suggestion made which would not in any way impair our proceeding to pass this bill. We were debating Bill C-5 last night and the debate was almost brought to a conclusion. There has been a suggestion that, provided it is the feeling of the House expressed in the form of an order, all questions which need to be put in respect of the second reading of the bill dealing with the Farm Credit Corporation be put within half an hour for the purpose of second reading and sending it to the committee where the committee will hopefully make those changes it so badly needs. We might be able to complete that matter this afternoon before we start on the other bill.
The only other point I should like to make, and I am sure the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) will agree with me, is that we may be in somewhat of a dilemma and Your Honour may be in a difficult position if during the formal budget debate there is reference to the measures presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), specifically to the two bills the President of the Privy Council has now referred to, namely, the bill dealing with veterans pensions and the bill dealing with old age security benefits. If the House gives second reading to these bills, under the provisions and traditions of this House this might normally be an estoppel to hon. members who, in pursuing the budget debate, might like to say a word or two about pensions amendments.
I would hope, therefore, it would be clearly understood that if the debate on these two bills is completed as far as second reading is concerned before we get into the budget debate, this will not prejudice the right of hon. members to deal with these issues during the budget debate despite the fact that the House has indicated its intention to pass these bills. I am sure the President of the Privy Council, who wants to see these matters thoroughly aired, would have no objection to such an understanding.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the bills proposing pension increases I must say on behalf of this party that we warmly welcome the conversion which has taken place on the road to Damascus, or perhaps I should say on the road to the election. We are delighted that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have had a change of heart and are prepared to propose these increases to which they were formerly opposed, including the establishment of escalation of the basic old age security pension. Therefore, small as these increases are, we think people should have them as soon as possible.
We are prepared to waive the notice requirement and give first reading to the old age security bill and also to the veterans bill today so they can be printed and proceeded with as soon as possible. We are prepared to give first reading to both of them today and are prepared to proceed later today with second reading of the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act.
May 10, 1972

With regard to the suggestion by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that speedy passage of these bills should not interfere with discussion of their subjects in the budget debate I am sure that will be understood. With regard to his other suggestion that we proceed first of all today to conclude the debate on second reading of the farm credit bill, we are prepared to agree to that, and if the few minutes still to be taken by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) do not provoke anyone else to speak we hope that the votes on the subamendment and the amendment can be taken forthwith.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for higher old age and veterans pensions for so long that we will certainly not oppose neither the first nor the second nor the third reading of the bill. We are willing, my colleagues and I, to have first and even second reading of the bill today.
I trust the minister will also take into account the fact that he is introducing two bills, on the eve of an election, which will allow an increase in pensions by the end of June. We are not against this, since for two years now, we have been asking the minister to grant those increases.
The fact of waiting to make retroactive payments from June to January will certainly be recognized as smacking of an election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby rising on a point of order? I would hope there would not be a debate on this subject. We are on motions now and the minister has made a statement which has been responded to by representatives of the parties in opposition. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is rising at this time. I suggest to him and to other hon. members that only one representative of each party is entitled to speak on the subject. I assume this is the way we ought to proceed at this time.
My understanding is that the suggestion has been made by the President of the Privy Council and other members that there should be agreement and it should be so ordered by the House that the House will waive notice of first reading requirements in respect of the bills relating to pensions and that there would be an understanding that the discussion on these bills would begin later this afternoon. This would be subject to two conditions: First, that there be a maximum of 30 minutes assigned for the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-5 relating to farm credit. The other condition is the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River that hon. members should not be in any way estopped from referring to the matters dealt with by the bills to be discussed on second reading later today and which might conceivably be adopted before we have concluded the six days of the budget debate. I believe these are the conditions and requirements set out by hon. members. If I am correct I will put the question before the House in a moment. I believe the President of the Privy Council would like to add one word.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for first reading of the veterans bill today and I would prefer that it be held off until I am certain that hon. members will
Business of the House
have ample copies of the bill as soon as first reading is given. There will be ample copies of the old age security amendments for members, but I would not want first reading to be given the other bill unless copies are available.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated the proposal made to the House by the President of the Privy Council and agreed to by hon. members who have commented. Is this agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe hon. members agree with the conditions mentioned by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the spokesmen for the opposition parties who made their comments afterwards.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA LABOUR CODE AND PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-206, to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Employment Act with respect to discrimination in employment based on age, sex and marital status.


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


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: , by unanimous consent, for leave to introduce Bill C-207, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
2130
[Stage Direction]
May 10, 1972
Questions

Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What federal funding is being given at the present time to programs of training audiologists and speech therapists-speech pathologists in Canada?
2.	What recommendations, if any, of the Health Services Report, 1963, concerning training programs in audiology and speech therapy have been implemented?
3.	How many individuals are working in these occupations at the present time in Canada?
4.	How much federal money is being apportioned to research into communication disorders in Canada at the present time?
5.	How much federal money is being expended for bursaries, scholarships, etc., for students in training for audiology and speech pathology at the present time?


John Carr Munro: 1. The Medical Research Council and Health and Welfare Canada assist two training programs in Canadian universities for speech therapists and audiologists. Assistance is currently (1971/72) being given as follows: University of Western Ontario, $41,365; University of British Columbia, $16,752.
2.	In line with recommendations of Royal Commission on Health Services, financial assistance was expanded for speech therapy and audiology training and services. New training programs were established at University of Western Ontario and University of British Columbia.
3.	The President of the Canadian Speech and Hearing Association estimated late in 1971, that there are approximately 600 qualified speech therapists and audiologists practising in Canada. This number meets the needs outlined in Volume II of the Royal Commission on Health Services, pp. 62-63:
"It has been estimated that between 400 and 500 additional speech therapists are needed ..." as, "... in 1961,... there were between 100 and 125 qualified speech therapists in Canada ..The number of qualified therapists in Canada is expanding at the rate of 100-200 annually.
4.	$228,714.
5.	$203,203.59.


COMPLAINTS ABOUT DELAYS IN RECEIVING UIC BENEFITS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 94
Mr. Marshall:: How many inquiries have been received by Information Canada offices complaining about delays in receiving UIC benefits?


Abram Ernest Epp: Monthly reports itemizing feedback from the public show that a total of 287 complaints about Unemployment Insurance Commission services have been recorded by Information Canada centres, over the period September, 1971 to March, 1972 inclusive.


ASSISTANCE BY INFORMATION CANADA WITH UIC BENEFITS
Mr. Marshall: What part has Information Canada played in directing information to Canadians who suffered delays in receiving UIC benefits?


Abram Ernest Epp: (a) Each Information Canada centre carries the three most recent UIC pamphlets for free distribution to the public: "Handbook for Employers", "Information for Claimants", "Story of the S.I.N. Number", (b) The majority of complaints have been registered at our Toronto and Montreal offices and have been concerned primarily with inability to reach UIC offices by phone. Our staff now takes down the enquirer's name, address, telephone number and social insurance number and forwards these through a special line to the appropriate UIC office for follow-up within 48 hours. This has been in effect since December, 1971 and appears satisfactory.


FUNDING OF DDH-280 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Forreatall: 1.	To what dollar levels has primary and secondary funding carried the DDH-280 construction program as of January 31, 1972?
2.	What is the current anticipated total cost to the Canadian taxpayer for the four DDH-280 turned over after sea trials with full armament and spares to the Commander, Maritime Command for operational purposes for which they were designed?
3.	What accounting does the Minister of Supply and Services give to the Canadian people for the acceleration in total cost of this program?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Supply and Services as follows:
1.	and 2. This information may be found in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence No. 8, dated 28 March, 1972, at pages 6-8, and No. 10 dated 19 April, 1972, at pages 24-30.
3. The Minister of Supply and Services makes an accounting each year to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee on all of his Department's operations when his main estimates are before that committee. On April 18, 1972, the Minister made the following statement before this parliamentary committee with relation to the DDH-280 Program:
"On the DDH project, the fitting-out of the four destroyers is progressing satisfactorily and deliveries are forecast for July, August, and December of this year, with the last ship being delivered by early June 1973. The comprehensive approach taken to the management of this project should make it possible for the four ships to be completed within the cost-ceiling, approved in the fall of 1970, of $252 million."
In addition to this the following information was included in the Supplementary Data on the Supply Program of the department which was tabled with the committee and which appear as an appendix to the proceedings on the meeting on that date:
"The department has formed an integrated organization with DND officers under the leadership of a naval captain, to apply project management principles to the acquisition program for four DDH-280 class destroyers. Improved planning, guidelines and systematic cost tracking have been applied which provide assur-
May 10, 1972

ance that the construction of ships will be completed within the time limits and cost ceiling of $252 million approved in the fall of 1970.
Fitting out of the ships in proceeding satisfactorily and deliveries from the shipyards are forecast for: DDH-280, 29 July 1972; DDH-
282,	end of August 1972; DDH-281, end of December, 1972; DDH-
283,	early June 1973."
The DDH program is proceeding within the budget approved by Treasury Board and as announced by the Minister of National Defence.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE PAYROLL
Mr. Burton: 1.	What is the total full-time payroll of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
2.	How many of these employees are earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: 1. Total annual fulltime payroll for the fiscal year 1971-72 is $28,526,000.
2.	Number of employees earning more than $18,000 per annum as of February 1, 1972;
Questions
what are his duties in the Department (b) what is his annual salary?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Joseph Marias Alphonse Dion is employed by the Department of Agriculture as a P.I. 3 (Primary Products Inspection Group) in the contagious diseases division, health of animals branch at Montmag-ny, Quebec.
(a)	Under general supervision he is responsible for the implementation of regulations under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
(b)	Mr. Dion's salary range is $8,519 to $9,682 per annum.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GUIDELINES FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works have guidelines for the regional distribution of funds allotted under its Main Estimates 1972-73 for major capital projects and, if so, what are they?
2.	Of the major capital projects, has Saskatchewan been allotted only one and one half percent of the total although its population is four percent of Canada's total and, if so, for what reason?
Total
Number	Salary Range $	
195	18,001-19,000	
41	19,001-20,000	
42	20,001-21,000	
24	21,001-22,000	
79	22,001-23,000	
37	23,001-24,000	
23	24,001-25,000	
13	25,001-26,000	
23	26,001-27,000	
11	27,001-28,000	
13	28,001-29,000	
1	25,000-31,000	(SX-2)5	28,000-35,000	(SX-3)1	34,000-40,000	(SX-4)1 509	40,000-45,000	(DM-2)
The difference in numbers presented in response to this question and to questions 197 and 199 is attributable primarily to adjustments in employees' salaries over the time period in question due to revised salary rates, annual increments and promotions. Another factor, but a relatively minor one, is additions to enable the department to meet its increasing responsibility.
Note: Above $30,000 information is provided by salary range only in order to protect privacy of salary information (for persons whose salary is directly related to performance) in accordance with TB Circular 1969-206.


EMPLOYMENT OF MR. MARIUS DION IN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Beaudoin: Does the Department of Agriculture or one of its agencies have an employee in Canada by the name of Marius Dion and, if so (a)
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): 1. In
effect, the departmental main estimates as approved by the ministers constitutes the guideline for distribution of capital works funds. These estimates reflect the regional levels of activity which, in the case of the Department of Public Works, are dictated by the federal government activity in each area. Since it is a service agency, the Department of Public Works operations must parallel the requirements for accommodation as requested by other federal government departments and agencies.
2. At present, 1972-73 capital expenditure plans for the province of Saskatchewan total $2,066,000 which represents 1.5 per cent of the total departmental budget for such works. This planned figure reflects the level of demand from client departments and agencies for increased accommodation in that province, as well as the level of improvements to existing accommodation which can be carried out at this time, given the constraints of the capital budget ceiling and the priority of similar needs elsewhere. It should also be noted that the planned figure represents only those capital works projects to be funded by the Department of Public Works, and does not include other projects to be carried out by the Department of Public Works but which will be funded by other federal government departments and agencies.


VISIT OF DR. LLOYD BARBER TO NEW ZEALAND
Mr. Burton: 1.	Did Dr. Lloyd Barber visit New Zealand recently and, if so, was his visit in his capacity as Indian Claims Commissioner?
2.	(a) On what date did he leave Canada (b) on what date did he return to Canada (c) what were the dates of his stay in New Zealand and any other countries visited en route?
3.	What was the purpose of his trip to New Zealand?
4.	What staff accompanied him?
5.	What was the total of the salary and expenses for Dr. Barber and each staff member who accompanied him for the duration of the trip? .
2132

May 10, 1972
Questions


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Indian Claims Commissioner as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) February 23, 1972; (b) April 3, 1972; (c) New Zealand, February 28, 1972 to March 12, 1972; Australia, March 12, 1972 to March 31, 1972.
3.	To gain first hand knowledge of the nature of Maori and aboriginal claims, grievances, and approaches to settlement, for purposes of comparison to Canadian Indian claims and grievances.
4.	Dr. Barber was not accompanied by any member of his staff. However, the Commissioner's Director of Legal Research travelled independently to Australia and New Zealand from February 24, 1972 to March 12, 1972, during which period he spent some time with Dr. Barber.
5.	The information regarding Dr. Barber's honorarium is not yet available as Dr. Barber has not yet submitted any claim for honorarium or expenses.


POST OFFICE AT MOUNT UNIACKE, N.S.
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What plans are there for a public building to house the post office at Mount Uniacke, Nova Scotia and on what date will tenders be called?
2.	Will the size of the new post office take into account the population growth in the area being served?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
None in the foreseeable future.
2. Not applicable.


OLD AGE SECURITY PENSIONS
Mr. Dionne: What amounts were paid for Old Age Security Pensions in each province since the Act was passed?


John Carr Munro: Payments under the Old Age Security Act commenced in January 1952. The figures hereunder cover the period 1952-53 to 1970-71 inclusive, and commencing with 1967-68, Guaranteed Income Supplement payments are included.
Newfoundland	$ 314,196,928
Prince Edward Island	128,501,559
Nova Scotia	717,700,620
New Brunswick	531,410,695
Quebec	3,490,486,507
Ontario	5,625,605,917
Manitoba	915,798,771
Saskatchewan	924,460,890
Alberta	1,038,298,711
British Columbia	1,883,887,059
Yukon and Northwest Territories	11,867,290
Total	15,582,214,947


FUNDS FOR POST OFFICE, KAMOURASKA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Dionne: What amounts were allocated for the refurbishing or construction of buildings used by the Post Office Department in the constituency of Kamouraska since 1962?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Year	Location and Project	Amount

1964	La Pocatiere, post office	42,600
1966 St. Andre de Kamouraska, post office	22,345
1969- St. Pascal, alterations and addition 1970 to public building	84,647
1970	Riviere Bleue, post office	32,7901971	St. Pamphile, post office	38,8451971	Ste. Helene de Kamouraska, post office	12,465
1971 La Pocatiere, air conditioning
public building	7,638
1971 Notre Dame du Portage, improvements
to lighting	5,234


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise in connection with the failure of the government to answer questions. I do not like to have to raise this, but the House is entitled to the respect of the government. What is happening is that questions that might prove embarrassing to the government are not being answered.
I have mentioned this matter before and of necessity I have to raise it again, because starred questions are to be answered in a reasonable time. The normal time is four days. Question No. 446, which was placed on the order paper on March 28, has remained unanswered. What is the use of a starred question unless it is going to be answered? In view of the fact it has not been answered, I hope Your Honour will not consider it remiss if I direct some questions to the government concerning this matter that is obviously being concealed. My question was:
How many Red Ensigns were in the possession of the Department of Public Works on the date the present flag came into existence?
I also asked how many were still on hand. It should not take very long to answer that question if they tell the truth.
My other question, No. 354, is not a starred question, but it is one that is requisite so that the farmers of western Canada may know what the situation was with respect to the final wheat payments for the 1970 crop year. My question asked:
What was the total amount disbursed by the Wheat Board for final wheat payments for the 1970 crop year?
The answer is available to the government any time it wishes to give it. Second, my question asked:
How many producers received payments in each of the prairie provinces?

May 10, 1972

Then I asked:
In how many eases did the farmers receive no payment because the amount to which each was entitled was applied to the outstanding balance due by him as advanced payment?
While Your Honour has no authority to direct the government, I think it should be made perfectly clear that this House cannot operate on the basis of a desire on the part of the government to defer answering questions that it believes will be embarrassing.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret having to take the time of the House, but I wish to refer to question No. 88 which I placed on the order paper on February 18 last. May I point out that the same question stood on the order paper for the whole of the preceding session of parliament without being answered. I cannot imagine what the reason would be for not answering it. It is a question of great interest to those who visit parliament and our national capital. My question is a very simple one:
Is the government giving consideration to the re-opening of the scenic walk around Parliament Hill-?
I really cannot understand why the government cannot answer that question in nearly two years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see two other hon. members who want to rise at this time. We could spend a lot of time this afternoon going over all the questions on the order paper that have not been answered to this point. However, having said that I will recognize the hon. member for Brandon-Souris who wants to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with question No. 210 which has been on the order paper since February 28. It deals with an important service in connection with the problem of the non-medical use of drugs and, with the recent resignation of Dr. Craig, it assumes some urgency. I trust the government will bring down an answer at an early date.


Mr. Ryan:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On February 18 questions Nos. 7, 43, 45 and 46 appeared on the order paper in my name. They also appeared on the order paper during the last session from, I believe, early in November.
The first question asks for particulars about the dealings with respect to Victoria Wood Development Corporation Limited and the low-cost housing complex on CNR land in Toronto. The second asks for particulars about the foreclosure action against Rochdale College. The third asks for particulars as to the payments coming in with respect to the mortgage on Pestalozzi College. The fourth asks for particulars as to what is happening to the white elephant, Richmond Square, a CMHC housing project in Toronto-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a point of order he should raise it by way of a point of order and not by way of a speech. I think he is perhaps going a little farther than he should and is making an argument.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I think I have made my point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Mahoney:: What was the point?
Motions for Papers


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Would Your Honour be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 1, 14 and 16?


CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT OF MAIN SQUARE, TORONTO
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Ryan:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all leases, assignments of leases, leasebacks, subleases, assignments of subleases, lending agreements, assignments of agreements, mortgages and contracts pertaining to the leasing and development of Main Square in the City of Toronto from the commencement of negotiations by developers with the CNR to the present time, that may be in the possession of or subject to the control of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Mr. David Weatherhead (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, these various documents support, and are part of, the arrangements between borrower and lender. Such arrangements are internal administrative matters and it is not in the public interest to disclose them. Under these circumstances I wonder if the hon. member would consent to withdrawing his motion?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I regard these matters as being of great public interest and importance and think they should be revealed to the public. I therefore ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COPY OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO SALE OF RYERSON PRESS LTD.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada and the United Church of Canada and other individuals and organizations relating to the question of the sale of Ryerson Press Ltd.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable in so far as the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, National Defence and Secretary of State are concerned. However, for the Prime Minister's office to comply a considerable number of man-hours would have to be assigned to extract this correspondence from the files. Since these man-hours are not presently available, extra staff would have to be employed on a casual basis in order to complete the job.


Mr. Bell:: What about Ivan Head? He's writing books.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Alexander Jerome: Accurate statistics on the numbers of such correspondence are, however, maintained, and such information could be provided in response to a question on the order paper.

May 10, 1972
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary is making a speech. I suggest to him that if comment is to be made it should be brief and not in the form of a speech.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the motion is therefore acceptable except in so far as correspondence from the Prime Minister's office is concerned. If the hon. member is prepared to agree to this, we can comply with the rest of the motion.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot believe that that particular office is shorthanded.


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COPY OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CHANGE TO A FLOATING DOLLAR
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the government and firms or interested parties concerning adverse effects of the change to a floating dollar announced by the Minister of Finance in June, 1970.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the material requested in this motion has been examined and in most instances it gives detailed private information about the writer's business operations. As this information is considered to be highly confidential I would hope that the hon. member might withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the government might have had a change of heart since the last session, but apparently not. Therefore, I call for the question to be put.


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have made inquiries about notice of motion No. 18 concerning correspondence and other documents involving the sale of land at tne Regina Airport. This was turned down in the last session on the grounds that the matter was still under negotiation. The matter has long since been settled. I have raised the question several times in the House, and I do not understand why the parliamentary secretary is not in a position to bring the motion forward.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Speaker, standing in my name on the order paper since April 13 there is a motion in regard to the second international airport in Toronto. Some weeks ago the Minister of Transport indicated he would be willing to present all the papers involved to the House and answer all questions in the House. I cannot understand

why four weeks have passed since I put down the motion without the papers being supplied, and I sincerely hope the parliamentary secretary will look into it.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister who will recall that at the time of the visit to Canada by President Nixon both countries undertook to review their respective positions regarding differences between them on trading matters. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government of Canada has now completed its review of its position on this matter?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am afraid there is nothing to report at this time, Mr. Speaker. Both countries are carrying out the intentions they announced.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has there been any discussion between the two countries on when conversations between the two governments respecting these difficulties will resume?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No formal consultation, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who expressed the view that it would be in the interests of the United States to disclose to the government of Canada the effect of DISC upon corporations exporting to Canada from that country. Has a formal request for this information been made to the United States administration and, if so, has any response been received?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be dealing with all these matters when he participates in the budget debate.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT MINISTER WILL MAKE DETAILED REPORT EARLY IN BUDGET DEBATE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the government House leader which relates directly to the previous question. In view of the fact the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has committed himself to the House to make a detailed report on the auto pact discussions, the DISC legislation and auto pact prices, would the government House leader give us an assurance now that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will take part in that debate on the
May 10, 1972

first or second day when that debate takes place in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be dealing with the budget debate. I cannot commit the minister to speak but I understand that he proposes to take part tomorrow or Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give a commitment that the budget debate will continue long enough for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to take part in it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hees:: You should have seen the look big brother gave you when you said that.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would the minister be good enough to give the House the reason why he did not report to parliament in his monthly report the grant of $6.1 million to McCain Foods Limited of New Brunswick which was offered by his department on November 2, 1970, and accepted by the company on December 9, 1970?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this question was put to me in the committee where I indicated that I would give a reply. I asked the officials of my department to conduct an inquiry, not merely on the McCain's Food case to which the hon. member for York-South has referred, but on all such cases which may have come up. The deputy minister is ready to report.
Mr. Speaker, I was to appear before the committee next week. However, as it will not be meeting then, I shall go there specially this afternoon to reply to the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are getting evasive, the whole bunch of you.


David Lewis: I am very glad to hear the minister say that he will appear this afternoon to answer questions. May I ask whether he has already had an investigation made into the very large proportion of grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act made so far this year which has gone to one province and the maldistribution of these grants across the country?


Jean Marchand: Here again, Mr. Speaker, the question was put not to myself but, I believe, to my deputy
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister. He will attend the committee meeting this afternoon to supply the information requested.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I attended three of the committee's eight meetings, and the deputy minister attended four.


PENSIONS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Last night, on television, the Quebec Social Affairs Minister appeared stunned to learn that the federal government intended to raise old age security pensions by $15 for single people and $50 for married couples.
Would the Prime Minister tell the House if the proposed increases will require the co-operation and financial contribution of the Canadian provinces. Will the provinces have to pay part of those increases?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is out of the question, Mr. Speaker; the increases will be paid out of the tax receipts of the Canadian government.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, has the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs been in touch with the federal government since these increases were announced?
As to the second question, although the Prime Minister tells us that such is not the case, I should like to ask him whether the provinces contribute to the guaranteed income supplement which is being paid to our senior citizens.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
As to the second part of the question, there are no contributions made by the provinces, not even, for that matter, to the first portion of $80. The provinces will not be called upon to contribute to the annual increase mentioned in the bill.
I think that I share the hon. member's feelings and I do not quite understand what the Province of Quebec is getting all excited about, if indeed it is.


PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As we are only a month and a half away from the windup of the mandate of the Prices and Incomes Commission, could the Prime Minister advise the House what the government's plans are for replacing that body or does it intend simply to leave that field open?

May 10, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I made an announcement a couple of weeks ago which may have escaped the hon. member. It was to the effect that the commission itself would be wound up upon termination of its mandate, at the end of June, but that a small task force would continue in order to finish whatever was in the works in terms of preparing for publication some studies and background work, and that they would also stay around to keep active any contingency plan for fighting inflation.


George Harris Hees: Is the Bank of Canada concerned lest our old age pensioners spend all of their $2.88 raise at one time and thereby start a new wave of inflation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -and does not this pittance of a raise make "Six Buck Harris" look like Santa Claus?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question asked in those terms is not in order and I suggest it should not be answered. If the hon. member wished to redraft the question he will be allowed to do so, but I believe at this point-

-it might be advisable to allow a supplementary to the preceding question. I believe that the hon. member for Sainte-Marie has a supplementary.


PENSIONS
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question which is supplementary to the previous one on social legislation.
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister to say before this House whether the provinces were consulted or advised about the measures or amendments to the Old Age Security Act that the federal government wanted to introduce before the Minister of Finance made his budget presentation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member means the amendments relating to old age pensions, etc. being considered now, the answer is obviously no because the provinces are not consulted before the presentation of a federal budget.


OLD AGE SECURITY-DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask whether the discussions that have taken place with the government of the province of Quebec regarding family allowances and social welfare matters generally included discussions about old age security and whether the minister concerned, who has expressed dis-

appointment, envisaged there would be some global policy developed between the two governments regarding this field of security?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that at the time of the Victoria conference we were prepared to go much farther. We were prepared to envisage a constitutional amendment which would have made such consultation mandatory. However, the province of Quebec did not see fit to accept that amendment at the time. Consequently it is natural that we want to continue to exercise our constitutional right of increasing pensions and payments which are under the federal jursidiction, and that we should do so without consultation when they were going to be presented in a budget seems rather obvious, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a further supplementary, but hon. members will note that we have many potential questioners today. Yesterday we ran short of time and I undertook to try to recognize those members today who were not seen yesterday. I would ask for the co-operation of members immediately to limit the number of supple-mentaries. Of course, I have to rely entirely on the cooperation of hon. members in this regard.


OLD AGE SECURITY-QUEBEC SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POSITION
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since the federal government knew that the province of Quebec intended to introduce an integrated welfare plan and since other provinces were not previously consulted, does that position on the part of the federal government mean that it intends to oppose the Quebec government's intention to introduce an integrated welfare plan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. As I have just said to the Leader of the Opposition, the federal government was ready to commit itself by a constitutional amendment to some consultations in the area mentioned by the hon. member as well as in many others.
We made that proposal at the Victoria Conference. The province of Quebec itself refused to see a constitutional amendment in the resolution we were ready to approve and, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, until the Constitution is amended, all provinces must expect the federal government to continue to exercise its jursidiction in that field.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.

The hon. member for Charlevoix has a supplementary in this connection. I shall recognize him in a moment.
May 10, 1972


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the Prime Minister answered a series of questions about the grave new crisis in Viet Nam and suggested, I think, that a statement of the government's position, if it had one, might be made either by himself or the minister. Does the minister propose to make a statement in the near future on the government's position with regard to this crisis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I read what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He said we were considering whether we should make such a statement. After consideration, I can say that I do not think it would be helpful at the moment to make such a statement and I do not propose to make one today or tomorrow.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the minister seek to have the situation in Viet Nam brought before the Security Council of the United Nations as a grave threat to the peace of the world?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we very strongly support the offer of the Secretary General of the United Nations to make his good offices available for this purpose. We would have no objection to the matter being brought before the Security Council if those more directly concerned felt this was desirable and if the Secretary General so felt. We are not a member of the Security Council. On the other hand, we certainly would not turn down any place where this war can be brought to an end.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister clearly pointed out that he was not going to be waffled into virulent anti-Americanism regardless of pressures that might come from various parts of the House. Believing in that, has he given serious reconsideration since yesterday to at least saying something that will reassure the people of Canada that, in the opinion of the government of Canada, what is actually taking place today in Viet Nam is something that is in keeping with the very difficult position in which the United States finds itself there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can satisfy the right hon. member, but I will try by merely stating that we in this party see no need to try to prevent disunity by practicing anti-Americanism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is so completely in agreement that I do not see any reason for the applause I am receiving from the opposite side of the House. I ask the Prime Minister, and I hope I get the understanding of those members who have understandings, whether he is prepared to at least join in saying on behalf of Canada
Inquiries of the Ministry
that the United States ought not to be condemned as it is in certain sections of this country today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. During his budget speech on Monday evening the Minister of Finance announced the establishment of a new program entitled "New Horizons for the Aged" to help retired persons participate more fully in the community. Will the minister say whether he will soon present legislation to establish this program?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the nature of the program requires specific legislation in the sense that I think the hon. member has in mind. As the Minister of Finance indicated, I will be elaborating on the details of the program shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from the fact that in the past the government has been very circumspect with regard to nuclear testing by other countries. What is the attitude of the government with regard to the intention of the government of France to conduct atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific this summer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that question has already been asked, but the minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, by way of answer may I be permitted to table a copy of the note that was delivered to the French government on this subject?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of

May 10, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
the fact that the cost of food used in the home increased by 7.4 per cent from April, 1971, to April, 1972, and in view of the further fact that in food chains such as George Weston, profits rose by nearly $3.5 million in the first three months of 1972, will the government undertake an investigation to see whether this increase in the cost of food, which bears so heavily on those on low income-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that this is argument and debate. The question should be asked as soon as possible.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the government undertake to make an investigation to see whether this increase in the cost of food is due to inordinate mark-ups by supermarkets or excessive profit-taking by canners and processors of food?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly see that the suggestion of the hon. member is studied. However, I might say that according to our statistics the gain was in line with the March-April changes in the past five years. As a matter of fact, if you look at the average change between those two months for the past five years and the over-all consumer price index, it was slightly less this year than it has been in the past five.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that negotiations regarding the official transfer of the Point Edward Industrial Park from the Department of Transport to the Cape Breton Development Corporation commenced in 1969, can the minister advise whether this long-awaited action has taken place? I am sure he is familiar with the situation. In light of the statement made in committee on April 25, 15 days ago, by the president of Devco, Mr. Kent, that he was confident the matter would be settled that week, is the minister in a position to provide us with information on whether this has taken place so that the unions can negotiate a settlement?


Jean Marchand: I am not sure that it took place. I will check and I may make a report tomorrow.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INQUIRY RESPECTING REFUSAL OF CERTAIN QUEBEC PROJECTS

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State.
Could he tell us if it is true that federal M.P.'s have nipped in the bud 39 projects submitted by Quebecers under the Opportunities for Youth program because they were considered too dangerous on account of their social scope and the individuals advocating them?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize, I am sure, that the question under its present form is out of order. He is inquiring about a statement or a suggestion which would have been made outside the House.



PENSIONS


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Bearing in mind representations made to the government by individuals and organizations across the nation, may I ask whether a decision has been reached as to the transferability of old age pensions to other countries after a period of residence in Canada of less than the 25 years presently required.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member will be glad to learn, after all his work in this connection-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: -that provision for this is contained in the legislation now before the House.



POLLUTION


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is prompted by a statement by the minister of the environment and community services for Prince Edward Island to the effect that it is now too late to raise the Irving Whale this year. Can the minister advise whether this is the view of his department and, if so, when it is intended to remove this menace to the environment?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: If the
hon. member means this year during the summer tourist season, it will not be done during that time. I fully agreed with the government of Prince Edward Island not to
May 10, 1972

undertake the task during the summer tourist season. We are asking for additional scientific advice as to the best method of doing the job and the best time at which to do it. As well, if this has not already been done, an underwater investigation of the hull will be made to ensure that there is no potential for leakage during the interim.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Bearing in mind the considerable delay which has occurred in resolving this problem, would the minister care to make a statement on motions concerning the government's plans, in face of the continuing pollution threat to the island? What steps will be taken in the course of the next few months to prevent any possible danger from the continued presence of the Irving Whale near the shores of Prince Edward Island?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would be glad to consider doing so either here or when I appear before the transport committee. But I can assure the hon. member that all the ongoing checks we are making indicate there is no immediate threat. We shall certainly keep policing the situation to make sure that this continues to be the case.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix had a supplementary question a moment ago. Perhaps he has forgotten what it was, but I am prepared to recognize him now.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Speaker, I pass.
* *
*



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S. CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the growing concern in connection with the potentially disastrous tanker route down the British Columbia coast, and the fact that the economic committee of the United States Congress is planning hearings on the proposed trans-Atlantic pipeline through Canada, may I inquire what representations Canada will make at these hearings?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member means trans-Alaska pipeline rather than trans-Atlantic pipeline. The government would not propose, of course, to make any representations before a legislative body of another jurisdiction. I might say, however, that I have recently been in communication with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to give him further information with regard to the Canadian proposal for a Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and to reiterate our concern about possible damage to the west coast of Canada consequent upon any approval of a Pacific tanker route.


Robert Norman Thompson: What does the government intend to do to speed up our own hearings so that we may know what we are talking about when we speak about building a Mackenzie Valley pipeline?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have pointed out several times in the House that we feel it would be desirable for us to know all the consequences of the impact upon the environment, as well as upon the oil economy, of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Studies to the tune of $15 million have been undertaken and the National Energy Board and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be in a position by the end of the year to pass judgment on any applications which might be made for a pipeline permit. I think I should reiterate what I said to the committee, that if anyone has a concrete proposal to make he should put it forward to my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Gerald William Baldwin: Call an election; that would speed things up.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There's the big mouth. There's the natural gas, over there.



SHIPPING


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Some weeks ago the minister indicated his intention of ordering an official inquiry into the sinking of the tugboat Haro Straits. I ask the minister whether such an inquiry has been launched, who are the personnel of the body undertaking the investigation, and when does the minister expect a report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: apologize to the hon. member for the half answer I am about to give. I believe the formal papers setting up the commission have been signed but I am not absolutely certain. If there is a delay, it is in securing personnel. This will be done within a day or two; and I will certainly advise the hon. member accordingly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether he has made a decision with respect to raising the tug, as he has been requested to do, with a view to recovering the bodies of the crew and trying to ascertain from the state of the tug the cause of its sinking?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated that part of the inquiry should involve at least an attempt to raise the tug. There are apparently some technical problems. If these can be overcome, it will be done.



MANPOWER


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I would direct my question to the Prime Minister.

May 10, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the Prime Minister clearly indicate whether the additional funds provided under the local initiatives program may be used for certain projects whose initial rejection was questionable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Manpower and Immigration replied to a similar question in the negative.



NUMBER OF DOCTORS AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE METHADONE

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It relates to the recent announcement that Ottawa is to grant temporary authorization to certain doctors in connection with the use of methadone. Can the minister assure the House that a sufficient number of doctors will be authorized to use methadone in their practices?


John Carr Munro: That will certainly be our objective.


Philip Bernard Rynard: When will these temporary authorizations become permanent?


John Carr Munro: When we have had an opportunity to examine the procedure and its validity various observations may be forthcoming, not only from the medical profession but from others, which could indicate areas of possible improvement, and we would then intend to make them permanent.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the interest taken in Manitoba in the establishment of a branch of the Royal Canadian Mint in that province, can the minister say when it is planned to announce details of the sod-turning ceremony and the location of this establishment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper. However, if there is urgency and it is a matter of interest to hon. members, the minister might be allowed to reply.


Hon. James A. Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: The plans are proceeding on schedule. I expect to announce next week the location and the names of the consultants.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the closure of the Rivers and Gimli bases,

together with the transfer of Air Canada facilities, cost 3,000 jobs in Manitoba, is it the intention of the government to expand the new mint so as to provide employment for more than the 200 people originally envisaged?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This sounds like argument, at least from the point of view of the Chair.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. A short while ago the minister stated that he and his officials were having discussions with their counterparts in Ontario concerning off-track betting and the possibility of setting up government controlled facilities for such betting. Have these discussions been completed, and can the minister say what action he intends to take?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions involve all the provinces. I believe I indicated on a previous occasion that I did not anticipate immediate legislation, but it will be drafted and brought forward in due course.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of Japanese and United States developments in ocean floor mining, is the government encouraging Canadian industry to investigate and develop, if feasible, mining of sea-bottom metalliferous nodules?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to take that question as notice.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would have thought that question could have been placed on the order paper. The hon. member has a supplementary and I will judge whether it might also be placed on the order paper.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, since the minister does not seem to know anything about it, I should like to put the question to the minister in charge of the environment. He was here a moment ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his supplementary.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Since he is not here, I will ask it tomorrow.
May 10, 1972



POLLUTION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which in a way is related to several questions asked today about the environment. Why has the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act which was passed, I think it is fair to say, with a fanfare of trumpets a couple of years ago, not been proclaimed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development answered a little while ago that the regulations to be published under that act have not been yet satisfactorily drawn up but that he expected this to be done very soon.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the great economic importance of the rapeseed crop to western farmers, would the minister investigate and report on what action may be taken with respect to what appear to be discriminatory freight rates related to the movement of rapeseed meal, whereby it costs a western crusher 79 cents per hundredweight to move rapeseed meal from Thunder Bay to Montreal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me a question such as this should normally be placed on the order paper. The hon. member will agree that the question appears to be rather long and is conveying information.


Richard Russell Southam: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this matter is of great urgency and has just come to my attention. I should like the privilege of finishing my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member to finish his question, but from time to time I bring to the attention of hon. members that it is helpful to everybody if they try to limit the length of questions.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, the meat of the question is that it costs a western crusher 79 cents per hundredweight to move crushed meal from Thunder Bay to Montreal whereas an eastern crusher can move meal over the same route for 44 cents per hundredweight.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will either take note of the question from Hansard or if the hon. member will send me the sheet on which his question is written I will be glad to look into it.
Inquiries of the Ministry SUPPLY AND SERVICES



TRANSFER FROM REGINA TO WINNIPEG OF AUDIT SERVICES BUREAU-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the minister's expressed interest in the dispersal of government facilities geographically, would he undertake to review the decision of his department to close the audit services bureau in Regina and transfer it to Winnipeg?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is a representation. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has a supplementary to the previous question.



RAPESEED-ACTION TO REGULATE OPERATION OF WINNIPEG FUTURES MARKET

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of some of the difficulties we have experienced in pricing rapeseed, is it the minister's intention to introduce further regulation of the operation of the futures market in Winnipeg?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we had in the House exchanges on this subject earlier in the week. We have received representations concerning use of the Grain Futures Act or modification of it. We have also had similar recommendations made by the rapeseed committee. We are giving consideration to the best form of action to implement the purport of these recommendations.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow the hon. member a last supplementary. There are only three minutes before the end of the question period and hon. members asking supplementaries must realize that they are preventing questions from members around them.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I ask the minister if he would be prepared to have Canadian Wheat Board officials and representatives of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture so we may question them regarding pricing developments and arrangements?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would want to give consideration to this representation and to whether it would be best to do that at this stage or in connection with legislative action.

May 10, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN


Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Last Wednesday, the Premier of Quebec stated before the National Assembly that the province of Quebec would keep legislative primacy in the administration of the federal family allowances scheme.
Can the minister say, from this statement, whether negotiations are over between the two governments, and whether Quebec will keep legislative primacy in this field?
interest in this matter, I thought the documents would be tabled. Would the minister take it upon himself to publicize the documents so that the whole nation will know what we are talking about?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think that has been done, but if the hon. member has additional ways in which he wishes to have this done I shall be glad to comply. In the meantime I will table the documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have almost reached the end of the question period. The Chair will recognize two or three members who have been trying to ask questions for a few days.



FISHERIES

Mr. Speaker:: This question has been taken into consideration but, for the time being, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister still stand by his original decision regarding the need for a second international airport, as well as the choice now before us as being the best possible, in view of mounting objections in regard to both decisions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes. I might also call to the hon. member's attention the mounting degree of support for the proposal.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am appreciative of the minister's answer. In this regard I am with him, though I am seldom with the government on anything. In view of the fact the minister has given an undertaking to table the necessary studies and what-not that enabled him to make these decisions, when is he going to follow through on his undertaking? I believe it is extremely important for the members of the House to know the thinking of the government so we can answer the letters we are receiving on the matter.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the hon. member was not in the House some two weeks ago, I believe it was, when I indicated that the material was available and that any hon. member who wished could get it in any quantity he required. My reason for not making a general distribution was simply to try to save money by not sending it to people who were not interested in it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I must say this is a new approach. In view of the



ATLANTIC SALMON-SUGGESTED BOYCOTT OF DANISH GOODS

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister join his Minister of Fisheries in endorsing a consumer boycott of Danish products to protest the Danish position on fishing for salmon on the high seas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not the position of the Canadian government, Mr. Speaker, and of course I support the position of the Canadian government.



HARBOURS


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the announcement of appointments to the Churchill port authority, would the minister inform the House whether the Hudson Bay Route Association was approached in terms of having representation on the port authority?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is yes, but I could be wrong. I shall take the question as notice and try to find out.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's commitment that the RCMP identification which has been removed from various buildings and cars will be restored, when will this identification be restored to the main RCMP building in Edmonton?
May 10, 1972


An hon. Member:: This afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That will be decided jointly by the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of Alberta, Mr. Speaker. They have been discussing this matter and I believe there is agreement in principle to proceed, but I am not aware of the timing which has been set for whatever measure they want to take jointly.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We hardly have time for supplementary questions, but if the hon. member wants to take the last seconds allotted his party, he may do so.



PLANS FOR CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like the Prime Minister to tell the House what special plans the government has to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary next year of the world's finest police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Solicitor General will announce these plans in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette asked a question a moment ago, and I am under the impression that it was not heard. Perhaps he would wish to repeat it.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I shall repeat my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Last Wednesday, according to a report published in La Presse, the Premier of Quebec stated:
-that Quebec will retain what it calls the legislative paramountcy in the administration of the federal family allowance program.
I wish to ask the minister whether negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa are completed and whether he can assure the House that Quebec will retain the legislative paramountcy in this field.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member earlier, discussions with Quebec have not dealt with the question of legislative primacy but have been more along the lines of working out an acceptable solution to family allowances that would be in line with Quebec priorities, and at the same time, with the co-operation of the federal government through its family allowances plan, to pro-
Farm Credit Act
vide assistance to people most in need of it. I believe the negotiations are almost completed and I hope we can now get on with the job.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier today I drew to the attention of the House the fact that there is on the order paper a motion for the production of papers in my name concerning a second international airport in Toronto. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Hamilton West, the Minister of Transport indicated that these documents are available.
I cannot understand why the motion I placed on the order paper on April 13 for these documents has not been dealt with and the documents tabled. Perhaps the minister would explain why the documents have not been produced.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I do not know why there has been a delay; there certainly should not have been. I will look into this matter right away.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-5, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the amendment thereto of Mr. Korchinski (p. 1872) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Knight (p. 1903).
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that my remarks this afternoon will be brief. I believe that a number of points should be made before this bill is referred by the House to the committee. The amendment we have moved deals with encouraging young people to take an interest in the agricultural field.
Last evening I suggested that the Farm Credit Corporation made about 7.6 per cent of its loans to farmers in the under 25 age group. The amendment does not spell out a specific age limit but it does specify that where young farmers meet performance standards-by that we mean making the payments on their loans and meeting the other commitments in the agreements they sign-they should receive a bonus. This is certainly a worthy amendment and should have the support of the House. I hope to receive that support from the agricultural committee when the bill is considered there.
There are a number of other matters in this bill which cause me great concern. Clause 1 is of particular concern. I want to emphasize that the bill will be sent to the

May 10, 1972
Farm Credit Act
committee with a great deal of reservation on my part and on the part of other members of this party. Clause 1 in part reads:
The corporation has all the powers necessary to carry out such duties or functions as may be assigned to it by the governor in council in relation to the administration of any agricultural program-
If this bill is passed, the governor in council could ask the corporation to do almost anything. There is too much of this kind of thing going on today in Canada. Parliament and the elected representatives of the people are being bypassed in this way to the point that the government is now a sort of dictatorship.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has at times suggested that under this bill there will be provision for the Farm Credit Corporation to administer the small farms program. This program will be beneficial mainly to Quebec. It involves the expenditure of $150 million over a seven-year period. The minister has not given us any more information than that. The specific program spelled out by the minister on March 8 related to four matters. When we had officials of the Farm Credit Corporation before the committee, we asked how these four matters would be administered. One of the four items was special credit facilities to encourage prospective farm purchasers. This will mean that the Farm Credit Corporation will be in the business of lending money to land speculators. The manager of the Farm Credit Corporation said he thought that particular item had been dropped. We also asked about authority to enter the market directly to purchase and resell farms as the need arises. The manager of the Farm Credit Corporation thought that aspect had been dropped as well, but was not certain and did not want to commit himself on the matter.
There are four ways in which the small farms program announced by the minister would be used, and perhaps two of them have been dropped. The minister has not given us any information in this regard and has not attempted to explain what is meant by clause 1. While I will support the bill, many answers will have to be given to the committee in a much clearer way than has been the case so far. The Minister of Agriculture is as evasive as a greased pig. That is no way to pass legislation from this place to the committee. We shall be hard pressed in the committee to pass this legislation unless we receive more specific answers than those we have been given to date.
Obviously, this piece of legislation will be used to bring about any new gimmick the government dreams up in the field of agriculture, I suppose to entice Canadians to vote for the Liberal party in the coming election. It will also be used to move many farmers off the land. I do not think that is the direction in which Canadian agriculture or our farmers should be moving. In view of conditions around the world today, I think the farmer enjoys a high quality of life. He may not enjoy the riches of other people, but he still makes his own decisions and is not confronted with pollution and the crowds of the cities. We should encourage more farmers to stay on the land and more young people to take up farming.
We will be making amendments to the bill in committee in order to adjust the interest rate. This was one of the first major pieces of legislation to come before parliament

after I was first elected. I well remember we had heated arguments at that time, as a result of which we pegged the interest rate at 5 per cent in respect of Farm Credit Corporation loans. The present Minister of Agriculture has seen this changed and for two years the interest rate has been 8 per cent and as high as 83 per cent.
The minister admits that there is no refinancing provision in the Farm Credit Act, although there should be. There is provision for refinancing under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as well as under many other mortgage systems. There should be refinancing every five years. The minister is reluctant to accept that idea because the interest rate may again rise and farmers would be required to pay even higher rates in five years' time. I certainly hope that is not the case.
This bill permits loans up to $100,000. That is a huge amount of money. If we do not make some special provision for repayment of this money, many young farmers may not be able to repay the loan and will end up in debt. The number of loans in arrears is increasing. Three years ago, in the province of Alberta, 15 per cent of Farm Credit Corporation loans were in arrears. The following year the figure was 21 per cent, and last year it was 25 per cent. This bill will not relieve that situation unless we bring in special provisions with regard to repayment of the money borrowed.
As I said in my earlier speech on this piece of legislation, this bill is a glaring example of omission with regard to answering the problems which exist today in the agricultural industry. Without saying anything further, I urge the minister and his parliamentary secretary, who is here today, to take very careful note that in committee we will want a full explanation of clause 1 and as to why reasonable interest rates cannot be set, at least in respect of part of these loans for the small farmer who meets the requirements of the legislation.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, on closing the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-5, I should like to do nothing more than to pay tribute to the directors of the Farm Credit Corporation. I believe, as all hon. members and, moreover, as the great majority of Canadian farmers, that the federal civil servants, as well as those employed in the various regions of this country, are doing a tremendous job to provide the best possible service to Canadian farmers. And for the work they have performed in the years gone by, Mr. Speaker, as well as for that they will most certainly accomplish in the coming years, I feel that we should express to them our genuine satisfaction.
This having been said, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the many hon. members who have taken part in the debate these last few days, and for the record, I shall state here that 28 members took the floor in order to express various opinions, raise several points of particular interest to them in the existing legislation, as well as in the amendments now before the House. I thank them for their contribution, since they have outlined interesting considerations, and I can assure them that we listened to them very carefully. The officials of the Farm Credit Corpora-
May 10, 1972

tion, like myself, took note of the recommendations and concerns they have expressed during their various interventions.
However, several hon. members commented on the amount of the arrears on the Farm Credit Corporation loans, especially in the Prairie provinces. Perhaps it might be advisable to examine the reimbursement situation in a much more positive light. By the end of the last financial year, on March 31, 1972, the situation in the Prairie region was as follows.
In Alberta, 12,868 farmers, that is 80.7 per cent of those who had borrowed money, were keeping up with their payments; in Saskatchewan, 15,880 farmers, that is 80.2 per cent, were in a similar situation; in Manitoba, 4,930 farmers, that is 79.3 per cent, were paying back their loan regularly.
With regard to the two central provinces of Canada, Ontario and Quebec, 13,199 Ontario farmers-92.7 per cent-and 7,152 Quebec farmers-93.1 per cent-were not behind in their payments.
This, Mr. Speaker, indicates that the situation in the Prairie region was a little more difficult than in Ontario or Quebec, which is understandable, since the amounts loaned in the Prairie region are quite important, as well as the amounts invested. Moreover, for the last three or four years, the slump in wheat sales in the Prairie region certainly had something to do with late repayments.
But in 1971, and this year, it does seem that income will become normal once again and that the Prairie farmers will fast make up for those arrears. To my mind, if the economy maintains itself, within two years at the most, those farmers should have made up their losses and have come back to the normal rate of delayed payments.
A survey of the situation throughout Canada reveals that 58,433 farmers, that is 84.6 per cent of all borrowers, were up to date in their payments by the end of the financial year.
These data must also be studied in the light of the recovery policy of the Corporation. When a borrower finds himself temporarily in financial difficulties, for reasons beyond his control, when payments would cause him hardships, the Corporation takes steps to defer them. I am convinced the hon. members will agree with this. Had the Corporation adopted a rigid attitude, the situation with regard to arreas would be very different. It would certainly be unfair to base ourselves on statistics concerning arrears to come to the conclusion that farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy, when the present conditions are partly due to the conciliating and moderate reimbursement policy of the corporation and depend of international conditions which have improved during the past few months.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, many members have made some comments on the provisions of clause (1) of Bill C-5 which would authorize the Farm Credit Corporation to perform other duties concerning the application of other farm programs on behalf of the government. I would like to point out that the said clause does not authorize the government to carry out the small farms development program nor any other farm program. The House has already authorized the expenditures concerning the small
Farm Credit Act
farms development program. Expenditures related to any other program should also be authorized by Parliament.
Clause (1) of the bill merely authorizes the corporation to carry out for the government programs previously approved by Parliament.
The corporation keeps a staff that it well versed in farm management, farm land appraisal, as well as property transactions. Furthermore, this staff is allocated throughout all agricultural areas of this country. It seems logical and reasonable to use the technical knowledge and existing administrative services of the corporation for the administration of certain agricultural programs, such as the small farms development scheme. It would surely be preferable to proceed thus rather than hire new employees and set up new administrative services which would only be used for the application of programs very closely connected with the work already done by the corporation. Such measures would allow better co-ordination of programs, avoid overlapping, and would be more efficient and less costly.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to refer to some other points, only a few of which have been raised.
Some hon. members have mentioned the fact that farmers are too far in debt already, and have said that this bill might cause them to get even further into debt. As far as straight figures are concerned, it is true that farmers may get further into debt, but this is not the only facet of the problem to be considered, as it is not merely a matter of getting into debt, but also a matter of assets.
Whether a farmer owes today $50,000 or $75,000 on properties worth $100,000 and $125,000 or whether he owed, 20 years ago, $10,000 or $15,000 on properties then worth $25,000 or $30,000, is absolutely the same thing.
Of course, the absolute figure has been increased, but proportionately speaking, I do not think there has been any substantial change.
Nowadays, people talk about low investment profits. Surely, everyone acknowledges that agricultural investments today do not yield what they should. But this is not attributable to credit as such. It is partly the result of our economic structures and of economic circumstances both Canadian and international. This is the main reason why farmers get such low prices for their end products. This is the source of all evil. The problem lies at this level and it is there that we should strive to rectify the situation as best we can, and although the soon to be established national farm products marketing agencies will certainly be a step forward-but not necessarily a solution to the problem-on the road to recovery for a better income in respect of the work and productivity of Canadian farmers.
I think we all realize that we must work hand in hand to convince Canadian consumers to pay more for Canadian agricultural products. We should try to sell this idea to our fellow citizens. There is too much anti-agriculture propaganda.
It is always alleged that agricultural products are very expensive. I believe that the main task we should under-

May 10, 1972
Farm Credit Act
take together is to convince the Canadian consumer that he finally does not pay too much for food when compared with other consumer products he buys. That is the main point which we must attack.
Some mention was made, and with reason, of the decrease in the number of farms. Mr. Speaker, this situation has started many years ago; it is therefore not new. The phenomenon is not found only in Canada, it is worldwide. Consequently, it is unreasonable to attack the government. It is a normal evolution taking place in modern society. Cities attract people. Industrialization attracts people. Many things in large urban centres attract people, education, recreation and living facilities.
For all those reasons, unfortunately, the young are attracted to urban centres and it is very hard to find people to follow up in agriculture. Only by providing farm producers with a higher income shall we be able to ensure this. I am sure that young people will engage in agriculture if they know that they can make a decent living, and this is one of the challenges which we must face together.
Some hon. members have said that the interest rate was too high. They think that if the interest rate was set at 5 per cent, the problem would be solved. No, Mr. Speaker, it would not be. The best example I can give is that of the interest rate paid by Quebec farmers, who can borrow money from the Quebec Farm Credit Board at 21 per cent. And yet, a figure was quoted last week which showed that 25,000 farmers in Quebec, which is about half the farmers there, were in receipt of some kind of welfare payments. Obviously, this cannot be due to their paying too much interest on their loans, since the rate is only 2t per cent, and yet they are still in a very difficult situation.
Interest rates are not the issue. Of course, they may mean $500 or $600 per year. But this is not the only cause of depression in agriculture, and we will not solve the problem by reducing or by pegging interest rates.
Young people cannot start off in agriculture. Sure enough, it is hard for a young man to start off in agriculture, but it could be easy for him if we still looked at it the way we did 30, 40 or 50 years ago, when a father used to bequeath to his son the property he had developed and acquired and which had been paid for the most part. That principle is still applied within the family farm which is endangered according to some people. Those who have a family farm believe in that despite what can be said here in this House. Instead of selling his son the farm he had developed and which was almost entirely paid for, the father used to transfer it to him so that he would not inherit a debt of $25,000, $35,000 $60,000 or $80,000 which he would drag all his life and which would force him to raise a minimum of cash in order to qualify for a loan.
If the family farm were transfered, as it is being mentioned, there would be no problem for any young man interested in agriculture. Unfortunately, that is not the case nowadays. We understand very well why the young man finds it so difficult to get the operation going.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refute the two amendments on which we shall be voting in a few minutes.
The Progressive Conservative amendment would have us write off part or all of the interest on loans to young

new farmers. That is an excellent idea, I think, and it would be ungracious to say the contrary. But if we read the proposal, we realize that a vote for that amendment would kill the bill now before us and we would have to start all over again. It means killing the present bill.
I do not think we can approve this amendment, because of its immediate negative consequences, even though the objective is not necessarily bad. This is a good amendment, but I doubt that it would be an ideal answer and that it would attract a greater number of the younger people to farming.
As for the sub-amendment moved by our friends of the New Democratic Party, they obviously establish a distinction as to the qualities on which young farmers would be selected for obtaining interest deductions on loans. They would like to see the selective process eliminated from the proposal made by the Progressive Conservative Party. I am sure that, if a selection has to be made within a selected group, things will get much more complicated and I agree with them that those who would have to appraise the qualifications and skills of young farmers would have a difficult job, a job in which appraisals could be arbitrary to a certain extent. From that point of view, I agree with them and if subsequently the government was to introduce a measure to encourage young people to engage in agriculture or to stay on the farm, selection criteria should be examined very carefully in order that they do not include too many arbitrary elements.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the House reject these two amendments so that the bill may be referred immediately to the Committee on Agriculture for consideration. I hope it will be examined quickly so that it comes back to the House to be passed and that Canadian farmers may take advantage of it immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment to the amendment. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the subamendment lost. The next question is on the amendment. Is it the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the division on the amendment without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Allmand
Andras
Badanai
Barrett
Basford
Bechard
Beer
Benjamin
Benson
Blair
Blouin
Breau
Brewin
Broadbent
Buchanan
Burton
Caccia
Cafik
Chretien
Clermont
Cobbe
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cote (Richelieu)
Cdte (Longueuil)
Crossman
Cullen
Cyr
Danson
Davis
Deachman
Deakon
De Ban6
Douglas
Drury
Dube
Dupras
Duquet
Faulkner
Forest
Forget
Foster
Francis
Gendron
Gervais
Gibson
Gilbert
Gillespie
Gleave
Goode
Goyer
Gray
Guay (St. Boniface)
Guilbault
Harding
Hopkins
Howard
(Okanagan Boundary) Isabelle Jamieson Jerome Knight
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Laing
(Vancouver South) Lajoie
Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldt)
Langlois
Laniel
Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Legault I.essard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lewis
L'Heureux
Lind
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacEachen Maclnnis (Mrs.) McBride McNulty Mahoney Major Marceau Marchand (Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Mather
Munro


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that we proceed with the division without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the House proceeds with the next order, I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) has a point of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, according to the rules of the House the vote of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the vote of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) should be deleted.


An hon. Member:: Why?



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


John Carr 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to recommend swift passage of the bill now before the House. In this connection, in terms of the assistance it renders our senior citizens it would be useful tc review the record of the Liberal government since 1963 with regard to improving the financial security of Canadians over 65, especially when compared with the previous administration up to 1963. I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, it is a very enviable record indeed.
In 1963 the old age security pension stood at $65 a month. In 1964, under a Liberal government, the old age security pension was raised to $75 a month. In 1966, two years later, the government again moved in this field and

May 10, 1972
Old Age Security Act
introduced a series of new steps which further strengthened the income floor for our senior citizens; a $30 a month supplement was added to basic old age security, which was available to pensioners lacking other resources to provide for their retirement income. That brought the pension at that time, 1966, of those receiving old age security and the guaranteed income supplement up to $105 a month.
That legislation established the guaranteed income principle. Partial benefits were still available, even though many of our aged were receiving earnings, up to a certain level. Under that legislation there was no dollar for dollar deduction; there was no complete cut-off the minute other resources were available. Again in Liberal government legislation there was a new first. A concept of pension escalation was established to take into account the cost of living increase.


Mr. Orlikow:: Why just 2 per cent?


John Carr Munro: The level of 2 per cent was set. It should be kept in mind that at no previous time was there any built-in escalation available. It should also be kept in mind that the 2 per cent level was set after a comparison of price increases for the previous five years, indeed the previous ten years, which indicated that this was indeed adequate. But we did say at that time that if at some future date the ceiling proved to be inadequate, then that ceiling could be adjusted. We are delivering on that promise today.
A third and important feature of Liberal government legislation in 1965 was that it involved the lowering of the age of eligibility on a staged basis from 70 to 65 years of age. This eliminated the inadequate and under-utilized old age assistance program with its rather degrading means test. As of today, the old age security and guaranteed income supplement provide a floor for all people 65 years of age and over on the basis of a simple and non-degrading incomes test, a test which has more than proved its validity over the years since its inauguration.
I have referred to significant moves by the Liberal government in raising the pension to $75 a month in 1963 and in raising the basic floor of pensions up to $105 a month in 1966. I should like to move on to 1970, four years later, to the next plank in the improvement of pension benefits. In December of 1970, following the white paper on income security we established the basic old age security pension at $80 with a supplement of up to $55 a month in the case of a single person, for a maximum of $135 a month. In the case of a married couple the supplement was $95 a month. This, together with the combined old age security pension of $160, adds up to $255 a month.
Moreover, all those eligible for full or partial supplementation maintained their eligibility for the cost of living escalation of the full amount of their pension, both the basic old age security benefit and the guaranteed income supplement. So again in 1970 we had a very significant increase in income support afforded to our senior citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about taking the escalation off the basic $80.


John Carr Munro: Today we are once more moving into a major area of improvement of benefits for our senior citizens. We are now raising the maximum guaranteed income supplement for a single person to $150 a month from the previous $135, and we are raising the pensions of married senior citizens to $285 a month, in addition to which we are providing full escalation of both old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We are removing the 2 per cent limitation and keeping the escalator in line with the cost of living increase. I think all members will agree that this very substantial absolute amount in pension, together with bringing for the first time in Canadian history the cost of living escalation in line with the cost of living index, is a very great step indeed in the support of our senior citizens.
Let us review the situation, then. In 1966 the pension stood at $105 per month for a single person. Today, in 1972, it is $150 a month. In 1966, for a married couple, the pension was $210 a month and today it is $285 a month. That is a very significant increase within a six-year period. In less than a decade of Liberal administration the income floor has risen from $65 a month to $150 a month, or $95 a month additional income which is an increase of almost 150 per cent. In addition, this assistance is available five years earlier than it used to be and now offers complete protection against increases in the cost of living.
I do not believe, having examined the legislation of just about all the nations in the free world, there is any country which has provided for its senior citizens as adequately as Canada under this administration. We can take justifiable pride in the fact that we now have levels approaching adequacy for our senior citizens.
That is not the only area, in terms of our senior citizens, into which we have moved in the past decade. In terms of income supplement this is only one area. As a matter of fact, as many of us know, the government originally conceived the income supplement as a plan transitional to the full implementation of one of the most important pieces of legislation brought in by any Canadian government, the Canada Pension Plan. This was another major thrust of the government during this decade.


An hon. Member:: How about drugs?


John Carr Munro: I will get to drugs in a moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will need them.


John Carr Munro: The Canada Pension Plan will be in full operation in 1976, paying out full benefit levels. This, of course, not only includes retirement pensions but also disability pensions and pensions for widows and orphans. I think it is important to note that the Liberal government felt the welfare of our citizens in their retirement years to be so important that it instituted a plan which will take only ten years to reach full maturity. Most comparable plans take a lot longer to reach full maturity.
The Canada Pension Plan guarantees for the first time that pension benefits will be available to all Canadian workers, over and above the old age security payment,
May 10, 1972

regardless of the vagaries of coverage under private pension plans. Guarantees are now secure under the Canada Pension Plan in such vital areas as portability, which provides the certainty that in moving from one job to another basic pensions will remain intact. It provides for adequacy in ensuring that these government pensions remain constant with prevailing wage and salary rates.
In terms of scope of benefits, the Canada Pension Plan provides not only for the retirement area but also for areas of disability and protection for the family breadwinner in case of premature death. And, once again, the government kept its eye open to the future as well as to the present. A cost of living escalator is also built into the Canada Pension Plan. The government also intends to continue keeping that plan consistent with growth in wages and salaries in the Canadian economy. In this connection I would refer hon. members to the list of improvements in such vital areas as maximum pensionable earnings contained in the government white paper on income security.
In the senior citizens income security field we not only have old age security and guaranteed income supplements providing for present conditions but also the Canada Pension Plan guaranteeing the future. Even now the federal government has an additional safety-net under senior citizens for whom even full old age security and guaranteed income supplements may not be sufficient. I refer to the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan. This was another cardinal achievement in social policy instituted under a Liberal administration. It permits among many other things, supplementary benefits over and above the guaranteed income supplement, to be shared equally by federal and provincial governments, if the provinces see that there are additional needs to be met.
Finally, I should mention that the government has not only acted to provide security through its own programs. It is also providing encouragement for Canadians who wish to use part of their current income to give themselves extra protection in retirement years. I refer, of course, to the income tax provision which allows the deduction of contributions made by an individual to a registered retirement savings program. Hon. members may recall that just last session, in the context of the general tax reform legislation, this government increased even further this encouragement by raising the deductible ceiling of such contributions to $2,500 a year.
I have indicated the numerous areas into which the government has moved to provide adequate income support for our senior citizens. There are other areas I should like to mention now under the heading of relief from major expenses which, if it were not for legislation passed by this government, would put our senior citizens to extra expense. I have outlined in previous speeches the major features of some of these. However, we know that the provision of income is only one of the ways in which our senior citizens can be assisted. The provision of income helps them purchase what they require to maintain an adequate standard of living, but in a number of areas these people need services which far exceed the amount of income benefits to which they are eligible. Accordingly,
Old Age Security Act
the government has moved to ensure that the burden of many of these expenses is removed from their shoulders.
Let me point out the health field in particular. It was a Liberal administration in the 1950s which brought in the hospital insurance program, and it was a Liberal administration in the 1960s which brought in the medical care insurance program. Of course, these measures assisted all Canadians, but they were of greatest assistance to our senior citizens. In addition to bringing in hospitalization and medicare as provisions to protect our senior citizens against the outlay of expenses they could ill-afford, we brought in another measure. We realized that often under hospitalization and medicare there might be premium payments which our senior citizens could not afford. That is why the Canada Assistance Plan, a Liberal achievement of the 1960s, ensures that premium relief for needy, elderly Canadians could be cost-shared by the federal government.
Of course, senior citizens have special health needs which go beyond the ordinary services provided by doctors and hospitals. I refer to special institutions such as chronic care homes-and convalescent homes, as well as extensive use of prescription drugs. Again, the Canada Assistance Plan provides that the cost of supplying and maintaining these services can be extensively shared by the federal government. Thus, most of the burden of keeping up one's health, so important to the enjoyment of one's retirement years, has been lifted from the shoulders of our senior citizens through the programs the nature of which I have described.
Again we have justifiable pride, in comparison with any country in the western world, in terms of the income support provided our senior citizens. I do not believe there is any country in the free world which provides comparable legislation to that which guarantees Canadian senior citizens adequate protection.
I have indicated some measures to relieve our senior citizens from expenses. I will move into one other area in this complex program to assist our senior citizens. I refer to housing. Through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the government provides for senior citizens' housing. In recent years this has been drastically increased. Also in this area the Canada Assistance Plan makes provision for federal sharing of the cost of maintaining needy senior citizens in homes for the aged.
But even that is not all. One other major expense which Canadian citizens, including senior citizens, must bear is the expense of paying taxes. In the tax field the government realizes its special responsibility to lighten the burden of our senior citizens. This is why only last year we raised the supplementary tax deduction for our older people from $500 to $650 and at the same time reduced the age of eligibility for this deduction from 70 to 65. This effectively exempts those Canadians in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement for the aged from all tax responsibility. And again, on Monday night hon. members heard of yet another step along this same path when the Minister of Finance announced that these exemptions would now be raised to $1,000.

May 10, 1972
Old Age Security Act
So having talked about programs designed to relieve our senior citizens of expenses, as well as the income support measures, I would now like to move quickly into the area of services for our senior citizens. As I have already mentioned, we have provided an income floor for our senior citizens and we have relieved them of major areas of expense. But to provide financial support and relief in the area of financial expense is really not enough. These actions are essentially passive. They provide the senior citizens the financial ability to live a life approaching comfort. But positive action is also highly desirable in programs which allow our senior citizens to participate in activities which add social and emotional richness to their lives. Just for this reason the Canada Assistance Plan provides cost-sharing services which permit this rounding-out, including such things as home visiting programs and some recreational programs. Again, I think hon. members should be justifiably proud of these provisons.
However, this still leaves one other important area of human activity. I refer to the area of challenge. Simply because a person has advanced to a certain age level does not mean he has ceased to be able to make a meaningful contribution to our society. There are many talents and skills among Canadians 65 years of age and over which ought to be tapped both to enhance a sense of continued meaning in their lives and also to benefit those who can make great use of the skills of our senior citizens.
One prototype program in this regard is now operating under the aegis of the Department of External Affairs. I refer to Canadian Executive Service Overseas, a program which seeks to make available to developing countries the knowledge and talents of experienced executives and managers, people imbued with the wisdom that has come from many years of experience. Programs such as these give the cue to moving ever more strongly in this area, and this is indeed our intention. I will have more to say about it at a later date, but I think that the New Horizons for the Aged program which the Minister of Finance announced in his Monday night budget will provide even more opportunities for those 65 years of age and over to stay right in the mainstream of Canadian society, rather than being forcibly turned out to pasture and confined to an inactive existence.
So in review I would indicate that we have now moved up, since 1966, from a guaranteed income supplement which provided $155 a month to an income supplement which guarantees a single person $150 a month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That first figure should be $105.


John Carr Munro: That, of course, is even better. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) states, the former amount should be $105.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said $155 when he meant $105. He should follow his notes.


John Carr Munro: We now have the level of $150 a month for a single person and $285 a month for a married couple. Added to this we have had significant tax relief through improvement of exemptions. And under the Canada Assistance Plan, services such as institutional care and drugs can be provided our senior citizens.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Yes, indeed, they can. Since there is significant income support under the present legislation to $150 a month for a single person and $285 a month for a married couple, perhaps the provinces no longer will find it necessary to give additional income support as some of them, though not all, have been doing. Perhaps this will enable them to take greater advantage of the cost-sharing arrangements under the Canada Assistance Plan to provide these very necessary services for our senior citizens.
Couple all this with a stepped-up housing program and the proposed New Horizons program to encourage participation of our senior citizens in useful and meaningful endeavour, to help end the isolation from which so many of them suffer, and I think the government in advancing this legislation today can take justifiable pride in the provision of income support services and protection against crippling expenses which is unequalled in any other country in the western world.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the rapid passage of the bill on second reading I will not be too long. I would just like to mention my amazement at the fact that two or three days after the budget speech the government can suddenly come up with amendments to this bill. All we have to do is look back at the Family Income Security Plan in Bill C-170 which has dragged for almost two years, and we have not yet obtained benefits for the children of this country, benefits which are so badly needed by the low-income families.
The minister spoke about the great things the government is going to do. We agree that this bill is a good one, but less than seven weeks ago, on March 23, 1972, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) rejected the Progressive Conservative appeal to the government which read as follows:
-to contribute to pensions, allowances and other benefits granted or administered by the government a yearly percentage increase corresponding to the percentage increase in the consumer price index for Canada.
The minister that night voted against the motion which read exactly as I have quoted it. Today, we in the House of Commons are in the incongruous position of having the same motion put before us in the form of a bill introduced by none other than the minister himself. What miracle wrought this conversion from a steadfast no on March 23 to a definite yes on May 8? The minister had some interesting things to say on March 23, 1972. He dismissed absolutely our requests for fairness to 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 rises in the cost of living. He said, and I quote from page 1103 of Hansard:
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-
May 10, 1972

Anyone listening to that speech might have been led to believe that the government contemplated no changes in the old age security legislation. If we were to believe the minister, the 2 per cent maximum cost of living increase to the guaranteed income supplement was more than adequate because he said, again on March 23, as recorded in Hansard, at page 1105, that the 2 per cent cost of living increase-
-is proving to have the tendency to keep reasonably in line with increases in the cost of living.
Suddenly, between March 23 and May 8, the minister has discovered that old age pensioners deserve a better break and a more just cost of living increase on their benefits, just as we argued on March 23. Perhaps the minister found so much sympathy within the Liberal party for the Conservative party's motion that he had to work hard to incorporate the proposal into his party's platform just to stem the tide of those in his party who objected.
Consistency has never been one of the Liberal government's better attributes nor one of the Minister's strong points. From now on, whenever I or any of my colleagues ask the minister a question or press him for some reform and he gives a negative reply, we shall be confident that our request will be Liberal government policy within about six weeks-perhaps a little longer if an election does not appear imminent. The inconsistency and the cynicism of this Liberal government makes one wonder. First they bring in and then act on a white paper that shaves off the old age pension at $80 a month, with no cost of living increase guaranteed. Then more than two years later, when the nearness of an election makes it politically expedient, they belatedly promise a cost of living increase to these deserving old people.
Obviously, the polls have the government so terrorized that what we are witnessing today is a deathbed conversion. A conversion is better late than never, but I remind the government that few deathbed conversions have saved the dying patient's life, and this late move is unlikely to save a dying Liberal government.
There were three changes in pension legislation announced in the budget speech of the finance minister on May 8, 1972. These three changes were: first, to escalate the basic old age security pension by the full increase in the consumer price index, effective January 1, 1972; second, to increase the maximum guaranteed income supplement by $15 per person as of January 1, 1972, with full escalation after April 1, 1973; third, to escalate veterans pensions and allowances by the full increase in the consumer price index, effective January 1, 1972. These changes are a welcome but belated recognition of the needs of Canada's aged and veterans. But because these needs are so late in being recognized by the government, the measures proposed do not even begin to make up the ground lost in the last few years.
First of all, the failure of this government to escalate the basic old age pension according to increases in the cost of living from the time they first came into power is depriving old age pensioners of a healthy sum of money each month. If the Liberal government had actually embarked on its promises and the goal of a just society which it promised in 1968, it would have arranged for old age
Old Age Security Act
security pensions and guaranteed income supplements to be increased yearly at a rate corresponding to the annual rise in the cost of living.
If such a plan had been instituted, then the 1967 old age security pension would have risen by a fair margin by 1972. Old age pensioners, therefore, should have been receiving on January 1, 1972, much more than the $82.88 the government is now offering them with retroactive magnanimity. I will move an amendment to this effect at the end of my short speech.
Second, the change in the guaranteed income supplement, a program wildly hailed by Liberal government members as the answer to poverty among the aged, still will not bring Canada's poverty stricken up to the 1971 poverty line. Consider, for example, the single, old age pensioner whose income is less than $24 a year and who is therefore eligible for the maximum guaranteed income supplement. He will now receive a total annual income from old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and his own sources, of $1,834 to $1,858. But the poverty line for a single person in 1971 was $2,013. Therefore, the government is still guaranteeing poverty for Canada's aged now receiving the maximum supplement, by keeping their annual income from $155 to $179 below last year's poverty line. At least 27.3 per cent of all Canada's old age pensioners, involving 481,451 individuals, will be kept in this guaranteed annual poverty position.
Third, the change in the guaranteed income supplement legislation will be of no benefit to Canada's veterans who are in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement, for whatever additional money they receive through the guaranteed income supplement will be deducted from their veterans pension. The $15 they receive from the Department of National Health and Welfare will be deducted from the pension they have been receiving from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nowhere in his budget did the finance minister estimate the savings to the federal government as a result of the $15 a month lowering of veterans pensions to Canada's aged veterans. I imagine that the minister's attitude is sunshine budget now, tears later.
With regard to veterans, the single veteran over 65 years of age is now eligible to receive $161 a month. With the increase of $15, an aged person who is 65 years of age and not a veteran would be receiving only $150. So he will lose that $15. At the same time, the married veteran whose spouse is also over 65 years of age is now getting $271. He will get an increase of only $14, which is what the wife would receive anyway as an old age citizen.
These three criticisms of the Liberal government's new look for old age pensioners are important ones on which I expect the minister to act within seven weeks, if his past record of requiring seven weeks for conversion to Progressive Conservative ideals and suggestions continues. We also await anxiously his promised introduction of the New Horizons for the Aged policy mentioned in the budget speech. Perhaps in this new policy the Minister of National Health and Welfare will recognize that in addition to being voters who have urgent needs, the aged are human beings and Canadians who want to participate fully in our society.

May 10, 1972
Old Age Security Act
One further aspect of this bill worries me. This problem concerns the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) must expect old age pensioners to be financial wizards. This year, old age pensioners are to receive, effective the first day of the calendar year, a cost of living increase in their pensions based on the rise in the consumer price index over the fiscal year. Next year they will receive, on the first day of the fiscal year, a cost of living increase based on the rise in the consumer price index during the 1972 calendar year. With visions of fiscal and calendar years dancing in their heads, they will have many sleepless nights trying to figure out what amount of money they can count on through old age security benefits over the next few months.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, during this debate to place reform of old age pensions in the context of the budget itself. This reform has more to recommend it than the fact that it is long overdue. It is the single initiative in the budget that will provide direct stimulus to aggregate demand and thereby immediate stimulus to job creation. It is not adequate but it is one step in the right direction. I think it is appropriate to talk about the over-all effect of the budget in this debate because this measure and the budget are primarily responses to continuing inflation in Canada.
The continuing improvement in old age pensions will protect old people against inflation and provide some stimulus to the economy as a whole. The over-all budget, however, will perpetuate massive unemployment to fight inflation. The budget is not really directed toward reducing unemployment. The budget is not directed toward reaching full employment in the future. The budget does not represent a change in policy. All the government has done is to shift from creating massive unemployment to perpetuating it. This situation is not the fault of the Canadian economy and it is not a whim of fate. We have mass unemployment and will continue to have mass unemployment because this is the wilful policy of the government.
The budget could have been designed to get us on a swift path to full employment. The corporate tax cuts are necessary, but in my opinion they will do little to reduce unemployment directly. Their effect will not be significant until the latter part of 1973. This, of course, is common knowledge in economic circles and also in government circles. We know, and the government knows, that full employment is possible without running the risk of inflation greater than that of our major trading partners. All that stands in the way is a fearful government that refuses to allow the individual taxpayer and the economy to realize their potentials.
I will not deal with the many programs the minister announced and the "great" policies that the government has come up with in past years. He mentioned the Canada Assistance Plan and the housing program. If there is one thing that worries me and many Canadians, it is the situation with regard to housing, particularly for old age pensioners and senior citizens. I hope the minister will be able to persuade his colleagues to adopt a proper housing program for poor Canadians. I shall end my speech, Mr. 
Speaker, by moving the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and there be substituted the following:
"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."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have received a copy of the amendment from the hon. member. I am sure hon. members can assist the Chair, because I wonder whether the amendment is acceptable from a procedural standpoint. I do not know how many copies are available for hon. members, so I shall again read the amendment without indicating whether it is procedurally acceptable. It reads:
That all the words after "That" be struck out and there be substituted the following:
"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."
It seems to the Chair that this wording does not meet one of the tests which we must apply to reasoned amendments. I may be in error on this and I know hon. members will relate their remarks to it. The question is whether or not it opposes the progress of the bill, whether or not it opposes the principle of the bill; in short, whether or not the reasoned amendment is contrary to and opposes the principle of the bill.
Second, according to the hon. member's own words his amendment refers to "introducing appropriate amendments to effect such changes to the present limited terms of the bill." These proposed amendments are not spelled out in his motion and the question in my mind is whether this is something that might be done normally in committee. I would appreciate the advice of hon. members.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment put forward by my colleague is a reasoned amendment. We must bear in mind the particular difficulties which face a member of this House who is not of the administration in putting forward an amendment which proposes to affect the level of pensions payable under a government bill. As Your Honour can readily see, that is the purport of my colleague's amendment. He wishes the cost of living escalator to be effective from the date when increases in the cost of living were made applicable to old age pensions. To that extent one must go back to a particular incident in which I do not believe Your Honour was personally involved. I should not call it an incident. It was the occasion on September 13 last when the House was considering second reading of Bill C-259 and I put a reasoned amendment before the House.
At that time there was considerable discussion with regard to the use of reasoned amendments which, I may say, seem to be rather strange birds in this House. As a matter of fact, it was only during the latter months of 1971
May 10, 1972

that the House witnessed a number of attempts by hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move reasoned amendments. Until my amendment to Bill C-259 on second reading, none had succeeded.
I say this not in the spirit of a game to be played between members of the House and the Chair, but the question of reasoned amendments is of recent origin so far as this House is concerned. To use the words I used, as recorded at page 7763 of Hansard, on that occasion when I started to address the Chair, Beauchesne is singularly dangerous to rely on in this day of vastly changed rules, and more reliance should be placed in this particular field on Erskine May's Seventeenth Edition. We know that in the British House a reasoned amendment is the normal type of amendment. If Your Honour wishes me to read a number of references and examples that have been used in recent years, we will see that the reasoned amendment is a very useful tool for an expression of the views of the House with regard to a bill.
Before this House there is a motion for second reading of this bill and its referral to committee. I put it to Your Honour that it is not sufficient that the only acceptable amendment is one that is completely opposed to the bill. I would say there is no such thing, as complete confrontation which is absolutely necessary with regard to a bill. There can be opposition in degree, criticism in degree or suggestion for modification. When it comes to the question of whether a motion at second reading stage is one of opposition or is a dilatory motion, one which asks that the bill be not now read a second time but be read six months hence is a dilatory motion which opposes every principle of the bill.
The principle of the bill, in this case, is that the Old Age Security Act be amended in a number of particulars. It provides for the application of a cost of living escalator clause. It asks that there be an increase in the guaranteed income supplement; that the cost of living escalator formula shall apply to the guaranteed income supplement; that there be a change in the residence requirement for those entitled to Canadian pensions who live outside the country.
Which one of these amendments is deemed to be a principle of the bill? Not one. That there be an increase in pensions? My colleague proposes, and he cannot do this directly, that the cost of living escalator formula should apply retroactively to the basic pension from the date of the introduction of the cost of living escalator provision. In the wording of the motion he respects the limitation on the ability of a private member of this House to bring in a motion which, if accepted, would force the government into the expenditure of public funds.
But that is not the case at all. We do, in a reasoned way, indicate support for the measures that have been brought in, but indicate that there is this other need and that it must be considered by the government. We say that the government must bring in the amendment, as only it can, and that is why our amendment is so worded. The govern-25316-13.'.
Old Age Security Act
ment must take appropriate steps to introduce a proper amendment in order to effect the purpose of our motion.
There is in the motion opposition to a good part of the bill, in that it is a motion to extend certain provisions. Surely the idea of an extension of the application of a formula cannot be taken as agreement with the proposal in a government bill, no more than if the government's proposal with regard to the guaranteed income supplement increment was to increase it to $5, because how would hon. members of this House propose to raise it to, say, $15 or $30 as it is now but by this type of amendment? It is sufficiently opposed to a portion of the bill that it would qualify as a reasoned amendment. It does not offend the rule regarding excessive authority on the part of a private member. It is certainly relative.
I would refer Your Honour to the arguments that were entered into at much greater length on my amendment to the omnibus income tax bill, which His Honour accepted. I would say that he did not necessarily accept it wholeheartedly. Perhaps opposition would have been somewhat easier had we enjoyed the benefit of His Honour's wise thinking on the matter of reasoned amendments, if there had been a follow-through with a set of guidelines. At the moment I would say that this House is striking out in the dark with regard to reasoned amendments and that we would save a good deal of time and difficulty for ourselves and the Chair if we had a clear understanding of the Chair's views on reasoned amendments.
As I pointed out-I do not want to belabour the point- we are working under a new set of rules whereby this House can have a meaningful exchange of ideas. I would remind Your Honour that this amendment is put forward on second reading, not at the report stage. At report stage my colleague would have to engage in the subterfuge of moving an amendment to the appropriate clause that he wished to amend, bearing in mind that he would be faced in committee with a much greater obstacle in trying to move an amendment to a particular clause extending a cost of living escalator formula which involved expenditure of public funds. That procedure, I would suggest to Your Honour, would be far too limiting for an exchange of ideas and meaningful debate in this House. Our rules are designed for meaningful debate. I reiterate what I said in September: report stage is not the most convenient, the most helpful time for this exchange of ideas.
Then we come to third reading. I again point out to Your Honour that third reading is an exceedingly limited opportunity for the exchange of ideas on a bill where the House has already had the opportunity of expressing its formal views, by way of vote if necessary, on second reading or on the really operative clauses of the bill. All it means on third reading is that either there is a standard dilatory motion, which is not helpful for the exchange of ideas, or modification of an important portion of the bill. If there is a stereotyped motion, we have to go back to committee for consideration of a particular point. The committee itself cannot do anything with regard to increasing any expenditure in the bill, so I put it to Your Honour that that avenue is barred.

May 10, 1972
Old Age Security Act
Our rules are not a bar to meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas; they cannot be. We cannot have dead-hand rules of that type. I have had enough experience in the Chair in dealing with points of procedure to know there must be some form of structure for reasoned amendments. Your Honour may not have seen this type of amendment before, but both the House and the Chair operate by way of experience. Until we get guidelines which will be helpful both to those presiding over the sessions of this chamber and to members of this House, I submit that very serious consideration should be given to this question.
Your Honour may wish to reserve opinion as to the extent of the amendment, and then I might be in a very happy position whatever may be the views of the Chair on this amendment. Perhaps we are setting a few precedents. However, if a few precedents are set, when we get to the happy time of having some of these guidelines it will be much easier to understand what they are.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief. I submit that the proposed amendment is not procedurally acceptable, on two grounds. First, I submit that an amendment to a motion for second reading of a bill must be in opposition to the bill or the progress of the bill. This motion fails to do that directly or in clear language. It appears that the intent of the motion is to try to have the best of both worlds. The intent is to try to adopt that which is proposed in the bill but suggest that the government should consider going further. I submit that is clearly not within the limits of the precedents and rules that surround the moving of amendments to second reading motions.
In any event, the problem of the recommendation that is an essential part of this bill is that although the member is not endeavouring to move an increase directly in the expenditures that would be involved under this bill, in effect his amendment asks the government to do that for him or consider the advisability of doing it for him. Were that to be done or attempted, it would require steps which would exceed the recommendation of His Excellency with regard to this bill.
The hon. member is cleverly endeavouring to try to have the best of both worlds, being in support of the measure as far as it goes instead of being opposed, and at the same time causing further study to be made on it. Without directly moving that further expenditures be made, the hon. member is suggesting that a study of further expenditures be made. In both respects the motion is out of order.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I contend that the amendment is out of order. There was a time in this House when we debated the recommendations which preceded a bill. Under the new rules we do not debate such recommendations. What the amendment clearly tries to do is go beyond the scope of the recommendation of Her Majesty. By the device of an amendment to a bill, the hon. member is doing something he cannot do because of the restrictions that exist in terms of the recommendation on which the bill is based. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) shaking his head.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was merely saying the hon. member meant His Excellency rather than Her Majesty.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I appreciate the correction of my good friend. I hope he agrees with the substance of my argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not necessarily.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: An amendment to a bill cannot go beyond the scope of the recommendation on which the bill is based. I submit the amendment fails in that respect and attempts to impose an additional drain upon the treasury.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has suggested that I might take this matter under advisement. I do not think any great harm will be done if I do that. It is now 20 minutes before six o'clock. As I indicated initially, my inclination is that the amendment is not in order. I am still of that opinion, but I will follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West, give further thought to this question and make a ruling that might be helpful. If hon. members are agreeable, I will reserve my decision until the bill is next before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to Bill C-207, I find there are several things I should like to say first. The problem is that one has to make a choice. The first thing I shall do is direct a word of encouragement and hope to the senior citizens of Canada, particularly their very active organizations. I say to them that their message is getting through. Even this government is realizing that it cannot fail to improve the pensions of our senior citizens. That is why we have this measure before us today.
When I mention senior citizens and their active organizations, I am thinking of groups with which I am in contact all the way from Newfoundland and Cape Breton Island to Vancouver Island, organizations such as Pensioners Concerned, United Senior Citizens of Ontario and senior citizens organizations and federations in every province of Canada. I also think of a new body on the Pacific coast known as Pensioners for Action Now. Members of all parties who have recently been in Vancouver are aware of this organization. Some of them are perhaps painfully aware of how hard the members of that body are working for a basic pension of $150 a month and for other improvements for our senior citizens.
The legislation before us today falls far short of the hopes, expectations and demands of our senior citizens and it will not satisfy them. However, at least the fact that it has been brought in says to these people that their message is getting through. I trust they will be encouraged, by this fact, to keep up their campaigns. They know that some of us in this House of Commons will continue to support their hopes, expectations and demands until we win real justice for our older and retired people.
The second thing I wish to say as a first word is that to some of us in this House of Commons this is a very happy day. I do not say that because we are thoroughly satisfied with the legislation the Minister of National Health and
May 10, 1972

Welfare (Mr. Munro) has introduced but because it is one of those occasions when we are reminded that persistence does pay.
I did a little chasing through the records last night and this morning. I did not begin to turn up all the occasions upon which members of this party have pleaded for improvements in old age pensions and changes of one sort or another. But time after time the answer from this minister and his predecessors has been no. Time after time, when votes have been possible, we have lost those votes. In my own experience this goes back for three decades. I can remember the late J. L. Ilsley telling me I was asking for too much because I wanted the $20 pension raised to $25. So today we are reminded of the fact that persistence pays.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is inflation that does it, really.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And just as I have given what I hope is a word of encouragement to pensioners and to their organizations to carry on their activities, I say to the government and to the people of Canada generally that we shall continue to press for what we believe these people are entitled to receive, namely, a scale of pensions which will make it possible for those who have retired not just to be kept alive but to share in the standard of living which they, in their working years, helped to make possible.
I suspect it is desirable for us to say early in our response to this bill how we intend to vote and why. We are voting for the bill. I am sure this will come as no surprise. After all, we gave consent at the beginning of the day's sitting for the bill to be read the first time and printed so that it could be discussed without delay.


John Carr Munro: I hope David has not changed his mind since then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You look after your own stand. Even though it is a bill which is terribly inadequate in that the amounts of increases offered are terribly low, we feel that these amounts should be put into the hands of our senior citizens as soon as possible. We feel they should get them without delay even though for those on a pension of $80 the increase will amount to only $2.88 a month, which does not go very far these days, and even though for those on the guaranteed income supplement, at the maximum the increase amounts to only $15 a month in the case of a single person and $30 a month in the case of a married couple. These amounts should not be denied for one week if we can avoid it, and that is why we are prepared not only to vote for the bill before us but to do what we can to expedite its passage into law.
In saying this, however, I should like to make it clear that we believe the government is trying to fob off our old people with an amount which is a disgrace to a country which is producing goods and services to the tune of $95 billion. In effect, we are saying to those whose efforts have helped to build up our country and make all this possible, that all we can do now is to increase their pensions by $2.88 a month, or $15 a month if they have
Old Age Security Act
nothing else. That is not good enough for a country like Canada.
I come now to the fourth point I want to make, and perhaps it is time to take the gloves off. I have been here for a long time. I have seen a good many examples of sheer, crass cynicism on the part of several governments. But seldom have I seen anything as cynical as the performance on the part of the government in connection with this piece of legislation.


John Carr Munro: That is coming from an expert, judging from the debate on family allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister makes some references to family allowances. In the bill on family allowances he is forsaking a principle which it took the Liberals 50 years to accept. In this bill the minister is at least going back in some measure, to that principle, the principle of universality, and this is why, despite the smallness of the amounts involved, we find it is a bill we cannot oppose.
But to me this is an example of crass political cynicism, the sort of thing which makes the people of Canada wonder what politics and parliament and government are all about. The reason for asking the House to deal with this bill today and to put it through as quickly as possible was stated by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) this afternoon: it was in order that the increases provided for in the bill could, if possible, be included in the cheques which go out at the end of June. What are the increases for which the bill provides? In the case of those drawing only $80 a month-and according to the last return they numbered 778,480, or 45 per cent of those over the age of 65-the increase which the government wishes to get into their cheques at the end of June amounts to $2.88 a month, that is, 3.6 per cent of the basic $80.
Mr. Speaker, this is the era of cabinet leaks. I intend to spill another one. No. I am making this up, of course, though I am sure I might have got away with it had I pretended to state what went on in cabinet as though I had been there. They discussed this matter. The question was asked, "What about this increase of $2.88 a month? If we can get it to the old age pensioners by the end of June, and if we can persuade the opposition to let it go through, and if we call an election for July, say July 17, will that $2.88 be enough to persuade the 778,480 people who are on $80 a month to vote Liberal?" "No," said one of the cabinet ministers, "that is not enough. After all, Walter Harris tried six bucks and that didn't work, and a couple of years ago the present minister tried 42 cents, and that's why there has been so much opposition to this government from old age pensioners." So one of the smarter ministers-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, I am not
telling you that. His name is not part of my leak. One of the smarter ministers said, "You know, there is a way in which we could take care of this. Instead of making the increase effective just for the June cheque, we could make it retroactive to January 1. We have already provided that the old age security payments are paid on a fiscal

May 10, 1972
Old Age Security Act
year basis. January, February and March have already gone by, and the payments were at the rate of $80; but if we put this on a retroactive basis and provide for six months at an extra $2.88 and get it into the cheques at the end of June, that would amount to an extra $17.28." Well, $2.88 wouldn't do the trick, and $6 in the days of Walter Harris didn't do the trick. Then somebody in the cabinet said, "But I believe we can do it with $17.28".
That is the bait that is being held out to our old age pensioners, a cheque at the end of June with an extra $17.28 in it, in the hope that in the election that will probably be called on July 17 the feeling of kindness toward the government will carry over. If the election is not called then but is put off until August, September or October, then instead of getting cheques of $97.28 such as they will get at the end of June, these people will be getting a cheque for only $82.88. Then they will ask what has happened. They will say, "The government gave us this big increase; now they have cut us back and once again we are starving".


John Carr Munro: You are forgetting the guaranteed income supplement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will come to that in a moment, if the minister does not mind.


John Carr Munro: I know you like to forget that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, not at all. If the minister thinks I am forg .tting that, I will come to it right away. I will give him a little more of my cabinet leak. The cabinet came to realize that they could raise the guaranteed income supplement by $15, so that those who have nothing will get $150 instead of $135. They gave this task to the boys upstairs to work out, and they did it very ingeniously. According to the bill, the government is providing an increase in the supplement which brings it up to $67.12. Added to the $82.88, this amounts to a total of $150. That is just a case of the technocrats doing their job.
But someone in the cabinet said, "Fifteen dollars extra at the end of June? They will not notice that; that will not win the election. However, if we give these people six months retroactivity, six times $15 is $90, and if single people receive $90 and married people $180 in addition to their June cheque we should win the July 17 election without any trouble". The only difference between this session of the cabinet and the session in 1957 that decided on the $6 increase which Paul Martin brought in-though Walter Harris, being the minister of finance, made the basic decision-is that in 1957 the Liberals wanted to lose the election and went out of their way to find a way of doing so. We now have Liberals who want to win again, and they are out to buy votes from these retired people who are drawing the supplement. Those on the supplement are 55 per cent of the total. I think the minister said two-thirds the other day, but surely by now he knows better than that.


John Carr Munro: The new increase in GIS will bring more of them into the system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The new levels will bring more people in. The total of 55 per cent will become 60 per cent or somewhere around that. Is that what the minister is saying?


John Carr Munro: At least.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the number of people who will get this $17.28 as an election bribe at the end of June will decrease a little, and the number who will get the $90 or $180 will increase a little.


John Carr Munro: The number of people in need in the future will get more. I should think that would impress you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is pointing out that the number of people who have greater need is increasing. As long as this government is in power, more people will be finding themselves in greater need. But the point I am making is that you have here a cabinet decision that is cold, crass and cynical. For years the government said no, it was not prepared to do anything for the pensioners. Now the government has decided to do something.
Do they do this in the normal way by making a pension increase effective when it becomes law as they did in 1970? That increase of 42 cents was not made retroactive; it did not apply until the following month. Or does the government provide for a nice spell of retroactivity so that the pensioners of Canada will feel kindly toward the government in the month of July? If anybody thinks I am going out on a limb in talking about a July 17 election, give or take a week or two. I cannot see this government putting out this bait and letting the political advantage of it melt away by October. If it does call an election on July 17, I hope that the editorial writers and people of Canada will roundly condemn the government for this kind of political cynicism, not only because it plays fast and loose with the needs of our old age pensioners but because it is playing fast and loose with the whole political process.
Someone said something earlier about war veterans not getting the increase now, but I am not going to be able to come to that in my speech today. I shall cover that point when we get back to the bill on Friday. I understand that we shall be debating the budget tomorrow and on Friday return to this measure. If we finish it we shall talk about the changes to war veterans pensions and allowances, and then on Monday go back to the budget. Tuesday we shall see where we are. Then we have Wednesday and Thursday and dissolution comes in there somewhere, there or on Friday, once the pension increases are through and it is clear that the pensioners will get this extra money.
I said I felt that this was crass political cynicism. Like the last speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), and bearing in mind part of my past, I welcome this conversion even if it has been made on the road to an election. But when one realizes what the government and this minister have said about pension increases, and when one realizes what they said about taking the escalation off the basic old age pension, I think the minister should be in sackcloth and ashes instead of grinning, as he did, from ear to ear when bringing in the legislation today.
May 10, 1972

It was only 17 months ago, in December of 1970, that we debated a bill to which the minister referred in glowing terms today and which, among other things, removed the 2 per cent escalation from the basic pension, which at that point had gone up to $79.58 and which by that bill was made $80. We fought that at every stage, on second reading, in the committee, back in the House and so on. Then on Wednesday, December 17, 1970, there were two recorded votes in this House which were on one point only, namely, that the escalation should continue to apply to the basic $80. This minister led the fight against that proposition, and when the votes were taken on the night of Wednesday, December 17, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who announced this change the other night, were both in the House and cast negative votes.


An hon. Member:: So did the Prime Minister.
Old Age Security Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, the Prime Minister did not vote no; the Prime Minister was absent. However, the point I am making is that they took the very firm position that this was the wrong thing to do, to keep the escalation on the basic $80 pension.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so on Friday I shall go a little more into the things the government and this minister have said during the last 16 or 17 months, even in recent times when they simply said, "No change". The government is now on the road to Damasks, on the road to the election. The government has seen the light and has suddenly about-turned and said it will do something for the old age pensioners. I do not like this kind of political cynicism.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 11, 1972