1973-03-01

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave notice this morning under Standing Order 17(2). My question of privilege relates to the ringing of the division bells within the buildings of the House of Commons. Last night at 5.45 p.m. there was a pre-scheduled vote in the House. About half an hour prior to that I returned from an organizational meeting of the committee on health and welfare to my office to make some urgent constituency calls, awaiting the ringing of the division bells. However, the bell did not ring in that particular area. I draw to your attention the fact that my office is not located in the ordinary halls of the House of Commons but rather in Room 268 of the west block on a smaller hallway running from one side of the building to the other.
I have also noted that this problem has occurred in the past. I refer the House to Hansard of Friday, June 18, 1971, page 6857, when my predecessor, who occupied the same office, made the same complaint on that date in respect of a vote on the previous night.
In view of the fact that we are in a minority government situation and that each vote in the House is extremely important, I hope this matter will be looked into and corrected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You were asleep.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There can be no debate on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member. I have taken note of his complaint. Of course we accept his word that the bells did not ring. The matter will be brought to the attention of the Sergeant at Arms and of the staff of the House to ensure that there is no further difficulty with that or other bells.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member would have to rise on a different question of privilege. When there has been a ruling on behalf of the House by the Speaker that there is no question of privilege, there can be no debate.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with reference to the ringing of the bells yesterday. I would call Your Honour's
attention to the fact that I do not question what the hon. member has raised by way of a question of privilege, but the bells did ring beyond six o'clock. I also draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that at two minutes after 6 p.m. the Prime Minister walked into the House for that vote and we proceeded from there.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope we would not get involved in a debate on whether the bells did or did not ring. I might indicate for the benefit of hon. members that I have notices of four questions of privilege and numerous other procedural matters, so if we want to get to the business of the House eventually we should try to avoid debate on each one of these questions of privilege.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether the hon. member is imputing improper motives to me in his statement and, if so, that he withdraw the imputation. I do not question whether the bells rang elsewhere in the buildings. I simply raise the point that they did not ring in the corridor off which my office is located, and I resent any suggestion by any hon. member to the contrary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member checks the record he will find that I did not question the statement he made.


Norman Augustine Cafik: What were you doing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Where were you when the bells were ringing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


George Albert Proud: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should not wish to-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have to wait, because I have received notice of questions of privilege that should have immediate consideration.

March 1, 1973
Privilege



MR. COSSITT-WORDS USED BY SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO MINISTER OF TRANSPORT IN REFERRING TO MEMBER

["The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has also forwarded the notice required by Standing Order 17. This has given the Chair an opportunity to ponder this situation and to be prepared to give an opinion to the House which I hope will be acceptable.\nThe hon. member suggests in his notice, as well as the remarks he has just placed on record, that certain announcements of certain government projects are a breach of parliamentary privilege. The definition of parliamentary privilege found in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice has often been quoted in the House. To paraphrase the citation, the particular privileges of the Commons are the sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual members as against the prerogatives of the Crown and the authority of the courts. In other words, parliamentary privilege is what places members of the House in a special category and gives them special rights so as to exercise freely their responsibilities in the Commons.\nI doubt that the special status granted by parliamentary privilege can be extended to cover the situation of which the hon. member complains. Members know the distinction between privilege and grievance. An hon. member may have a very legitimate complaint or grievance about certain actions of the government, of members of the\nPrivilege\npublic service, of the press or of individual citizens. This cannot always be deemed to constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege. In this instance I would find that while the hon. member may have a grievance I cannot conclude that there is a legitimate prima facie case of privilege. In the circumstances, I would not think that the hon. member would expect the Chair to put the motion and have a debate on whether this matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections."]
Mr. Tom Cossiit (Leeds):: Mr.Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given prior notice to Your Honour. In this regard I would like to refer to page 5 of the Ottawa Journal of this date, Thursday, March 1, 1973. There appears on this page an article concerning an address made last night in Smiths Falls, Ontario, to the annual public meeting of the local Liberal association in that town by the special assistant to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), Reverend Gervais Black. The headline of the article and the article itself quote the special assistant to the Minister of Transport as referring to me as a "purveyor of hatred."
He-
Referring to me.
-is developing a reputation now ... throughout the country as . .. the number one purveyor of hatred-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I take strong exception to such a statement which I believe goes beyond the bounds of all normal political criticism. I came to this House to represent the people of the good constituency of Leeds to the best of my ability and to do my best on behalf of my country as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am not a purveyor of hatred and I consider that such a statement is slanderous and reprehensible.


An hon. Member:: Sue him.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I ask that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for a full investigation of all the circumstances surrounding it. I trust that the Minister of Transport will now rise in the House and immediately disown any connection with such statements alleged to have been made by a member of his staff.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I fully realize that what I said about the Liberal party in the House on Monday last may have made them mad, but surely this goes beyond the bounds of normal political retaliation. This is a matter of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member gave somewhat late notice of his intention to raise this matter. He has referred to an article in a newspaper, which the Chair would like to read in due course. I think I should indicate to the hon. member that I have always had some doubts, based upon considerable precedents and jurisprudence, that statements made outside the House can be the basis of a question of privilege and of referral to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, although I think there are aspects of this case which are certainly worth looking into a little more closely. This the Chair will do on behalf of the House and of the hon. member.


Mr. Nielsen:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister was about to rise, and in order to give him the opportunity to create a wholesome atmosphere in the House I think he should be permitted to reply.



Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege based on a statement made in the House yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), at which time he misinformed the House concerning certain provisions in the Canada-United States automotive agreement. The minister is reported at page 1751 of yesterday's Hansard as referring to "the so-called safeguards" as being "transitional measures introduced at the start of the auto pact..."
The minister knows that in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement of 1965 there were certain key provisions known as safeguards which, among other things, made it mandatory for automotive companies in Canada, in order to be eligible for certain tax remissions to do a certain percentage of production in Canada. These safeguards, Mr. Speaker, are not anywhere in the pact referred to as being transitional in nature. Indeed, they are embedded deeply in the core of the pact itself. Therefore, Sir, if you agree that this is a legitimate question of privilege and that the minister has misinformed the House I will move that this matter be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has filed with the Chair notice of his intention to bring this matter to the attention of the House under terms of Standing Order 17.
The hon. member claims that a statement made to the House yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in reply to a question is incorrect and that it is his right to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or some other committee of the House as a breach of parliamentary privilege. I refer the hon. member to citation 113 of Beau-chesne, Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the House. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament.
And later in the same citation:
... a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
The hon. member suggests or claims that the minister has misinformed the House. This in itself, even were it so and even if the information given by the minister were not correct, could not be the subject of a question of privilege for consideration by a committee.

March 1, 1973


MR. NYSTROM-ANNOUNCEMENT BY DEFEATED LIBERAL CANDIDATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF LOCAL INITIATIVES PROJECTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice under provisions of Standing Order 17(2) to pursue a matter of privilege that I feel infringes upon my rights as a Member of Parliament as well as those of all members of the House.
It was brought to my attention this morning that the former candidate for the Liberal party in the October 30 election in the constituency of Yorkton-Melville has notified some successful applicants for local initiatives projects that their applications have been approved before they were officially notified by officials of the local initiatives program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The same old gang over there.


Mr. Hees:: Pork barrel politics!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have also been informed, Mr. Speaker, that this practice has been carried on in some other constituencies which I do not think I should name at this time.
I genuinely feel that this sort of activity infringes upon the rights of all members of the House regardless of political party. Programs such as the local initiatives program are designed with the taxpayers' money to provide jobs and ought not to become a private political vehicle for defeated Liberal candidates no matter how desperate they may feel.
If Your Honour finds that I have a legitimate question of privilege I would move that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has also forwarded the notice required by Standing Order 17. This has given the Chair an opportunity to ponder this situation and to be prepared to give an opinion to the House which I hope will be acceptable.
The hon. member suggests in his notice, as well as the remarks he has just placed on record, that certain announcements of certain government projects are a breach of parliamentary privilege. The definition of parliamentary privilege found in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice has often been quoted in the House. To paraphrase the citation, the particular privileges of the Commons are the sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual members as against the prerogatives of the Crown and the authority of the courts. In other words, parliamentary privilege is what places members of the House in a special category and gives them special rights so as to exercise freely their responsibilities in the Commons.
I doubt that the special status granted by parliamentary privilege can be extended to cover the situation of which the hon. member complains. Members know the distinction between privilege and grievance. An hon. member may have a very legitimate complaint or grievance about certain actions of the government, of members of the
Privilege
public service, of the press or of individual citizens. This cannot always be deemed to constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege. In this instance I would find that while the hon. member may have a grievance I cannot conclude that there is a legitimate prima facie case of privilege. In the circumstances, I would not think that the hon. member would expect the Chair to put the motion and have a debate on whether this matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages copies of the report of the commission of inquiry into the disturbances at Kingston Penitentiary during the month of April, 1971, commonly referred to as the Swackhamer report.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter that deserves immediate attention.
In view of the growing concern of agricultural producers in eastern Canada about the government's slowness in introducing legislation leading to a fair solution of the feed grain question, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the government take immediate steps to insure that producers in eastern Canada may at all times buy feed grain at the same prices as western producers, and that the Canadian Wheat Board be placed under the Minister of Agriculture's jurisdiction.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse. This motion is put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put, since there is not unanimous consent.

March 1, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 CONSUMER AFFAIRS


SUGGESTION THAT COMPENSATED DISCOUNT BE ALLOWED ON FOOD PURCHASES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43,1 would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion concerning an extremely urgent subject which involves all Canadians.
The catastrophic increase in food products prices in the last ten years will soon result in a situation where only the rich and the well-to-do will be able to afford quality food products. I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe):
That this House do study the possibility of creating a compensated discount on essential consumer products so that the level of food products be brought down according to the financial means of all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion presented by the hon. member for Abitibi under Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT. 1971 PROVISION FOR ASSISTANCE BY LABOUR ORGANIZATIONS TO UNORGANIZED WORKERS WISHING TO APPEAL BOARDS OF REFEREES' DECISIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-154, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this bill would eliminate the discrimination against those who are unorganized and desire to appeal boards of referees' decisions to the umpires. At the present time they are denied the advantage of the advice of labour councils and trade unions, which they may need and seek.


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

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the future of employment in the Canadian automotive industry. This important matter arises from a statement made yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) in which he described-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the terms of Standing Order 26 the hon. member may indicate what the matter is without argument. He may only put on record the notice he has submitted to the Chair. If he has only a few more words he will be allowed to complete his statement.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-in which he described the production safeguards in the Canada-United States automotive agreement as being "transitional" only.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has given notice of his intention to seek the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the subject matter of a statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Substantially, this is the same problem as that on which an adjournment was sought yesterday by the hon. member for Halton. It was indicated yesterday that the Chair has to take into account opportunities for debate within a reasonable time. The comments made in connection with the motion proposed by the hon. member for Halton under Standing Order 26 apply substantially to the motion proposed today by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. In the circumstances, I believe that the Chair would not be justified in putting to the House a motion which would set aside today's business under government orders for the purpose of an emergency debate under Standing Order 26.
I realize that this is a matter which is of the utmost concern to the House. I trust, however, that in the course of the coming days there will be a number of opportunities to debate it, both in the House and in a committee.



March 1, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Foster:: Nice to see you back.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thought there would be more applause from the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister state what his authority is, other than statements of United States government officials, for saying that the provisions in the auto pact which we have all regarded as safeguards are, to use his term, transitional measures? Can the minister quote a section of the act or point to any part of the agreement to support his statement?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in referring yesterday to the phrase "transitional provisions" the words I used, I think, were "in the language of the act". I inadvertently misled the House with respect to that particular phrase.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: What I should have said was "in the language of the negotiators of the agreement".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has referred to the views of the negotiators rather than the language of the auto pact, I wish to ask the minister to what these transitional measures refer? Were these measures transitional to an agreement, an auto pact without safeguards, or transitional to an agreement providing a common market for automobiles in North America?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think the agreement makes the purposes of the auto pact very clear. What I was referring to and hoped to make clear was that the Canadian content provisions or the Canadian value-added provisions, are based on the year 1964. In that year the Canadian value added was $780 million. Last year, 1972, the Canadian value added was very close to $2 billion. I was pointing out that I did not see how we could regard those Canadian value-added provisions, based on 1964, as a safeguard in the sense of maintaining employment today at current levels.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: A poor alibi.
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I expect others will pursue the minister along that line. In light of his statement in the House yesterday that there were no safeguards in the auto pact, that they were simply transitional measures, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman in what sense his view of the auto pact and the negotiations differs from that being adopted by representatives of the United States.


Alastair William Gillespie: Obviously, I cannot honestly speak for the United States, but I will say that from the point of view of the Canadian government we regard the auto pact as a very successful pact. In the eight years it has been in existance sales have increased 37 per cent, production is up 120 per cent and employment is up 41 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: -or very close to 100,000 new jobs, and we intend to keep it that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I recognize that the minister is not obliged to give direct answers to questions put to him in the House, but that does not give him any excuse for putting a lot of propaganda before us.


Mr. Trudeau:: Was there no propaganda in the question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister this question. To what kind of agreement does he regard these transitional measures as being transitional?


Alastair William Gillespie: I put it to the Leader of the Opposition: would he be satisfied with a safeguard which-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Alastair William Gillespie: -operated 40 per cent below existing levels? I am not satisfied with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Just answer the question.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUIREMENT THAT MANUFACTURERS MUST MAINTAIN MINIMUM PRODUCTION LEVEL TO OBTAIN TARIFF EXEMPTION
John Edward Broadbent: Bearing in mind that perhaps the most crucial of the four safeguards embodied in the pact is the requirement that in order to gain exemption from certain tariff provisions manufacturers in Canada must maintain a certain minimum level of production, whatever it may be, will the minister assure the House that the government has no intention of abandoning that provision in principle?


Alastair William Gillespie: I assure the House that we shall do everything we can to expand the job opportunities represented by the auto pact. As to the particular point made by the hon. member, the level set is so low that I am not prepared to accept that it is a satisfactory one, and I do not think

March 1, 1973
Oral Questions
hon. members generally would be prepared to accept it, either.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are still getting misinformation. Having regard to the wording of article one of the pact to the effect that both countries are to share on a fair and equitable basis in future expansion of automotive production in Canada and the United States, can the minister assure the House that in the present negotiations he is pointing out to the Americans that we are currently producing at a lower level than we are actually consuming in terms of automotive production and that therefore the minimum requirement in terms of implementation now expected from the companies should be raised and not lowered or abandoned?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have been informed on that latter point that we are in fact producing at a higher level than this particular provision of the act requires.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-PRESENT NECESSITY OF SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Mr.   Terry@: If we are over-fulfilling the safeguard provisions of the act, is it the position of the minister and the government that the present safeguards are no longer necessary to protect production and employment in the Canadian automotive industry?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): I think I made it quite clear that in my view the Canadian value-added provision is not an adequate safeguard for Canadian jobs today. It operates at far too low a level. The effort of the government will be to provide for the future expansion of jobs and to secure future job opportunities for Canadians in any changes there may be in the auto pact. Let me make it clear we have made no changes in the auto pact and we have taken no decision to change any provisions in the auto pact.


Mr. O'Connor:: In that case, would the minister advise the House as to the types of new safeguards he is considering to further protect Canadian production and employment?


Alastair William Gillespie: Those are the kind of provisions which would, I think, be subject to negotiation and I do not believe it would be in the interest of negotiating any changes successfully if we were to discuss them at this time.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-CANADIAN POSITION ON UNITED STATES WISH TO REMOVE SAFEGUARDS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I pose this question to the minister. In view of the fact he was a private member of the House before he was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and must have heard discussions across the floor to the effect that negotiations were in progress and that the auto pact was one of the trade irritants, as they were called, and that United States negotiators were seeking to remove some of the safe-

guards, may I ask the minister whether it is still the case that United States negotiators are seeking to remove the safeguards-whatever he may think of them they seem to think they are important-and, if so, what is his position?


Alastair William Gillespie: There have been no recent negotiations with the United States respecting these provisions so I cannot add to the record in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on a supplementary and then recognize a questioner from the party across the aisle.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that until recently United States officials made it clear that they intend to continue to press for the removal of the safeguards from the auto pact, can the minister now assure the House that the government will continue to maintain the position that while the safeguards might be improved they will in no circumstances be abandoned?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am certainly interested in seeing them improved, and that will be the position of the government. If there is any change with respect to these provisions, it will be to improve them so as to make them more workable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Oza Tetrauli (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Is the minister aware of advertisements in the press inviting pregnant women to get a legal abortion in Montreal or at low cost in New York clinics? If so, has the minister made any inquiries to determine whether this is contrary to the provisions of the abortion legislation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: These particular advertisements have not been brought to my attention, but similar ones have and I am looking into them.


POSSIBILITY OF IMPROPER USE OF MAILS TO PROMOTE ABORTION
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary for the Postmaster General. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he has given consideration to the possibility of the mails having been improperly used to promote this illegal activity?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the situation.
March 1, 1973


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister responsible for immigration. The other day I gave him notice of a peculiar situation existing in Canada inasmuch as visitors are being smuggled into the United States in consequence of the hardship suffered by many of them by reason of the November 3 cut-off date. Has the minister had an opportunity of looking into this matter and has he had any consultations with United States authorities. If so, what has been the result of such meetings?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have not got the results of the report that I asked for following the hon. member's question the other day, but when I have the information I will convey it to him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's concern and I hope he will make a statement as soon as the information is available. There is another problem that seems to be bothering foreign students-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the question is not supplementary the hon. member should be recognized later for his second question. If it is not supplementary I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with immigration and therefore it is supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that that might be stretching the point a bit. I will recognize a supplementary to the first question and then go to the other question that the hon. member would like to bring to the attention of the same minister. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


APPLICATION FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS BY VISITORS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the minister's statement a few days ago expressing his desire to deal compassionately with certain visitors in Canada who may be eligible for landed immigrant status, the November 3 regulations notwithstanding, will the minister send to his departmental officials the same information he sent to me in a recent letter citing what circumstances might be acceptable so that his officials might be able to deal with these cases with knowledge of the positive feeling of the minister?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be going full circle. I am sure they are aware of the contents of the letter that I sent to the hon. gentleman.
Oral Questions


OPPORTUNITY OF FOREIGN STUDENTS TO OBTAIN WORK
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the minister the problem of foreign students which seems to have been exaggerated as a result of the November 3 cut-off and the need for work permits. The students do not quite know where they stand. Has the minister reviewed this matter in order to relieve any hardship, and can he assure the House that there will be no obstacles unduly placed in the way of these students to prevent them from gaining employment, as they have in the past?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have circulated the details of the exemption for foreign students from the employment visa requirements. I will not go into full details here except to say that all are exempted except foreign students who came here on their own. These came under circumstances that indicated that they were self-sufficient and self-supporting. Nevertheless, we are reviewing that situation as well. Even under the present regulations, if they apply for jobs in Canada which are jobs that cannot be filled by Canadians, there is no obstacle preventing foreign students from taking that work. However, we are looking a little farther behind this once more with regard to foreign students who were here before the employment visa system was introduced in early January.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the emergency situation that exists, with many of these students soon leaving school and seeking summer employment, and the need for some direction from the government immediately, would the minister at least assure me that he will reach his conclusions in the very near future and publicize them to the several universities, colleges, etc. so there will be ample time for these students to know what is happening on the government's side?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated we will be doing this directly through some of the representatives who came to see me.


AGRICULTURE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and it has to do with the agreement that was entered into between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan when the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands was premier of that province in connection with the construction of the South Saskatchewan River dam. Among the provisions in the agreement was one to the effect that a minimum number of acres within a certain period of time should have completed irrigation. The government of Saskatchewan has now broken that agreement, and I ask the minister what he is going to do about it. Is he going to call on the government

March 1, 1973
Oral Questions
of Saskatchewan to live up to its agreement, and what discussions have taken place so far with that government?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally that familiar with this agreement but I will look into the matter, as the right hon. gentleman suggests, and provide him with what I hope will be a satisfactory answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to break up this beautiful relationship between the Liberal party and the NDP, but in view of the fact that the banns have not yet been published, I hope that for the benefit of the province of Saskatchewan some action will be taken.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-EXPROPRIATION OF LAND-MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF ' iEFERENCE OF COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it has to do with the inquiry announced in conjunction with the decision to expropriate land for the Pickering airport. Will the minister report what progress is being made, if any, on the selection of the chairman and the membership of the inquiry?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to choose from a rather extensive list of possible candidates and when we have reached a decision as to which candidates we shall propose, we shall discuss it with the province of Ontario.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question with particular reference to the latter part of his answer. Have the terms of reference been set for the committee, and is the government of the province of Ontario now co-operating by making the inquiry sufficiently broad as to involve all planning considerations for the region?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of defining the mandate of this commission. I trust that within a few days we will be in a position to inform the Ontario government of it.


PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-RELEASE OF SURROUNDING LAND FROM MINISTERIAL ORDER
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is carrying on his present plans, would he inform the House whether he has been in touch with the government of Ontario to inform them which of the 70,000 acres surrounding the proposed airport that were frozen may be released from the ministerial order of March 1, 1972, which was put on

at the request of the minister on the understanding that it would not be required for longer than four months?


Jean Marchand: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the expropriated area which could be handed over to the interested parties was defined in the news release, and that the information was also transmitted to the Ontario government.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister would make a statement on motions, either tomorrow or on Monday, in which he would give the government's views on the present and continuing international monetary crisis, in view of this week's assaults on the dollar and the rumour that the Common Market countries are going to float their currencies, and on what is going to happen to the Canadian dollar, whether it is going to go down with the U.S. dollar or be allowed to float upwards?


Mr. Drury:: Where is your crystal ball?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my partner for his support. I do not think the House would want me to speculate on the future of the Canadian dollar, for obvious reasons. At the moment the Canadian dollar is stable and in rough parity with that of the United States. While it is true that today the markets in Europe are finding the U.S. dollar under considerable pressure, if the situation reaches the stage described by the hon. member I would, of course, consider his suggestion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could have a statement so that the minister could expose all the circumstances that he feels proper to put before the House and so the House would be able to comment on them as well as on the nature of Canada's U.S. holdings and their, shall I say, frozen state?


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I asked a similar question a couple of weeks ago when he was absent, and I am glad to see him back and now in good health. His parliamentary secretary said at the time that the Indians in Kamloops are quite O.K. I should like to ask the minister how the hearing is coming in Kamloops and if things are O.K. there, where the Indian people have been deprived of
March 1, 1973

their welfare payments and so on? Can the minister report on that matter?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister can give the House a quick report or reply to the question briefly, but the hon. member is inviting the minister to give a reply that ought normally to be made on motions. However, the minister will be given the floor for the purpose of replying briefly to the question.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will give an answer later to the hon. member. I am not in a position to give him any details at this point because it would take too long, but I will keep him posted on the situation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of persistent reports that the government intends to abolish traditional ranks and titles in the Royal Canadian Navy and replace them with their army equivalents, would the minister advise the House whether the government is considering such a move or intends to take such action?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no change in that regard.


George Harris Hees: I know there is no change so far, but does the government intend to take such action or is it considering such action? Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps before rephrasing the question the hon. member might allow the minister to reply.


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker; no such change is contemplated.


FINANCES
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, if I may have his attention.
In the release issued jointly with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on January 12, 1973, the minister told us of the investment fund program for winter works. Can he inform us now whether local initiatives projects refused for lack of funds, or at least those accepted by the
Oral Questions
provinces or municipalities can be granted through the $350 million municipal-provincial fund?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if a municipality accepts a project approved by the provincial government, and which fills the terms of the contract, such project can be approved, but I am unable to answer unless I have all the particulars of a specific project.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix on a supplementary.


Gilles Caouette: Since the funds do come from the Minister of Finance, can he guarantee that he will make representations to the provinces in order that some of the local initiatives projects which have been rejected may be reviewed?


John Napier Turner: I believe on principle the matter is left to the discretion of the provinces. At any rate, I shall study the question. If I have any authority, I shall communicate with the hon. member.


MANPOWER
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
On two previous occasions the hon. Minister of Finance stated in reply to my questions that he would consider whether it was possible to increase funds allocated to local initiatives programs. Has he completed his study and is he in a position to announce whether further local initiatives programs can be approved?


John Napier Turner: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-ANNOUNCEMENT BY DEFEATED LIBERAL CANDIDATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECTS-DEPARTMENTAL POLICY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is further to the privilege I raised earlier regarding the Liberal candidate in my riding notifying applicants that their applications under the local initiatives program have been accepted. I should like to ask the minister whether it is the policy of his department to have former Liberal candidates announce such successful programs and, if so, are his officials acting upon instructions from the minister?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker, they are not acting under my instructions. I have had some indications that this sort

March 1, 1973
Oral Questions
of thing has taken place, including announcements by members of different provincial governments of other political stripes, where they have had the opportunity to approve various projects, long before we did.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, normally I would not direct this question to the Prime Minister but time is of the essence. In the absence of the Secretary of State I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of representations received from Canadians from all corners of Canada, the deadline for receiving Opportunities for Youth applications will be extended beyond today, March 1?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question of my hon. friend, I would say the deadline will not be extended because those who complied with the law and whose projects are now in the hands of civil servants would not want a decision delayed by a new extension. Granting another extension is therefore out of the question.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact there are many groups of students in remote areas of Canada who have not heard about the deadline date, would the Prime Minister reconsider the matter and discuss with the Secretary of State the possibility of extending the date for receiving applications under the Opportunites for Youth program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more useful to look into the premise of the question and find out why this information has not been conveyed to the students.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the minister's letter to me as well as to my colleagues under date of February 26 in which he requested our ideas about possible improvements to the income tax forms, has the minister now concluded that the expensive advertising campaign using Fred Davis was misleading, that the new forms are not that much easier than they look, and is he now prepared to abolish this Davis waste of taxpayers' money?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may agree with me that the question as asked is in the form of a representation rather than that of a question.


QUESTIONNAIRE TO FARMERS ON FORM OF PAYMENT PREFERRED FOR WHEAT USED DOMESTICALLY
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Did he personally authorize the questionnaire which went out to 180,000 farmers asking them about the method in which they wished to have payments made for wheat used domestically?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I then ask the minister why farmers are asked to finance a questionnaire intended to answer political questions which should be properly answered by the Liberal party?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make clear to the hon. member that the implication of his question, and that of another member the other day, that this is somehow being paid for by the farmers is quite wrong. It is part of the general government administrative costs. It has often been said in this House that it is important for us to consult with farmers and farm organizations on important matters. In this case there was a significant difference of view among farm organizations and I thought I should take this rather straightforward and simple question to the farmers directly. I am surprised that the hon. member is objecting to that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is simply that the minister in his capacity as the minister who answers in the House for the Canadian Wheat Board is exercising a privilege that is not afforded to members of other parties in the House and in doing so is using funds not properly funds of the government but funds of the farmers. This is money that has been accumulated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is hardly a question of privilege. It seems to me it is a question of debate with the minister. I do not want to prevent his making that point, but at first glance it does not appear to me to be a question of privilege.


Stanley James Korchinski: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, naturally one is interested in the returns that are being received. One hundred and eighty thousand were sent out, there being no referendum in our country in effect. Is the minister now in a position to let the House know the
March 1, 1973

progress that has been made up to the present time, the numbers that have replied and the nature of their replies, because the House is entitled to that information? It should not be the private property of the Liberal party.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do intend to make a report to the House after the polls have closed.


An hon. Member:: It is two to one for the Liberals so far.


John George Diefenbaker: I would hope he could answer earlier than that, because it will not be long before he will be over there to give an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. Perhaps we should try to go to the next question.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and it is not about the auto pact. Has the minister received representations from the Tanner's Association of Canada on behalf of the Canadian tanning industry that recent developments in that industry are threatening the jobs of 2,500 men and women engaged directly in the industry and another 20,000 or so affected indirectly by the possible collapse of that industry? What steps, if any, is he taking in regard to these representations?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from that association, I think, and from a number of other associations and private corporations in respect of this serious matter. It is under very active study by my department at present. When I have any measures to announce, I will announce them.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I should have given the minister notice. Has the anti-dumping tribunal reported to the government or to the minister on the submissions of the Tanner's Association to that body and, if so, is any action being taken on their report?


Alastair William Gillespie: I wonder whether the hon. member is referring to the inquiry with respect to the footwear industry, or is he referring to some other inquiry? If he is referring to the former, which issued from an anti-dumping finding with respect to footwear, I am still awaiting the report on the inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, the question I wanted to put has already been answered.
Oral Questions


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister tell the House when and where the consultation with the European prisoners of war will commence, and would he be prepared to lay the terms of reference for the consultations on the table?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. gentleman's question may I say that the inquiry is now in progress. A gentleman by the name of Dr. Hermann has undertaken it for us, and I had a consultation with him a few days ago: I would like to convey to the House some of the things he said to me. He has undertaken a review of the possible delayed effects of imprisonment upon Canadians who were prisoners of war in Europe during world war II. For the purposes of the study, the former prisoners are divided into four groups: Dieppe, northwest Europe, central Mediterranean, and air force plus navy.
He has drawn for review 1,826 Dieppe prisoners files, has a list of 2,000 Dieppe veterans who were not imprisoned, and is now preparing mailing lists in order to contact these persons. Data will also be gathered on 1,000 fit male civilians of similar age as of 1940. This will mean that he will have information on all three groups for purposes of comparison.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate very much to interrupt the minister, but I suspect he has almost reached the end of his statement. Normally, information of this nature should be given on motions.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we might seek to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to return to motions in view of the fact that this is very important information which deals with an important segment of our society. I think we should return to motions and allow the minister to complete his interesting statement, since there is no other opportunity to speak about veterans here.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated a moment ago, my suspicion was that the minister had just about reached the end of his statement. If he has not and if it is the wish of the House to hear the minister, he may complete his statement at this point without the necessity of returning to motions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had just about completed my statement. I have only a few words more.
It is expected that in about six months time Dr. Hermann will be in a position to discuss the meaningful results of the study and whether additional work will still be necessary. He recognizes that time is of the essence.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
March 1, 1973

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government knowledge of a telegram alleged to have been received from the kidnappers of James Cross in which they seek permission to return to Canada to appear before a board which would have the object of deciding whether they should be granted amnesty?


An hon. Member:: They want a LIP grant.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any such telegram.
* * +


AGRICULTURE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture of which I have given him notice. Has the Prince Edward Island Flue-cured Tobacco Growers Association been in communication with him regarding their dispute or misunderstanding with the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council arising from the fact that they are apparently about to be paid 14 cents a pound less for tobacco grown in Prince Edward Island than the council is paying for similar grades of tobacco in Ontario? If the minister or the department has been involved in this, could he say what the result has been?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, neither I nor the department has been directly contacted by the tobacco producers of Prince Edward Island, but they have met my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and had a discussion with him about their problem. I understand that he is awaiting some further documentation from these people so we can proceed to a proper investigation and take action if we can.


COMBINES
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it is with regard to this dispute. Has any inquiry, even in a preliminary way, been made to investigate whether or not the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, in dealing with the growers in Prince Edward Island, is acting in a fashion that is legal under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. As he knows, the practice has been not to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation, but I have asked my officials for a further report in order to see if I can provide any additional proper information to the hon. gentleman.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact the rules forbid asking for a legal opinion from the government, would the minister advise us what procedure to take in order to receive a legal opinion from the government?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think that may itself be asking for a legal opinion. Subject to that reservation, I would simply like to advise the hon. member that he is quite right in saying that it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to advise the government on legal matters but that persons otherwise seeking legal advice must see their own legal advisers.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, legislation passed by this House has not been administered by the responsible party in accordance with the legislation itself, and I have been trying every possible method, including questions in the House of different ministers, to find out why. I am not asking for a legal opinion directly from the minister or from any minister of the Crown. All I want to know is whether the government is in a position to give a legal opinion?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Don't all rise at once.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Selkirk.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Has he now received the report resulting from investigation of the damage done to HMCS Restigouche, which I understand was forwarded to him this week, and, if so, can he inform the House whether he will be making a statement on motions, based on that report, and will the report be made public?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the report has been received and is being considered.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Can the minister inform the House whether the report recommends legal action against the ship-
March 1, 1973

yard involved in the refit, and can he advise the House whether it contains evidence of deliberate damage being done to the ship, beyond that to the feedwater supply, such as screwdrivers being jammed in bearings and packings?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on the report until it has been considered.


INCOME TAX
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that T5 tax returns require a taxpayer to increase by one-third the actual dividends received from Canadian companies, can the minister offer a suitable explanation of why this should be?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, because it is provided for in the act which the House passed not too long ago, and because it is part of the law of many countries and provides for a better deal for the taxpayer with smaller taxable income.


William Charles Frank: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that this requirement automatically means that such taxpayers' returns show a higher income than actually received, does this in effect not show the said taxpayers as filing false returns?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that that is argument. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is seeking the floor for the purpose of replying to a question, but first I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain on a supplementary.


CHILD CARE EXPENSES-ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION IN APPLICATION OF PROVISION AS BETWEEN SEPARATED FATHERS AND WORKING MOTHERS
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of National Revenue, but prior to my putting the question to him I would like permission to apologize to you for my questioning of your recognition of members on the opposite side yesterday. I can assure you that this was not my intention. My supplementary has to do with discrimination, Mr. Speaker. It relates to section 31 of the government's crystal clear tax reform guide headed "Child Care Expenses." Could the minister inform the House if he is aware of the fact that a separated father must have a written agreement of separation from his wife before he becomes eligible to claim for child care expenses on his income tax form, while no such agreement is necessary for working mothers?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to see any dis-25789-41
Oral Questions
crimination of that kind in our administration, but I will have to check to see whether that is something that is required by the law. The Department of National Revenue is obliged to apply the law as parliament passes it, not as we would like it to be.


ACTION TO ENSURE TESTING OF DRUGS BY MANUFACTURERS TO DEMONSTRATE SAFETY AND EFFICACY
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on February 8 the hon. member for Simcoe North raised the question of adequate testing of drugs on the Canadian market, following press reports of questionable drug manufacturing practices in Montreal. I have now received the report I requested from my department and can confirm that the press reports in question were erroneous. The activities of the health protection branch, I am satisfied, do provide the needed assurance that drugs on the Canadian market are safe and effective, and I will be pleased to provide the hon. member with more details on this matter in writing.
* * #


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the minister indicated to the House that he would be giving more details today in respect of the escalation of a program designed to improve air navigational aids in the Canadian north. Having regard to the evidence presented at the Martin Hartwell inquest in Yellowknife, which described the non-directional beacon at Contwayto Lake as being weak and inadequate, is the minister prepared to make a statement in the House today, or can he indicate when such a statement will be forthcoming?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember having said that it would be today. I said I would make it in the House as soon as possible. Following the inquiry in the north I think it is very important that the whole system be revised and I hope to make a statement in 15 days, before March 15, on what we intend to do to correct the deficiencies in the system.


POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF IMPORT DUTY ON LOCATOR BEACONS AND CRASH POSITION INDICATORS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, and it also concerns the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the minister's announcement the other day, will the government give consideration to removing the import tax on emergency locator beacons, and on crash position

March 1, 1973
Oral Questions
indicators that are to be mandatorily installed in all aircraft flying in remote areas, as indicated by the minister, in the interests of safety and economy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned in the House that we have been in touch with manufacturers in Canada to see if the locators can be fabricated here in Canada, and at what price. It is difficult to answer the question before having received and studied the report.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what will be the business for the rest of this week and next week.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, before mentioning the business for the rest of this week, may I inform the House that it has been agreed that private members hour today be devoted to a discussion of the Interparliamentary Union meeting and, if that can be regarded as agreed, maybe it could be made an order of the House later.
Today and tomorrow we will call the old age security legislation followed by the War Veterans Allowance legislation. Monday and Tuesday next will be opposition days, and notwithstanding the progress that might be made on the legislative items, on Wednesday I would like to call the reference of various matters to the Procedure and Organization Committee so that hon. members may have a chance to air some of their views with respect to the operations and procedures of the House. On Thursday next I will call the uncompleted legislative items that I have mentioned today.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a supplementary question, is the government House leader able to give us any indication of when the leftovers from the 1972 budget, in which there is some passing interest, will be introduced, that is, provided the Minister of Finance, in his negotiations with his friends to my left, has reached the stage where he knows in what form he will be allowed to bring them into the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the only negotiations that take place with my hon. friends across the floor, both to my right and to my left, take place in the presence of my hon. friend who has asked this question. I would hope to call the 1972 budget bills at an early date.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On February 12 the Minister of

Public Works replied to my written question to the effect that the government had exercised an option to purchase 14 acres of land for part of the proposed Toronto waterfront park promised during the election campaign. The minister referred to some $9.7 million to purchase this land as being committed from the Department of Public Works estimates, yet neither the main estimates for 197374 tabled a week ago Tuesday nor the supplementary estimates for 1972-73 nor the main estimates for 1972-73 refer to this item. It is quite impossible to prepare for discussion of the estimates without knowing where this item is. Would the minister indicate whether he has misled the House in reply to my question or where I could find that particular item?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have not misled the House. I believe this will be found in subsequent estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Subsequent?


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I tried to raise the question of privilege earlier.
I only wanted to reiterate the remark of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) that the bell was not ringing last night in our corridor and, in view of the present political situation that could obviously have been disastrous for government members.


Mr. Hellyer:: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Public Works would be good enough to clarify the answer that he just gave to the House in reply to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member I am sure will appreciate that this is hardly a question of privilege. I allowed the hon. member's previous question which in my view was not a question of privilege but I thought, in fairness to him, and since he had tried to get the floor before, that I should be mute on the point and allow the minister to reply. I am sure the hon. member for Trinity would agree, however, that what he is bringing to the attention of the Chair is hardly a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as a question of privilege or a point of order, I think it is now a matter of privilege affecting all members of this House. If I understood the minister correctly, he told the House that the government of Canada has expended some several millions of dollars without parliamentary approval. If that is what he meant to tell the House, that the government of Canada has spent millions of dollars without authorization from this House and only in future will estimates be presented to the House, then it is, in fact, a question of privilege affecting every single member of the House.
March 1, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is a question, Mr. Speaker, which strikes at the very principle of parliamentary control.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a matter which goes back hundreds of years in the constitutional system under which we operate. This government with, its usual arrogant demeanour, during the election campaign commits itself to expenditures and then, Mr. Speaker, it spends the money without any parliamentary approval or authority whatsoever. If that is not a bona fide question of privilege affecting all members of the House I should like to know what is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-147, 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, the bill that is now before the House for second reading proposes the largest single increase in the basic old age security pension that has ever been made since the inception of this particular program over 20 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I feel all the more privileged that the very first bill I have the honour to propose for the consideration of parliament is one which aims at substantially improving the economic condition of those 1.8 million senior citizens to whom Canada owes so much for making it what it is today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I, for one, am thinking of my 86 year old mother and my 81 year old father who all their lives worked extremely hard for their family's livelihood on a farm in Quebec and who, like all those of their time, gave everything they had for the raising and education of their children. In their humble way, they made Canada a country in which one is proud to live.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Old Age Security Act


Marc Lalonde: Consequently, it is a great honour for me, Mr. Speaker, to move that Bill C-147 be read a second time. With this measure, a Liberal government shows once more its deep concern for the plight of aged persons in Canada. For the eighth time since 1950, a Liberal Minister of National Health and Welfare has proposed an improvement in the benefits paid to our older people. Since 1966, the total amount set aside by Liberal governments for old age security has increased from 1 billion to 2.9 billion- almost a threefold increase in less than seven years.

In this bill we are proposing to raise the basic old age security pension to $100 a month for all pensioners effective April 1, 1973. Including the cost of living adjustment that was provided for in last year's budget, this will mean an increase of $17.12 a month or $205 a year, an increase of over 20 per cent for every old age recipient in this country. Once more this represents the largest single increase in the pension for all old persons that has ever been made in the history of the old age security program.
In 1957 the pension was increased by $15 in two stages by two different governments. In 1962, it was raised by $10, in 1963 it was raised again by $10 and then 1967 the $30 guaranteed income supplement was added for those people with no other income. This supplement was raised by $21.39 in April, 1971 and by $12.12 in January, 1972. The increase we are now proposing, together with the normal escalation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, will mean a total increase of $20.14 a month for those aged persons who have no other source of income.
By this measure we will be offering a guaranteed annual income to persons over 65 who can meet the residency requirement of $2,040 if they are single and $3,895 for a married couple.

In addition to these measures on behalf of aged persons, a number of other steps have been taken in the income tax field to improve the lot of old age pensioners. Before the adoption of the recent tax reform measures, about
1.350.000	pensioners were required to pay income tax, including many of those in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement. When the Guaranteed Income Supplement was defined as non-taxable income about half a million pensioners were removed from the tax rolls. The increase in basic personal tax exemptions from $1,000 to $1,500 removed another 130,000 pensioners from the rolls, and the decision to raise the special exemption for aged persons from $500 to $650 and to make it available at age 65 instead of age 70 meant that another 150,000 pensioners became exempt from income tax. It is expected that raising the special exemption from $650 to $1,000, as proposed in the budget speech of May 1972 will remove an extra
75.000	pensioners from the tax rolls. This will mean that only about half a million pensioners-compared with 1,350,000-will be subject to income tax as a result of these tax modifications. When coupled with the cumulative benefit increases that have been provided, it will be readily seen, Mr. Speaker, that this government has considerably improved the economic condition of persons 65 years of age and over in the course of the last two years.

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
It has been suggested by some writers that this measure which we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, is a "paltry increase", amounting only to $13.39 a month more than would have been paid next April in any event. It has also been criticized for "leaving OAS recipients below the poverty line." Such comments show the authors' complete misunderstanding of the way the program works. Those people who have no other source of income will get $170 a month at the single rate or $325 a month at the married rate; in all about 500,000 people are in this category. Another 550,000 old people are entitled to partial benefits, ranging for single people from $169 a month down to $101 a month, depending on the levels of their income from other sources. The remaining 750,000 old people who already have incomes above $1,700 if they are single, or $3,000 if they are married to other pensioners, or $4,600 if they are married to non-pensioners, will none the less get $100 a month Old Age Security pension on top of these sums. It is hard to understand how it is that these people are considered to be "still left below the poverty line." And it is incomprehensible how an increase of $20 a month can be called a "paltry increase," especially when it follows on the heels of last year's $15 a month increase.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to remind hon. members of the important role that the Old Age Security program plays in Canada's income security system for the aged. It is the foundation on which many other plans have been built. In a sense old people in Canada have a three-tiered system of income security, with the OAS pension providing the base for all who meet the residence requirements. The middle tier is provided by the Canada Pension Plan/Quebec Pension Plan for those who have contributed to one of those plans; through them a retirement pension related to their past earnings is available for them. The third tier is the pension provided by private pension plans at one's place of work; it may be stacked on top of, or integrated with, the other two. But the foundation is the basic OAS pension; if anything were done to destroy or diminish it, the whole retirement structure would suffer as a result.
During the recent election campaign, and in discussions and statements made since that time, a number of criticisms have been directed at the OAS program. These generally were of two types. Some were directed at the actual amount of the benefits provided, while others called for a change in the basic structure of the program.
Many proposals were made for increasing the amount of the benefits provided under the plan. There were some opposition critics who suggested, or seemed to suggest, that the income-related part of it should be removed and replaced by a universal benefit payable to rich and poor alike. Instead of paying $82.88 a month to all aged persons, rich and poor alike, and $150 to those with no other income, it was said that all should be given $150 a month, that we should give those who are better off the same as those who have nothing. To do this we estimate would cost about $800 million more this year alone.
Other critics, who will recognize themselves easily, suggested that the principle of an income-related supplement was a reasonable one, but that the basic benefit payable to

all aged persons should be raised, to recognize the rise in prices since 1967 when the supplement was first paid. To this end, it was suggested that Old Age Security should be raised to a mere $92 or $95 a month.
More recently, a pensioner's organization recommended a series of changes, including the payment of a $150 a month pension for all aged persons over 65, the extension of the existing OAS pension to people at age 60, and a guaranteed annual income of $6,000 a year for an aged couple, or $3,000 a year for a single pensioner over 65. These proposals would cost the federal treasury several billion dollars extra each year.
I am leaving aside a few other proposals to do with benefits to be paid; they range from payments of over $100 a month to larger amounts. Other proposals that have been made from time to time have dealt with the structure of the OAS program, the age at which pensions become payable or the frequency with which benefits are escalated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question? What did he propose during the election?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will have plenty of time to ask questions after I have made my speech. It is very nice to see him today after his absence. I am sure he will have plenty of time for his questions. Some people have suggested that a special pension should be provided for the spouses of pensioners in cases where the spouse is not yet 65.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish the minister would tell us what he proposed during the campaign.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, let the Leader of the Opposition be a little patient. I will deal with his proposals before long. Moreover, I have already talked about some of his proposals for paying either $92 or $95 a month. I hope he recognized those as his own proposals.


An hon. Member:: Keep your cool.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I still hope the minister tells us what he proposed during the election.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition just now. I intend to continue with my speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Tell us what you said during the election campaign.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall continue. A man retires at 65 and goes on pension, but if his wife is not yet 65, both of them may have to live on a single pension. Depending on the nature of this special pension, if it were confined to spouses aged 60 to 64 it would entail an extra outlay of from $65 million to $150 million next year. This proposal seems very sensible at first glance.


Mr. Benjamin:: Right.


Marc Lalonde: It raises an important question about the priorities that should be attached to various proposals for
March 1, 1973

improving the structure of social security in Canada. I will come back to this matter in a few minutes.
There are those people who have suggested that not only spouses of pensioners, but all persons aged 60 to 64 should be entitled to a guaranteed income of $150 a month. It is estimated that this would cost at least $330 million if the whole benefit were income tested, or about $800 million if only $70 a month covered by GIS were income tested. If this benefit were brought into line with the new OAS/GIS rates, the ones we are proposing for adoption under this bill, the additional cost would be over $1 billion. Such a benefit would recognize the needs of the prematurely aged and the chronically unemployed who are a charge on provincial social assistance between the ages of 60 and 65.
It is maintained by some proponents of this approach that it would help solve the high unemployment levels we now face by freeing jobs for younger people. Several experts argue that there would be only a negligible effect on employment levels. Those with adequate incomes would probably not quit their jobs to collect the full OAS/GIS of $170 a month. Those with smaller incomes would not need to quit cheir jobs but could count on a partial OAS/GIS payment to supplement their earnings. There may be a few low-paid workers in difficult or unsatisfying jobs who might be glad to retire early; it is not so obvious that these jobs would be readily filled from the ranks of the unemployed. However, it is reasonable to expect that those in this age group now without work might stop looking for work and thus somewhat reduce the overall rate of unemployment.

Some hon. members have suggested that the age of eligibility for the OAS pension should be lowered to 60, and that the pension should automatically be granted to both spouses when one has reached 60.
Mr. Speaker, there are 830,000 people in the age group 60 to 64. In addition there are 320,000 spouses under 60 of people who are over 60. The implementation of such a measure would add 1,150,000 persons to the OAS rolls. At $100 a month each, it would cost $1.38 billion to pay them the OAS pension. If in addition they were to be granted the GI supplement, the costs of this proposal would rise to $1.48 billion.

There was also a proposal that escalation of old age pensions be speeded up, supposedly because annual escalation entails too long a delay before price increases are reflected in pension payments. From an administrative point of view, monthly escalation of benefits would be a nightmare, and I was amazed to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) entertain such a thought during the last election campaign. The OAS/GIS system is not sufficiently flexible to produce an adjustment each month. A battery of clerks would be needed to establish entitlement every month based on a new set of eligibility tables each month. The time interval between the completion of the printing of cheques in one month and the start of the printing in the following month would be too short to permit the necessary adjustments to be made. The
Old Age Security Act
process would be slowed down, and overpayments or underpayments would become much more likely. A monthly escalation provision would mean that the processing of one million applications for annual renewal be condensed into a one-month period. The extra administrative costs entailed in such a program would be substantial.
Similar problems would be encountered with the proposal of quarterly escalation. It is surprising to say the least to hear those people who criticized the FISP proposal because of its potentially high costs of administration, ready to support the high administrative costs of such an OAS/GIS plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Again the question of social priorities must be raised. In view of the needs of poor families, disabled persons and others, it is doubtful that such a move is the most effective way to spend the additional sums of money that would be required.

On February 2, I called a meeting of welfare ministers to discuss these various proposals and to seek the provinces' views on the most appropriate course of action from their point of view. There was a very clear consensus that this was not the time to be changing the structure of the old age pension program. The provincial ministers did not favour at this time extending benefits to spouses, or bringing in the age group 60 to 64, or changing the $1 for $2 reduction formula, or trying to speed up the escalation process. All such changes they regarded as stop-gap measures that would be typical of the piece-meal approach that has been taken for so many years in revising the income security system. Without exception, they called for an integrated approach that would look at the whole system at once and determine where the greatest priorities should lie. They agreed that the needs of pensioners' spouses and of low-income people aged 60 to 65 be reviewed, but at the same time that the needs of low-income families, disabled persons, and other needy groups in the population were being considered. Referring to their own social assistance programs, the provinces are convinced that several groups of needy people in the population have needs at least equal to those of aged persons, and yet their levels of assistance are much below the benefits available to aged couples. In these matters, Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with my provincial colleagues.
During their conference in Victoria in November 1972, the provincial ministers had agreed that "the compensation of family expenses related to children, the rehabilitation of the poor through personal development and the provision of effective work incentives are matters of the greatest urgency". They therefore asked for a federal-provincial conference "to discuss social policy on a comprehensive basis".
At the February 2 conference the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs discussed this point in some detail. He said:
In our opinion the matter has much more scope than the mere consideration of the group of old age people and those between 60 and 65 years of age.

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
The Ontario minister said:
Social policy needs must be discussed immediately and on a comprehensive basis ... What we must now fully realize and accept is the urgent need to devise an overall integrated approach in this area.
Non-governmental agencies have also been urging such an integrated approach. In its statement "Social Policies for Canada" in 1969 the Canadian Welfare Council recommended that "the federal and provincial governments, in concert, should undertake a nation-wide study of Canada's social security system." Only in this way, it said, can we "achieve a more integrated and satisfactory system of social security."
As a result of our discussions it was agreed that the federal government should not at this time move to change the structure of the OAS system as we have it now, and that any such changes should only be considered as part of the overall review of the whole income security system. We should embark on such an overall review immediately and hold a first conference by the end of April.
Only then can we get a proper perspective on all those people who live in poverty rather than selected groups like the spouses of old age pensioners.
Mr. Speaker, the approach the provinces are pressing on this Parliament is directly in line with the third principle enunciated in the Speech from the Throne which called for "a fair and just relationship" between the guaranteed incomes for people who cannot work, such as the aged, and the allowances paid to those who can work but are unemployed. The review to be undertaken by us jointly with the provinces will seek to work out such a fair and just relationship among the various programs.
The following comparison will perhaps illustrate the problem. With the present increase in OAS pensions, people over 65 will be entitled to incomes of at least $170 a month if single or $324 a month at the married rate. But people who are not yet 65, including those under 60, who must rely on provincial social assistance for support, are entitled to much smaller benefit levels. Single people can receive maximum payments of from $100 a month to $135 a month, a married couple, from $150 to $235 a month. This is the situation, despite the fact that under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government contributes 50 per cent of the amounts paid by the provinces for social welfare. I repeat, while we give from $170 to $324, depending whether people are single or married, the amount varies from $100 to $135, and from $150 to $235 a month, for people now receiving welfare allowances from the provinces. This is why the provinces argue that first priority should be given to the need for raising benefit levels of poor families in general.
Let us turn now to the situation of persons aged between 60 and 64 years, which, I know, worries not only opposition members but members of our own party who raised the matter with me and in discussions.
Approximately 20,000 people in this age group were unemployed and looking for work in 1972; 5.2 per cent were part of the labour force. Considering this, we should ask ourselves if it would be wise to give greater priority to lowering the pensionable age than to other measures

which can be taken to improve the lot of the disadvantaged.
In our society there are 150,000 mothers who by themselves have to raise 330,000 children; 200,000 invalid people aged between 18 and 65; and 575,000 social aid recipients registered in the provinces. This figure comes to about 1.4 million if we count their dependents. The monthly benefits paid to these persons are well below the sum of $170 received by pensioners over 65 years of age. Of all the groups of Canadians in need of aid, why should those who are between 60 and 65 years of age receive priority above all others? By that I do not mean to say that this group does not matter, but rather that-before a decision is made-the situations of the other groups should be examined with equal attention. At a first glance, it would seem to me that mothers who have sole responsibility for raising their children are as much entitled to draw on public funds as 360,000 persons in the 60-65 age group who are working and earning an income.
What is even more important, I believe that we should take the steps necessary to ensure that all Canadians- regardless of age-have the means to meet their needs. This is the goal I set myself in accepting the portfolio of Minister of National Health and Welfare, and it is the goal that the present government set itself in the last Speech from the Throne.
We must look at the question of overall priorities. These priorities have not yet been established. The relative social priorities of benefits for pensioners' spouses or for widows and single women in the same age group, or for disabled people of any age, or for families struggling to raise young children on limited incomes, ought to be closely examined. The provincial ministers were unanimous in expressing the view that we should not interfere with the structure of the OAS program until we have had a chance to review with them the overall structure of the whole income security system. Which is the group with greatest need for income support at the present time? Would we be justified in providing $150 or $170 a month for people aged 60 to 64, while disabled people are entitled to only $100 to $135 a month under provincial social assistance? Would it be a more appropriate step to channel any available resources toward low income families in order to supplement family income which is inadequate to meet the needs of their dependent children?
These are exactly the kinds of questions which will be tackled in the forthcoming federal-provincial review of the whole income security system. These questions simply serve to show how necessary it is that such an overall review be made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: In view of the foregoing, I trust that the aid that we propose to make available to aged persons under the present act will receive the immediate and unanimous approval of the House. Of the 1.8 million OAS pensioners, the vast majority are over 70 years of age. These are the people hardest hit by rising prices, for they have no other
March 1, 1973

alternative means of augmenting their incomes. They are much more dependent on help from others than are younger groups in the population who may also be needy. The inadequacy of benefits now provided for social assistance recipients is not a very compelling argument to old people who are poor. Rather it suggests that ways must be found to improve also the levels of social assistance.
The fact that we plan to act now to improve the position of our aged people, for whom the federal government has recognized its direct responsibility since 1951, does not preclude us from reviewing the whole field of income security in April and succeeding months, including pensions for the aged. It should not be assumed that in our discussions on the income security system we will be confined to a search for ways to redistribute only those resources that have already been allocated to the system. It may well be necessary to find new resources or to shift resources from other areas into the income security system in order to achieve our overall goals for the people of Canada as these are agreed on by the governments during the general review process that we are undertaking.
By this measure we are allocating an additional $300 million to benefits for aged persons, bringing total expenditures from the OAS fund for 1973-74 to about $2.9 billion. This represents an expenditure of 15.3 per cent of the total federal budget. Such large expenditures for one segment of the income security system demand that we examine closely the total allocation of resources in the battle against poverty. What levels of assistance should be provided to persons over 65 and what levels to needy people on provincial assistance? What proportion of the total national product should be allocated to the income security system? It is incumbent upon us to explore the needs of all the poor and not just the aged poor.
We feel that with this measure that is before the House, together with the other measures taken in the taxation field, Mr. Speaker, we have dealt fairly with the needs of our aged people. We should now turn our attention to the needs of other poor people who do not qualify for OAS payments. In particular we are concerned with the needs of poor families in our country, and our next step will be the reform of the family allowance program. This move was promised in the Speech from the Throne, and was expanded on in my speech in this House on January 11. The government has firmly undertaken, in a bill introduced during the present session, to show the same concern for the families of this country, as it has shown today for our old people.
At the moment we are spending about $640 million for families with children under 18, including $560 million for family allowances, $58 million for youth allowances in nine provinces, and $22 million through fiscal arrangements for schooling allowances in Quebec. The federal and provincial treasuries, by means of the exemptions from taxable income given to parents with dependent children under the federal income tax legislation, are in effect further subsidizing tax paying families by giving up
Old Age Security Act
$610 million in income tax revenues. Through the Canada Assistance Plan-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You have big hearts, you fellows.


Marc Lalonde: One thing is sure, Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power federally they did not do a thing with regard to family allowances. If you go through the record of social legislation in this country, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the Conservative party has done practically nothing in this whole area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Through the Canada Assistance Plan the federal and provincial governments are spending $1.4 billion for persons in need, including needy families with dependent children. We intend to tackle the problem of family poverty and to rationalize our treatment of children under these various programs in the course of the review we are about to undertake with the provinces.
Last year we raised the OAS-GIS payment by $15 a month. At the same time we changed the escalation provisions so that the full increase in the annual cost of living is applied both to the OAS pension and to GIS. I was amazed to see during the recent election campaign and since, editorials stating that we should escalate the old age pensions, this having been done since the budget last May. We have now further increased the basic OAS pension to the level of $100 a month. This means that the elderly people in Canada are guaranteed an annual income of $2,042 at the single rate and $3,895 at the married rate. Together with the CPP retirement pension, an old person could get a combined pension of $2,524 if single or $4,378 if married to an OAS pensioner.
It is difficult to compare pension levels from one country to another because of the wide differences that exist in the nature of each country's pension system. Most countries have contributory earnings-related pensions, like those under the Canada and Quebec pension plans. Some of these make provision for a minimum pension, but not all. Only a few provide for universal pensions, like Canada's old age security plan. As well as the complexities, there is the problem of converting foreign currencies into Canadian dollars in a way that will recognize the price levels in each country and the average levels of income. The Canadian Magazine in its August 19, 1972 issue reported on the cost of an identical basket of food in the capitals of 23 countries. While such a basket of food is not the measure of the standard of living in each of these countries, it does provide an approximation of the living costs since food is an important factor in the budget of an elderly person.
In relating Canadian benefits for the aged to food costs as calculated by the Canadian Magazine country by country, the following situations are observed. Canadian minimum benefits are higher than those in Sweden, and in addition food costs in Sweden are about 80 per cent higher than those in Canada. While food costs are nearly 20 per cent lower in the United Kingdom, Canadian benefits are almost three times as high as those in the United Kingdom. Food costs are about 10 per cent higher in the United States, but minimum benefits in Canada are more than double those in the United States. The maximum

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
benefit in Canada, including OAS, GIS and CPP, is about the same as that for a single person in the United States, but much higher than that for a married couple. Minimum benefits are higher in Canada than in France, and food costs in France are about 60 per cent higher than in Canada. There are no minimum benefits under the West German program with which to compare Canadian pensions, but Canadian maximum benefits are lower than those in West Germany. However, food costs in Germany were about 100 per cent higher than those in Canada.
From these rough comparisons-and I admit that these are rough comparisons-it can be concluded that minimum benefits for the aged in Canada are higher than those provided in the United States, the United Kingdom, France or Sweden. With the measure that is before the House today, this government has kept Canada in the forefront of the countries of the western world in providing income security for older people. I am particularly proud to be part of a government and of a political party that have made sure over the years that Canada would not only keep that lead over the other countries, but would increase it.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to follow the minister. His modesty varied in reverse proportion to the modesty of his proposals. Not only did he reach back through time but extended his comparison through space to every country with the exception of Australia. He said we were incomparable. This remark struck me. It is a remark which emanates so often from people in the minister's party. It is suggested again that the Liberal party uniquely shows its great concern for the plight of the aged people in Canada, that the members of that party alone hold a monopoly on concern and that they and they alone care. This is the party of the "six-buck boys" which had the effrontery to go to the country in 1968, on an increase of 42 cents a month. Then, I see that there is the old refrain that they have "effectively banished poverty for persons of over 65 years of age". Then, there is the familiar refrain, "You never had it so good". I am sure the aged of Canada will note that they have been told how generous the government has been and how amply it has met their needs in a country which under this administration has been facing grinding and groaning inflation year after year. I should like to say to the minister that this party will support Bill C-147-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -not with the ecstasy which some have already expressed, but because it is the best available and is the best we are likely to get from this government so long as it clings to power. I shall go a little further than that and say that, although in my view it is much less pretentious than the minister seems to think, we will be glad to expedite its passage. If it is agreeable to the other parties, we will field one spokesman, namely myself, and move on to the veterans legislation. But this offer is made with wide-open eyes. I remember very well what happened during the debate on the estimates when we ended

up by creating an oratorical vacuum for government supporters on this side of the House and elsewhere. If the agreement is such, we will stick by it and do our best in committee, although there may be witnesses who might like to come to the committee and testify as to how grateful they are that all their needs have been met. Later on in my remarks I will indicate why I feel tepidity rather than enthusiasm for this particular measure.
It is the first bill the minister has brought forward and it is a custom in parliamentary circles to congratulate ministers when they present their first legislative infant to the baptismal font, and I do that with sincerity. I have already congratulated the minister upon proceeding from the back room to the green chamber. I have reflected on this of late. When I see that so many princes from the Prime Minister's palace have gone into limbo I feel that his survival is pretty remarkable. Practically all are gone save he. We look around and see that the felled princes have been succeeded by the fallen politicians, and I am told it is the only palace in the world where the old guard is replaced by a still older guard. In the light of this legislation, whether the minister's move was fateful rather than fatal time alone will tell. All the leaks we had heard and noted, and all the thought waves from commentators in recent weeks and months as well as the vibrations from the inner sancta and writings of eminent journalists, indicated we would be looking at a figure of $125 today. Who cut that figure down? Was it the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury); was it the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner)? Surely, it was not the spokesman for the junior partnership in this alliance for perpetrated power, the New Democratic Party, because its figure is $150.
However, the $125 figure is not before us today. I wonder what thwarted the minister's $125 plan? Some day when we are all gone, some student will peruse the archives and will find out. Today, we can probably surmise with reasonable accuracy. While it is the custom to congratulate the father of a bill, I am in a difficult situation today because this bill has two fathers, a difficult situation biologically but not impossible politically. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) said there would not have been a pension increase to $100 if the New Democratic Party had not insisted on it. I ask, what in heaven's name the increase would have been had the government been left alone. Had the junior partner not moved in, would there have been an increase of $6 or would it have been 42 cents? I look forward to hearing from my venerable and beloved friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), because I know he called for $150. He is getting $100. Yet it seems, despite the fact that the figure is not $150 but rather $100-this cherished figure is gone-he is going to support an incompetent and insensitive government on the strength of not $150 but $100. Many things will be said about the distinguished member for Winnipeg North Centre, but it may not be said that he was particularly hard to satisfy.
This is certainly an important piece of legislation. It was presented today in unusually partisan terms for this kind of legislation. I simply state that the political and parliamentary structure in this country make it all the more important that the Canadian people, especially the Canadian elderly people, should take particular note of
March 1, 1973

what is going on because perhaps this very bill is the marriage document for which we have been looking. Perhaps this is it, and all the rest was word of mouth. Here we have something on paper. I tried before to help my former neighbours, the members of the New Democratic Party. I tried to warn them what would happen if they allowed things like this to take place. I told them about the occasion when the Progressive Party, which was twice as large as the New Democratic Party or the CCF, was wooed and won by a Liberal party in the twenties and explained that after the wooing was over little was left of them. A few prairie politicians called themselves Liberal-Progressives and a few senators called themselves Liberals.
I paid a disrespect to my colleague the other day when I said that perhaps some day I will go to the gallery of the Senate, since I may never get the floor, and see Senator Lewis and Senator Knowles being escorted by Senator Argue. I forgot that they deserve two escorts and that Senator Eugene Forsey, who is the expert on the constitutional correctitude of governors-general, would be there to help them up the aisle.
I used to sit next to the NDP in the last parliament and it was an exhilarating experience. I enjoyed it when brave David took on Goliath across the way. What wonderfully polished pellets he used to throw across the aisle and what brilliant invectives there were about the "arrogant technocrats" who were going to fall. I looked, hoped, wondered if this would take place and some day with a shrug and perhaps a couple of four letter words, in a figurative sense, Goliath would expire and David take over.
But now I have been moved and, apparently, so have they. No more David and Goliath scenes at all. Now, it is David and Jonathan. We Presbyterians love the Old Testament and we remember what David said of Jonathon: "thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women". These are stirring days and stirring times, and I verily believe that we are living in the last days of preorganic unity. I say to the minister, having placed things in this proper historic perspective, as I have a right to do so since he gave the broadest geographic background, let him not proclaim and at the same time try to be credible that this bill is a burst of generosity for which senior citizens should exude eternal gratitude to him and his ilk. For years, indeed since this government took office-and I put this at a decade ago-with its inflationary policies year after year it has been victimizing the very people about whom the minister talked with such apparent concern. This bill is not excessive generosity. This bill is delayed and partial justice, because the older people have been unfairly bearing the burden of inflation put upon them and the government has been remiss in not taking remedial action long since.
I have here a splendid document published by the United Church of Canada. So ecumenical are we these days that as a continuing Presbyterian I will quote from it. I find here an editorial from the Toronto Star which reads:
In 1967, the federal government, being of sound mind and body,-
Old Age Security Act
That was when the Star was Liberal -decided to increase the standard old age pension of $75 a month by providing a supplement of up to $30 for those needing it. It wasn't a princely sum, but it helped.
In revising the pension, Ottawa was declaring, in effect, that we Canadians could afford to turn over a somewhat larger portion of our collective resources in order to maintain our 1,663,000 old age pensioners at a slightly more decent level of existence.
It was a solemn and careful undertaking, made after much agonizing about social responsibility and much squinting at our collective pocketbook-and yet we have been reneging on that undertaking ever since. Each year we have been giving old age pensioners a smaller share of our resources than we did in 1967; each year the pension buys less than it did the year before; and each year our old people slide further backward into the penury from which we set out to rescue them.
That situation has not, alas, profoundly changed, and I say to the minister that while he produced copious figures, usually they were of the kind that indicate that improvements cannot be made. But he produced copious figures on the state of the nation and the state of the old people. I have also done some research in this matter. If the old age security from 1963 when this group of people took over the destinies of this country had been increased by the actual cost of living year by year, the minister's announced figure today would not be sufficient to give them the same purchasing power that they had in 1963. Let him call that generosity. Let him look at those figures and say that eternal gratitude must forever fall upon the Liberal party of Canada.


Mr. Whicher:: That is at the age of 70, not 65.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is our friend again, the just society fellow.


An hon. Member:: He woke up again.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would like to say that if the actual cost of living had been added, the pension would now be up to $107. That is the situation. We have held back. We have laid that burden on the older people. We have made them and other people on fixed and low incomes bear too much of the burden of inflation which an incompetent and insensitive government has visited on the people of this country for a decade. As one of my colleagues said, the six buck boys are seven bucks short.
So, I cannot stand up and say that, in the light of this legislation, my colleagues and I are so impressed and so enamoured that we are going to vote to sustain this government in office. If this was expected of us, then I am sorry to disappoint you. We agree pretty well with what Donald Macdonald of the Canadian Labour Congress thinks of the budget. He does not think it is much, and we do not want to disagree with him in that appraisal of the budget. So, our affirmative vote for the bill that we have before us is given because we regard it as a delayed recognition. It is an attempt to catch up. But, as I pointed out, even at that it does not quite do the job.
I was impressed with the many suggestions which the minister momentarily brought before us, and then almost instantly pushed away for interesting reasons, such as that they cost too much, or the provinces do not like them, or we have not had our conference on that yet. So once again we seem to be pretty well frozen to $7 below what in justice the pension should be. There are more things that
1800

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
should be done. We should be looking with concern and compassion upon a movement to lower the age of eligibility to 60. There is much to be done on this whole question.
I agree with the minister that it is a social priority; it is something that transcends legislation; it is a fundamental societal question. Perhaps at one stage in our social development we over-regarded the mere accumulation of years when societies believed that elder worship was the summum bonum of social values. It was believed that to be old was to be wise, was to be virtuous and, what was more important, was to be in command. Perhaps that was not too wise an appraisal. Perhaps Swift was right when he said:
Old men and comets have been reverenced for the same reason: their long beards and pretences to foretell events.
But our day sees perhaps rather too strong a reaction against gerontocracy. Now, many people believe that to be old is to be out of touch, to be out of things altogether.
Many people today who seek employment, not old people, people in their fifties or early sixties and the Prime Minister and I at age 53 would not accept that as old, get the cold turndown of refusal. There is too much the feeling that when one is no longer young, one is no longer needed. Perhaps we should remind ourselves, as Ulysses did in advanced age, that:
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
We should look thoughfully and earnestly at this issue of lowering our retirement age. It should be viewed as something more than an early transfer of more and more of our citizens out to pasture. It must be regarded as something more than a way out of the unemployment mess which has plagued us again and again for ten years. But if the state makes early retirement possible we should, in our society, establish social values which make early retirement meaningful. Shakespeare put it well when he wrote:
Give me a staff of honour for my age.
But not a sceptre to control the world.
I agree that this is a question of profundity, of concern, and I do agree that it is one to which all levels of government must give the most earnest and thoughtful consideration. Perhaps we have in our labour-saving age reached a stage where the work force should indeed, can indeed, may indeed in the old fashioned sense, be much smaller. And yet existence must be meaningful. So, we get into the realm of leisure time activity. We have to find employment for those who want employment. We have to find a meaningful challenge for those who are employed. So, in the long run as we look upon these issues which concern the quality of life, we come back to regarding the quality of government. The government which cannot find employment for its people cannot bring about that quality of life which all its people, its workers and its leisured, are entitled to in a society with the values of ours.
The unemployment and the inflation of the last ten years have sapped our economy, have diminished the quality of life, and put us into the situation where the minister, while at one time indicating his great generosity

in bringing up many meaningful programs, points out that the economy is such that they cannot be undertaken.
One thing that did disturb me perhaps most of all in the minister's speech was the seemingly subtle suggestion that one sector of society, namely, the aged, should have their needs frozen while all other corrective measures are worked out. That strikes me as extremely unfair. Why go to these people and say, "You hold the line until we bring about a better society for the rest of our people." Why again take it out of the hides of the aged? If corrective measures are needed, and they are needed, let them be carried by all of society, and not make them uniquely a charge on those who are aged.
I note what the minister said about the mothers' allowance, the family allowance. We expect a family allowance bill which will provide increases, and we do not expect the kind of monstrosity that came up in the last parliament. I would say that the author of that bill should be given a job in the Globe and Mail doing the puzzle that is on the front page, that mathematical blister. That bill was an administrative nightmare. I hope we will have something that will be meaningful, and that will not have in it that psychology that you should take away from those who are already getting it, the "princely" sum now in the family allowance. I think that should be preserved, but we should also look to a realistic figure that will take heed of the rising costs of living.
Then, there are special categories. The minister mentioned some. Surely, we have reached the time when we can recognize that certain categories of our fellow citizens have such disabilities that their disabilities alone entitle them to compassion and consideration. Surely, a person who is without sight, a blind person, need not prove his poverty before he gets that allowance? Surely, too, the totally disabled, the person who for reasons beyond his control, and for physical reasons cannot go into the world and make his own way-surely he is a special case?
I hope the minister will pay particular note to the notice of motion which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has placed on the order paper, one of the most thoughtful, perceptive and compassionate pieces of suggested legislation that I have seen in a long, long time. He invites special concern for the handicapped. And how often we can be so careless, Mr. Speaker. We build our public buildings so that people with wheelchairs cannot get in. We even have post offices where a lame man cannot climb up the steps. There is so much more we can do in this field. I remember that the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) talked the other day about some of the problems of the disabled. He used the colourful expression, the rather painfully colourful expression, that in some cases you had to be devoid of both legs and arms to be considered disabled by those who hand out the allowance.
The minister did not deal with the New Horizons Program. I think that is an interesting program. If he were still here, I would tell him that I believe much can be done on a particular suggestion by a group in Charlottetown, but I will write to him about that. The creative activity of senior citizens should be encouraged.
I do not accept the idea that we should throw cold water now on the suggestion that the spouse of an old age
March 1, 1973

security recipient, because she is not 65 or he is not 65, should not be entitled to an allowance. Surely, here is an area where we can move to correct that one injustice. There are many couples who are living on the single pension, simply because one or other has not reached the age of 65.
There are now in Canada some organizations of senior citizens, and I think we should look to them for leadership. They are the ones who know. The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens met in Charlottetown not long ago. They showed their great wisdom in the choice of the convention site. They brought forward some very interesting suggestions as to how their lot might be improved. I am sure that their suggested pension was not $100. I do not know whether the minister got their letter or not; they actually suggested $150. They mentioned some of the things that have already been discussed here. They felt, and I can understand why, that the cost of drugs was excessive and they made suggestions for plans whereby the older people could travel in Canada at a cheaper rate in the off season. Another suggestion was that a period of grace be extended to people in straightened circumstances in the OAS group upon the demise of either spouse, in consideration of the heavy expenses incurred at such a time. It would not cost a fortune to enact any of these things and they are the kinds of things that would indicate a constant awareness of the needs of senior citizens and a flexibility in attitude as well as a degree of compassion, showing that the government cares for those who have made the country what it is.
Another subject on which I have had many letters is the problem faced by our older citizens when they get an increase and some landlord grabs it. That is outrageous, especially when it happens in those institutions which are supported by federal and other governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I remember some old men telling me that the increase is so devoured that they did not even have enough to buy an extra pouch of tobacco.
There are so many areas of concern, Mr. Speaker, so many areas for improvement, I just want to say that we welcome this measure of justice; we support it but this party has no intention of entering the auction room. We are not going to go about the land with great bids for particular support. It little profits to bid $150 and accept $100-you would never get away with that at Sotheby's.
We are not going to make preposterous promises because we happen to be led by a man who is responsible at all times and who has no intention of moving the power by the preposterous bribes that glitter for the moment and then are gone from reality. We also are led by a man who, before too long, will be in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: We are not going to trifle with the real needs of the senior citizens of this country for the ersatz satisfaction of trying to gain a few more votes at election time. We will tell the senior citizens of this country that what Canada needs today is a government of competence,
Old Age Security Act
a government that can manage the country and its affairs, a government that can and will do something about this eternal and infernal unemployment which is ruining this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Canada needs a government that will do more than say that the defeat of inflation is around the corner, which we have gone around eight times and it is still there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The first need of the land is to have a government with competence, a government which will not have to put so much of the nation's wealth into unemployment insurance. It is not unemployment insurance that is our burden, it is unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That is the problem. That is why so many of the government's programs which the minister mentioned today have to be left in the cupboard. With efficient administration, with competent government, we will provide the people of this country with the kind of meaningful, compassionate administration in the areas that we talk about. It is not going to be just glittering promises; we can assure them that it will have real purpose, that this will be a better land and a better governed land. That is the future I see for this country and especially the older people, and I invite them to look forward to it, as I do, with eager anticipation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I confess that on entering this debate this afternoon my mind goes back a number of years. We have before us a bill which makes the basic amount of the old age pension $100 a month. I am not even an old age pensioner yet-I am only 64. But when I first came here, Mr. Speaker, a little over 30 years ago-


An hon. Member:: My God!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
Mr. Speaker, we fought hard over this issue then as we have done over the years since I first came here. Likewise, I may say that back in 1942 and 1943 public opinion was on our side. In addition to that, some of the provinces felt that something had to be done. In those days the pension was not only as I have described it but it was financed 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the provinces.
In my own province of Manitoba, where the Honourable Stuart Garson was then premier, an effort was made to force the hand of the government by adding $1.25 to the $20 pension and saying that this was 25 per cent of a $5 increase but the federal government still refused to agree. Some other provinces took similar steps with the result that finally there was enough pressure from the provinces and the public, and enough pressure put on the government by those of us who were in this House, that we did win an increase.
Hon. members who have been around here for even a few years will be interested in knowing the vehicle that was used in this instance. It was announced on July 24, 1943, by the then minister of finance, the late Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley. He pointed out that the government of the day, that of Mackenzie King, had decided that, for the sake of public morale in time of war it was necessary to do something to ease the plight of our old age pensioners; as a result, it was under the War Measures Act that an order in council was passed raising the maximum pension from $20 to $25 a month. I smiled to myself when I looked last evening at Hansard for July 24, 1943, and discovered that the then member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke on behalf of this party in response to that increase from $20 to $25 per month. And what did the member for Winnipeg North Centre say on that occasion? He said, "We welcome the increase; we welcome this $5, but it should have been $10."


An hon. Member:: That sounds just like the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thirty years have gone by, Mr. Speaker, and the same member for Winnipeg North Centre is now saying the same thing. We welcome the increase to $100, but, for heaven's sake, why did the government not make it $150?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. Knowles <Winnipeg North Centre): Let there be no doubt about it; that is still our position-


An hon. Member:: But the hon. member voted for this increase.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that the basic old age pension should be raised to $150 a month.
Let me say that I like my friend the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) so well that I hoped he would, in his speech, fill a gap this afternoon that has been evident for a long time. I dared to hope that he would tell us where his party stands on what the basic amount of the old age security pension should be. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has not told us.

When asked about this during the course of the budget debate, he told my leader to look up what he had said during the last budget debate. We did. His proposals added up to almost $95 a month. The hon. member for Hillsborough today said that the basic pension of $100 per month is about $7 short of the amount it ought to be, yet he did not say that the basic pension ought to be even $107 per month.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If one remembers, when considering the remarks of the hon. member, that during the election campaign the Leader of the Opposition was honest and forthright enough to tell old age pensioners that he would not back their campaign for $150 a month as the basic pension, it becomes clear, though we may be dissatisfied and disappointed because the basic pension has been increased only to $100, that this pension increase is better than any which would have been granted if the roles of the government and opposition had been reversed and the opposition were sitting on the other side of the House of Commons.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is only speculating. He will never know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was immodest enough a few minutes ago to draw a parallel in history between something I had been doing and saying in 1943 and that which I am doing and saying in 1973. May I draw another historical parallel? Near me sits the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis). Back in 1926, it was her late and illustrious father, the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, the late J. S. Woodsworth, who, assisted by a few others-


An hon. Member:: Were you here then Stan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker, but I was watching what was going on-who got from the Mackenzie King government of the day the first old age pension in this country. It is clear from the record and from the letter Mr. King sent Mr. Woodsworth, copies of which we have scattered widely, that the government of that day initially had no intention of bringing in an old age pension but that, because of the pressure which Mr. Woodsworth was able to put on the minority government of that day, we were given the first old age pension in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say to you that today, Mr. Speaker, that page of history is being repeated. Today, again, there is a minority government in this House. The hon. member for Hillsborough wondered what the Liberals might have done if we were not in the position of exerting some of the influence we seem to have today. I can tell him what would have happened if the Liberals had been returned with a clear majority.


An hon. Member:: Or the Tories.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or if the Conservatives had been so returned, for that matter.
March 1, 1973


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Please do not lump us with that gang over there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Liberals had been returned with a clear maj ority, the basic old age security pension would have increased in April by the amount automatically provided, that is, to $86.61, and that is all.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I agree with the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is perfectly clear that just as J. S. Woodsworth, and those who supported him back in 1926, won for us the first old age pension, so it is clear because there are 31 New Democrats in the House today and because the Liberal party in government is in a minority position, there has been given this increase of $13.39 more than would have been given if the Liberals had been returned with a majority.
If this bill is passed, and I trust it will be passed quickly, and if it is accepted by the other place, which, by the way, threw out the first old age pension bill back in 1925, the law respecting old age pensions will be changed, effective April 1. That means that the April cheques, which our pensioners will not get until the end of April, will be increased by the amount provided for in this bill. As I understand it, every one of the 1,800,000 pensioners in Canada, those on the old age security pension only, those on old age security plus part of the Guaranteed Income Supplement and those on old age security plus the full Guaranteed Income Supplement, will get $13.39 more than they would have got in April of this year. That, Mr. Speaker, is happening in Canada in 1973 because, on October 30, 1972, the people of Canada elected a minority government and elected 31 New Democrats to this House to speak for the old people of this country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What a line that is. The Liberals will not buy that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just as we are proud of what the late J. S. Woodsworth did in 1926, so we are proud of what we are doing today for 1,800,000 pensioners in this country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member has to say that. He is trying to justify the marriage between his party and the Liberals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I see that you are looking at the clock, and that it is five o'clock. I shall continue with these remarks at eight o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Having noticed that it is five o'clock, it is my duty at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions
Inter-Parliamentary Union
to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Manpower-Refusal of unemployment insurance benefits to persons taking courses; the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)-Labour Relations- Elevator constructors' strike-Federal government action to achieve settlement; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Canadian National Railways-Alleged slowdown by Vancouver yard crews-Reason for lower productivity.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


John Angus MacLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an understanding, as was mentioned by the government House leader early today, that private members' hour on this occasion will, by special arrangement, be devoted to consideration of Notice of Motion No. 76 standing in the name of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask if this is agreed to by all hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: That, in the opinion of this House, note should be taken of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference on European Co-operation and Security held in Helsinki, Finland, from January 26-31,1973.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I first thank the House for the arrangements which have been made enabling us to debate this matter this afternoon. I think this is a "first". The Canadian branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which I have the honour to be the chairman this year, has initiated the formula for bringing to the attention of the House of Commons and of the Senate some of the deliberations that are held at the various meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I do not say this in any wish to be boastful. I think the precedent is interesting and the record should note that.
I also want to say that the motion could translate the work of the various parliamentary associations, for example, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the NATO Association, the United States-Canada Interparliamentary Group, the Francophone group and others, into the records of this parliament. I think that is an important first step.
I am very grateful to the House leaders of the government and other parties for agreeing that this is a proce-

March 1, 1973
Inter-Parliamentary Union
dure worth testing. I want to have most of the time today for the delegates to the Helsinki conference, but if I can exercise the privilege that is mine because I am up first, may I say that one of the proposals contained in the Final Act of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference on European Co-operation and Security in Helsinki has very great relevance to Canada. It reads:
Carrying out, in a humanitarian spirit, negotiations at the governmental level with a view to eliminating the problems posed by the separation of members of families seeking to be reunited;
There are other parts of this resolution or proposal that other hon. members will discuss more extensively, but I think that that resolution or proposal has a peculiarly Canadian mix, if I can put it that way.
I noticed the other day in the statistics from the Department of Manpower and Immigration that this country has had over 10 million immigrants since 1867. About one half of our population is of immigrant stock. In many instances, this means that families have been separated and, therefore, it is a peculiarly Canadian wish that the nations of Europe agree with us on a formula for re-uniting many of these families. That was one of the proposals of the Canadian government at the government level. I think it is particularly apt that Canadian parliamentarians speaking for this chamber were able to bring that proposal forward and have it as part of the Final Act of the Helsinki conference.
The resolution is in my name, Mr. Speaker, but there are three parliamentarians who are delegates of the Canadian branch of the parliamentary union. I want to reiterate my thanks to those who were responsible for this first step in the conference of parliamentary associations.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate on the resolution of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, note should be taken of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference on European Co-operation and Security held in Helsinki, Finland, from January 26-31, 1973.
It was a special event for the Inter-Parliamentary Union to organize a regional conference for the discussion of European Co-operation and Security. Never before had the Inter-Parliamentary Union convened a regional conference or one with a limited topic. The decision was taken in April, 1972 at the spring meeting of the Union in Yaounde, subject to confirmation at the annual conference in Rome in September. Finland offered to act as host, and the decision was taken to hold a Conference on European Co-operation and Security in Helsinki from November 10 to 15, 1972. At the Rome meeting, the West German delegation drew attention to the election to take place in Germany on November 19. In view of the central role of the Federal German Republic, it was decided at the Rome meeting of postpone the conference and to hold it on January 26 to 31, 1973.
Holding the conference in January was highly fortuitous because the inter-governmental preparatory discussions on security and co-operation in Europe had begun in late November. The representatives of the countries at that conference were mostly ambassadors. Although some of the essential ground had been cleared, talks were

making slow progress. During the six days of meetings of the IPU conference, it proved to be possible to reach agreement on a major statement of objectives described as the Final Act of the conference. This included reaching general agreement on formulations to cover several issues which remained in contention in the inter-governmental talks already being held in Helsinki and at the Conference on Mutual Force Reductions which opened at the end of January in Vienna. Inevitably, therefore, the Final Act of the Helsinki Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference can be expected to have an immediate impact on the intergovernmental negotiations in both Helsinki and Vienna.
I might say that the countries represented at the conference were virtually all European countries whether or not they were members of IPU, and Canada and the United States were represented because of our keen interest and involvement, not only in security in Europe but in European culture, trade and the many other things that we have in common with the European countries that attended the conference. In addition to this, several countries which are members of IPU sent observers. Among them were Brazil, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Mongolia and others.
The organization of the conference was done in a very effective and efficient manner. The conference opened on January 26 with a formal ceremony at which addresses were made by President Urho Kekkonen, the President of the Republic of Finland, Mr. Johannes Virolainen, President of the Finnish group of the IPU, Mr. John Hall, first vice-president of the IPU Council and Mr. Leonid Kuta-kov, Under Secretary-General of the United Nations, who represented the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Mr. Virolainen was elected chairman of the conference.
All points of organization, which was the responsibility of the Finnish group, were of high, effective and efficient order. The Finnish parliament co-operated fully and the hospitality and other arrangements made for all delegations were excellent indeed. We were not only extended hospitality by the Finnish group and the Finnish parliament, but also by the president, the mayor of Helsinki, the government of Finland and many others.
Canada played an important part in this conference. Prior to the conference itself, the Canadian delegation was one of the very few western delegations to submit a draft resolution. This was on the issue of the uniting of families. At the opening of the conference, the Canadian delegation submitted a resolution on development assistance and its relevance to east-west relations. I had the honour of being one of the members of the delegation. The delegation consisted of three members-myself, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) and the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney). They spoke on those two Canadian working papers in the plenary session. Their speeches were of a very high order, and a credit to Canada. I had the honour of being selected as the nominal head of the Canadian delegation, and I took part in the work of the first committee. My colleagues took part in the work of committees two and three, respectively, which dealt with the two Canadian initiatives. They will be speaking more fully later on these questions and I,
March 1, 1973

therefore, do not intend to say anything further about them at present.
The Canadian parliament might be pleased to know that although its delegation was a small one-all the delegations were small, by arrangement-it was a hard-working one. I might even say we were up long before daybreak and working hard into the night. Perhaps, though, I should add that day breaks around ten o'clock in Helsinki at this time of the year and night falls around four o'clock!
We received excellent co-operation and assistance in every way from Canada's ambassador in Helsinki, Mr. Ernest Cote. He is a man who is well known to many Members of Parliament, having served in a number of senior government posts here before being appointed ambassador to Finland. The delegation is especially indebted to Mr. Peter Dobell from the Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade who accompanied the delegation as adviser. His advice and counsel were invaluable. I should also say that the arrangements made by the staff of the Parliamentary Association here in Ottawa were excellent. Everything was arranged in a way which made it possible for our delegation to function in the best possible manner.
As I said earlier, the two Canadian resolutions were dealt with in committees two and three. Committee two dealts with proposals in the area of economic relations. Committee three dealt with proposals for co-operation in the areas of science, technology, education and culture as well as with proposals concerning exchanges of persons and information. I served on the first committee which dealt with proposals in the area of security. That committee had this to say:
The Conference,
1.	Wishes to see national Parliaments contribute to the organization of detente and the strengthening of security in Europe;
2.	Notes that the security of the European continent is dependent, to a large extent, on each State respecting and applying the generally recognized principles of international law which govern inter-State relations;
3.	Is aware of the need to give concrete significance to the above-mentioned principles;
4.	Appeals to Governments to examine, at the Conference, on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), the question of the system for the peaceful settlement of disputes and, in case of need, that of its improvement;
5.	Calls upon the Parliaments and Governments of each State to consider:
(a)	Implementing steps to create greater mutual confidence among the Governments concerned leading to a genuine reduction of tensions, such as by giving advance notice of manoeuvres and exchanging observers;
(b)	Stimulating a mutual and balanced reduction of armed forces and armaments in Europe, through negotiations which would be accessible to all states concerned, with a view to gradually reducing all armed forces and armaments to a less dangerous level and to ensuring the equal security of States, taking into account that the disarmament problem constitutes an essential component of security;
(c)	Taking concerted action to combat terrorism in Europe and support the ratification of international conventions in this field.
I shall conclude by saying that I hope my contribution is in accord with a procedure whjch I believe to be an
Inter-Parliamentary Union
excellent one and which I hope will continue as a general practice in the future in relation to the work of parliamentary associations, as noted by the mover of the motion.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this discussion. I welcome the procedure initiated by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). I think it is an excellent precedent, one which will ensure that the proceedings and reports of such conferences as these are placed on record in parliament and discussed in a serious way. I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) who, with his customary modesty, told the House he was the nominal head of the delegation. He was the head of the delegation in every sense of the word, and he led our delegation with dignity and distinction. I think we should be grateful to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: It was my pleasure to serve on the third committee, known at the conference as the Social and Cultural Committee. I was always social, although I have never been accused of being cultural. This is the committee referred to, more fully, as the committee considering proposals for co-operation in the areas of science, technology, education and culture, as well as the exchange of persons and information. It was this exchange of persons which was of particular interest to us, as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal has said.
It was necessary, as a matter of fact, to establish a Canadian interest in a conference on European security and co-operation, even in our own minds, so as to put the meetings into a proper context. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal has said, the very nature of Canada gives us our European context and purpose. I do not mean in any way to suggest that our native peoples are less important in any sense. Such a large part of our population can find its roots in Europe, and our culture is deeply rooted there. Canadians have fought in Europe in two world wars and have a presence in European security today through NATO. Thus, we cannot divorce ourselves from this presence; it is one that we should nourish and encourage, not only for the value it adds to the richness of our culture and the people represented in Canada, but for the pragmatic reason that it is in our best interests to maintain a position in Europe.
Although we have considerable trouble maintaining our identity on this continent, the world is breaking up into security and economic blocs and we do not want to see ourselves isolated or to isolate ourselves. Therefore, the Canadian presence was a very legitimate one, and it was of interest to the delegates to the conference, in establishing this point, that we gave an indication of the ethnic make-up of our own country. I am sorry that I did not bring the statistics with me which we used in Helsinki, but after the British and the French, the Italians and Germans are the next largest ethnic groups. The Ukrainians are the fifth largest ethnic group. However, as you go down the list you find that every country with representatives at the conference had sent immigrants to Canada, with the possible exception of San Marino. I think this

March 1, 1973
Inter-Parliamentary Union
impressed the delegates and put this country in its proper context.
In the original draft resolution on the reunification of families, the following was the wording:
Recognizing the desirability of promoting increased human contacts,
Calls upon the parliaments of all participating states to urge their governments to begin multilateral discussions toward the conclusion of an international declaration providing for the progressive elimination by all states of obstacles on members of families seeking to reunite across national borders.
Then, as a result of negotiation, the Final Act read as follows:
Carrying out, in a humanitarian spirit, negotiations at the governmental level with a view to eliminating the problems posed by the separation of members of families seeking to be reunited;
As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has said, we do not have to make excuses for, or qualify our interest in, reunification of families because it is a problem that directly concerns Canada, and it is part of our foreign policy on which we have been consistent and united ever since I have been a Member of Parliament.
It is of interest to note that the Swiss delegate, Mr. Karl Ketterer, had a similar resolution, actually a little more specific than ours. However, in an arena where you are trying to moderate differences and reach agreement, Mr. Ketterer of the Swiss delegation deferred to our resolution, and we carried the ball, so to speak, on this particular subject, with his support and co-operation and the support and co-operation of many other delegates.
Then, a sort of basket draft resolution was brought in by the French delegation under Senator Leon Jozeau-Marigne. The French delegate managed to bring in a draft which covered most of the points with which other delegates wanted to deal, so we accepted it as our working paper and it really worked out quite well. As we met in committee and then in drafting committee, there was interesting interplay between peoples of different social and economic philosophies. For example, words that are perfectly obvious to us might be considered provocative to somebody else.
One of the Polish delegates, Madame Teresa Skubala, was concerned about multilateral discussions on the subject covered by our resolution and objected to the wording in some way. But we were dealing with many things on a multilateral basis, and as we went into the drafting committee the Polish delegate did not question the matter any more. However, the Russian delegate, Mr. Tchaikow-ski-who looked more like Shostakovitch but his name was Tchaikowski-took an interest in the matter, and having myself been to the Soviet Union and talked about the question of reunification, I was very much impressed by the co-operative attitude he took. We ended up with the resolution contained in the Final Act.
The committee dealt with many more things, such as education, science, culture, information, and in a more general way with further contact and exchanges between people. Those who are brought up in a society like ours cannot over-emphasize the importance of these. We discussed the development of tourist and professional exchanges, especially among young people, a matter of common interest to all nations. In the field of education
we discussed the forecasting of needs on a European-wide basis. Although in this context it might be somewhat different for those living on the continent of Europe, this was a matter of interest to us. We discussed working together in order to co-operate in forecasting educational needs, a job that we could do much better, I think, in this country.
Then, we discussed the study of new techniques, as well as what was termed "life-long education". I guess all of life is an education, but we did not quite understand this term. To us it means continuing education and retraining. In the society in which we live we consider not only retraining but having several careers in one lifetime. The Europeans think along the same lines. Although we were struck by the term "life-long education", it is a term commonly accepted over there. We then talked about equivalence of diplomas and degrees, a matter of serious concern to us and of even greater concern to a continent the size of Europe comprising so many countries where the interchange of personnel is so great.
Then, there was another resolution dealing with the revision of school textbooks, particularly those on history and geography, in order to present objectively the contribution of the various European national cultures to universal culture and not impair the dignity of other peoples. Although I think it would be very difficult to come to a final agreement on this, there was recognition given to the problem and the desire was expressed that we overcome it.
Other matters dealt with were twinning among educational institutions, and exchange programs for teachers and students. In the field of science we discussed co-operation in basic and applied research, long-range planning, a network of scientific co-operation among participating countries, the stimulation of joint research projects and so on. That is the sort of thing we can get a great deal of value from in such interchanges, particularly a country like Canada which too often is so largely dependent upon one other country. I think there is much to be gained from participating in a conference of this sort and continuing as a member of the European community in this sense.
We also discussed culture and the development of exchanges. The words "exchanges" and "co-operation" kept cropping up in each of these resolutions. We discussed the development of various European cultures, which reminded me very much of the discussions that we in this House have had among ourselves on the subject of multiculturalism.
Then, we considered co-operation in the field of the cultural development of foreign minorities resulting from migratory movements, and support for the principle of cultural equality for these minorities by appropriate national legislation. This is a problem of which I was really unaware. Certainly, it is a major problem in Europe where there are so many massive movements of workers from one country to another. They are there temporarily as migratory workers, and they want to maintain their culture, their dignity and respect. In many cases citizens of one country that is less developed go to another country that is far more developed, either for employment or for training, and their rights have not been recognized and they have not been treated with the dignity they

March 1, 1973

deserve. That is a matter more serious to them than the problem that we face here, but it is something from which we can learn.
Still in the field of culture there was a resolution dealing with the organization of a European cultural year. This will be the focal point for co-operation on a human level where the best instincts of men and women are highlighted, and I look forward to the organization of this year with great interest. Then there is the matter of free flow of information. The following appears under the heading "Information":
Free flow of information by eliminating obstacles to the exchange of ideas, books, newspapers, films, and radio and television programs-
This is important.
-while recognizing the right of each country to protect its cultural and political values-
Once this caveat is attached there are many things that can be read into it. It is rather interesting that during the drafting of the resolutions there were present representatives of the Soviet Union and the United States. Their concerns were somewhat identical. Each considered the other's information services to be propaganda services. Recognition of that alone is a step forward to understanding what information services are. What one country is trying to do in providing information might be called propaganda in another country. This is a terribly sensitive area. Then there is the measure for facilitating the freedom of foreign journalists so that they can work unimpeded and have freedom of movement.
The whole question of human rights was raised. The question of fundamental human rights flowed through everything we dealt with, but perhaps with a different orientation as between the east and the west. It also called for the participants to reinforce the application of the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to hasten ratification of the International Covenant on Human Rights. We in Canada may not understand why other countries have not ratified the declaration on human rights, but we might consider for a moment that Canada has not ratified it either. I hope that ratification is not far off. We have reasons for this: there is the problem of federal-provincial jurisdiction. However, I think we should stop being self-righteous and criticizing others for raising their perhaps legitimate concerns when we have problems ourselves.
On the other hand, it would be foolish to be naive. It is a tough world. We are involved with people with whose social systems we differ. We recognize those differences and talk about them openly and freely. I was very impressed, as I have been in respect of negotiations between east and west over the past couple of years, with a slow trend toward moving together and finding that our values are similar respecting ecology and the quality of life, which is perhaps a cliche but a very valid one. We seem to find that we have much more in common than we realized. The progress is slow, but it is very much better than not making progress at all; it is very much better than not meeting and talking. I believe it was Churchill who said that it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to shoot,
Inter-Parliamentary Union
shoot, shoot. I think we are making progress. We cannot expect solutions overnight; we cannot expect miracles.
I should like to add to the praise of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) for the courtesy, hospitality and assistance of Ambassador Cote and, indeed, Madame Cote as well as Mr. Michael Shenstone, one of the officials taking part in the Dipoli conferences as representatives of government at the ambassadorial level. Without taking up too much time, I think it is worth digressing for a moment because Madame Cote, when we had a couple of free hours, took the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) and myself to see the suburb of Tapeola. Tapeola is a suburban community of Helsinki which is built on a very human scale. There are no high-rise buildings except possibly one office building. There are amazing recreational facilities. They accommodate the motor car but do not succumb to it. Things are on a human scale where people live as human beings in a totally integrated and very beautiful setting. It reminded me very much of the Muskoka or Georgian Bay regions with which I am particular familiar. I think that in our urban planning we could learn a great deal from what the Finnish people have done. So outside of the conference itself there has been some really valuable spin-off and I believe that tour, or diversion perhaps was as valuable as the whole conference, in a totally different way. There is often such a spin-off which one does not expect in these matters.
I think the work of Mr. Peter Dobell was invaluable to us, as the hon. member for Malpeque pointed out. With his energy, his expertise and his contacts he paved the way for us, kept us moving and made us far more effective than we might otherwise have been. He made us feel a great deal more at ease. I would also mention Jean Mac-Pherson and others of the Parliamentary Union staff who were so helpful. I was particularly proud of my colleagues, the hon. member for Malpeque, who led our delegation, and the hon. member for Scarborough West. They conducted themselves in a manner which brought only credit to Canada. I must say our colleague from Scarborough West was designated as our bilingual member. He delivered much of his intervention in both official languages and in a manner which made it sound official. I pay a tribute, of course, to our Finnish host, Johannes Virolainen, who chaired the conference and was particularly helpful in a cold climate where you wait until Helsinki freezes over. They were warm and gracious hosts; they made us feel very much at home and were highly efficient and kind.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move an amendment to the motion. I am not sure of the procedure involved here since I seconded the motion. I do not know whether I may move an amendment, but I think we might find a way to handle it. With unanimous consent I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque, that in amendment to motion 76 in the name of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) the following be added:
and that the Final Act of the conference be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair finds a procedure problem concerning the acceptability of the amendment in its present form. It would seem

March 1, 1973
Inter-Parliamentary Union
to the Chair to be a completely new proposal. I will take the matter under advisement, which will give the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harvey) an opportunity to enter the debate. In the meantime I shall try to make a decision on the amendment or perhaps suggest an easier form to meet the will of hon. members.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot do as well as the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean) and the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) when it comes to congratulating and thanking the people who made the trip to Helsinki such a fruitful and pleasant one. I would simply like to underline what they have said and express our thanks for the help afforded the delegation from Canada by His Excellency the Ambassador for Finland, particularly for the briefing he gave us before we left for Helsinki. Through him I would express our thanks to the Finnish parliamentarians and the people of Finland. Although we did not have an opportunity to meet them all, the contacts we made were warm and close.
Mr. Speaker, I shall devote my remarks directly and simply to the third commission of the conference on whose drafting committee I had the honour to serve. This commission was the one which dealt with economic relations.
I will begin my remarks by reading to the House part of the resolution which was presented to the conference by the Canadian delegation, a draft resolution submitted by the Canadian delegation on co-operation and collaboration between countries with regard to aid to developing countries. This resolution, to be fair, was one which was suggested primarily by the hon. member for York North and was familiarly known to the delegation as the "Dan-son doctrine." Although I had the honour of speaking to this resolution at the plenary conference and of working on it, I must give credit where credit is due. It is about the only credit that I can hand over in this partisan House, but it was a particularly non-partisan occasion and I am pleased to give such credit at this time. The resolution reads in part:
Believing that development can be successfully promoted through co-operative efforts and programs among developed countries, including countries having different economic and social systems,
Acknowledging the desirability of achieving reform of the international monetary system and of further liberalization of international trade,
Desirous of finding new means of reducing east-west tensions,
Recommends that participating delegations encourage their governments to co-ordinate, to the extent possible and in co-operation with developing countries, their national development assistance programs, and to seek to elaborate co-operative or joint development assistance projects.
I think the only fair thing I can do at this stage is to repeat some of the words that I used to address the plenary session in support of this resolution. We all understand, of course, that the meetings of the interparliamentary conference are not meetings of government and that the participants in the delegations go there not as representatives of their parliaments in totality but as representatives of the make-up of their parliaments. Therefore, if
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
you detect a partisan tone I think you would agree that it was quite appropriate for these elements to be included.
When I addressed myself to the Canadian resolution I made the very obvious point that, of course, aid had to be co-ordinated and also that this aid had to be offered to the developing countries in collaboration with them. Most countries which have been involved in international aid have at least reached this degree of wisdom, that there must be international co-operation in the offering of aid and there must be consultation and collaboration with the developing countries in the offering of such aid.
I also pointed out that it was important for the developed countries of this world not to send with their aid what could be called a cultural under-burden. We have recognized that we must be careful about the ideological and political content of our aid, but at the same time we must not try to impose, through the aid that we offer, our values and our beliefs. Developing countries have a complete right to develop in their own way, to their own purposes and according to the nature of their historical existence. This is a rather important factor, if it is not an immediately evident one.
Then I made the point that no matter how generous the aid would be, no matter how internationally it would be co-ordinated and how sensitive it would be, it would nevertheless be insignificant if we were not prepared, as developed countries, to take a look at what we were doing in terms of the consumption of the world's resources. I quote from my remarks at this stage as follows:
However, aid is not solely a matter of what we give and how we give it, it is also a matter of what we take. We in North America, for example, consume over one-third of the world's energy and about one-half of the world's non-renewable resources, and yet we make up less than one-fifteenth of the world's peoples. World consumption of energy and resources will have to be co-ordinated and redistributed, for without this redistribution of consumption, the developing nations will forever keep falling behind the pace of the developed world, and whatever formal aid we proffer will never be more than a token amend for our guilt of greed.
It certainly shall not be easy for the developed world to reconsider and change its patterns of consumption, but this must be done . ..
We have spoken much of sovereignty in this conference, and rightly so, but we have to understand that the building of national sovereignty needs an economic base as well as a political one. The political base is the will of the people to nationhood, the economic base is that people's ownership or control of the material conditions of its existence. That is why we must begin to take those measures which must be taken to bring the ever growing power of the multinational corporation under national and international control. Should we fail to do so, we will find, when we have finally dismantled the suffocating political and military power blocs of this world, that we are confronted by a multinational system of power which lies beyond the parliaments we so value.
There was another element which I added and which I think is worth repeating here because it loomed very large in the deliberation of the commission, and of the committee particularly. I am not suggesting it is worthwhile repeating because I brought it in; it was brought in by several members. It was that we in the developed world in the northern part of the northern hemisphere had to consider seriously our whole approach to economic growth, because if we continue growing as much as we can to try to solve some of our economic problems, there is no way in which we can offer any real comfort or aid to the underdeveloped world.
March 1, 1973

The deliberations of the commission, and then of the drafting committee, were certainly fruitful, as the hon. member for York North has suggested, but they were not always carried on in full agreement. One could sense that all the delegates at the same time wished very much to reach consensus and were willing to sacrifice some of their original positions in order to reach that consensus. For the information of the House I would like to read that part of the Final Act referring to the third commission, that is, the commission on economic affairs, which relates particularly to the input of the Canadian delegation. The recommendation reads as follows:
The Conference,
recommends that participating delegations encourage their government:
-to co-ordinate and promote co-operation with underdeveloped countries in order to extend national and international plans for development aid and to devote to the growth of those countries their financial advantages and savings made thanks to co-operation and European security
-to work in order to alter existing tariff systems to the extent that their effects on underdeveloped countries are hindering the acknowledged purposes of the aid and co-operation and especially to take steps to stabilize the price of raw materials at a profitable level.

I remember particularly that in the debates relating to that last point which has to do with the stabilization of the world prices of raw materials and of basic commodities, there was a particularly heated exchange at one moment over what certain European countries had done to the economies of certain parts of the underdeveloped world in such cases, for example, as the overproduction and dumping into the international market of sugar from sugar beets. I was reminded in this House the other day that we, too, in Canada are embarking on a program to encourage the growing of sugar beets. If we are to be serious in attending these conferences, taking part in them and coming to a consensus on general resolutions, we should also bring back with us the sense and import of these resolutions, particularly as they would apply to our policies.
As the hon. member for York North has suggested, our going to Europe to join in these conferences can become a bit of a hollow exercise if we simply go to take part in a conference, in the shaping of the resolutions and in agreeing to the consensus that is struck, and then return home and forget about our participation there and the arguments which we as parliamentarians made.
I will end on this note, Mr. Speaker. Of course, none of the commitments made by the delegation from this parliament is binding on the government. But I think it is important for parliament to hear the report, to consider it and the position taken by the delegation in coming to what was, after all, on several very important matters a rather critical and important consensus. I would like to thank hon. members for hearing this report. As has been pointed out, this is a precedent. I hope it is a significant and important one. I was proud and honoured to be a
Inter-Parliamentary Union
member of the delegation; and although Helsinki may be a dark place in January, I would be glad to return there almost any time-not in the next two weeks but certainly in the very near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. We are encountering one or two problems. As the hon. member who just had the floor mentioned, this is a new procedure, and I think we should try to proceed in an orderly manner.
It has been suggested that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) cannot be moved by him since he is the seconder of the motion. Even if the amendment were moved by somebody else, the Chair, looking at it and seeing it refers to the Final Act of the conference, which is not before the House at this time, could well determine that it is introducing a foreign matter, a new proposal. Further, the proposition to refer the subject matter of the conference to the committee is also a new proposal, foreign to the original motion which merely invites the House to take note of the conference.
The Chair suggests to hon. members that possibly the best procedure would be to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) to withdraw his motion; then we could discharge the order that is presently before the House. Again, by unanimous consent, as an order of the House the subject matter could be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Would this procedure be agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal to withdraw the motion before the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it also agreed that we discharge order No. 76 from the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it also agreed, by unanimous consent, that the subject matter included in the motion be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged, motion withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I hear the suggestion that we call it six o'lock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-147, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted for private members' hour at five o'clock I was in the midst of recounting some historical facts in relation to the subject of old age pensions. I do not wish to stay with the pages of history much longer, but there is one other reference I should like to make; it is called for because of the boast that my good friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), made this afternoon. He said, correctly, that the increase now being proposed in terms of dollars is the largest increase ever made in the old age pension at any one time.
Whether one talks of an increase of $13.39 over what the pension would have been in April, or of $17.12 over what it now is, one is talking of increases of only 15 per cent or 20 per cent. I pointed out this afternoon that 30 years ago, after a rough session, we won an increase of $5. Now, Sir, $5 is a much smaller amount than $13 or $17; but I also point out that it was an increase of 25 per cent in the pension of that day, so the minister has a way to go yet. I also point out that $5 30 years ago had a lot more purchasing power than has $13.39 today.
This leads me to underscore the point which I make very strongly on behalf of this entire movement, that although there has been an increase-and we welcome that-we are still not satisfied. The basic pension should be $150 a month. The minister and the government know that we have given them little peace so far this session because this is one of the things we have wanted. I can tell the minister, too, that there will be no peace for the government until the pension has reached the kind of figure that we believe is fair for the older people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Where is the amendment, Stanley?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members do not seem to realize that private members cannot move money amendments to money bills.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Fake it, anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hope that remark is on the record. My hon. friend from
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) says, "Fake it, anyway". That is the Tory approach to this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have completely failed, from their leader down, to indicate what they believe the pension should be.


An hon. Member:: Ninety dollars a month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, or $95 at best. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that it is a good debating point for him to give us the cost figures of the higher pension we would like to have, but if he is telling us that we cannot today have a higher pension because of the millions or hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost, I hope the minister or the government a few days or a week or two from now will not ask us to vote for hundreds of millions of dollars in tax write-offs to the corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Here it comes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the money is available, the people who deserve it, the people to whom it should go, are our senior citizens. We stand by our program of a basic pension of $150 a month.
I enjoyed the reference that the minister made this afternoon to the question of universality. His predecessors have stood in their places and justified the government's not raising the universal part of the pension but raising, instead, the supplement. Even when he was doing the right thing this afternoon he made the point that it might be better to have added the money to the supplement rather than to the basic amount of the pension. He went into the old argument that when you pay the pension on a universal basis, you are giving some of it to the wealthy, to those who do not need it. Mr. Speaker, it is still our view that in terms of philosophy and in terms of common sense, the best way to unite this country is to get as close to equality as we can; and if we cannot get it in other sections of life, let us get it in the years of retirement.
Let me tell the minister and this House again, that of the Canadian people who are 65 years of age and over there are only about 10 per cent at the top who have so much money that they do not need any more. The other 90 per cent fall into three groups of roughly 30 per cent each. There are the 30 per cent at the bottom who have no income except the pension and therefore qualify for the full guaranteed income supplement on top of their old age security pension; the next 30 per cent have some income, but very little, as a result of which they qualify for part of the guaranteed income supplement. Between these two groups at the bottom which total 60 per cent, and the top wealthy group which makes up 10 per cent, there is another group of 30 per cent consisting of people who have just enough other income to deny them the guaranteed income supplement. As a result, they get none of that money, none of the various benefits and services that are available, free, to pensioners on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Yet these people, in a relevant and very real sense, are in need.
March 1, 1973

It is our view that the best way to handle this problem is not by applying a means or needs test but, rather, by paying the pension universally and then adjusting the tax system in such a way that, those who are in the upper income brackets and do not need the money pay it all back. So long as you apply a needs or income test you will create the situation in which there is a division between those who have just enough and those who do not even have enough to get by. We suggest that is not fair.
I say to the minister that he need not offer any word of apology for adding the full amount of this increase to the basic pension paid under the Old Age Security Act. One of the reasons we are prepared to vote for this bill is that, for the first time in several years, we are seeing an increase in that basic amount. In other words, we are moving a little more in the direction of universality than has been the case with respect to the last several amendments to the Old Age Security Act.
It is still my view, despite all the reviews, papers, reports and so on which have been written on the subject, that the best piece of social legislation our parliament ever passed was the bill in 1951 that provided for old age security to be paid on a universal basis, beginning in 1952. I regret very much that the Liberal party which brought in that piece of legislation-granted, it was prodded to do it-has since then retreated from that principle. So, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the aspect of this piece of legislation that moves us toward the universal approach. We hope that there will be further steps in this direction.
I spoke earlier today about the pension situation which existed when I first came to this House some 30 years ago. Not only have we increased the basic amount of the pension fivefold and done other things; we have achieved the acceptance in Canada of a new philosophy about pensions. Pensions are no longer regarded as a form of charity, something that you give to people to enable them to keep body and soul together for the few years they may still live after leaving the treadmill. Rather, we now look on pensions as a right. We now believe that individuals have the right to retire at a decent age and to enjoy something of the good life they have helped to make possible through their years of hard work in this country. I hope we will not go back on that approach to pensions, back to any concept of charity or welfare.
I shall now move to another phase of the question on which the minister touched at length this afternoon, that is, the question of our doing something for persons below the age of 65, particularly those who are between 60 and 65. I say to the minister and to the government that although we were disappointed because the basic amount of pension was not increased to, say, $125 or $150, we were equally disappointed, a bit surprised-almost shocked-to see when we examined this bill that there was nothing in it to break through that floor of 65 years of age.
As the minister said this afternoon and as we all know, the greatest pressure for something to be done in this area is exerted by those who sit on his side of the House. He knows very well that the members of his own party are constantly pressing him on this point. There is no reason why I should not single out a particular group of members who are exerting this pressure, and I commend them for
Old Age Security Act
doing so. The Quebec members of his party feel very strongly that people between 60 and 65 years of age should be paid a pension. If the government is not prepared to give the pension to everyone between 60 and 65, there is, none the less, tremendous support by hon. members on his side of the House for the proposition that the spouse who is between 60 and 65 should get the pension-


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -if the other person is already in receipt of the old age pension.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I agree with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I gather from the applause of hon. members that there is support for that proposition from all parties in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was disappointed that nothing was done to lower the pensionable age in one of two ways, either by lowering it universally to 64, 63, 62, 61 and on down to 60-and I would not mind an employment test being applied to any pension that might be payable at that age-or by introducing some vehicle for providing the pension to the younger spouse in cases where the other spouse is already in receipt of the pension.
I listened with interest and attention to the minister's discussion on this subject this afternoon. I think there is a good deal to be said for his argument that we must think about all the areas of need affecting people below age 65. It is not just a case of looking at those between 60 and 65; we must be concerned about those, in need who are below that age. I firmly support the idea of the federal-provincial conference that will discuss the entire problem of welfare, income security and income maintenance. If I may say so, I felt on two or three occasions this afternoon, as I have felt in the past, a sense of determination displayed by the minister. I think he wants to move in this field. He has our blessing. We wish him well. I only hope that the conference in April, 1973, will not mean that papers will be produced for action in 1975 or 1977. I hope there will be action in these areas this year, in 1973.1 wish Hansard could record the fact that the minister is nodding his head up and down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is not denying it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even though it is true that we must do something to meet the needs of the poor of all ages, I do not think it is fair to lump those between 60 and 65 with the rest of the population. We dare to hope that persons who are in their thirties, forties and fifties and who are in economic trouble will be helped in ways other than putting them on an old age pension. We hope that there will be jobs for them, or rehabilitation or economic programs that will give them the chance to live the good life that is to be lived in Canada. However, if a person is over 60 and is in economic trouble, his chances

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
of getting employment and being rehabilitated in the industrial world are not good. All he has to look forward to is his pension.
In addition to the rather sad letters I get from persons over 65 who are not getting enough pension, I get a great many letters from people who are between 60 and 65 who have nothing to fall back on and who can only wait until they are 65 and collect the old age pension. The situation of such people is tragic. I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that it behooves him to put right on top of his list of concerns this problem, because he must do something for persons between 60 and 65. I say, all power to him in anything he can do for groups below that age, but please do not ignore the possibility of doing something for those between 60 and 65 simply because something has to be done for those below the age of 60 as well.
As I said, I welcome the fact that these conferences are planned, particularly the April conference. I think the idea of taking a new look at our entire income maintenance, welfare and social security progj am is good. However, the trouble with these over-all rev ews is that they come up with grandiose schemes that arc difficult to put into effect so that for a long time nothing is done. I therefore plead again with the minister to give the strong lead in the cabinet that I know he can give for action to be taken on some of the pieces of legislation that are on our statute books right now. For example, I urge that he push very hard for acceptance of amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. I know he told us he had some trouble with the provinces when they met here a short while ago. However, it still makes no sense for the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement to be escalated each year by the actual increase in the cost of living, but for the pension escalation paid under the Canada Pension Plan to be limited to a 2 per cent ceiling. For the provinces to say they do not want to agree to the removal of that because they want to be able to borrow the money that is in the fund is a downright shame. If necessary, they should be told this in every provincial legislature in this country. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare should use the bargaining power he has to ensure that that ceiling is taken off the escalation in the Canada Pension Plan so that those pensions will grow year by year at least by the actual amount of the rise in the cost of living.
I mention again, as I have on other occasions, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act. I realize that the persons who come under these pieces of legislation get something more than is in those acts by virtue of the Canada Assistance Plan, but it is still very galling to those people to face the fact that although for a number of years their maximum pension increased in line with increases in old age security, that has not happened for a number of years. In the case of the blind, in particular, there should be a universal means test-free allowance. Surely that is the least a society like ours can do for the blind. In the case of the disabled, who are tossed back and forth between the Disabled Persons Act and the social welfare legislation of the various provinces, that is not good enough. The minister may tell me this will be dealt 
with in the total review, but the totality of that review can get so large that for a long time nothing will be done. These people deserve improvements right now.
I also wish to mention other groups I have spoken of from time to time. I refer to the railway pensioners, both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. The minister may tell me this is a little out of his field, but he sits in the cabinet with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and others who have connections with these organizations. It is completely unfair that the Canadian National escalation of pensions is still limited to a 2 per cent basis. It is unfair that the basic pension formula for CN employees is poorer than those in the Air Canada pension plan and in the Public Service Superannuation Act.
The Canadian Pacific pension plan is really a disgrace. To tell us that the CPR is a private company and therefore the government cannot touch it does not wash very well with us. It may be a private company in terms of the profit it makes, but it is making its profit from serving the public and charging the public for that service. It gets its whole existence from what this parliament has given to it over the years and I think the government has the right and the duty to tell the CPR, as it must tell the CNR, that the time has come to make tremendous improvements in the pensions of all retired railway workers.
I wish again to put in my plug for retired public servants, including retired armed forces and RCMP personnel. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and I have had many discussions about this. We agree on what has happened and we agree on what ought to be done, but nothing gets done. The escalation of those pensions is still limited by the 2 per cent ceiling. Sometimes the President of the Treasury Board says that he would like to take off that ceiling, but he cannot do so until the Minister of National Health and Welfare removes the 2 per cent ceiling escalation under the Canada Pension Plan.
When the minister talks about the necessity for a review in its totality, there is a very wide totality to be looked at. I welcome the idea of a guaranteed annual income and the suggestion in the throne speech that if a guaranteed annual income cannot be brought in this year or for everyone, it will be good to start with it in certain categories. However, the government can show its good faith in these areas by doing something about the pieces of legislation that are on the books now. I say to the minister and the government that any improvements that are made in these particular pensions plans will not be null and void if we get this over-all approach to income maintenance and security that seems to be the goal of the minister. Therefore, I press all these points on this minister and his colleagues in the cabinet.
I believe, as I have for all the years I have been here, that we are dealing with a most important area when we talk about the right of our people, after the years they have worked, to enjoy retirement in dignity, with justice and security. I strongly urge the minister to do the things we are asking for tonight, that he review the amount of the basic pension that is being provided and, in particular, that he study the whole question of lowering the eligible age to 60, preferably for everybody, with the only rider that an employment test might apply. If he cannot do that,
March 1, 1973

he should at least do this for the spouses of those who are already on pension.
I have just one other point to make. I have deliberately left it to the last because I regard it not only as something new in terms of its being on the table of this House, but because I welcome it so much and regard it as so important. For all the years I have been talking about pensions, I have been insisting that merely to increase pensions by the amount the cost of living goes up, although that is much better than 2 per cent, is not good enough because the recipients of those pensions are forever getting behind. Although the cost of living goes up to a certain extent, wages and the standards of living go up more than that.
We now have on the table of this House a report from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which was tabled a few days ago by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras). It endorses unanimously a recommendation in the report of a joint study group that considered the basic amount of the war disability pension under the Pension Act. That recommendation is that war disability pensions should be increased each year, not just by the amount the cost of living goes up but by an index that measures the rise in the standard of living.
That committee found a particular formula. It said that the basic disability pension could be arrived at as the average of the salaries or wages of five selected groups in the public service. That committee said it is not good enough just to arrive at that decent figure for now and then leave it to be adjusted with the cost of living. No. The committee said that in future years the war disability pension should increase by the same dollar amount that the average salaries of those in the same five selected categories increase. I am hopeful that when the government brings in the bill to amend the Pension Act, it will accept that recommendation. There has been a commitment by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) to do so, and I believe it will be done.
When we get that principle accepted for war disability pensions, I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and this House that we are just beginning. It is a very important new beginning. However, we must apply it across the board, and when we do we will be doing the right thing. We will be saying to those who have retired. "We are not asking you just to get by for the rest of your life on the money you have at retirement; we are not asking you to get by for the rest of your life with just enough to buy the same quantity of goods and services you can buy on retirement, but you have the right to share in the rising standard of living, the better life Canadians are making possible because you, the retired people of this country, gave so much during your working years." This is a tremendous report we have received from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have seen a lot of improvement in pensions during the years I have been here. This report recommends a new one which I hope we will win with respect to all our pension programs.
In closing, however, I urge the minister to meet two main challenges without delay-raise the amount of the basic pension under the Old Age Security Act to $150 a
Old Age Security Act
month, and lower the qualifying age so that Canadians, if they wish to, may retire at age 60.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about the present economic situation and about the bill the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has brought forward here.
We are gratified, Mr. Speaker, by the minister's statement concerning the increase in the old age pensions, but less so when we see that it has been impossible to bring down to 60 the age for eligibility to the pension. We should have liked that minimum age to be brought down, which would have been one way of directly fighting unemployment. It would certainly have been a remedy to the unbalanced economic situation concerning the unemployment we are now experiencing.
Mr. Speaker, we feel that this partial increase of pensions was urgent to offset the increase in the cost of living; the increase amounts to about twelve dollars. This will give somewhat more purchasing power to senior citizens.
According to the minister's estimates, this increase will cost some 290 million dollars a year. We know, Mr. Speaker, that money always comes into the picture. If the minister had made the necessary financial arrangements, if financial conditions had permitted, I know he would have increased the pension to $200 instead of $100.
Mr. Speaker, the minister announced that the increase was granted up to April 1974, after which increases will escalate with the cost of living. This shows recognition of the continued upward trend in the cost of living.
Therefore, I agree with those who want pension increases. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who wants to have pensions increased at all costs. However, we also believe that the cost of living should stop rising. If nothing is done about the spiralling cost of living, there is no use boosting pensions. The higher the pensions, the higher the cost of living. In turn, the higher the cost of living, the heavier the taxes, thus causing a further economic disequilibrium. This is not profitable or logical.
Under our present system, social legislation leads to more taxation and income taxes in a direct or indirect way which causes the economy to become imbalanced. Economic difficulties are causing an increasingly difficult situation. In fact, we have reached the point where adequate solutions are practically impossible. The guaranteed monthly income will be $170 for single persons and $325 for couples, which means an increase of about 26 per cent, as claimed by the minister. He says Canada will be ahead of all other countries.
Mr. Speaker, considering our situation, our natural resources and technical progress, I do not think we should compare with other countries. I think we must look after ourselves, accept our responsibilities and live according to our means. If we are in a position to raise pensions, let us do it. If our automated production reaches the markets quicker than the consumers can absorb it and because it is produced without labour, other solutions must be found to our problems, so as to balance our economy. And the

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
only ones to have found any solutions so far are those who go straight to the heart of the matter and say: If production is automated, consumption must be too. We must develop ways of making distribution automatic, like production.
At present, production is being financed, but no one bothers about the consumer side of things. When consumption is financed, it is with measures that do not fit the economy, by taking from those who are short already so as to give to others. What is given to others is lifted from the pockets of those who are already lacking. So some are made poorer that others might live. This cannot go on, since it is wrong and out of tune with reality, since we are living in a country that abounds in wealth and whose industry is automated; we can do better than that.
Our main objective in the present situation must be to bring the increase in the cost of living to a halt; there would then be no need to be always raising pensions, then this, and then the other thing.
Not one party here can accept this or can suggest any way likely to prevent the cost of living from ever increasing and from ever unbalancing the economy.
The more we progress the more we increase pensions, social services and taxes, the more we increase the deficits which we must meet by borrowing and by selling government bonds. In so doing we must pay new interest rates and we increase public debt. So we will never succeed in balancing the economy and we will never allow Canadians to live decently in their over-affluent country which is moreover automated to an unbelievable degree.
It is essential to have a social budget able to meet each citizen's needs and to guarantee his right to live to each Canadian. Is our national production sufficient for this? I am not afraid to reply in the affirmative because our national production is sufficient; this year national production amounts to $142 billion and national consumption to $60 billion; therefore our reserves are $40 billion. If we have $40 billion this year we also had $40 billion last year. It is those $80 billion accumulated during these last two years that we should use to give Canadians what they are entitled to have, namely the right to live. This is what I was leading to.
The right to live is not a moral, social or religious question; the right to live is only a monetary, economic and political question. It is the responsibility of those involved in economy and politics to establish a balanced system so that each individual may have his three meals a day.
The right to live is not a municipal, provincial or regional question; it is a natural, national and federal question in Canada and a universal question on earth. Let us settle our problems first in Canada and the other countries will follow our leadership depending on whether our experience turns out to be effective and profitable.
If we must start somewhere, Mr. Speaker, why not in Canada? If we must start one day, why not today? Since the monetary system has now become almost worldwide, since money has truly become a must in terms of buying useful goods which are essential or pleasant for life, for

each living citizen in every country, particularly in those that are more advanced industrially speaking, including Canada, it becomes most pressing to withdraw as directly as possible from our monetary, economic and political system the responsibility for each citizen's right to live.
If the entire economic system comprises production of goods and services, consumption of those goods and use of those services by living citizens, as well as the capitalization of the instruments of production and progress, if the entire economic system has to ensure justice and economic equilibrium in every sector of the nation's economic activity for the benefit of all Canadians, it is through the monetary system that the political authority must act to bring about the ultimate end of the national economy which can be but the fulfilment of the needs of all citizens composing the nation.
If the annual national production is based on natural resources, on the capital and the work of adult citizens, one knows that natural resources are provided freely by nature or Providence and that capital requires interest and work a salary according to the rates determined by the citizens concerned.
In 1973, Canada has almost 23 million inhabitants of which some 9 million only have a satisfactory purchasing power thanks to the interests on their capital or their salaries. The 15 million dependent citizens without employment nor capital are also entitled to live and to obtain the necessities of life out of our national production and our natural resources. Our organizations, with their financial, economic and political framework, are already set up and operate with efficiency and flexibility which all our experts find surprising.
Nothing is left to chance, Mr. Speaker. Everything is determined, anticipated, decided, planned and directed by a few qualified and responsible leaders. All the mechanisms, bodies and instruments are controlled by men, by recognizing and accepting the economic situation in Canada at the end of the 1972-73 fiscal year and considering our enormous capacity for producing and capitalizing. So, for the end of the current fiscal year, let us immediately improve our present methods for distribution of the purchasing power in the hands of dependent citizens who are without income, capital or work, and let us recognize at last the entitlement of the individual to a guaranteed annual income on par with the national product.
Mr. Speaker, for the past twenty years, we have been advocating a guaranteed annual income for each Canadian citizen, taking into account the annual national production based on three different sources: capital, work and the vital entitlement of each person living in this country. Just as personal capital calls for a personal income under the terms of an agreement, so dependent citizens deserve a personal income also guaranteed by contract. This is what we have been asking for quite a while. We are able in our country to negotiate a contract ensuring our people their right to three meals a day.
The word "income", Mr. Speaker, is an administrative term known throughout the world. Income equals expenses and surplus. This is at the same time the capitalist, socialist and communist formula which is being used
March 1, 1973

the world over. Each administration enjoys sufficient income to guarantee the everyday expenses needed in addition to leaving a surplus margin for the future security and development of the administered. The administered is always a person, a family or a society. Only the person has life; the family is a natural group of people joined by love and by birth. Society is a group of persons artificially joined by interest or by need.
Canada, I say again, has 23 million citizens, including 6 million families of three to ten members or more, active in some 500,000 firms or institutions of all kinds. All those persons, families and corporations function according to the same universal pattern of administration: income equals expenses and reserves, profits or surplus, or, in the case of bad management, there is a deficit.
A country like Canada should not have a deficit. The company which Canada constitutes should have nothing but surpluses in the present situation, in view of our well developed economy, and its citizens should live the way real citizens have the right to live, off their gigantic national production.
Individuals alone, Mr. Speaker, have life, life with essential needs, material, cultural and spiritual, which must be met. The individual then must be assured, first of all, of a guaranteed income because he is a living person, and not because he is an adult who can work to earn a living, because he has capital that is automatically bringing in interests, an income.
Every person starts with having life, before being able to work or own something. The right to life is therefore the first right of every human being, through the family; society itself is made up of individuals, families and companies.
Any group is made up of units. Therefore it is by taking care of the units that each group can best ensure its own administration. The opposite is not true. Thus in Canada, in 1972-1973, the national economy has shown an exciting productivity, while its units were plagued with inflation, unemployment and poverty. Only a guaranteed personal income granted to each dependent citizen can eliminate poverty from every home in Canada in 1973, while productive citizens continue to receive salaries for their work and interest on their capital.
Without work nor capital, Mr. Speaker, no matter whether we are young or old, sick or disabled, unemployed or mother and housewife, we can do nothing. I suggest that the capitalist system today rewards only work and capital, without any consideration for the family and the human being.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, capital is quite profitable. As for interest rates, nobody says a word about them; they are exorbitant. We have long been requesting a reduction in the rates of interest in order to lower the cost of living. Considering the monetary system we are advocating and which could be applied, we asked that the citizens be granted a compensated discount on the production that is most in demand and on the one which implies the highest cost.
Old Age Security Act
At the present time, we should grant compensated discounts on the necessities of life as a whole, especially on food, because we need food; people also greatly need a home. Current interest rates for those who want to build a house are 10 or 12 per cent and there is also an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, which increases the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, we would have been happy indeed had we had the good fortune of finding that the last budget did away with this awful 11 per cent sales tax on building materials which strangles all Canadians who want a home. Home like food is a necessity of life. People need shelter and food and they are being exploited in every way and the sharks are those who benefit most from it.
Mr. Speaker, looking into the budget of finance people, of high financial institutions, one notes that there is no deficit. Let us imagine the billion dollar profits they make thanks to our taxes and the exorbitant interest rate we are paying, and these are the matters that should retain our attention if we want to settle our current economic problem.
Mr. Speaker, our current problem is artificial, not natural. It is not a creation of nature but of mankind. Now, men are the administrators, they have the responsibilities and, taking into account the good will that he shows, I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to kindly redress our economy and, as he said today, jointly with the provinces, to find means of building up an economy that could be satisfactory to all Canadian people, guaranteeing them a yearly income besides their wages.
Therefore, should he entertain such good dispositions, I shall congratulate him, but should his approach be nothing more than perpetuating the present system, when necessary to increase the pensions and allowances, or this and that, while accepting the increase in the cost of living and all the resulting difficulties, that will not settle the problem. We are only going round in circles and our uncomfortable position will only worsen. Since we must adopt social and economic measures, let us take them, let us assume our responsibilities, and I believe that in so doing, instead of calling our pension plan a universal plan, we should call it a Canadian pension plan for the benefit of the Canadian people, because our pension plan should not be viewed as universal but as Canadian. When speaking about a universal pension plan, we do not intend to use only words, and I believe that instead of using the words "universal pension plan", we should say "Canadian pension plan". I feel that those words would be easier to understand.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


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


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) spoke on behalf of this party, he put our position very well and at the same time suggested that each party field one speaker. It seems to me that not one hon. member will vote against this bill and a competitive debate would not solve anything. We could pass the bill, send it to the committee right away

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
and bring in the next order of business. That is our position. We would like to move matters along. We make this offer to all parties in this House in the hope that we can speed up the business of the House, get the legislation passed and see that our old people are in receipt of their increased pensions as quickly as possible. Is there agreement?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This does not seem to me to be a point of order. It is a suggestion which does not seem to be acceptable. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bruce.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognized the hon. member for Yukon on an alleged point of order. I told him it was not a point of order. It has been the custom of Speakers of this House to rule that a point of order does not arise from a point of order. I now recognize the hon. member for Bruce.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In my respectful submission, it has long been the custom of this House that when an hon. member rises and asks the Chair to request whether or not consent exists in the House to a suggestion made, that request is made by the Chair. With great respect, I ask Your Honour to request whether there is unanimous consent to the suggestion that we pass the bill now without further debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I object to a point of order being used as a political ploy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to say a few words in respect of Bill C-147. Also, I am most pleased, as a backbench member of this House, that the suggestion made by the House leader of the Conservative party was not accepted by hon. members. On such an important topic as this, one that hits at the very fibre of Canada in that it would improve the lot of elderly Canadians who made the country what it is, one would think the Conservative Party would show some interest in this bill. I enjoyed-


An hon. Member:: We have heard your speech twice already.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -the presentation which the minister gave this afternoon and I congratulate him. This is the first bill he has presented to the House and it is probably one of the most important bills he will ever present, even if he

stays here as long as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


An hon. Member:: No chance.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I listened with interest to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) this afternoon. We heard a considerable amount of humour, more humour than facts; in any event, it was enjoyable. I also listened to his criticism which, I suppose, according to him was constructive. Then I come to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I remember, you are the one who said that our senior citizens never had it so good; you said that six months ago.


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


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I do not suppose there is anyone-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I want to tell you fellows over there something. If you say too much, you will not be talking for too long.
I do not suppose anyone has crossed swords with another hon. member-in a friendly way, I hope-in the last four or five years as often as I have with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. On the other hand, I have always appreciated his sincerity and I cannot let this occasion pass by without paying my compliments to him as an individual.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: He told us, for example, that 30 years ago when he was in the House in 1943, old age pensions were $10 a month. I believe that is what he said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, $20.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: One would be less than honest if he did not say that one of the reasons old age pensions have reached the height which they have in Canada-although they may not be as high as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would wish them to be-is his efforts over the years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is a strange parliament.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: He has constantly been a thorn in the side of the government party, whichever party it might be, to try to get pensions raised; and he has been successful. May I respectfully and in a very general way remind him of something he said this afternoon, that his party was for complete universality. I believe that was one of the main themes of his speech.
I would like to ask him the following question; perhaps on another occasion he might be able to answer it. Why is it that the first thing the New Democratic Party in British
March 1, 1973

Columbia did when they were elected a few months ago was to increase the old age supplement to $200, but they did not increase the basic pension by even a five-cent piece? Surely I have said enough already to show how much I appreciate the hon. member and what he has tried to do. It is all very well to say that the great NDP want universality across the board, but when a provincial NDP government comes to power they increase the supplement to $200 a month, with the help of the Canada Assistance Plan, but they do not raise the basic pension by even a dime. So I respectfully point out that it is one thing to be in opposition but it is a completely different thing when you are sitting on the government side of the House.
It is now 21 years since universal old age pensions were first introduced in Canada for those aged 70 and over. In 1952, this parliament provided a universal benefit of $40 a month to every person in Canada over 70 who met the residence requirements. In 1967, parliament provided a guaranteed income supplement to that pension of $30 a month on the basis of an income test for old age security pensioners. Commencing in 1966, the age of eligibility for pensions was reduced from 70 one year at a time until in 1970 the age of eligibility reached 65.
Before 1952, a very high proportion of Canadians in retirement were obliged to seek social assistance to keep body and soul together. In the intervening years, the level of income guarantee provided to our senior citizens has increased steadily until, as provided for in the legislation now before the House, single pensioners will be entitled to $170 a month, couples to $325 a month, and the basic pension is increased to $100 from $82.88.
I would remind hon. members, in passing, that this afternoon the hon. member for Hillsborough, speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, said that $100 was not enough and that to keep up with the cost of living it should be raised to $107 a month. I simply cannot understand how a party as great as the Conservative party was in former years can be talking about such a delicate subject as old age pensions, because there is not one person in the House of Commons tonight, in fact there are very few people in the whole of Canada, at the age of retirement who cannot remember what our Tory friends did when they ruled the roost with one of the greatest majorities in the history of Canada. I will tell you what they did. They raised the old age pension to $65 a month to be given to pensioners at age 70 and they said to them, "God bless you. Go ahead; this is the best we can do".


An hon. Member:: That is a lot better than you did.


An hon. Member:: How about $2.88?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: How about 42 cents?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Perhaps it is because hon. members are approaching the time when they will receive the old age pension and enthusiasm is getting to them, but it is difficult for the Chair to follow what the hon. member is saying.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is not making any sense, anyway.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Let me remind you that at the age of 70-
Old Age Security Act


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that you just made, I must say I would have been happy a short time ago when my colleague for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) was speaking if the one who was in the Chair at the time had made the same comment when a number of Liberal members on my left were really kicking up a row.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. That is not a point of order.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It is better than the $65 a month at age 70 that our friends to the left of Mr. Speaker gave the senior citizens of Canada, with no guaranteed income supplement whatsoever. Yet they tell us now, through their main speaker, that instead of $100 a month it should be $107. Not once in this speech did the hon. member mention that senior citizens at the age of 65, those who have no other income, will be drawing $325 a month for a couple while a single person at the age of 65 will be drawing $170 a month. Having heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre this afternoon casting aspersions on the sincerity of the Conservative party with regard to senior citizens, I say that if I am ever unfortunate enough to need a heart transplant, let me have the heart of a Tory, because so far as senior citizens are concerned it has never been used.


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


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I assure the hon. member that all Tories have hearts, but that is not the part of my anatomy that I would give him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What's your next statement, Ross?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My next statement is that I meant every single word of my last statement. Although there are no precise data on the proportion of pensioners who still have to submit to a needs test to receive social assistance before this legislation takes effect, it appears to be in the order of from 5 per cent to 10 per cent, depending on what region of Canada one is talking about. Except for a small number of people with special needs, this legislation will provide to our senior citizens a level of income sufficient to remove them from the welfare rolls once and for all.
Special needs might include drugs, nursing home care, and home care, and of course I would be less than frank if I did not remind hon. member that the provinces, which have responsibility in this field, receive 50 per cent of the cost of this assistance under a federal cost-sharing program. Hon. members should note the federal cost-sharing of increased supplements for the aged and the handicapped in British Columbia. This could well apply to other provinces. For example, it could happen in the provinces of Ontario and Prince Edward Island. If Conservative members really want to put pressure on the provinces and if they are really sincere in support of the speech given on their behalf this afternoon, they should

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
go to the wealthy province of Ontario and say to the premier of that province with whom they have very close contact, "Let us do in Ontario exactly the same as they did in British Columbia."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Don't come crying here and telling us what you did years ago when you gave the magnificent sum of $65 a month. Go to the province of Ontario and tell it to make the same deal as British Columbia.


David Lewis: Don't forget Alberta.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Very good; I won't forget Alberta. As a matter of fact, I have it in my speech later on. I will use Alberta in a rather different fashion.
Let no one underestimate this achievement, Mr. Speaker. It has been secured after a long and, from a parliamentary point of view, rather complicated process. It reflects the consensus of this House, over time, on the priority that we attach to the needs of those who built this country, our fathers and mothers and the grandfathers and grandmothers of those who now harvest the fruits of their great endeavours. As a Canadian I am proud to say that Canada is the first country in the world that has provided this order of protection to its aged. Not just the Liberal government, that introduced this legislation, should take pride in it: we have three other very responsible parties in this House and it is a fact that all of the parties working together made this legislation our number one priority to assist our senior citizens. We should be proud of that fact.
This afternoon the minister attempted to compare Canada with other countries such as Sweden, France and Germany. It is very difficult to do that. Last night I took the opportunity to compare Canada with various countries. I repeat that it is very difficult. While the figures must be reasonably rough, nevertheless it is a fact that so far as looking after senior citizens is concerned, we are the number one nation in the world. In the wealthiest country in the world, the United States, approximately 5 per cent of its citizens, if they retire at age 65 because of sickness or some unfortunate catastrophe, are not covered by social security. They must go on relief, which is paid for by the state or the U.S. treasury. How different from the situation here in Canada where a couple living anywhere from Newfoundland to Vancouver can retire at age 65 and, if they have no money, automatically from now on, starting in April, receive a cheque for $325 a month!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Canada is one of the first countries in the world to legislate to provide that its pensioners, as a matter of right, without reference to contributions that they may or may not have made to a pension plan and without reference to a means or needs test, shall be guaranteed an income which will permit them to live their declining years with security and dignity.
As a Liberal as well as a Canadian, I applaud the contribution which has been made toward the final achievement of this goal by such eminent predecessors of the present incumbent of the National Health and Welfare portfolio as the Hon Brooke Claxton, the Hon. Paul

Martin, the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, the Hon. Allan MacEac-hen and the Hon. John Munro, all of whom had a great deal to do with the legislation that has come before us today. We should be proud of them. It has been said that one may judge the moral fibre of a nation by the way it takes care of themselves. No Canadian need fear the application of this standard to his country, and no Liberal should be ashamed of the contribution of this government.
Other things have also been done for our senior citizens, Mr. Speaker. The income tax exemption for our senior citizens was $650 at age 70. In the tax reform legislation which we introduced last year that exemption was increased to $1,000 and the qualifying age lowered to 65 years, so that anyone getting the guaranteed income supplement would no longer have to pay income tax in Canada. There are those on the other side of this chamber, particularly in the NDP, who have asked why we should increase the old age security pension rather than the guaranteed income supplement. Mr. Speaker, in passing this legislation the House is reaffirming the position it took in 1952 when it decided, for the first time in Canadian history, to recognize the contribution which our senior citizens have made to the growth and current prosperity of the country by providing a universal benefit.
Some 21 years ago this House removed all conditions which had hitherto attached to the old age pension, and gave it to all pensioners as a matter of right. No one in the House at the time thought it was sufficient to meet all the needs of retired persons, and some who are still here today said so in no uncertain terms. For some of those who had other income, it lifted them from insecurity to security. For those who had little or no other income, it was not enough and required supplementation. For those who had plenty of other income-this was not, and still is not, characteristic of the vast majority of retired Canadians-this was a payment made by a grateful country to those whose labours had built it into a strong and prosperous nation. It was to be theirs as a matter of right.
As a nation we have prospered much since 1952 when the OAS payment was $40. Since then we have turned increasingly to the problem of the relief of poverty. In the retired group, the guaranteed income supplement which was introduced in 1967 put pensioners on the high road to the achievement of a guaranteed income at a level which meets their needs without attacking their dignity. The legislation before us, despite the charges of inadequacy, removes all pensioners except those with very special needs from the welfare rolls of this country. I do not regret our concern in recent years for increasing application of the principle of selectivity in the utilization of our welfare dollar to meet the needs of those in poverty. But in our zeal to improve the lot of the very poor we have turned our backs in recent years on the commitment we made in 1952. Let those of us who share unabashedly in the wealth of this country compare our monthly pay cheques in 1952 with those we receive today. And when we have done so, let us ask ourselves whether we think it is inappropriate, or immoral, to restore the purchasing
March 1, 1973

power of the universal and unconditional pension to its level of 21 years ago.
No one would support the view that we should have dealt with those who do not receive the guaranteed income supplement while neglecting the need to improve the pension of GIS recipients. But that is not what is proposed. The increase to the one group is of the same order as the increase to the other group. The existing relationships between the two groups is being maintained, not narrowed. Indeed, the legislation provides that this relationship will be maintained automatically in perpetuity.
We have been concerned-necessarily concerned, as I have said-with the plight of the poor. But what of the near poor? A single pensioner with a private annual income of $1,700 is not entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. Is this person so well provided for that he is none of our concern? We have been arbitrary, as we must be, in identifying that amount of income which reduces a pensioner's guaranteed income supplement to zero. But is the person just below that line a poor person, and the person just above that line not poor, by virtue of the line we have drawn?
I know many of the near poor whose other income, although pitifully small and secured by caution, thrift and rigorous self-denial over many years, allows them to live a precarious and extremely simple existence when it is combined with their old age pension. I make no apology for supporting legislation which remembers the near poor along with the poor and reaffirms the original intent of this legislation to recognize the contribution of all the senior citizens of this wonderful and very wealthy country which we inherit from them.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the government which introduced this legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -but even more important, I am proud to be a citizen of Canada, a country that is giving more to its senior citizens than any other country in the whole world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a new member of this House of Commons. Before coming here I used to wonder why it took so long to have debate in the House and to pass legislation. Tonight we have a good example of why we are extending the time of the House of Commons when it does not need to be extended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: We have an example here, Mr. Speaker, of a debate that did not need to take place. I believe that the country could live without the words that I am going to offer in comment on this bill. We are having this debate because the government, with the free and easy compliance of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has chosen to extend it before going into committee.
Old Age Security Act
I have a few comments to make about the bill. I address them through you, Sir, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). He brought in the bill and suggested two or three times in his speech that it was indeed a very fine thing that the government was doing. He said this was the largest single increase ever brought in, and there was the suggestion in his speech that we should be happy with what the government is doing.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that along with my colleagues I shall vote for this bill, but we do not do so with any happiness because we consider it is a reflection of political cynicism; it is the result of an election which has made the government dependent upon the New Democratic Party for support; it is placating the New Democratic Party. I may say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that for many years I sat in the gallery and watched him and indeed admired him for the forthright manner of his speech in pleading causes. But he was too easily satisfied tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why there is unhappiness in our party, why there is unhappiness throughout the country at the news that the pension, with the increase, will amount to only $100. Why did 1,500 senior citizens assemble at Queen's Park yesterday to ask for an increase? Because the federal increase to $100 is not enough. Why did Mayor Dent of Edmonton have the Mayor's Committee of Senior Citizens launch a petition to have the people of Edmonton give an expression of their views as to the validity of this increase? Mr. Speaker,
17,000	people in Edmonton have so far signed this petition, pleading with the federal government to increase the old age pension to at least a minimum of $125.
This committee was in existence during the past two months; it preceded the minister's introduction of this bill and it preceded the introduction of the budget when the figure of $100 was announced. Half of the 17,000 people signed the petition before the $100 figure was known, and the other half signed after the budget was introduced on February 19. The petition is still being signed and will be brought here upon completion. It indicates that many people in Edmonton are unhappy with what has been done.
Why, Mr. Speaker, did the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation come to Parliament Hill today and speak to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to ask if it could exert its influence for a much better deal for the senior citizens of this country? They are going to make the same request tomorrow to the government. All this has happened since the $100 figure was announced.
Why have I received a telegram from the president of Pensioners Concerned in Edmonton, Mrs. Kay Charest, who expresses her appreciation for the increase that has been put through but says she realizes that by April inflation will have eroded practically all the benefits, and strongly urges price control, especially for rent and food, and that the old age security and guaranteed income supplement be tied to the cost of living?
Why, Mr. Speaker, did the Society for the Retired and Semi-Retired in Edmonton, Alberta, send me a message

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
following the introduction of the budget and the $100 figure, signed by the vice-president, Mr. Fred Hannochko. It is not very long and succinctly expresses the feelings of senior citizens since the budget has been introduced. It reads:
I find the recent announced increase in the old age security pension to $100 a month disappointing. This does not begin to take care of the increase in the cost of living. We know that in Alberta approximately two-thirds of us are living on only the old age security and all or some part of the guaranteed income supplement, which means that many pensioners are living at a poverty level. The announced increase does little to improve our standard of living when you consider the cost of the necessities of life, in particular food and housing. Inadequate pensions force us to become second-class citizens and therefore dependent on others and special services. After giving 40 years of our lives towards building Canada we feel that we have been let down. We would like to be able to live our remaining years in dignity and pride.
Those are the sorts of messages some of us have received. They reflect on events which have taken place in this country in the past ten days. These have caused not only unhappiness but concern in a very great section of our community. I can say this on the basis of having talked to hundreds of senior citizens last summer and fall. Let me tell Your Honour about a couple that came up to me in the shopping centre, because their words will express more poignantly than any of mine what the people in this country feel.
A lady, accompanied by her husband, came to me in a shopping centre and said, "Can you tell me what is wrong with Canada? My husband and I worked hard through the years. We worked during the thirties and during the forties when times were hard and salaries low. Now we have managed to save a little; not enough to live on, just a tiny bit. We need a fair old age pension." She then said to me, "Why can we not get a decent pension when people who are unemployed can collect $100 a week after having worked a short time, and when so much money in our society is paid for programs like Opportunities for Youth, and so on?" Then she said, "Is there not something wrong when we who have contributed so much to our country and society get so little and when those who do not really need money are given so much?"


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That's the just society!


Douglas Roche: I told her I thought she had put her finger on what was wrong with modern Canada. That lady and hundreds like her with whom I have talked have told me that senior citizens in this country feel abused because they feel someone is playing games with them. Let me tell you why they feel this way, Mr. Speaker. Last year the government introduced the New Horizons program. I will not speak against the New Horizons program now; I do not want members of the government to accuse me of being opposed to senior citizens merely because I am opposed to the New Horizons program.
Mr. Speaker, I am against that program because so many of our senior citizens are against it. They do not support it because they are not able to get money for projects they are asked to submit. The youth of this country are given all sorts of money for programs like Opportunities for Youth and other programs, including school-
ing, which I support. On the other hand, senior citizens who submit projects under the New Horizons program are told there is not enough money for them. When I spoke about senior citizens previously, that was one of the problems uppermost in my mind.
A couple of weeks ago during the debate on supplementary estimates some members said they were disenchanted with the New Horizons program. Some hon. members opposite tried to make it sound as if members of the party I support oppose the interests of senior citizens because we are trying to show what is wrong with the program. Let me say that I am opposed to the bill introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare even though I will vote for it because, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, any increase is better than none.
I oppose this bill because it represents a piecemeal approach to the solution of a complicated problem. The minister had some good things to say about the comprehensive approach that is needed. I will deal with that in a minute; I want to finish telling the House how senior citizens think and feel about certain government programs. In this connection I wish to introduce a topic that has been on my mind for a long time, that of national unity. I will not deal with the French and English problem in this country. Although we are making progress, much progress still has to be made on that crucial front in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat? The hon. member said a moment ago that he would not go into what he called the English and French problem. I would hope so, because I must bring to his attention that the bill presently before the House is Bill C-147, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. It was all right for hon. members to roam over their general fields of concern for Canada while we were on the budget debate, but now there is a specific bill before the House. Hon. members must remember that what is vital and basic to parliamentary conduct is the rule of relevancy. All hon. members are to respect this rule and debate what is before us, namely, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I agree with your interpretation of my remarks. May I submit to you that the question of national unity is extremely important in this connection, as the aged are part of our nation and want to participate in its affairs. They want to be plugged into our society, if you like. I say that there will not be national unity in this country so long as sections of it such as the aged, women, and youth feel alienated and dispossessed. The aged feel this way particularly. The thrust of my argument is that there will not be a stable society in Canada until each of the various components of our society is able to participate in its activities.
As I have said, the aged feel that they are being used. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Simply because I suggest this basic increase could have been introduced a few months ago. Why did it need a dramatic political event to bring about circumstances such as those now prevailing in the House before action could be taken in this field? It must be clear to the pensioners and senior citizens of this country that the government has not understood their
March 1, 1973

difficulties. Mr. Reg. Watson, late head of Pensioners Concerned, put their case succinctly:
During our working years, we all paid our taxes; we defended our country in at least two wars and many lost loved ones; we educated our families to take their place in society; we contributed to welfare and many of us still do; we supported our country in every way humanly possible even through the world's greatest depression ... We ask not for charity, but our just due.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the government is introducing political charity for the aged rather than justice. We shall not see the kind of national unity that I think is necessary until we treat the aged with more justice.
The minister this afternoon spoke of how expensive it would be if we were to fix the age of eligibility below 65. We must remember that we spent $900 million of public funds on unemployment insurance benefits because unemployment had risen above 4 per cent. We went through that debate and argued a good deal. Nevertheless, $900 million was spent because unemployment rose above 4 per cent. That amount of money would have enabled us to pay the combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement to all Canadians over the age of 62. I submit that spending that amount of money in stabilizing our society would have been far better than spending it on unemployment insurance and bailing out the unemployment insurance fund.
If the minister will permit me to say so, he displayed a good deal of insight into the problems of the poor, handicapped and aged in our society when he dwelt at length on the need for a comprehensive program. He said he is looking forward to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference that will try to evolve an integrated approach to all problems in the social security field. I hope the minister will not present this to us as a discovery that a comprehensive program is needed. This has been the approach of the Canadian Council on Social Development, and many other experts, who have looked at the problem. For some time chaos has been developing, literally, because there are three levels of government trying to approach social service programs. I point only to the report of the Croll committee on poverty. Unfortunately, too much of it is still sitting on the shelf. It states in great detail that the welfare system in Canada today is literally in chaos. The whole system of welfare in this country costs $6 billion. There are five million Canadians at or below the poverty level. Poverty is indeed the great social issue of our time.
I commend the minister for looking at the problem of the aged in its totality. I think I can say that he, with many members in this House from all parties, is envisaging a society in which there is much more justice not only for the aged but all components of our society, the handicapped, the infirm and those for whom society has a responsibility to protect and support.
The forthcoming conference will undoubtedly bring us back to the question of the constitution. Within the past couple of years a joint House of Commons-Senate committee on the constitution travelled across this country. It received innumerable briefs and compiled a report that I, as a newcomer, think is very good. It stated that we will have to realign not only our fiscal priorities but the
Old Age Security Act
responsibilities between Ottawa and the provinces. I suspect the minister's view is going to be so comprehensive that it will bring us, in concert with the provincial ministers with whom he will be meeting, back to the constitution. He will say to this House that we cannot make any substantial improvement in a comprehensive approach to the social problems of this country until our constitution is changed.
I wonder how long it will take us to change the constitution. In many ways I wish it could be done overnight, but obviously that is impractical. However, I hope we do not lose sight of the need of our constitution to emphasize what is absolutely necessary in our society, namely, decentralization so that those who need services can be serviced by governments that are close to them and will no longer be subjected to so many programs set down by Ottawa to be delivered at provincial and municipal levels, thereby raising the costs of government in those communities and provinces.
All of this is to bring us to a very vague goal, a concept of improving the social services in this country if we are patient enough, if we can all agree on what a comprehensive approach will actually bring and, then, how we can get a new constitution out of it. However, that will not be sufficient to meet the circumstances that we face. These circumstances were clearly outlined by previous speakers, including the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie). Many senior citizens today are in a situation that does not render them eligible for a guaranteed income supplement. Their savings are being eroded. They are subject to inflation. They are at an income level that hurts them most when it comes to food and rent, particularly at a time in life when they are not able to augment their very meagre income. They are the ones who are suffering.
I admire the long-range goal of the minister. However, when he says that the minimum age cannot be gradually lowered from 65 to 60, and that we cannot give consideration to spouses between the ages of 60 to 65 being eligible for old age security when the first partner of the marriage goes on retirement-improvements that are absolutely necessary in our society today-because there are so many other factors that have to be taken into consideration in light of a comprehensive approach, I say that time simply will not allow us to take this casual approach and meanwhile grab a headline that the government is increasing the old age pension to $100-and isn't that a wonderful thing!
It will be necessary to keep up the pressure on the government, and I do not care which party forms the government. The government of this country has an obligation to consider justice and has a high priority for the aged. They should not be subjected to any more gamesmanship. I hope we can see some improvement very shortly.
I have commended the senior citizens of this country for becoming politically active. We have certainly seen evidence of this in the past few years. I have said to them before, and I say to them again, that an increase in their political activity and political demands on the government will produce results. The combination of their political demands and our understanding and compassion for the

March 1, 1973
Old Age Security Act
needs of senior citizens of this country can bring about improvements.
I want to say a final word about the comprehensive approach, or what I call the practical and immediate approach which should be wedded or brought together. Society has an obligation to help those who need assistance. I want to see a clear line between that segment of our society and the much larger segment that does not need to be helped but needs an opportunity to help itself. I submit far too much public money is going to this latter section of society, the vast bulk of society, because this government has given political response to economic problems in the creation of social programs that do not necessarily need to be created, and in spending money it does not need to spend in order to satisfy the political demands on them.
Who has suffered, been squeezed and short-changed? It is that element of our society which desperately needs more help. What has happened is not a reflection of a compassionate government. We have an obligation to help people who live in this very modern, complex, alienating society.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I think it can be fairly said that for the vast majority of Canadians these are extraordinarily good times in which to be living.


Mr. Forrestall:: Oh!


B. Keith Penner: I come from a region of Canada which is not known for fabulous wealth, yet the people I visit and talk with there agree with me that for most of them these are extraordinarily good times in which to be living. But what is true for most Canadians is not true for all, and this is precisely the reason for the bill which was introduced this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to increase the old age pension.
It is a good life for most but it is not a good life for all. The present parliamentary inquiry into food prices has revealed, for example, that Canadian families today spend a smaller percentage of their budget on food then they did in 1961 and that in many cases the kind of food which is available today is of improved quality. So people who are working for good wages are presently eating better, for less, than they did ten years ago. While this may be true of most people it is not true of people who must live on a relatively low fixed income. These people undoubtedly find it very difficult to meet the rising cost of a nutritionally adequate diet, not to mention the other costs they must bear. This situation is particularly distressing for those who must rely on pensions as the sole means of economic livelihood. In these circumstances I enthusiastically welcome the pension increase which is outlined in Bill C-147. It is a means of putting more spending power into the hands of people who need it most.
I listened with great care when the finance critic of the official opposition made his comments on the budget. He said it was hot expansionary enough. It should go further, he said. He suggested more across the board tax decreases. I am sure such a move would be welcomed by

many. The trouble is that doing so would fail to bring the requisite help to those who most need help. I did not hear the hon. member suggest that an effort ought to be made to put more money where it was most needed. He did not talk about increasing old age security payments or increasing the income supplement.
The same thing happened during the election campaign last fall. People kept asking spokesmen for the Conservative party how much they would give if that party were in power. We never heard a clear and conclusive answer to that question. Various figures came out-sometimes $88, sometimes $92. Some even surmised that the figure went as high as $95. But we were never quite sure.


J. Michael Forrestall: What figure did you suggest during the campaign?


B. Keith Penner: Well, it is not what we promised; it is what we deliver.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: The raising of the basic old age security pension to $100 is an important and necessary follow-up of the measures announced last year to raise the guaranteed income supplement for old age pensioners and to increase both the basic pension and the supplementary payment automatically in line with any annual rise in the cost of living. Unless I misunderstood him, the previous speaker failed to take cognizance of that point. There is, in fact, a cost of living escalation built into both payments at the present time.
Twenty-one years have now passed since the universal old age pension was first introduced in Canada for the benefit of those aged 70 and over. In 1952, the twenty-first Parliament of Canada provided a universal benefit of $40 a month to every person over 70 who met the residential requirements. If, in 1952, a cost of living escalator had been built into the scheme, and if we take account of all the cost of living increases in those years and discount any actual increase parliament has made, the basic pension today would amount to only $64.62. Taking the $40 and the cost of living escalation in each year since 1952, the pension would amount to only $64.62.
Instead of that, effective April 1 it will be $100 as a basic old age pension. Moreover, the age of eligibility has been progressively reduced to 65. If we take account of supplementary benefits, it is now possible for a single pensioner to receive a guaranteed monthly pension of $170, and for a couple to receive $325. As I say, the scheme was introduced in 1952-$40 and no guaranteed income supplement. It is now possible for a single pensioner to receive $170, and this more than accounts for the rise in the cost of living which has taken place since 1952.


An hon. Member:: And there is the Canada Pension Plan.


B. Keith Penner: In addition, there is the Canada Pension Plan. Mr. Speaker, I see it is now ten o'clock.
March 1, 1973



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 I addressed the following question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras);
Is it the policy of the government to refuse unemployment insurance to people who are taking manpower courses, giving as a reason that because they are taking the courses they are not available for work?
The answer the minister gave was:
Generally speaking, that is correct.
Then I asked when the new policy had been adopted. My question arose out of letters I had been receiving from my constituency. I should like to read one of these letters because it is most specific:
I recently took leave of absence from my job to complete my education in hopes of finding a better job. I am going to B.C. Vocational Institute.
I have worked at Weldwood of Canada for nine years prior to taking leave of absence. When I applied for adult education I was told I would receive $73 a week from Manpower and around $35 a week from unemployment insurance. I am receiving money from Manpower but the unemployment insurance has cut me off.
They have sent me cards to fill out and cards saying they owe me money. Then they said I was not able to qualify because I was unavailable for work. Manpower said I would be subsidized by the UIC or I would never have taken a leave of absence. I was making $160 a week at the mill and am finding it a bit difficult managing on $73 with a wife and two children to look after.
I would not have taken the course if I was not told by three different people that I would be receiving $73 from Manpower and $35 from unemployment. Could you please help?
It seems to me, from what I have been able to learn, that when this man applied for a manpower course and took leave of absence he was told by manpower officials he would be able to receive not only manpower training allowances but unemployment insurance as well.
Then evidently the regulations were changed, and from what I learned from telephoning Vancouver and speaking to the manpower officials there, the regulations must have been changed sometime during the last week of November, I think probably on November 24. That was the time the new regulations came in, and apparently the manpower people were told that from then on they would have no say in what happened to people taking courses except in so far as the courses themselves were concerned, that only the Unemployment Insurance Commission would be able to tell applicants what they would receive by way of unemployment insurance.
The point I want to make this evening, Mr. Speaker, is this. As far as I have been able to make out, this man and others like him applied before the new regulations went in to effect, at which time they were quite legitimately told that manpower would give them the training allowances, and unemployment insurance would give them benefits
Adjournment Debate
while they were taking the manpower course. As a result, this man in question in perfectly good faith went ahead and took the course, only to find himself cut off from unemployment insurance because he was declared to be unavailable for work.
Of course he was unavailable for work; he was taking a course and had leave of absence to do so. As I say, it seems to me very peculiar that a person is told to go ahead on the basis of one set of regulations, only to pull the rug out from under him when another set of regulations is passed. There are some cases of this sort where great hardship is suffered, quite apart from the injustice that I think is being done to these people.
I have known cases where the only way that a man taking a course, who had a family, was able to live was to get help from his parents or to move in with a relative. This kept his family going until he finished the course. This particular man was very lucky in one respect; he did have leave of absence and can go back to his job-if he and his family are able to survive until he finishes his manpower training course.
If I have my facts straight-and if I have not I should like to be set straight on the facts-I consider it to be very unjust to tell an applicant he will receive a training allowance while on the course, only to cut him off from unemployment insurance on the ground that he is unavailable for work while he is taking the course. I would be very glad to receive an explanation from the department. If the explanation is not one that is commensurate with justice and fair play, I would be very glad to know whether the department will make some restitution to this particular individual and others like him who, through no fault of their own, are caught by a change in regulations.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, claimants who are attending courses approved by manpower and to which they are referred by the Unemployment Insurance Commission are not required to prove availability while they are attending the course and are allowed to receive benefit. Such benefits represent the amount necessary to "top up" a claimant's income from the training course after deducting the costs, if any, of living away from home. The benefits paid bring the claimant's payments up to the benefit level he would have received had he not been on training. It is the general policy of the commission to refer claimants to courses of instruction under the Adult Occupational Training Act providing they have not voluntarily left full-time, regular employment in order to take the course of instruction.
I regret that I do not have with me information as to the time at which these regulations came into effect, but it is not my understanding that there has been any recent change in the regulations. I suspect the explanation is, rather, that the officer to whom the question was originally referred misunderstood the claimant's situation, because if he were not leaving a job voluntarily and if he were being assigned by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to this course, then of course he would receive unemployment insurance benefits.
I suspect the difficulty arose because of the fact that he was moving from his employment and it is not the policy

March 1, 1973
Adjournment Debate
of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to subsidize a person who gives up his employment in order to retrain himself for a higher paying job. I would say to the hon. member that we would be most happy to discuss this particular case with her in light of the facts she has, and we shall endeavour to obtain for her full information on this matter.


LABOUR RELATIONS-ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS' STRIKE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ACHIEVE SETTLEMENT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Turner), the hon. member for London East, is here to answer my question tonight. It is an asset for any party to have him because he is one of the more likeable members of this House. I say that without any reservations.
Tonight I wish to deal with a matter about which many members have spoken and on which they have asked questions. On February 15 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Prime Minister. In light of the national crisis now affecting housing units because of cost, shortage and the economy of the country, what do the government and the Prime Minister intend to do to assist in the negotiations for a settlement of the lengthy strike of elevator construction workers which is affecting the economy of Canada in all its facets? This strike has reached the level of a crisis in respect of shortages in housing and the general health and well-being of the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister suggested I direct the question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), which I did. This question appears at page 1309 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the federal government has done nothing to intervene in respect of this strike-
This, of course, is the strike of the International Union of Elevator Constructors.
-which is costing $250,000 a day in taxpayers' money, will the Minister of Labour now meet with the parties involved or with the various premiers of the provinces to bring to an end this strike which is not only affecting the economy but the health and welfare of the people of Canada?
The Minister of Labour replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is not correct to say that we have done nothing. The fact is that we as the federal government have absolutely no jurisdiction to intervene in this particular strike.
I want to answer that. On February 26, as recorded at page 1639 of Hansard, I asked the same question. I do not intend to read it. I will put it this way: I said that, even assuming that it is a provincial matter, surely there is a responsibility on the federal government to bring together at least the ministers of labour of the ten provinces in order to bring an end to this strike. The Prime Minister did say he would consider the request. At least he had some appreciation of what was going on.
This is a national question. It is true it is a problem which comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. However, we must consider what the strike is all about. It involves the International Union of Elevator Constructors. The strike has been affecting elevator construction in the ten provinces of Canada. It is not something involv-
[Mr. MacGuigan.J
ing merely the province of Ontario but, rather, Canada from coast to coast. Even in the province of Quebec, where the provincial government intervened, there has been a slowdown. From the beginning, the union insisted that any settlement must encompass all of Canada, not just Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Alberta. This means that the settlement must be based on the Toronto wage scale.
The amount paid to the elevator constructors will make no difference whether it is in the Maritimes, in British Columbia or elsewhere to the cost of living in different areas. What is the strike really about? It would not be so bad if they were asking for better working conditions or for higher wages. But do you know what they are asking for? This strike is an American-motivated international strike. They are angry because the elevators are prefabricated in the factories for apartment blocks and commercial buildings; they cannot be prefabricated on the job. This is featherbedding of the worst kind. If this were a Canadian union it would not be so bad, but this is a sympathy strike for the United States unions.
Why is this strike national in scope? First of all, 750 projects in Canada are affected from coast to coast. Tonight more than 15,000 workers are out of work and drawing unemployment insurance. If that does not make it national in scope, what does? Millions of dollars of unemployment insurance are being squandered, dollars which taxpayers are putting up.
What about the health and welfare of the people of Canada? Who are we talking about? We are talking about the aged who live in buildings 20 storeys high and who cannot take the elevator down to get medicine from the drugstore. We are talking about the sick and the infirm, about the homeless. Dozens of people have had their contracts cancelled after having made their payment on a housing unit. Above all, there has bean national violence against the people of Canada by American-motivated unions. Apparently the elevator union has been harassing and intimidating supervisors of buildings and other people who belong to Canadian unions.
Now I want to come to an important point. Lord Watson said, in a famous case, that that is how in time of war the federal government can take over control of the country- by controlling labour, management and industry. They can call this a crisis. When they relate it to the B.N. A. Act, as Lord Watson said, peace, order and good government take over. Surely it is time this country arrived at a new theory and perhaps it should be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada.
When there is an economic crisis which affects property and civil rights in the whole country, the federal government can move in to end the strike. This crisis is national in scope and such a case is covered by the constitution. Even if I have to apply a new theory tonight, I must point out that this government cannot sit idly by and watch people thrown out of work, see a drain on the unemployment insurance fund and people who are unable to get out of their apartments, the infirm, the aged and the sick, and 750 projects affected. We are losing a quarter of a million
March 1, 1973

dollars in national revenue in Canada. Therefore I say that this strike is national in scope.


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


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. It is not correct to say that we have done nothing. The fact is that this matter is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. In spite of that fact, the minister did contact the Ontario government to indicate the serious implications which this prolonged strike was having and to indicate our interest. Of course, this would automatically leave the impression that if the Ontario government felt we could be of any help, despite the fact that it is within its jurisdiction it could contact us; but to this date it has not done so.
With respect to the situation in Ontario, the meetings under the auspices of the Department of Labour were recessed about ten days ago, with no plans made for resumption. However, we are told that the mediators are continuing to explore every avenue of settlement and there is a possibility of further meetings taking place within the next few days. It has been reported that a group of contractors has asked the provincial authorities to appoint an industrial inquiry commission.
There is no change in the Alberta situation. The last information we had indicated that the Alberta Construction Labour Relations Association was going to present evidence of vandalism and threats of violence to the attorney general's department. Various employer groups have asked the provincial government to take steps to end the strike in Alberta.
Regarding the situation in British Columbia, the union's appeal against the B.C. Supreme Court ruling that the strike is illegal was set down for a hearing in the B.C. Court of Appeal on February 22. The union has said that no return to work directives have been issued to union members, and any decision in this respect was left up to the individual employees. Top officials of the union have been meeting with the provincial minister of labour. Quebec is the only province so far that has ordered striking employees back to work. There is little information from Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which seem to be watching events in Ontario where the main negotiations have been taking place and where any settlement reached will apply to the other provinces.
An editorial in the Globe and Mail of February 15 suggested:
-that the dispute has lasted as long as it has chiefly because an international union and international elevator companies have made up their minds to use the Canadian situation as an experimental laboratory-to have a controlled strike here to fight for issues that are a future goal in the United States.
The Ontario mediators have advised us that this is untrue, because the Canadian companies have already offered the union more than was gained in the U.S. settlement. In conclusion I wish to state that the strike does not come under the provisions of part V of the Canada Labour Code (Industrial Relations) but is a matter strictly within the jurisdiction of all the provinces.
25789-43}
Adjournment Debate


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ALLEGED SLOWDOWN BY VANCOUVER YARD CREWS-REASON FOR LOWER PRODUCTIVITY
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, some of us are old enough to recall that to be part of railroading was to be part of an industry with a great deal of glamour. Everybody had heard of the great railway tycoons who, like kings, industrialists and leading politicians of the day had their own lavishly appointed private coaches. For the kids close to, but from both sides of the tracks, the railroad engineers, if not kings, were certainly the princes of the road. To be one of those princes in charge of all those mighty toots and puffs of black smoke and to wave pontifically down to people below was part of the vision and dream of most young boys.
The romance that was railroading, for a time at least, assisted the railroads materially in worker recruitment, because even if one never rose to become prince of the locomotive cab, you could at least be near to him and be part of this great and marvellous industry. Men flocked to railroad jobs, therefore, in search of steady work, of pensions which were relatively rare in those days and, at the end of your career, of the best possible prize for a working man-the celebrated gold watch.
I don't know whether working for railroads was any better in the old days than it is now. In fact, I very much doubt it. Probably railroads were able to attract and retain workers in earlier days because most other jobs were far worse. But what I do know is that railroaders in my constituency are not a happy lot. The engineers are concerned with lack of safety provisions in the Fraser canyon, and for yard workers wages have slipped in the past two decades from second to twenty-seventh for industrial workers. Railways pay lousy pensions, and many workers feel that they are poorly represented by a union from which there is no escape. Here is what one of my constituents wrote and why I raised my question when the subject of the west coast slowdown came before the House last Tuesday:
We are in the position whereby our switch crews are being reduced from three men, one foreman and two helpers, to two men, by eliminating one helper. This is being done in accordance with a duly signed agreement. The agreement was signed by our general chairman (business agent) because the only other alternative was to go through negotiations which would ultimately be finalized by the Railway Board of Arbitration. Under the laws of the land the arbitrator, Mr. J. F. Weatherill, can only rule on whether or not a crew can work safely while reduced.
He has ruled that production, or loss of same, is the responsibility of the railway company. Furthermore, the ratio of cases won by the company to cases won by the union before this arbitrator, is about nine to one. Facing this, and the fact that the railway company grossly misrepresents the cases before the arbitrator, our general chairman advised us the best thing to do would be to negotiate an agreement that would gradually phase the two man crews into the greater Vancouver terminal. This was done in Edmonton, Alberta, in July, 1972.
In brief, my information suggests that even in situations where the arbitrator has ruled that safety demands the crews handle only one car at a time, great pressure is put on the men to ignore this ruling because of the CNR's preoccupation with productivity.

March 1, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Safety and highball operations do not go together, Mr. Speaker, and neither does productivity and service to the public. Crown corporations, like the government, should be model employers, and neither come close. Canadian National Railways, in my opinion, have every intention to phase in two-man yard crews as fast as they can. Edmonton, with 80 regular crews, has five of them reduced to two men. Vancouver, with 57, has already 13 diminished and as many as 25 are marked for the block within a year, and trains are double the length they used to be.
The CNR is deliberately limiting the ability of its crews to produce, thereby reducing its service to the public. If grain is not moving for export fast enough, my advice to the prairie farmer is to direct a large part of this outrage toward the railroads. Since we have been through the worst unemployment record in years, by deliberately reducing crews and service the CN must accept its share of the blame for that also.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, each year the Canadian National financing bill goes before this House and members of this party are usually up screaming. We scream about pensions. We scream about track abandonment and we scream because we do not think the people's money should be used to pay off the third generation descendants of those tycoons who want to ride around in the private cars I talked about earlier. We will never scream when the Canadian National comes before us and tells us it needs money desperately to provide good service to customers, good wages and safe and decent working conditions for the men.
There is no objection by the workers or their union to two-man crews in humpyards or automated yards. What they object to is that these two-man crews are inserted
insidiously in places where neither safety nor productivity is enhanced, and the safety checks done in the daytime are ignored in the dark. I will be talking more about this question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. loseph-Phillipe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) pertaining to railroad workers, and I believe it would have been very important if we could have waited to answer this question until the outcome of the meeting that is taking place between Mr. Gale, vice-president of the UTU, and the top officials of the CNR in Edmonton. These officials are trying to find a solution for the resumption of full operation.
I said it would have been a good thing if this report had been available to us. I phoned a short while ago to find out if I could have a report from our officials who are at the meeting, but so far that is impossible. I hope that the conclusions of the meeting will become available to both parties. In the meantime, the information given to me by the departmental officials in regard to the supplementary question, part one, is as follows: Crew reduction is not an arbitrary act by CN but flows from a wage agreement provision negotiated in 1967, which requires a survey of each assignment to ensure that the work can be handled safely. Following such a survey, agreement was reached with the union representatives in June, 1972, for phase implementation between July, 1972 and October, 1973.
If I may answer the hon. member's supplementary question, Mr. Speaker the productivity of two-man yard crews has been demonstrated beyond question at many automated and non-automated yards and with no compromise of safety.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday, March 2, 1973