1973-02-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the present heavy expenses being incurred by the citizens' groups preparing their case before the United States Power Commission in opposition to the flooding of the Canadian Skagit Valley by Seattle City Light, which expenses could now be terminated if the government of Canada will confirm the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to CKWX radio newsman Doug Taylor on February 6 that "nobody believes now the Skagit Valley will be flooded". I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That the House direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to immediately convey to the citizens' groups fighting the flooding that they now have the assurance of the government of Canada that the flooding will not occur and they may therefore safely withdraw from the costly hearings before the U.S. Federal Power Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Bell:: They won't say no to this one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I have the floor, may I go on?
I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 arising out of the disastrous rise in the cost of living, particularly the rise in the cost of food. With the unanimous consent of the House I wish to move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Kr^owles):
That this House urges the government to introduce without delay its legislation to increase the amount of old age pensions and also its legislation to implement the guaranteed income proposals set out in the Speech from the Throne, to enable Canadians to cope with the crippling rise in the cost of living, particularly in the price of food.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the House that 105 students of the Charlebois secondary school are here today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are considering a motion under Standing Order 43. The Chair has to inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: It looks like the shacking-up is close to being over.


Mr. Speaker:: Concerning the point of order raised by the hon. member for Ottawa East, I must suggest to him that it is not in order. I must also tell him that it is against the practice of this House to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence of visitors in the galleries, except in very special circumstances, such as the visit of parliamentarians. I realize that it was hard for the hon. member to resist the temptation of drawing attention to the presence of certain students from his riding in the galleries, but I invite hon. members to follow the practice of this House.

February 9, 1973
Communications Spire, Toronto UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


AMENDMENT RESPECTING SUGAR BUSH WORKERS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 ask for adjournment of the House in order to deal with a matter which I consider to be of urgent and pressing necessity, namely unemployment insurance benefits.
During the maple sugar season, owners of maple sugar [DOT]groves find it difficult to hire supplementary labour because those who are unemployed do not want to lose their benefits. Could the House examine the possibility of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act in such a manner that those now receiving benefits are enable to work during the maple sugar season without loss of benefits?


Mr. Speaker:: I take the liberty of pointing out to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) that a motion for adjournment of the House should normally be presented under the provisions of Standing Order 26, rather than Standing Order 43. At any rate, I shall ask the House whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Compton.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and the motion therefore cannot be put.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the citizens of Toronto are just now beginning to react to the construction of the Canadian National communications tower and the implications it has for development in the metropolitan Toronto harbour area, in view of the fact that the development agreements between the developers, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, and the City of Toronto with regard to the entire Metro Centre project have not been completed, and also in view of the fact this needle may be used as a lever to rush the finalization of these agreements relating to what will be, after all, one of the major developments on the continent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to order the CN Tower Company to postpone the beginning of the construction of the CN tower so that further consideration can be given to the

tower aspect of this Metro Centre project by the council and citizens of the city of Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In light of the information released today by Statistics Canada showing an increase of 5.7 per cent in the consumer price index between January of 1972 and January of 1973, can the minister tell the House what action he proposes to take to bring the increase in the cost of living under control?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the rise in the cost of living continues to cause me and everybody in the House concern. It is primarily induced by a sharp rise again in food prices which I think adds urgency to the task of the House committee investigating food prices.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: As I have said before in the House, the increase in food prices is primarily attributable to a world shortage of many staples which is affecting Canada as well. It is primarily a supply problem which was complicated in this country by the adverse weather that destroyed a good many of the vegetable and cash crops in Ontario and Quebec.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure the minister will agree that it is not altogether a question of food prices. But since food prices have obviously increased much more than the minister expected last May when he brought down his budget and said, "we do not expect food prices will rise as fast this year as last", whereas they have in fact risen substantially faster than in 1971, does the minister intend to take any action with regard to food prices other than just leaving the matter in the lap of the special committee?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are looking at ways to see what we can do to increase the supply of food. As for what I said last May, the hon. gentleman may be armed with a little hindsight but the forecast that I made last May could not, of course, have taken into account the shortages that developed on a world basis in grain as well as the demand that developed for meat. Nor could I in any way predict, and I do not
February 9, 1973

think the hon. gentleman could, the weather which crippled our crops in parts of Ontario and the west.


Mr. Baldwin:: So it is an act of God, is it?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is because prices obviously increased much faster than the minister estimated or expected that I asked him whether he is going to take any new action. My supplementary question is simply this. Is it still the minister's view, as he expressed several months ago, that the only way he knows of handling the food problem is to ration food?


John Napier Turner: That is not what I said, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows. I suggest he is again exercising that selective memory for facts which is beginning to distinguish his performances in the House. What I said was that if the country were to accept a proposal for price controls over food, that might well involve at the same time food rationing, particularly if the problem were shortage of supply.


COST OF LIVING INCREASE-EMERGENCY MEASURES PENDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one or two supplementaries. I direct my first supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact the increase in the cost of living has gone up really disastrously, as I am sure he and every other member of the House will agree, and in view of the fact the rise in the price of food has been particularly high and affects the nutritional level of lower income families, is the government now considering some emergency, even if temporary, measures to halt the rise at least in the price of food?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government is, of course, considering every way in which a successful attempt might be made to halt increases in the cost of living. In the case of food in particular we hope we will receive some insight from the committee that has been set up and in which members of all parties are participating.


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister whether in the interim, until the committee reports and action is taken by parliament on any recommendations that the committee may make, which obviously is at least two, three or four months away, the government is considering some arrangement whereby a cash payment to pensioners can be made to make up for the increase in food prices as well as, in collaboration with the provinces, some general increase in payments to low income families across the country in order to protect the lives and future of the adults and children who constitute the 20 to 25 per cent of the people in Canada who are living below the poverty line?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a mix of schemes that would alleviate the hardship suffered by some of the people hit by inflation. The answer that has been given in the Speech from the Throne is that the whole system of welfare, even including a guaranteed annual income for people in certain categories, will be discussed with the provinces in the near
Oral Questions
future. If the hon. member is talking about something even more immediate, I would suggest that he wait until a week Monday night, when the budget will try to alleviate some of these problems.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on a last supplementary question on his part, and then the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his answers mean that the government is not now considering some emergency steps in the interim until longer term policies may be developed? Is that the effect of his answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not exactly, Mr. Speaker. When I referred to the budget, which is 10 days away, the hon. member is, of course, free to consider this as an interim step, but it is conceivable, without going into the details of the budget, that there will be some measure of relief for Canadian citizens in that budget. Of course, I cannot say more at this time, but the hon. member is welcome to take that as an interim step.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. As he has said on many occasions that the government would take positive action to curb and alleviate rising prices if it considered the situation were serious enough, in view of the fact the cost of living has been going up at an annual rate of just under 10 per cent a year during the past month and gives every indication of rising at a similarly high rate in the future, does the Prime Minister consider that that time has now arrived?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the implication of the statistics just quoted, I would say that our position is not dissimilar to that of his leader who said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What is your position?


An hon. Member:: Tell us your position.


Mr. Fairweather:: You are the government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What do you say about yours?


An hon. Member:: Less double-talk.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Our position is not dissimilar to that of his leader who says that price and wage controls will be brought in, if necessary.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the positions of the two gentlemen are quite dissimilar in that the Prime Minister is the head of the government, has the responsibility to act and has said he would bring in positive measures if the time came when it was necessary. Does he now consider that the time has come for action?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 9, 1973
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: The answer is that the government does not have the guts. It is as simple as that.


INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES-POLICY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT TO COUNTERACT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, since we cannot get anything out of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I stress the word "consumer". In light of the very real crisis in respect of food prices, can the minister announce today any specific government policy to counteract the fact that today the Canadian housewife is having to spend $1.10 for every dollar she paid last year for food?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, even though the hon. gentleman is a newcomer to the House I am sure he realizes that any government policy to be announced will be announced formally on behalf of the government in the usual way.


George Harris Hees: Wow! Isn't that a policy? Have we ever got a policy now.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We don't even get a weather report from this minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: At least Turner gives us a weather report.


George Harris Hees: At least give us something.


Mr. Crouse:: There are three blind monkeys over there.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Even if he is an oldtimer in the House, surely he knows that ministers of the Crown should be responsible for announcing policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs today announce the policy of his department in respect of food prices?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. gentleman was so busy phrasing his next question that he did not hear my previous answer.


George Harris Hees: He did not miss a thing; there was no answer.


Mr. Nielsen:: What an arrogant bunch!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary question he will be recognized for this purpose, and the Chair will then recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a further supplementary.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I think we are entitled to a simple yes or no answer. Therefore I merely repeat the question in the hope that the minister will give an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member knows, he has the right to ask a question but according to the rules there is no obligation on the part of the minister to reply.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If he does not know the answer, I guess that is it.


COST OF LIVING INCREASE-ESCALATION OF PENSION PAYMENTS BY SAME AMOUNT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the serious effect of rising living costs on pensioners and in view of the fact that on January 24 the President of the Treasury Board said that any action to raise or remove the ceiling from the escalation of pensions of retired civil servants would be related to the taking of similar action in respect of the Canada Pension Plan, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare say whether this matter will receive immediate attention, namely, the escalation of Canada Pension Plan pensions at least by the full amount of the rise in the cost of living?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, amendments to the Canada Pension Plan must have the previous concurrence of at least two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population. We have already had a meeting between officials of the federal government and officials of the provinces at which various proposals have been discussed and considered. The view of the provincial officials was that they wanted any change to wait for the broader review that has been discussed in the field of social security. Despite the representations of the federal government, we have been unable as yet to obtain the concurrence of the necessary provinces in such changes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the delay that seems to be in prospect in this area, will the President of the Treasury Board take action on the matter I referred to on January 24 and will the Minister of Transport make sure that railway pensions are properly escalated? In other words, will steps be taken so that all pensions will escalate not just by 2 per cent but by the actual rise in the cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before pursuing this matter with further supplementaries the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Shefford.
February 9, 1973


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if he intends to take the necessary action to ensure that French-speaking Haitian immigrants can use the French language in their dealings with the officials of his department? They must now utilize the services of interpreters as was revealed recently by a committee on human rights.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into this and take the representation of the hon. member under consideration.


PUBLIC WORKS
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Could the Minister of Public Works tell us if he foresees a possibility of improving the services offered in French by the marine works division of his department with which it is now impossible to communicate in French?


Hon. Iean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time such a complaint has been directed to my department. I can assure hon. members that I will take every appropriate action in order that both official languages be available for those who call at my department.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. I. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the federal government made any study of the impact of the high rate of federal taxation coupled with the general rapidly rising cost of government on all levels as a factor in the rising cost of living?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have analysed the effect of taxation on every aspect of the economy, including the cost of living.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he has concluded from his study that action should be taken by the government to do its part directly in lowering the cost of living by lowering taxation rates?


John Napier Turner: I have certainly got the point of view of the hon. member, but this is not quite the appropriate occasion on which to answer his question.
Oral Questions


INCREASE IN COST OF HOUSING-ALLEGED CONSENT BY CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. In view of the fact that the cost of shelter has increased by 5.3 per cent within the last year and therefore the cost of housing has reached crisis proportions, would the minister take into consideration the fact that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is consenting to an increase in the rents for various accommodation and housing units in the largest urban centres of Canada and by that consent is increasing the cost of shelter which has contributed to the present position of the index that has just been quoted?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to housing that is owned or managed by CMHC, I answered the question the other day by saying that I am reviewing the rent policy and no increases are taking place while that review is going on. I understand, however, that the hon. member's question probably concerns limited dividend housing which is not managed by CMHC and, in fact, where the owners negotiate an increase in rent commensurate only with the increase in costs. Those arrangements are constantly under review.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am referring to those leases that govern the cost of renting various types of accommodation across the country where increases can only take place with the consent of CMHC. Will the minister now agree to freeze any further increases so far as CMHC is concerned to help pensioners and others on fixed incomes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I just made it clear that I have frozen the rents of those buildings that we manage until we can review them.


INCREASE IN COST OF FUEL OIL-COMPOSITION OF GROUP STUDYING SUPPLY SITUATION
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I now want to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the fact that fuel has gone up by 3.9 per cent, would the minister, who stated in the House that a study is being carried out on the shortage or the propaganda on a shortage of energy, advise us who is heading this study and whether the members of this task force study group are members of the public service or of government agencies rather than people from private corporations?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the studies are being carried out by my own department and by the National Energy Board. If the hon. gentleman is objecting to increases in the cost of energy, he might direct himself to Premier Lougheed in this context as well.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact the Minister of National Defence has agreed with the policy of

February 9, 1973
Oral Questions
Premier Lougheed, this is government policy? Is that the policy of the government now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no policy position has been taken on this question by the government, but the Minister of Defence was speaking with courage as a westerner. I would hope the hon. member would have the same courage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How many policies have you?


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. }ohn Harney (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport.
[Stage Direction]
I would like to tell the minister that I do not always pay attention to what lies within his jurisdiction, but as he keeps giving general answers I am compelled most of the time to direct my questions to him.
[Stage Direction]
In view of the fact the Canadian Transport Commission is still stalling on a decision with regard to charter prices, in view of the fact that under the present rules advance booking calls for a 90-day prebooking period in Canada, and in view of the fact all of this uncertainty regarding bookings on Canadian charter flights will drive about 300,000 Canadians to using foreign carriers operating from United States airports, would the Minister of Transport instruct the Canadian Transport Commission to come to an immediate decision on the matter of charter prices so that Canadian travellers can have some assurance with regard to their plans for this summer?
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I read the report in a Toronto newspaper this morning. I regret to say'' it is unfounded. The policy on prices was established by the commission on February 1. The people who are going to Niagara now have been doing the same thing in the past. There is nothing new. The pricing policy has been established and is in force right now.


John Paul Harney: May I ask the minister whether the pricing policy has been announced to the Canadian travelling public?


Jean Marchand: I will have to check how the commission does it, but I know that the policy is in force and I know that the charter companies know about it.


ADVANCE BOOKING CHARTER REGULATIONS- SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO KEEP BUSINESS IN CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowslci (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reply to my question, as recorded on page 951 of Hansard, to the effect that he would like to have some experience in the implementation of the new

advance booking charter regulations before recommending any changes, and also in view of the fact there is new evidence to the effect that the new regulations proposed by the Canadian Transport Commission will literally drive the air charter business south of the border, will the minister now take it upon himself to intervene and to recommend to the Canadian Transport Commission an amendment to the ABC regulations? Will he also take into consideration the representations made by the general public and the air charter industry?


Jean Marchand: I do not
know how I can consider false news as a basis for reconsidering the policy. A few moments ago I said that the news has no foundation and the people who are going south have been going there in the past in the same way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister indicate to the House whether in fact he has received representations from the air charter industry and the travelling public rejecting and opposing the new ABC regulations, and will the minister take those representations into consideration so that the travelling public can be assured of reasonable charter travel?


Jean Marchand: I have not received any personally but I will check with the department and report to the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the fact that United States airlines are now imposing retaliatory action in so far as removing the primary rates policy as it relates to Canadian airlines is concerned, would the Minister of Transport also take this matter into consideration when reviewing the new ABC regulations?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question which might give a little direction to the country as a whole. At what level would the government consider the rise in prices would justify use of the contingency plans about which he has been telling us since the days of John Young?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have to recall the way in which we were answering this question in the past. It is not necessarily defined by an absolute rate. It would be a rate which would put Canada in the situation where, on the one hand, we would be pricing ourselves out of world markets because our competitors would be doing so much better than us, which, as the hon. member knows, has not been the case, and, on the other hand, a rate at which we would be unable to satisfy the legitimate demands of those sections of the population that are not protected against rising costs.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact the Prime Minister could not answer the question, would he like to take this
February 9, 1973

opportunity to outline very briefly the government's contingency plans about which he has been telling us for a year? I am sure the House would even be agreeable to reverting to motions so that he could outline them in detail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member appreciates, I am sure, that the question is in order only to the extent that he is asking the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on motions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member was obviously unable to understand my previous answer, so I do not think we would be able to understand the complex answer to the question he is asking.


John Howard Lundrigan: I agree with the Prime Minister. I cannot understand him and the Canadian people cannot understand him-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: -especially people on fixed incomes. Would he take this opportunity to express to the 22 million Canadians, excepting myself, the contingency plans the government has to deal with the rise in the cost of living which is making it difficult for many people, even people above fixed incomes, to survive, especially in view of the high food costs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate has repeated the question that he asked in the first instance. Perhaps he was not satisfied with the reply but it was the same question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Certainly I am not satisfied with the information we have been getting. Apparently the Prime Minister did not understand my question. For over a year the government has been saying that it has a contingency plan. How high must prices rise before the government tells the Canadian people exactly what its plan is?


MANPOWER
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. 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?


Robert Knight Andras: Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.


Winona Grace MacInnis: When was this new policy adopted?
25714-72|
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is hardly in order.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the government places so much emphasis on the Special Committee on Food Prices, and in view of the alarming 10 per cent increase in the cost of food, is the Prime Minister now prepared to reconsider the government's position and make available all the papers and complete findings of the Prices and Incomes Commission to the special committee?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if I may attempt to answer that j question, as I already did in the House earlier, I think I| explained to the Leader of the Opposition that some of this material had already been published and other material will be published. I will be advising the committee of this information when I appear before it on Tuesday.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact the committee has an order from the House to report in two months, and in view of the number of witnesses who have already asked for permission to appear before the committee, is the minister prepared to have all the papers and all the findings of the Prices and Incomes Commission made available to the committee immediately?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member feels so pressed, but I would remind him that he wanted the whole committee to be wound up permanently in three months.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with regard to what he proposes to do before the Special Committee on Food Prices on Tuesday. Does he intend to turn over to the committee the actual work of the former commission under the direction of Dr. Young? Does he intend to turn over the papers, the information and the recommendations, or does he simply intend to give his version, his interpretation, his summary of these findings?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make available to the committee first of all the reports that have already been published.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have seen those.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Second, I intend to advise the committee of the reports which the commission had arranged to have

February 9, 1973
Oral Questions
published before it went out of existence so they will be made available to the committee as soon as this material can be published.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, if the music can stop I might be able to ask my question. Furthermore, I regret that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the has not already asked the question I now wish to direct to the Solicitor General.
Would he know if the psychiatrist dismissed by the Pinel Institute because of his shady part in the Real Char-trand case is now employed by the National Parole Board? If so, how can he explain such a situation?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this situation but I will inquire into it as quickly as possible and report to the House.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. Further to the question of the hon. member for Charlevoix, I would like to know if the Solicitor General apprised himself of the conclusions of the investigation concerning the Pinel Institute before hiring this psychiatrist, and could he tell the House if the department has established basic criteria for hiring personnel, and if this new psychiatrist, fired by the Pinel Institute, has been hired according to his department's criteria, if any?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have not received such a report. I should point out that the Pinel Institute is a provincial institute, although we have referred certain people there. I will look into this and report to the House as soon as possible.


TAXATION
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister changed his mind about removing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials in view of the alarming increase in housing costs for ordinary citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kent-Essex.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Just a few days ago the minister said he was not intending to remove this tax. My supplementary is-


John Napier Turner: Who said?
(Mr. Gray.]


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You did. You said you had no intention of removing the tax.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address himself to the Chair.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister think it is fair that Americans can buy Canadian lumber cheaper than Canadians can because their taxes are less oppressive than ours?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is clearly argument. I do not think a question asked in those terms is in order.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the government's twin policies to lower consumer prices and increase producer returns by the extermination of millions of laying hens, fining dairymen for producing milk and paying farmers for not producing have not been successful in either direction, can the minister indicate whether the government is considering any more policies of this kind?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government is constantly attempting to develop and put into place policies that will serve the interests of all Canadians.


Gerald William Baldwin: What you want is non-laying hens.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As today's announcement about prices deeply affects old people and those living on a fixed income, can the minister tell the House if the new Old Age Pensions Act has been prepared, when it will be introduced and what immediate measures can be expected concerning food and drug prices, for those who are affected?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the government leader has already indicated the government's intentions concerning the presentation of legislation on this subject.
February 9, 1973


Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister kindly resume his seat?


PLANS FOR PROVISION OF LOW-COST DRUGS TO PERSONS ON FIXED INCOMES
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer on pensions, but in light of the 3.8 per cent increase in the cost of health supplies from a year ago, and because of the extreme importance of the availability of drugs to all Canadians, especially those on low incomes, can the minister now assure the House that he has plans formulated to provide that all Canadians, especially those on fixed incomes, have access to low cost drugs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, health falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the provinces with which we have, in fact, discussed every matter of concern to them. Indeed, a few weeks ago we met the provincial ministers of health to discuss a new mode of financing health services, and another meeting is planned for the end of March.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, that type of red herring really will not get the minister anywhere. Will he give the assurance that amendments will be made to the new income tax form if I or other members on this side of the House suggest changes that ought to be made?


An hon. Member:: They were not suggested back in 1962.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has invited me to make suggestions, and I do so. I ask him why it is that the prescribed forms are not now available? Why is it that chartered accountants are being advised by information officers in district taxation offices to dream up their own forms until the government finally gets off its posterior?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Speaker, I will not suggest that that allegation has been dreamed up-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is true.
*
* *


INCOME TAX
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I noticed that yesterday in my absence he described the income tax return form as no more frightening than Brigitte Bardot in a bikini. Has he found it more frightening, having regard to the number of complaints he has received as to the impossibility of interpreting the income tax return in its present form, and is there any intention of revising it so that it would become understandable?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -but if the right hon. gentleman has any details about particular cases I will be glad to have them looked into.


John George Diefenbaker: Turning aside from the minister's appreciation of female forms, as evidenced by his having accepted the suggestion of a commentator in Calgary, may I ask whether the minister is now giving reconsideration to bringing back the new Income Tax Act which parliament never had the opportunity to consider, not having dealt with more than one half of it because we were shut off by closure-


An hon. Member:: You were away on vacation.


John George Diefenbaker: -in view of the fact that Mr. Thorson, the Associate Deputy Minister of Justice has stated-


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the suggestions of the hon. member for improvement of the forms-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It needs improving.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -but the description of the form which I gave yesterday was not mine but that of Ken Hall of the Calgary Herald. I might refer the hon. member to those other great Conservative newspapers, the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Journal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John George Diefenbaker: -to the tax foundation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether that was a question or whether the question is coming, but what is coming quickly is the end of the question period.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, then I will simply ask the minister this: Is he aware that the Associate Deputy Minister of Justice, when asked about this conglomerate mess, the Income Tax Act, in speaking to the Tax Foundation said that there were only six people in Canada who clearly understood the new act and the other "five" were his employees?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -which state-


Some hon. Members:: Order! Mr. Stanbury: -that as far as-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister not add his own name as one who understands it?


An hon. Member:: Poor John.

February 9, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. I will recognize the hon. member for Assiniboia and then call orders of the day.


VOLUME OF OIL EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister inform the House whether he has received any reports in the last few days regarding a rapid increase in the volume of exports of Canadian oil to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the situation which has existed for the last several months, there has been a substantial increase in exports from western Canada to the United States. As I indicated to the hon. gentleman's colleague several days ago, we are paying very close attention to this and if there is any prospect of Canadian refineries going short we will not hesitate to impose export controls.


William George Knight: To be more specific, can the minister advise the House whether he has received recently reports from his own senior advisers or officials of a major increase in the volume of exports of Canadian oil to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I told the House about that last week.


William George Knight: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary. We have gone beyond the end of the question period and I will have to call orders of the day.


William George Knight: Is it the minister's intention to have the National Energy Board investigate this situation and establish export quotas in line with the policies affecting natural gas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have told the House several times already that the National Energy Board has had this matter under investigation and, indeed, has made very full reports on it. I also indicated that if the industry indicates it is not capable of handling the increased volumes we will not hesitate to impose export controls.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question ot privilege. I have noted with a great deal of concern, both today and in recent days during this session of the present parliament, that a great many hon. members are not finding it possible to participate in the question period. In saying that I am not casting any reflection on the Chair. I do say it, however, because I have watched the proceed-

ings very carefully during the question period and have noted that a great many new members who have tried valiantly to be recognized in an attempt to have their voices heard in this chamber have not been successful.
It has always been my opinion, Sir, that the 264 members of this chamber are equal. You, Sir, have been appointed especially to look after us to the best of your ability. I have always believed that you have looked after us as best you can and I am sure all new members appreciate that fact. At the same time, because of the system under which we operate at present and the length of the question period, it is not possible for a great many members to participate in the question period. I am referring as much to hon. gentlemen on the back benches on the government side as to those in this party. I think every member should have a chance to ask his question if it is urgent and important. I know that a great many urgent and important questions go unanswered.
I believe that we must look very carefully at the system under which we now operate to see whether all members are being given equal treatment. I suggest, Sir, that on Mondays and Wednesdays, when written questions are answered, we might adopt a procedure similar to the British system whereby on those two days members who have questions on the order paper, even if they are in a somewhat different form, might be given an opportunity to ask a supplementary question. In that way hon. members would be given a better opportunity to participate in what I consider to be a very exciting form of proceeding if it is carried out in the right way.
There are at present many new members in the House and there will probably be many more new members in the days ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: They should be made to feel that they are part of this institution and be given every possible chance to take part in its proceedings and represent their constituents in a proper manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in this regard I should like to make a suggestion to Your Honour. Obviously, it is impossible for all hon. members to be heard within one hour. I therefore wonder whether the Chair might not, all other things being equal, allow a small number of government members to put questions. I noticed, for instance, that over the past hour the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) has tried desperately to get the attention of the Chair, and that no government member has managed to put a question.
I sympathize with Your Honour in his extremely difficult duties but humbly suggest, if it is at all possible, that he allow government members to put just a few questions at each sitting.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point may I make a suggestion that I hope would assist Your Honour in the difficult time you have during question periods. It
February 9, 1973

has been noted by many members, not just in the present parliament but in the previous one as well, that there are some members who continually abuse Your Honour's patience and misuse their colleagues' time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For example, today at least four hon. members felt they had the privilege of asking four or five supplementary questions, denying some of their own colleagues an opportunity to ask even one question. May I respectfully suggest, with regard to those members whom we all know who continually follow this practice, that the Speaker would have the complete support of other members if he did not see them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Reilly:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member to the south of us on this situation, particularly as I believe his party harbours within its ranks most of the questioners of whom he speaks. As one who has risen in his place fully 200 times in three hours and 20 minutes this week, I urge upon Your Honour the adoption of the system suggested by the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North as a kind of clemency for those who labour in darkness in the back row.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Last night I heard the hon. member for Don Valley say when he appeared on television that the question period was organized by the opposition parties. I therefore, suggest to hon. members that they organize themselves better.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has heard the suggestions made by hon. members on both sides. I appreciate the points that have been made. The Chair tries fairly, in my view in any event, to give an opportunity to all hon. members. There are a number of difficulties. One is purely physical in that if 100 members want to ask questions it would never be possible for them all to do so even if we had a two-hour question period. I have very often suggested that perhaps an effort should be made by hon. members, in co-operation with the Chair, to give the newer members a chance.
I am in full agreement with the point made by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North that under the system that has developed we are not giving some of the new members an opportunity to ask their questions. I am very anxious to co-operate with any kind of system that would make that possible. As we know, there is a Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization that looks at these very important matters. Perhaps that committee should look at this situation. I gather it will be convened in the near future. There are a number of problems the Chair would like to refer to that. committee. I would certainly be pleased to refer this problem. I can assure hon. members that I will again try to give an opportunity to all hon. members, with perhaps an eye peeled in the direction of hon. members behind the front row.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would examine the list. There was a list that the Chair made last year of matters that might be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. With Your Honour's consent, that list might be advanced and the House leaders might look at it with a view to submitting this issue, along with several others, to the committee. The government House leader might also possibly organize a question period in the government caucus so that some of the uninformed Liberal members might be informed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that one reason questions are repetitive and there are so many supple-mentaries is that the ministers try to evade the questions put to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure at this point whether we are getting into an aspect of the debate which will be of much assistance to the Chair. I would hope hon. members would take that into account at this stage and try to be of assistance to the Chair.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one way around the problem during the interim period until the matter is resolved by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization would be for Your Honour to turn a blind eye toward the clock.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, mention was made a moment ago of the fact that there are some physical difficulties because of the large number of opposition members who wish to ask questions. I fully agree with that, but beyond the physical difficulties there are traditional difficulties. I refer to the system of precedence which I feel should not extend beyond the leaders of the various opposition parties. I suggest that the reason we have so many supplementary questions is that when a backbench member finally catches Mr. Speaker's eye he has to make up for lost time by asking two or three supplementaries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1972-73-MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L12a-DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury:
That Vote L12a in the amount of $350,000,000 of the Department of Finance for Winter Capital Projects Fund-Loans in Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
February 9, 1973
Supply
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had an opportunity of discussing the business of this debate with the government House leader. I apologize for not having had the time to have a similar discussion with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the House leader of the Social Credit party. We are prepared to agree to the following method of handling the conclusion of this debate. We have one further speaker on this item and we are prepared to terminate it at that. We would then like to move today into a discussion of the three notices together dealing with the estimates of the Department of Health and Welfare, that is items Nos. 6, 7 and 8 on the order paper. I hope that the government House leader and the other House leaders will agree that, since we are prepared to deal with these three items together, we might have general agreement to extend the normal 20 minute limit on speeches to 30 minutes for this debate.
We are then prepared to let all the other notices go at this stage, saving only item No. 3 which we propose should be dealt with and completed on Monday. We would then be prepared to have the appropriation bill introduced on Tuesday. Further, we would be prepared to allow all notices, including the appropriation bill, when we get to second and third reading go without recorded divisions. This is in that spirit of co-operation that the government House leader requested of us yesterday or the day before. If that is agreeable, we are prepared to proceed along those lines.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member's apology for not having spoken to the rest of us about this matter, but I suggest it is the sort of matter we ought to discuss among the four of us. Perhaps we can do so during the lunch hour.
I suggest, however, that if the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is in a mood to co-operate, he should go a little further and develop a scheme under which we might dispose of all these nine opposed items not later than the first thing Monday. Let us get to the bill by Monday. In making that suggestion, I repeat that I am not cutting off anybody because on second reading of the bill and in committee of the whole on the bill, particularly on the schedule, the Yield is wide open.
My suggestion is that we proceed as we were until one o'clock and that we try to meet during the lunch hour to come up with something, but our aim should be to get to second reading of the bill just as soon as we can.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if that is the only point that is concerning the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we will concede it and get these notices out of the way on Monday. Then, we could get to the bill sometime early on Monday, if that is agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is agreeable, but I do not think the hon. member should make a decision for the House on the floor. I think the matter should be discussed among the parties.


Erik Nielsen: I was making no decision. I was simply agreeing with the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously, everyone is agreed on the point, but the suggestion has been made that there should be meetings outside the House. It is my feeling that it is always somewhat difficult to reach agreements of this kind in the chamber by questions and answers when four parties are concerned. I notice there is no one here at the moment to speak on behalf of the other party in the House. I am, of course, entirely in the hands of hon. members but it seems to me at this point that though there appears to be agreement it would be difficult to make an order. If hon. members wish me to inquire whether an order should be made, as suggested by the hon. member for Yukon, I am prepared to do so, although obviously the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre feels there should be discussion. So, I shall not put the question at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Supplementary to what has been said, and in an effort to make some progress, I think we can agree that immediately the discussion is over on notice of opposition No. 2 we would discuss notices 6, 7 and 8 in one debate. That would take care of things for a little while.


Erik Nielsen: Normally, members would be allowed to speak for 20 minutes on each item. I am suggesting 30 minutes on the three.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I will agree with almost anything these days to get progress in the House, to be quite frank about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: What Stanley wants, Stanley gets.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope the latter suggestion will be accepted, because I shall not be able to meet with the House leaders until some time after 2.30. If we can agree that when the debate is finished on the present item we shall go on to the health items we can meet later and decide on the next step.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: We have agreed on that point, I am sure. But I am not sure there is agreement on the 30 minute limit suggestion. Is that agreed, also?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Alexander:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had completed my few remarks in the time allotted to me last night and, reluctantly, I discontinue.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin);: Mr. Speaker, there is such great co-operation being shown here that it is with some reluctance I rise as, I believe, the final speaker on this item. I should like to say I am in agreement with the aim of this vote, in the amount of $350 million for the winter capital works fund. I feel it is one of the better
February 9, 1973

programs the government has put forward to deal with unemployment. It is the type of program which was originated, I understand, under the Conservative administration of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert who called it a winter works program. It was discontinued by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1968, when he made the following statement about it;
The tendency for the program to involve 'make work' activities has always created problems, and it has proved increasingly difficult to control this undesirable feature of the program.
It is the government's intention to continue emphasizing those programs that are developmental rather than short-run.
Our disagreement relates to the manner in which this program has been put forward and described as a nonbudgetary vote extending over three years beginning in December of 1972 and ending on June 30, 1975. I can only reiterate what has been said by many speakers, namely that this vote seeks authority to spend $350 million over three fiscal years, yet the supply estimate is for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973. It seems inappropriate that the government should be asking for supplementary estimates for the year ended March 31, 1973. The passage of this vote will give it authority far into 1975. I do not pretend to be an expert on parliamentary rules but this procedure seems highly irregular. In addition, the item described is not budgetary because there will, in effect, be a forgiveness of 50 per cent of normal on-site payroll costs if certain conditions are met by the provinces and the municipalities. To this extent, it seems to me that the vote contains conditions under which money spent over three years will, in effect, be a budgetary item which the government is combining in this vote with non-budgetary element, and it would appear to me that is contrary to section 20 of the Financial Administration Act.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was giving evidence before the committee he seemed quite sure that the amount of $75 million was a reasonably accurate estimate of what will be required this year. There is substantial evidence to support his estimate. But for the second and third year, the best he could do was to give a ballpark figure of $170 million and $105 million. In my opinion, the $75 million should have been brought forward as a supplementary estimate and the other sum should have been provided for by way of legislation. What would be the advantage of this course? It is that the legislation could have been debated in this House and commented upon appropriately.
There are many portions of this worthwhile program which could be significantly improved. To be effective, a winter works program requires a great deal of foresight and planning. Careful advance work enables the program to be put into practice quickly. There ought not to be dependence upon approval at a late stage, as is the case now. There is need for great flexibility both in the areas in which it is applied and in the level of effort. Earlier and effective research must be done with a view to determining the areas most meriting concern. The goal should be to meet local and regional conditions. In order to avoid unnecessary waste we should have taken a degree of care in the selection of suitable projects which will be impossible, now, in many cases. There is need for decentralization of program decisions so that there may be greater sensitivity to local and regional requirements. And it would 25714-73
Supply
be wise, I think, to make sure that employment is offered as far as possible to those who are presently unemployed.
One important consideration is that programs of this type should deal fairly with poorer and less endowed regions. A debate in the House would doubtless bring to light means by which the winter works program could be improved. Had this program come about by way of a bill we would have been in a much better position to make it effective. This is one program of which I am in favour and I think it is extremely useful.
As one who has always been interested in statistics, I should like to point out that in a release issued a few days ago it is stated that persons in the labour force aged between 14 and 25 in January, 1973, numbered 2,261,000. There were 300,000 unemployed within that age group, whereas in the age 25 and over group there were three times as many employed persons, namely 6,620,000. There were only 388,000 unemployed persons in this age group. In other words, although those in the labour force 25 years of age and over number three times those in the labour force between the ages of 14 and 24, the number of unemployed in both groups are approximately the same. I suggest that this is due to what everyone perhaps knows is the reason but which I should like to reinforce, namely the large number of young people coming on to the labour market in this particular age group.
In the Canada Year Book 1970-71, it is pointed out that between 1961 and 1966 there was a gain of 400,000 in the numbers of people under 15 years of age, whereas between 1956 and 1961 there was a gain of 967,000. In other words, there were a gain of almost two and a half times as many people in this age group in the period 1956-61 as in the period 1961-66. Based on the definition used by Statistics Canada of the time when people enter the labour force at the age of 14, a large number of young people are coming into the labour market.
For this reason, it seems to me that at this stage in our economic history we might take a very careful look at projects that would be of some help. During the years 1956-61 the number of births rose from 461,000 to 471,000. The rate dropped rapidly after 1965 and we are now down to about 360,000. What does this mean? It means that in the next five to six years we will have a large number of young people coming into the labour force, and therefore it is time we adopted a policy that will set up the infrastructure that this nation will need during the next decade or so.
I think this type of capital works project is very useful and perhaps should be expanded. Since within the next seven to eight years the number of new entrants to the labour force will diminish, I am sure we shall find there are many things that we would like to do as a nation but that there will be insufficient people to do those things. Therefore, I suggest we examine the infrastructure of our cities and towns, that we construct highways and railways to selected points in the north, which would be extremely useful in the coming decade. Since within the next five to seven years we will have the labour force available to do these things, let us make use of that force.

February 9, 1973
Supply
At the conclusion of the debate on this item we will be debating LIP and youth program. Many of them are very valuable but some are also of a service nature. I endorse the idea of capital works programs and hope they are successful, but I reserve my opinion on whether, had this money been brought forward in a different manner, it would have provided a better vehicle for debate and given members an opportunity to make suggestions to bring about that expansion in the next four to five years that I believe will be necessary.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Erik Nielsen: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: My understanding of the order passed earlier today is that we will now call motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
MOTIONS FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTES 35a, 40a, 45a-


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That vote 35a, in the amount of $850,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for income security and social assistance-Operating expenditures in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.
That vote 40a, in the amount of $2,685,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for income security and social assistance-Contributions in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.
That vote 45a, in the amount of $1,000,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for fitness and amateur sport-Operating expenditures in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973, be concurred in.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising to speak in this debate since while I've often been on my feet of late it is not often that I have a chance to orate. I am much concerned with these items, as are my colleagues who know me and my interests. I should like to speak first on the item dealing with fitness and amateur sport, which is a field in which I have shown, if not great prowess, great interest. There is a very large vote under the heading of income security and social assistance program and this is a matter of immense concern to the people of this country, certainly to the members of the House.
I will not reiterate the arguments in connection with whether these items should or should not be in their
present form. However, if we look very carefully, or even casually, at some of the statutes relating to the whole question of fitness and amateur sport, it will be noted therein that there is a requirement for the filing of reports of various properly constituted bodies, and that there is the stricture laid upon the minister to have these reports laid on the table at a given time. We can doubtless find much room for very serious argument, perhaps to make some very serious allegations, regarding the nonfeasance of duty in relation to these reports submitted by bodies that are charged with very serious responsibilities.
We in this country have become concerned lately about a somewhat dramatic event ahead of us in the field of amateur sport, namely the summer Olympics of 1976. However, it is not that dramatic incident that I think should concern us here but rather the preparation of the Canadian populace, especially the youth, for this kind of event. In this regard, the fitness and amateur sport program should be very seriously thought about as Canada prepares not only to host the Olympics but to take its place there. Another reason I am concerned about this aspect of the vote is the quite shocking news feature story in a magazine which has just hit the streets today. This great national news magazine indicates that there is, in fact, in this country today a very serious drug problem and that indeed it has not at all evaporated no matter how many commissions we have had. It indicates there are serious problems facing the youth of Canada. In so far as a wholesome, properly directed and adequately funded program on fitness and amateur sports can alleviate such things and mitigate their baneful influence, then we should be concerned and we are very properly discussing the matter to which this vote draws our attention.
I should like to come a little more seriously to the matter of physical fitness. Many members know that in a recent, and I believe thorough, analysis and survey of physical fitness this country or ours ranked 21st on the scale of physical fitness of all the countries participating in the Olympics. This should bring home to us the fact that something pretty serious is lacking. Whether the problem is inadequate funds, inadequate facilities, inefficient or insufficient leadership, I do not know. We do vote large funds and we are voting additional funds here. This is what this is all about, yet we ranked 21st.
I see the former minister across the way. He and I might well say to the youth of Canada: Do not do as I do, do as I say, in some of these matters. I suppose if one wanted to personalize, had this country provided better facilities in that part of the country from which I come I might not at this middle age period of 53 have to say: Do as I say rather than do as I do. The majority of the grants which the Department of National Health and Welfare has distributed are under the sports directorate, and perhaps we are more concerned about the word "sports" than about the concept of the word "fitness". Here is where I think we have to take special note and have particular concern.
In 1970-71 $1,490,000 was given in grants to 59 national sports bodies. A further $286,927 was granted to 21 other national sports associations, and $2,089,833 was spent on such projects as Hockey Canada, the Canada Winter Games, Cross Canada sports administration and so on. I

February 9, 1973

think that the failure of the federal government's fitness and amateur sports policy lies in the fact that the fitness part of it is virtually left out. More money has been given to sports associations and athletic organizations than has been relegated to the average physically unfit Canadian. Here is where other countries set an example which we should follow. It seems to me that if federal moneys have been given to promoting physical fitness there have been great gaps. I am told there is a city in the western part of this country, that rediscovered part of our domain, where the church bells ring at a certain hour in the evening to remind people to go out and take a walk. Well, walking is something that does not require a tremendously elaborate program on the part of government at any jurisdictional level.
I am convinced that not only do we tend to emphasize those sports which lead to competitive excellence, and tend to emphasize competitive sports themselves, but we do not sufficiently assist and encourage the generality of participation not only of the potential winners of gold, silver, or bronze medals, but the potentially healthy Canadian. This should be our goal. This is what our physical fitness education people and our health and sports leaders, assisted by the government, must move toward. We must promote physical fitness for all the population. We must, it seems to me, encourage not only those sports which can lead to the winning of medals, but those healthy physical activities which can indeed be called lifetime activities; the kind of things which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and I, at the mid-century mark, could engage in hopefully to the benefit of ourselves and to the country. It seems to me that the whole concept of fitness involves just such consideration. Then, I would hope that we will surpass the 21st mark on the scale of physical fitness.
Recognizing that something must be done I would invite the minister-I am not all that upset about this item and how it came about-for so long as he is there to utilize the pre-Olympics period as a great opportunity to bring to all Canadians a price in healthful living, a stimulus toward physical fitness and encouragement to our young, not only those with the capacity for potential excellence in international or national competition but those in the schools of the land. I do not limit my suggestion to the great and shining composite high schools in great cities, but all schools. Prizing as it does, and prizing as it must, the health and wellbeing of its people, the government must decide that we shall move forward along these lines with the knowledge that physical fitness has and must be a major national goal, and that health and physical fitness are tied together. I think we can encourage such things as regional training centres which would encourage and stimulate greater activity in this matter of such tremendous importance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the other vote, one of tremendous importance; income security and social assistance programs. Compared to many countries in the world I think Canada has a reasonably good record in this regard. I do not know that anyone has taken a poll as to where we stand in the matter of income security and social assistance, but I think we would not stand as low as 21st in that regard. I think we would do much better. As the economy develops particular problems for the poor,
Supply
the handicapped and the aged, we have constantly to review the goals. In the last report of the minister's department, a section under economic security sets out a very simple statement at the beginning with which we all agree and with which we can not take exception. It reads as follows:
Canada's federal welfare benefit programs were initially designed to ensure that everyone has an adequate income and, over the years, they have been redesigned to meet changing demands.
Item 40a is one of these sudden moves to bring about something, not, I presume, under income security but in the realm of social assistance. I refer to the New Horizons program. The minister has just arrived. He may be somewhat surprised by the laconic brevity of the debate, but I can tell him I did not expect to begin this part of the debate until after the noon hour. However, I am glad to have the minister here where he will at least be a captive audience for the next few minutes. The New Horizons program is new all right. Some nasty people might say it was conjured up just because of the event that took place on October 30, which we all remember well with somewhat different emotions. But in so far as it was thought inspired in an age when the youth cult was very much the "in thing", I commend the idea that those who have reached the golden years deserve special attention.
There are great times and great things for those who are no longer young. In our openness and concern, and indeed our priority, for the young we should not forget those on the other end of the spectrum. Certainly, I think this is commendable. So far as I have been able to study the program, I am not at all sure it has been overwhelmingly successful. I would say probably it is a little early to make any kind of a judgment. If it was necessary that it be introduced when it was-and I make no reference to the October 30 deadline-it would have had to come in as a supplementary estimate. But far more important-and I do not hesitate to say this-than the development of the New Horizons program and the creation of interesting things for senior citizens today is the statement in the first part of the paragraph which I read from the minister's report. I repeat the words:
.. . programs were initially designed to ensure that everyone has an adequate income . . .
I know many of the people of Canada who are in their late sixties, seventies or eighties who are living in homes or attend senior citizens clubs. One of the most pleasant evenings I spent in September was when I attended a gathering of this kind. The evening started with the 70-year olds step dancing. This is a great pastime in Prince Edward Island. The 80 year olds were a bit miffed at the 70-year olds taking over and they did their stuff. The last performers were 92 years of age. They were having a good time. This sort of thing is important. We have reached the stage where no longer do senior members of society remain within the family unit. The state has recognized this fact and has built special homes for these people. Because of the social, intellectual and recreational aspect this is all to the good.


An hon. Member:: Did you take part in the dancing also?
25714-73J

February 9, 1973
Supply


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was too young. As a matter of fact, it was said that no one under age 60 could attend that particular meeting. I asked if they would make one exception and they said I didn't need to worry because no one would stop me if I came. I wonder how many of these people would have been happier if, in addition to or perhaps instead of, a vote for recreation there had been a review followed by action concerning what these people receive in their pay cheques. We spent the interesting part of today, the question period, largely on a discussion of rising food costs. When these people went back to their apartments in subsidized senior citizens homes or to their private apartments and thought about their expenditures for such things as groceries, shelter and so on and considered their pensions which have become painfully out of line with the realities of the inexorable rise in the cost of living, I feel that some of the happiness they shared in the dancing and singing faded into insignificance. They are very much aware of the ceiling on their pension cheque and the seemingly unending rise in the expenses they face.
The senior citizens of this country have been held in a bind and have become the unwilling victims of a cruel inflation which is hard on all but too painful, and undeservedly painful, on those who are in their declining years and who have been presented with what is in effect a deflated pension by the government. I thought that before now the minister would have presented to this House legislation to increase old age security payments. The pensioners of today are receiving less in terms of real dollars than they were a few years ago, certainly at the time when the present government took office. It is a cruel and callous injustice to go on week after week and month after month failing to make a significant increase in the old age security payments. As I say, not only has the pension not been increased significantly, but there has been a cruel and callous failure to take note of the increase in the cost of living which in effect is a deterioration in the actual return which these people have every month.
I do not know why the minister waits. It is now a quarter of a year since something happened on October 30. No one can analyze with precision and clarity why the election went a particular way. I used to tell my students in my political science class at the university that the one thing that is more difficult than predicting an election outcome is to explain it after it has taken place.


Thomas Miller Bell: You were a good professor.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: One of my former students, the whip, speaks up. When he was a student in my adult education classes in New Brunswick I also thought he was quite a good student. We are becoming almost genial here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what you did in Brandon.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The chancellor of Brandon University wants me to talk about my career in Brandon, but this might be irrelevant and therefore I will resist the temptation, except to say to the chancellor, if I had the opportunity, when it comes to honorary degree time he should

remember some of his friends from the Progressive Conservative party who used to sit very near to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I will take a moment for the conviviality to subside. The crying need for an increase should have been made apparent in October. The party of Mackenzie King at its best, in a political sense, was pretty faithful to its father but on a couple of occasions it strayed from the teachings of the sage of Kingsmere. One of those times was in 1957 when they forgot Industry and Humanity and they came out with a $6 increase in pensions. They were knocked all over the country as the six buck boys. It is strange to think that after that painful lesson-and I know it was painful for them because I was here-they would get into a more egregious error and think that 82 cents a month-


Stanley Howard Knowles: 42 cents.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -would be acceptable to the Canadian people. I thank the chancellor. With my usual generosity, I was giving too much to the people across the way. The lesson was there. The minister has had all sorts of time to prepare this legislation. He has had consultations with the provinces. Why is the legislation not before us? How long are we to wait, how long are the people of Canada to wait and how long are the senior citizens to wait? I say to the minister: how long, O Lord, how long? What now is there to wait for? We are in the middle of the winter of discontent for these people. We read the figures on the increase in the cost of food, but the people who are the recipients of old age security do not need Statistics Canada to tell them that. They know every day what the problem is. I wonder if in all the negotiations and convolutions that are going on between the government and another party some arrangement has not been made to make the budget more palatable by injecting directly some increase in the old age security payments. If the minister believes in it, it should not be delayed. It has already been delayed far too long.
The minister must know the needs of senior citizens. He was one of the able men in the kitchen cabinet and has now been brought forward into the real cabinet. Let his voice be heard and let him say, even to his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), that older people need help and they need it now. It is a great honour for the minister to be chosen, I am sure. Recently his chief has evoked Napoleonic examples. I say to the minister: he who has been chosen as one of the marshalls to accompany the chief to St. Helena should not hasten the day of that exile by delaying this legislation on behalf of the senior citizens a day longer. I tell him that if he will come forward with his legislation, he will see the greatest of co-operation from this side of the House because it will be a genial person like myself who will do his best to assist him to overcome his own dilatory neglect of the older people. So, in that one area at least, we will be moving back toward that forgotten ingredient in the political lexicon, the expression-who remembers it-"the just society." I think the President of the Treasury Board did recall it with a little help from me. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
February 9, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.	)
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, having spoken at such length, with perception and persuasion, before lunch, I rest my case.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, really in amazement, to speak with respect to motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) can really expect the Canadian people to believe that it is sensible to move a motion to reduce the funds to $1 in respect of the New Horizons Program, not only in terms of administrative expenses which are dealt with in Vote 35a, but in Vote 40a which deals with grant funds totalling $6,150,000. This program is clearly in the interests of the elderly citizens of Canada, not only by providing them with a method and a technique for improving their lot in life but by giving them some degree of interest in working on projects which will help them and their communities.
To be more specific in relation to Vote 35a, which is for the sum of $850,000, I just do not understand the purpose of this motion because in the past-


Erik Nielsen: It isn't a motion; it is a notice so that we can debate the item.


Norman Augustine Cafik: In the recent past there has been considerable discussion about the Opportunities for Youth program and LIP, in terms of whether they were administered in the best possible way. This $850,000 is provided for proper administration of the New Horizons program. I suppose if the Conservatives had their way on this particular motion we would vote the $6,150,000, with no one to administer the program because they would wipe out the $850,000 for administration.
The ratio of operating expenses to grant contributions in this program is 12.14 per cent. This is not an abnormal amount for overhead, especially in the start-up phase when heavy expenditures can be expected for staff, capital outlays and advertising. Originally a figure of less than 15 per cent was aimed at in order to try to contain these expenses. Actually, 12 per cent was provided, and this was rounded off to $850,000. It must be stressed that the department does not have previous experience in this particular type of program upon which it can draw in
Supply
reaching groups of elderly people, to assist them in becoming involved in community activities. In addition, the program had not yet begun to operate, and there was no practical experience respecting such operating costs. It could well be that once the peak of initial expenditures has been reached, the ratio of operating costs to contributions may be considerably less. However, I think it is only realistic to understand that it could even be more.
In my opinion, 12 per cent in operating costs does not seem unreasonable. This covers such things as overhead, salaries and wages. It is anticipated that there will be a staff of about 15 people involved with an average wage of $11,000 per man year. The estimate provides for $72,000 for transportation and communications cost and $172,000 for information programs involving the publication of bulletins and advertising in newspapers, on radio and television so that our elderly people will know about this program and be able to take advantage of it. There is provision for $425,000 for professional services. That sum will provide for highly qualified staff to be retained, whose services will cost between $12,000 and $20,000 per year in salary. Such persons will be chosen as have skills in working with retired persons' groups to assess the value of projects and assist in their planning. In addition there is a budget of $17,000 for the rental of equipment. Materials and supplies to equip regional offices amounts to $63,000, and other expenditures are provided to the extent of $12,000, with a view to helping local national groups to formulate objectives and policies with respect to the program.
Vote 40a, in the amount of $2,685,000, supplies the balance of funds that were not previously allocated, to make up the total budget under the New Horizons program for the balance of this year to $7 milliom. Such programs are very worthwhile for the elderly people of this country. So far this year 53 grants have been approved for $293,000, involving 7,500 retired persons. Last December the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) announced 78 grants which involved $578,486 and covered some 10,000 people. So, the total number of people deriving benefit from this program now is in excess of 17,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: It is anticipated that this program will be used in all provinces of Canada. May I dwell on that point for a moment. The anticipated expenditures by provinces, are as follows: In the Yukon and Northwest Territories, in excess of $4,000; in British Columbia, in excess of $722,000; in Alberta, $418,000; in Saskatchewan, $333,000; in Manitoba, $337,000; in Ontario, $2,271,000; in Quebec, $1,456,000; in New Brunswick, $193,000; in Nova Scotia, $255,000; in Prince Edward Island, $43,000; and in Newfoundland, $113,000, for a total of $6,150,000. It is estimated that this amount will be paid by the Department of National Health and Welfare to provide meaningful activities for our elderly people right across Canada.
I cannot understand how anyone in this House could suggest that this item ought to be reduced to $1.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.

February 9, 1973
Supply


Norman Augustine Cafik: Such suggestions make a mockery of all the talk one hears about increasing the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. All members, on both sides of the House know of the need in this area.


Erik Nielsen: Then bring in the legislation.


Norman Augustine Cafik: And that is not all the elderly need. They also need-


Erik Nielsen: Understanding.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -funds, to enable them to take the initiative with their own projects and make their lives fuller and richer. It is very important that we take cognizance of that, now.


Erik Nielsen: Bring in the legislation.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I think it is important that we, in this House, subscribe to projects that will benefit these people.


Erik Nielsen: We do.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am astonished that those on the other side of the House can question the value of the New Horizons program.


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


Norman Augustine Cafik: It is clearly in the interest of people in the senior age group.


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I notice the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says this is rubbish. In that case I suggest-


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member's speech is rubbish.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -that he vote against the New Horizons program.


Erik Nielsen: Of course, we will not.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am confident that they would not support him in his motion to scrap these two programs- nor will I.


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I understand that, by agreement, we are now debating in one package notices Nos. 6, 7 and 8 on today's notice paper having to do with certain supplementary estimates for the Department of National Health and Welfare. Notices 6 and 7 relate to the general heading of income security and social assistance. I shall have a few words to say on this topic. Notice No. 8 has to do with fitness and amateur sports. My colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), will speak about that a little later this afternoon.
It could be contended that the money being asked for under the votes covered by notices 6 and 7 is for a specific purpose, rather a narrow one, as it were; however, since the heading on this vote is a general one, to do with income security and social assistance, I felt that the Chair had no option this morning but that of allowing the hon.

member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) to range generally over the subject. I am glad the hon. member established that precedent, so that I can do it, too.
I have been impressed with the attention that the new Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has given to the responsibilities of his department. All the noises he has made thus far have been in the right direction. I commend him for his activity. However, Sir, I must impress on him the urgency of getting moving with some of the programs for which he is responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I have suggested that he should get moving-even though my next remark may be lifted out of the logical order in which I try to make my speeches-I wish to say to him that he ought, this afternoon before five o'clock, to file with the table the notice of introduction of the government's bill to amend the Old Age Security Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was promised in the Speech from the Throne and it has been confirmed every time the minister has been questioned about it. We are told that there is to be an increase in the old age security pension; we are led to believe that the increase will be in the basic amount. We have been told it will be a substantial increase. We are further told that the government is concerned about those under 65 years old. We, therefore, hope that the bill will do something in that area, either by lowering the eligible age generally or by providing for the pension to be paid to spouses under 65 in cases where one spouse is already a pensioner.
I do not know how we can get it across to the government that every day counts. Every day on which an old age pensioner tries to make out on his meagre income, every day on which a pensioner learns that the cost of living is going up, is a catastrophe. It is a crisis for those people. I trust that the government is nof\ putting off helping those people until February 19.


Erik Nielsen: That is exactly what it will do and that will be your carrot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister is not planning on that, so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when he makes his budget speech, can announce what the Minister of National Health and Welfare is going to do for senior citizens.


Erik Nielsen: That will be your carrot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is ten days away.


Erik Nielsen: That is going to be your carrot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Our older people cannot buy carrots unless they are given an increase in their pensions.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad to hear the hon. member say so.
February 9, 1973


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say that it would boost morale and lessen some of the anxiety and suffering of our senior citizens in these difficult times if that notice were filed this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It should be done at five o'clock at the latest, because that is the deadline under the rules for such notices to be given on a Friday. If that notice were filed this afternoon the bill would be on the notice paper, and on the order paper right away. It would be printed tomorrow and the people of Canada would know that this promise is being translated into reality. I plead with the Minister of National Health and Welfare not to play the budgetary game and hold it off, but to bring it on right away.
The life of this parliament is not secure. The life of this parliament is in balance. One of the things that will determine whether this parliament will go on, certainly under its present structure, is whether the government acts on this important question. I call for that kind of action this afternoon. I said earlier that I am impressed with the attention the minister is giving to the responsibilities that are his. I suspect that if he were on his own and did not have to get the consent of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), his colleagues and so on, he would have done some of these things long ago.
The same urgency that I have applied to the question of old age security applies to a number of other things that come under his responsibility. During today's question period, I asked him about the range of escalation of the annual increases with respect to Canada Pension Plan benefits. In his reply, the minister indicated that the government was sympathetic to the idea of raising the present ceiling of 2 per cent to a higher figure but, as he put it, the federal government does not yet have sufficient concurrence from the various provinces. If that means there has to be a federal-provincial conference going into the whole area of social security, for heaven's sake, speed up the holding of that conference and, for heaven's sake, in the meantime do everything that the government can possibly do on the basis of its own federal authority and responsibility.
There are other ministers in the chamber. First, there is the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I say to him that he has no excuse for holding back on the escalation of the pensions of retired civil servants and keeping it at that 2 per cent ceiling. On January 24, he told me that had to be tied in some way to the question of its relationship to the Canada Pension Plan. If that is going to be delayed, why should retired civil servants have to wait all this time for this increase?
I say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), as I said this morning, that he should talk turkey to Canadian National Railways and talk the same kind of language to the Canadian Pacific Railway also. He should tell these organizations that they should not leave this question of the escalating of their pensions in the state of limbo that it is in at the present time. This whole principle that pensions should be increased, not by some fixed limit as 2 per
Supply
cent, but enough to enable people to keep up with the rising cost of living, has to be applied to all pensions across the board. I call on the appropriate person, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has more to do with pensions than anyone else, to press this point for all he is worth.
I was delighted to read the document tabled a few days ago by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), the report of the joint study group on the basic rate of pensions under the disability act. That joint committee, God bless its members, is not satisfied with an increase equal to the rise in the cost of living. That committee says that as veterans grow older, they are entitled to share in the increases in the standard of living that others are able to enjoy because of the growth in our economy, the rise in the gross national product, the rise in the wage index and the standard of living. It is a principle that members who have been around here for awhile have heard me proclaiming for a long, long time.
I insist that we will not have pensions that are worthy of the name until there is built into them provision to escalate in such a way that our retired people will be able to keep up, not only with the rising cost of living, but be able to participate in the rising standard of living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of National Health and Welfare has had a real promotion from the kitchen cabinet, as the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) described it this morning, into the cabinet itself. It is a real promotion to be made minister of this department. I insist that he is in one of the most important portfolios in the cabinet, because the whole question of developing some kind of income security and certainty for the lives of our people, particularly in their later years, hangs on what he will do. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I call upon him to add to the good image he has created and the good impression I get of him. I call upon him to do that with some expedition. He can show this by tabling the notice of his bill to amend the Old Age Security Act this afternoon and moving on some of these other matters as well.
I hope the minister will move as quickly as he can on the escalation of the Canada Pension Plan benefits. Right now, people living across the river in Quebec receive an escalation of 3 per cent per year whereas under the Canada Pension Plan it is 2 per cent. Somehow or other they have managed that without any increase in the premiums that people must pay. There is one province that started it. I do not shout with great joy about 3 per cent because I do not think it is enough, but at least Quebec has established that it should not stay at 2 per cent. I press for zeal and determination on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in this whole field of the escalation of benefits.
I will now get back to the bill that I think we should have in this House on Monday. As we are now going to get rid of the supply bill a lot sooner than we thought would be the case, the coast will be clear. There is no reason to delay dealing with it next week before we get to the February 19 budget and the budget debate. I urge that the effective date in the bill be retroactive to January 1. In the

February 9, 1973
Supply
middle of last year, when an election was in the offing, pension increases were made retroactive, so that precedent has been established. I think that should be done now. Many senior citizens have already had their rents increased because the news is there will be a pension increase. They need a retroactive payment in order to cover some of the increases they have already had to pay.
On another occasion I will have something more to say about retired civil servants, veterans and those who [DOT]receive pensions from the private sector. It is appropriate to mention these matters here because this is where the lead must come from, from my good and earnest friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I also remind the minister that every time we have done something about old age pensions in recent years, we have overlooked certain other things that ought to be done. It used to be that whenever there was an increase in old age security, shortly thereafter there was an increase in old age assistance. There was also an increase in the blind persons allowance and the disabled persons allowance. Those ceilings are still at $75 even though the Old Age Security pension has been increased to $82.88. The government argues that those are federal-provincial schemes and that the provinces have the right under the Canada Assistance Plan to supplement them if they want.
However, I have the terrible feeling that in this change, the blind people of Canada have been forgotten in this place. It is not good enough to say to them that a pension of $75 for a blind person is enough because he can get additional so-called welfare that is financed under the Canada Assistance Plan. I agree with those who speak for the blind that they ought to be paid a universal pension as of right, and that the amount ought to be adequate. Likewise with the question of disabled persons allowances. I know some people are covered under the Canada Assistance Plan, and that some people get disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
However, that old disabled persons act is still around, and we still run into people who encounter difficulty getting pensions or allowances to which they are fully entitled because they are not able to prove they are totally incapacitated. We often run into cases where it seems that to get a pension or an allowance under this legislation a person has to be unable to move, unable to feed or look after himself.
I welcome the proposal in the Speech from the Throne to make a beginning on a guaranteed annual income. Although I want to see the day come when it is universal, I am prepared to start with a guaranteed annual income for certain categories of people, namely the categories mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, let us not anticipate that this will not come about until after another election or another two elections. This is needed now. It is one of the reasons this parliament is being kept here at all-so that action will be taken on these various things. And I plead that this action take place without delay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: How long are you going to wait?
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member asks his political question, and I don't mind it. We are asking ourselves how long we should give these people to come through with what they themselves have promised. As for the pension, we think it should be $150 a month. I suppose they will not go that high. We think the age qualification should be lowered.
The important thing is that the older people of Canada are feeling the pinch; they are feeling it even more today because they have been told what has happened to the cost of living index and they are wondering what parliament intends to do. It would be a real boost to them if the news tomorrow is that there has been filed on the notice paper of the House of Commons an appropriate bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. I have enjoyed saying nice things about the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I think he knows I meant them. I would mean them all the more if he would do as I have suggested-file notice of that bill this afternoon so that tomorrow the older people of Canada might know that their pensions are to be increased on a certain date to a much more reasonable level. This is the sort of thing which should be done without delay.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. member a question? If the government does not bring in the legislation requested by the hon. member on Monday, would he and his party vote against the appropriation bill on Monday, amounting to expressing non-confidence in the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would be much more interested in answering that question if it had come from a representative of a party which had taken a firm stand with respect to old age pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was asked during the election campaign whether he would support the payment of $150 a month across the board as a basic old age pension. And he said, no.


An hon. Member:: He said $175.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said no such thing. When he was pressed as to how much of an increase he would support, he said: Enough to cover the full cost of living. The highest figure that was ever extracted from the Leader of the Opposition in the election campaign was the figure of $10 a month.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, why should we throw the Liberals out when we are still trying to get $150, or something like it, from them, while from this side of the House we have no promise at all? Two or three Sundays ago, the Leader of the Opposition was on one of those afternoon television programs and the question was put to him again. He dodged it. He was not prepared to commit his party to an increase in the basic old age pension beyond $10 a month. He and his friends
February 9, 1973

talk a lot about what they are prepared to do for old age pensioners-they are willing to set aside the business of the House to deal with the question of pensions, and so on. I do not know what we shall get from from the Liberals. But it has been promised that the increase will be substantial. The pension amounts to $82.88 at the present time. We shall have to decide, when we get the bill, what "substantial" means. But at least there is a clear indication from that side of the House that we will get something. There is no indication from the Progressive Conservative party that they will do anything at all beyond $10 a month.
The hon. member for Yukon wants to know whether we would vote those people out and put him and his friends in on the basis of their $10 a month.


Erik Nielsen: Oh no, that was not the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While the hon. member is trying to formulate his question, may I say that I hope the question by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) got on record in Hansard. He wants to know if we have found the money for $150 a month, which is a clear indication that he does not favour the $150. There is one thing about the hon. member for Edmonton West: he honestly states the position of his party. And he is not in favour of the $150.


Erik Nielsen: May I address my question again to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I ask both hon. members to resume their seats. Since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not prepared to yield to the hon. member for Yukon, the hon. member for Yukon cannot be recognized.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was prepared to yield. I just wanted first to comment on the interjection from the hon. member for Edmonton West. I am quite happy to take a question from the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: My question to the hon. member-and he appeared to miss it, judging from the breadth of his comments-was this: if the government does not act as suggested, and bring in by Monday legislation along the lines he proposes, are he and his party prepared to vote against the appropriation bill? This would have the effect of turfing out the government, but not necessarily of putting this party in power.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall be happy to let the Official Opposition know our strategy when it is time to make it known. The hon. member cannot get away with these indirect questions. He tries to tie the question whether or not we get the notice by tomorrow to the way in which we shall vote on the supply bill. The question of the supply bill stands on its own. We happen to think that this parliament should be made to work. We happen to think that the business of government should carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Don't evade the question.
Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute; I did not come here yesterday. You can't get me that way. If the government lets us down on old age pensions we will deal with the government when we decide to do so, and in the right way. But that is a different thing from withholding this money which is intended for unemployment insurance payments, LIP payments, New Horizon programs, fitness and amateur sport and all the other things.


Harold Warren Danforth: Money for agriculture?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, money for agriculture. The hon. member for Yukon does not know about western farmers. We are not like hon. members to our right. We are not prepared, as they are, to attempt to bring a halt to the ongoing business of government just in the hope that they might get over there on the treasury benches and make a worse mess than is being made by hon. members sitting there at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can congratulate the hon. members from the Conservative party for curtailing the week's filibuster they had planned to carry on with respect to these nine motions, so that we may get at the supply bill today or Monday. But I say to them that the supply bill stands on its own feet. It represents the ongoing business of government. There are the programs in it which I have mentioned, and which need to be financed, and we intend to vote for each of these items.


George Harris Hees: We know how you feel. Do not bother with the alibis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not talk to me about alibis; my friends make them by the thousands. We are not going to vote for reducing the "New Horizons" item to $1. We are not going to vote for reducing the fitness and amateur sport item to $1. We are not going to vote for reducing the agricultural items or any of the others. We think the business of government must go on, and therefore we are prepared to vote this money. However, we are saying to the government-and I think the government knows this-that they have to act on pensions in a proper way or they know what will happen.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise to participate in this debate. In fact, when I come to think of it, it doesn't give me very great pleasure, since the purpose of the motions proposed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is to delay funds for very worthwhile programs, something that I do not approve. If the hon. member would pause to think about it when he comes back into the chamber, the effect of his proposals would be to kill these programs.
Let us think for a moment what these programs really do. They are extremely worthwhile. The hon. member opposite is sitting down at the far end of the chamber trying to make deals with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and is playing little games with the lives of senior citizens. There is one of those organic relationships going on down there at the moment.

February 9, 1973
Supply


George Harris Hees: You mean playing games with the life of the government, don't you, Barney?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The effect of these motions, as I say, would be to kill these worthwhile programs which are primarily directed toward our senior citizens, people who have my highest priority and I think the highest priority of all members of the House. We do not play games or play politics with our elderly citizens.


George Harris Hees: You only play games with the NDP.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Neither do we engage in auction sales with the old age pensioners.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Are you trying to be a prophet, Barney?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) may think we are not being serious about this. He was a member in the last House and he knows that my priority, the priority of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, indeed I think the priority of all members of the House, was the senior citizens. We have to think about them in a very selfish way. It does give more dynamism to our lifestyle if we live in a society where, as senior citizens, we know that we are looked after in security and with dignity; we can then live a more freestyle life and take our chance when we are young and are somewhat more flexible.


George Harris Hees: Aren't you flexible now?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, I am, and I am sure I will be for a long time. I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that I am not flexible. But the point is we are still able to control our options. No one has ever suggested that life fs easy, but when we are older we do not have the same chance as when we are young. That is why the old people must be looked after now. Therefore, I do not think we should play games by delaying legislation and embarrassing the government on a matter as important as this, and this applies particularly to the New Horizons program.
I do not say that because it is the most important program or the most significant thing that has ever happened in the history of this country, but because it is a very precious program. The greatest priority of all is the fundamental economic security of our senior citizens. But there is a lot more to it than that. There is a life style, a richness of life, which allows these people to do things they were not able to do before. I happen to think that it is a great program.
I was delighted to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Cafik) say that some 17,000 people are now involved in the program. I was glancing at the minister's press release of December 18 last, which outlines some of the programs that are to be implemented right across the country. They are not massive programs. For example, there is a grant of $5,100 for a program in St. John's, Newfoundland; a grant of $3,900 for one in Whitbourne; another for $1,170 for Kensington, P.E.I.; another for $1,765 for Miscouche in P.E.I. There are programs right across the country. For example, in my own riding there are one or two small

programs, but there are programs from coast to coast for small groups of people.
We also have to look at these programs in human terms. During the last election campaign-or, rather, during the last election; I do not recall there being a campaign-I was called down to Willowdale United Church in my constituency to meet a group of senior citizens there. They were not all members of the church because the group was non-denominational and used the church facilities to play card games such as euchre to reminisce. They had some interesting stories to pass on and they told me they would like to put them in a book. They wondered if somehow, through some government program, they could secure the services of a stenographer or secretary who would type these stories so they could be mimeographed. There were about 100 people there and none of them knew about the New Horizons program. It is, of course, still fresh in our minds and we still have a lot to learn about it from experience. So, for a very small sum of money, here would be an opportunity to engage a lot of people in a project that might prove very worthwhile. The stories and reminiscences that they have might be very valuable to our generation and future generations. But there is another dimension to it. These people who presently wake up on a Monday morning and ask what they are going to do until their euchre game on Wednesday are going to be able to say that they have to be ready for their project on Wednesday. Each day, therefore, is no longer a dull day, another day waiting for the euchre game on Wednesday. They will have a different focus each week, which is something that is very worthwhile.
There is another town in my riding, the town of Vaughan, which is really a township made up of a lot of small towns and farming area. The senior citizens there have formed a Senate. We have our own Senate of senior citizens, too, but this is a different sort of Senate. They have representatives from the towns of Woodbridge, Maple, Thornhill, Concord and Nashville who come together and decide among themselves what kind of programs are needed in the area. So that they do not duplicate the work, the group from Nashville takes on one program and the group from Woodbridge takes on another. This is a great idea and prompted me to suggest to the minister that it would be very worthwhile to have an advisory council such as in the town of Vaughan for all of the senior citizens programs.
A lot of benefit can be derived just from meeting and talking about problems. This provides input and the whole thing is co-ordinated by the director of recreation in the municipality, who is probably in his mid to late twenties. He is as excited about the program as are the old people themselves. It appeared to me that we could expand this idea even further and get our senior citizens more involved in the program if we had a national advisory council so that the thrust of the program is maintained and oriented in ways with which the senior citizens can identify. Then, perhaps regional advisory boards of senior citizens could be set up to provide a channel of communication with the minister who is primarily concerned with their interests. This is, very important, not only to the success of the program, but so that the senior citizens themselves feel tuned in to the institutions of their country as well as to their government.
February 9, 1973

We have tried to do the same sort of thing with your young people through the Opportunities for Youth program and local initiatives programs. People who were trying to destroy the institutions of our society a few years ago now feel for the first time that society cares about them, is interested in them and that our institutions are relevant to them. I am not really too concerned about senior citizens coming to Ottawa to tear down the Parliament Buildings or to start bonfires at city hall. We are talking about an enriching program that is important to them in later years when often they feel shunted aside. Through these advisory groups they are given a channel of communication to their government. We are representing them and they no longer feel alienated. They do get their message through. There is an interplay and a connection between senior citizens and their governments, as there should be between all citizens. Let us not forget them. The New Horizons program offers that potential, and I hope the minister will take this as a suggestion and establish these advisory groups of senior citizens.
It was rather interesting to meet with senior citizens. They are a great bunch. We had a couple of meetings and they talked about some interesting programs they wanted to undertake, such as travelling to Niagara Falls, Quebec City, and some even wanted to go to Vancouver. I thought that was great. Those are things they should be able to do. I agree with the purpose of the program itself, and feel that perhaps we should help them organize. It also helps put their problems into perspective. They thought life had been pretty tough on them.
We had one meeting at the church and one at the town hall in Maple. They said that everyone there got there by car. This was true. I suggested that perhaps they should start thinking about this method of travelling to Niagara Falls, Quebec City and Vancouver. We have another section in Woodbridge which is made up of summer cottages in which a lot of the older people are now living. It is a big event for these people to get to downtown Toronto, and for some even to get to the post office in Woodridge. Perhaps there is no problem for some of these senior citizens in getting out, but for others it is a big event to even get out of their homes and down the street. They do not have cars.
These are the same people who are making the tradeoffs that many senior citizens have to make today between nutrition and medicine. I spoke a couple of weeks ago in the House about this. These meetings had a strange effect on other senior citizens. They began to put their problems in some sort of perspective, and began to realize that they were not so badly off. They began to talk about doing something for other senior citizens who were in worse shape than they were, perhaps because of this trade-off between medication and food. These people would get together and make a deal with a few of the local druggists. They would actually get into the auction business and play one against the other, trying to find the one who would give them the best deal on drug costs. These people have become quite excited about this program.
This is the potential of the New Horizons program. This is the sort of thing it is doing, and this is the sort of thing to which these motions are intended to apply. It saddens
Supply
me to think that a man such as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who has had such experience in this House, would stoop to this type of tactic.
No one can question the credentials of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in respect of his experience with senior citizens. I am sure he is as impatient as all of us, but I am sure that if we really think about this in all fairness and in an unbiased, non-political way, he and others will appreciate the record of the Liberal government as far as senior citizens are concerned.
When I heard I was to speak this afternoon on this matter I looked up the record and reviewed it. I wanted to refresh my mind as to some of the things that happened in respect of old age security. When the Liberal government was formed in 1963 under Mr. Pearson, the universal old age security pension was $65 a month and was paid to a person aged 70 or over. In 1964, Mr. Pearson's government raised the old age pension to $75 a month and a 2 per cent escalation clause was included to offset the cost of living. That was done in 1966. In 1970, the old age security pension was set at $80 per month, and in the same year pensions became payable to persons 65 years of age and over. That was as a result of the action taken in 1966. This year the government introduced an escalation clause to fully adjust the old age pensions to increases in the cost of living. I think this has been a major and a significant move. People speak about the small amount of money involved, but the principle is extremely important. This escalation was built in, just as the member for Winnipeg North Centre says it should be built into other areas of our pensions system.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) rises on a point of order.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member now addressing the House would accept a question?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to accept a question from the hon. member for Scarborough West.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would give us any idea of his estimate of the amount of increase in the old age pension that would be needed to obviate the necessity for the trade-offs he has spoken of between nutrition and medicine?


Barnett Jerome Danson: It would be significant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I have never been satisfied, and I suppose I never will be in this area, but I hope I will be satisfied that we have done all we can as a government. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) knows my feeling and the feeling of many members of our caucus. We have to do the best we can. There are other trade-offs in taxation, and as to whether we look after people on a universal basis or on a selective basis. These are trade-offs that we have to make.

February 9, 1973
Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you go for $150?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The amount must be significant and you can read anything you want from that statement. I am confident that the amount will be significant, but I must say that I have no prior knowledge.
In any event, we introduced the guaranteed income supplement and provided for a maximum payment of $30 a month to old age pensioners having no other income. As in the case of old age security pensions, this was indexed, for cost of living purposes, at 2 per cent per year. In 1970, the maximum guaranteed income supplement was increased to $55 a month, and this year the government both increased the maximum to $70 per month and indexed the guaranteed income supplement payment to fully reflect increases in the cost of living.
Since 1963, therefore, under the combined headings of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, Liberal governments have increased benefits payable to a single old age pensioner from $65 a month to $150 a month plus full cost of living adjustment if she or he has no other income. Several other benefits and programs, all of them introduced by Liberal governments, enabled retirees and senior citizens to look forward to a dignified life in old age.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We remember six-buck Harris.


Barnett Jerome Danson: We have come a long way since the six-buck days, and compared to the days of 10-buck Bob, I think this was very generous.
There is the Canada Pension Plan, for example, which was introduced in 1966 and will be fully operational by 1976. The plan will pay out a retirement benefit of 25 per cent of a worker's annual average earnings up to $5,100, in addition to providing a disability pension, a benefit for dependents for those disabled and unable to work, a pension for widows, orphans and disabled workers, and a lump sum death benefit. This plan guarantees for the first time that pension benefits will be payable to all Canadian workers, ovet and above the old age security payment, regardless of the vagaries of coverage under private pension plans. In its white paper on income security, the government announced its intention of keeping the Canada Pension Plan consistent with the growth in wages and salaries in the Canadian economy.
There are also the medical care program and the Canada Assistance Plan, both initiated by Liberal governments. These are the first things we have done with a degree of consistency, if not with all the haste that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would want, and that many of us would wish. I think we are making considerable progress and the pace of it is accelerating. I think we can be grateful for that without, at the same time, ever being satisfied.
I suggest that we get on with the business of the House and with the legislation that is before us, because there are things to be done. There is good legislation and we are proud of the performance of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, a new member of the House, since he assumed that portfolio. I think all of those on this side of the House, and the people in Canada, can be grateful for
[Mr. Danson.J
having him serve in that role. I think we should get on with the job.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to deal at great length with the matter before us, because, after all, the supplementary estimates being discussed at the present time are highly justifiable.
Although one may criticize the purposes for which such estimates are earmarked or say that too much or too little money is provided, I find it quite ridiculous that the Progressive Conservative party should want to reduce some one dollar items. I sincerely believe that the members of that party would be the last to support such a proposal. In fact, their main purpose, and that is unfortunate, is to play politics. Their purpose is not to get good administration but rather to create confusion among others and achieve some political gains.
For my part, I only ask that the government have these items disposed of as soon as possible in order to be in a position to introduce adequate bills, and that not only for purely political purposes, but rather in consideration of the rights of the old people for whom those estimates are intended.
Mr. Speaker, is there anything to prevent the government from introducing such bills as soon as possible? The members of the Liberal party are keen to blame the Progressive Conservative members, telling them: You are delaying the business of the House, you do not want us to act quickly. This results in a deplorable waste of time because nothing more than motions or innocuous bills are put before the House.
As far as we are concerned, we are waiting for the government to take unequivocal positions, especially on old age security pensions. We can never pin them down about the amounts to be paid to the old people; they rather enjoy, every four or five years, introducing bills intended to create political pressures on individuals, instead of discussing the amount of the votes or the real solution to the problems.
I wonder why the government does not introduce bills stipulating, for instance, that the old age security pensions be increased to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living. Instead, it prefers to introduce the same old bills, postponing their adoption to introduce others later on, but refusing to take positive steps. In fact, the present budgets are another crushing proof that the governments, past and present, are incapable of setting up sensible estimates.
They still enjoy throwing figures around from time to time, but never taking into account concrete facts, that is the increase in the cost of living. For instance, the old people could be given the right to automatically higher pensions, based on rising costs.
Mr. Speaker, we are still discussing the supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31 and, as the hon. member for Winnipeg-North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said a while ago, we are waiting for the government to take a position and quickly. Decisions will not be made easier nor will the Canadian people live any better because
February 9, 1973

things are dragged out and deadlines are postponed. Decisions must be made today, as soon as possible. We must stop arguing about minor problems such as that which is before us now because we know that money has already been or soon will be spent. We must also-I refer to the Progressive Conservatives in particular-we must also stop playing petty politics.
Hon. members should act as administrators, they should deal effectively with the needs and claims of their electors and the government should introduce positive bills.
We are once more discussing the New Horizons Program and in view of the imitation of an administration that may exist at present, I wonder whether we can be assured that the appropriations will be better administered than those concerning the Local Initiatives Program. One asks questions. It is all very fine to put out a political feeler by suggesting that these are necessary credits, but when we come to the administration or to the distribution of these credits, we find that never, in any area, they do really serve to help the people.
We want the government to do positive work, progressive work which respects the needs of the individual not 10 years later, but at the moment when it is necessary to meet these needs. We are waiting with impatience for the government to introduce bills which will respect the needs of individuals when individuals have those needs and not on a delayed basis as has always happened in the past.
Mr. Speaker, these were the simple remarks I had to make on these estimates and I hope especially that the Progressive Conservatives will stop their petty political manoeuvring and allow the government to pass these estimates as soon as possible so that we may really be able see if the government intends to introduce positive bills.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, as I look around the House on this quiet Friday afternoon I would suggest we could obviate the problem raised in respect of the question period this morning if we gave Mr. Speaker discretion to call the question period occasionally on Friday afternoon. The front bench on the government side is fairly empty, but those members do not contribute a great deal to the question period in any event.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. parliamentary secretary who introduced the debate for the government. He was ably supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I listen with great interest every time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks. I admire his humanitarianism. I agree with his feelings about the plight of the aged people in this great country. I was surprised, however, at his sudden conversion in wanting the old age pensioners' case brought forward now. We wanted it brought forward a month ago, and nothing has happened in this parliament in the last month which I would place in a higher priority than the Old Age Security Act.
I would also support the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wishes to put his money where his mouth is and come forward with a statement that he will not support the supply motion unless an amendment is brought in in respect of old age security, I think he will receive agree-
Supply
ment from this side of the House and again will be able to have his way with the House. It always alarms me when a discussion occurs such as that between the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I assume they were debating who would be House leader next week.
I believe that an amendment to the Old Age Security Act should be brought in immediately. Early in the session we heard that it was to be brought in very soon. It has not yet been introduced. We are wondering if this urgent legislation is not being debated because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) want to have it contained in the budget, or not passed until the budget, in order to try to blackmail opposition members into accepting the budget of the Minister of Finance.
Now I shall refer to the statements made by the party opposite about our $1 motion. As they well know, and I wish they would stop trying to misinform the people of Canada in this regard, this is a procedural motion which is the only way open to the opposition to ensure that supply estimates are discussed. It seems to me that it is the duty of all members of the House to discuss how the taxpayers' money is to be spent. It is a pleasure for me to speak in this debate on the supplementary estimates concerning welfare. As I have said, this motion gives parliament an opportunity to discuss welfare in both a broad and a narrow sense. There may be those in the House who do not agree that welfare or other areas of finance should be discussed. They believe we should agree to whatever is put before us by the bureaucrats, that it is not our business and one must be a professional even to discuss our society and its present ills.
Needless to say, such are not my thoughts. Programs involving the spending of tax dollars and involving the people of Canada are our business. The business of parliament is whatever parliament decides it is, and parliament has decided that this is the matter we should discuss now.
During the September-October, 1972, period which had been decreed to be a time of dialogue between the Prime Minister and the voters, several other non-establishment characters got into the act and discovered inter alia that the people of Canada were very interested in the subject of welfare and particularly in the maladministration of public disbursements in this field. They were concerned that welfare was costing the taxpayers of Canada, at all levels, over $6 billion per year with no apparent remedial result.
It is most of all the fact that there is no apparent remedial result accruing from this enormous expenditure that gives us all a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness with this government. All their measures concerning the poor and the needy are on a palliative basis. No cure is ever contemplated or attempted. This government is actually a kind of Typhoid Mary going around infecting people and then trying to alleviate their disease whilst infecting still more.
I believe that the most devastating fault among the legion of faults of this administration is their inability to

February 9, 1973
Supply
produce any incentive to get the welfare recipient off welfare and give him back his self-respect. The head of a household cannot hold his head high when he is not in fact the breadwinner. Yet the current rules in many cases penalize the citizen who tries to supplement the family income by working. It simply results in a net loss of income.
Perhaps this might be a propitious time for me to decry the unfortunate habit that more and more people, among them some of the media, are adopting in referring to the unemployment scheme as welfare. One hears all too often reports about "unemployment insurance and other welfare projects". To those who take anything other than the most cursory interest in the unfortunates of our society, it is crystal clear that unemployment insurance is totally different from welfare. For one thing, the benefits are much higher. I hope that this slight digression will be forgiven, but it always bothers me when these two schemes, quite dissimilar in concept, are considered to be similar. It distresses me particularly when it appears to be part of an over-all plan to have them considered of the same genre. It is, of course, symbolic of the floundering and confusion of the self-appointed elitists of the treasury benches that they are confused when faced with the realities of life in the real world, the working world.
I realize that trying to sort out the crazy-quilt, the overlapping of one scheme with another of the alleged social programs of this government, is not easy and I should like to see this government present a plan to simplify the mess. May I suggest that the Progressive Conservative income development plan should be studied. There are many distinguished observers of the economic and social scene who are writing learned papers concerning such concepts as the income development plan.
Methods of achieving the goals of the income development plan are sometimes different. The one that seems to me to be the most promising if one values simplicity, and I do, is the negative income theory. It seems to me that if a simpler system were devised we could then redeploy our scanty numbers of trained social workers into the fields for which they are trained. These specialists should be free to counsel those who need conselling, to help the helpless, to encourage the discouraged. Skilled social workers at present spend far too much of their valuable time assisting the less fortunate to decipher, to decode the latest ukase from Ottawa to determine under which rule the needy can be kept warm, the hungry fed.
When considering what may be to this government the problem of the poor and, to more understanding members, the plight of the poor, the House should bear in mind that the poor do not live under rules and laws devised by the poor. They live under laws and rules devised by other people. They do not ask or wish to be poor. I have no doubt that all the poor people would prefer not to be so. But they do not make the rules of the game. We do. If our country is as rich as we like to boast it is, we are doing a remarkably bad job of handling its finances.
We simply must find a way to enable these people to break out of the financial ghetto in which we incarcerate them. They do not want, and surely we do not want, merely to keep them existing in perpetual poverty. Can we never find a way to give them what is most needed-

which is hope, not charity? They do not ask to live in idleness; they do not want to be considered different and inferior; they want to join the rest of our society. Let us help them.
I would now like the House to consider for a few minutes the leverage effects that welfare costs have on the municipalities, towns and cities that are required to find part of the money needed to finance welfare, although their role is so proscribed as to make them unable to do anything about the primary root cause of it all which, of course, is the ailing economy.
Under the present financial agreements and arrangements, municipal authorities' taxing fields are so narrow, and within their narrow confines are now so high that extraordinarily heavy burdens fall upon home owners and small businesses. When an emergency situation exists, as it does at present, and welfare costs rise and the cost of municipal sharing rises, where are the municipalities and small towns to raise funds? Traditionally, their revenue comes from property taxes and business tax. Many of them are too small to be able to put on sales taxes. The cost of administration requires a larger base.
Municipal revenues do not rise automatically as the federal government's revenues rise. The federal government can now count, or almost count, on having a substantial increase in revenue without raising taxes at all. The increased revenue will flow in automatically due to the inflation that they have brought about and we are fast approaching the stage at which the federal government will feel if they need more revenue they simply have to increase inflation.
As was pointed out by our leader during the recent campaign, the government is the only organization in this land that has a vested interest in maintaining an inflationary spiral. I know that their cost-sharing arrangements and grants do help in a sense and that the federal government always keeps the lower levels of government in a subservient position. The lower levels of government always must come like children, cap in hand, to the rich uncle in Ottawa to beg, wheedle and negotiate for next year's allowance. "Big Daddy" here in Ottawa decides how much he will dispense, always on a short-term basis.
Anyone who has been involved in the collection and disbursement of funds at the municipal level-and many of us in this House have-and those who have apprenticed * on school boards or city and municipal councils soon realize that there are at least two kinds of money in this country. There is the very hard money, the closely accounted for money, the money whose expenditure requires full explanation. That is the kind of money that municipalities get from their ratepayers. Then there is the other kind, the kind that has a sort of unreal quality similar to Monopoly play momey. It is collected in ever increasing quantities without any relevant requirement ever being considered or discussed. That is the automatic inflation that causes the increase and is never approved.
It is disconcerting, to say the least, to pare a school district budget by enlarging the pupil-teacher ratio, a Draconian measure indeed, and then suddenly to discover that a spur of the moment federal program will pour
February 9, 1973

money into less worth-while projects in the same district. While a school board is letting go one or two school teachers because of the lack of $20,000, someone will be getting a cheque for $20,000 to paint a mural in the school hallway. Here I am speaking generally and not of any particular case. But we could mention a hundred projects of no appreciable value to our society that, if dispensed with, the money provided for them could help children receive a decent education through the normal channels. It is hard to believe that the municipal dollar and the federal dollar are each worth the same 100 cents.
I have introduced the picture of municipal financing so that hon. members might realize what a shattering blow it is, to those charged with financial responsibility at lower levels, to be required to pay any part of welfare costs when such costs rise rapidly as the economy falters. The costs of welfare in small cities take up such an enormous proportion of their budgets that budgeting becomes a farce. If the federal government's budget indicates that we are in for another round of inflation or a further increase in unemployment, the unemployed of course may first collect unemployment insurance benefits but when their benefits run out they go on welfare. That is something not budgeted for.
We have been told that in holding this debate we are voting only a dollar for several plans. That, Mr. Speaker, is utter rubbish. It is this extreme dissatisfaction with the present financial and taxing methods that causes me to look with considerable favour upon the income development plan. The government must know that an entirely unfair burden is placed upon the lower levels of government. I do not have a closed mind about the income development plan. If the government is able to devise a better plan, I hope it will not hesitate to bring it forward. What is important is that the government should realize that the present system is unfair, undemocratic and guarantees that all Canadians do not and will not have equal opportunities in this land.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, this morning an editorial in the Globe and Mail was titled, "If necessary, an election." I do not wish to read the whole of it, simply because it is too lengthy. Nevertheless, there are a couple of paragraphs in it that should be read for the benefit of hon. members. And, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that this was written by the chief editorial writer of the Globe and Mail. It reads in part as follows:
Conservative leader Robert Stanfield made the unemployed one of the principal themes of his speech-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not that I have any objection to listening to this editorial in the Globe and Mail-I read such editorials, just like everybody else-but it is a rule of this House that editorials should not be read in debate. I think that should be brought to the attention of the distinguished hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The point of order is well taken if the hon. member is referring to an article that he has called an editorial. However, I think I should listen a little longer to know what is being quoted.
Supply


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, you are very fair. As a matter of fact, the hon. member who brought this matter to your attention was very fair. I have nothing against his interrupting, but I wish he would interrupt some of his own colleagues whenever they read much more than I did. It is not necessary that I quote this editorial; as a matter of fact, I think I could almost quote it from memory, verbatim. But because it is an article in the Globe and Mail and because it refers to the leader of the opposition I want to be correct in every detail. Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue to read. It reads as follows:
Conservative leader Robert Stanfield made the unemployed one of the principal themes of his speech in the throne speech debate. He offered to shelve temporarily that debate if the government would immediately bring in legislation to increase old age pensions and clarify the Unemployment Insurance Act. His verbal concern for the unemployed has occupied him urgently since.
Those were the words. The performance has been to delay, often with time wasting and childish tactics, the bill to provide the money to pay unemployment benefits. This delay was carried to the point where-the Senate insisting on some time to consider the matter-benefits actually were delayed for Canadians who needed them.
Such behaviour so disregarded the needs of the country that three Conservative Members of Parliament broke with their party to support the government's bill. This in spite of the overwhelming desire of the Conservatives to bring down the government.
I do not think any more need be said about that matter. These are not my words; they are the words of one of the chief editorial writers in Canada, certainly one of the chief editorial writers in the great city of Toronto. So far as I am concerned, not only with regard to the debate during the past month but with regard to the present debate those words put the cards squarely on the table. The fact is that our hon. friends in the opposition-and of course they are our friends-accuse of us of not knowing what is going on in the country, and probably too often we accuse them of the same thing. In this particular instance they have obstructed the government in every possible way and have obstructed it in every possible way since we returned here last January 4.
The statement by my hon. friend opposite that the amendment introduced by one of the Conservative members, asking that these votes be reduced to $1, was the only way that they could discuss these measures in the House of Commons is 100 per cent nonsense. They brought in this delaying tactic so they could obstruct the government in every possible way. There is no other explanation.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that on October 30 last a large percentage of the people of Canada voted for the great Conservative party and the Conservatives were successful in obtaining 107 seats. But sometimes the way they talk and criticize the government would lead one to believe that they had won about 135 seats and were the party in power instead of the one that sits to the right of Mr. Speaker.
May I remind you, Sir, and all hon. members present, that Liberal members do not sit in the House today with their heads down. If anybody won the election, we won it because we obtained more seats than any other party in

February 9, 1973
Supply
the House and a greater percentage of the vote than any other party in Canada. The government is attempting to govern in an organized fashion, not just for the Liberal party, not for the socialist party, not for the Creditistes, but to the best of our ability for all Canadians from Vancouver to Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Don't speak nonsense.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is why we are here today voting on such great programs as the New Horizons program involving senior citizens, a program that was not even dreamed about when my friends to the left of Mr. Speaker sat in the seats of government some years ago.
Provision is made for amateur sport, which will benefit the youth of this country, not the youth of the United States or of other countries. This money will not be spent on Viet Nam or for sending wheat to India; it will be spent on young Canadians in their teens and on those perhaps as old as 30 or 40 so that we can develop better fitness and amateur sport in Canada. I think such a program is good.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You should; you have agreed to support it.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The Conservative motion in opposition to vote 45a seeks to reduce to $1 the $1 million program of the Department of National Health and Welfare for fitness and amateur sport. This is how much that party wants to make available to our youth.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense. The money is already spent.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I hear the hon. member say it is nonsense.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. It is already spent.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: May I remind you, Sir, that yesterday evening I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) say, when talking about the large sums of money which would be lent to the provinces and municipalities of Canada, that the money was not spent. He was complaining because it was not spent. That is what he suggested yesterday. He suggested that this government has no right to vote moneys for two or three years ahead.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Why did he say that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member is rising to ask a question. Does the hon. member who has the floor agree to accept it?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer as soon as I have finished.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. The hon. member does not seem to know the difference between governor general's warrants and estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Hon. members have behaved well so far. The hon. member who has the floor has a very special way of expressing himself, but the Chair is experiencing some difficulty in following the discussion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: So is everybody else.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The hon. member suggests I do not know what I am talking about. But I do know the difference between relevant and irrelevant facts and I suggest the hon. member should study that question.


Harold Warren Danforth: Here we go again with the same old argument.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If I may continue speaking about this grant for our athletes, its purpose is to assist the better Canadian athletes who wish to continue both their educational and competitive careers. As athletes move into higher levels of competition, more and more time must be spent on training: this leaves little opportunity for working in order to raise funds for educational purposes. Surely that is self-evident, Mr. Speaker. We hope that athletes from all across Canada will take part in the Olympic games to be held in Montreal in 1976. It is our duty, surely, as legislators-not as Liberal legislators but as Members of Parliament-to help all the young people of Canada so that they can put on a creditable showing in Canada or anywhere else in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Completed applications are received in duplicate by Sport Canada. Approximately 16,000 application forms were distributed to national sports governing bodies, educational institutions, provincial governments and previous applicants, relative to the 1973 grants. Perhaps I ought to remind hon. members that those grants do not go to any particular area of the country; they go to our athletes in the ten provinces and two territorial districts; they are for our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters. Conservative members who have spoken against this proposal are obstructing to the nth degree. I do not include all Conservatives because many have not spoken. The Conservatives who have spoken do not support this opportunity that the government has brought before parliament.
Much has been said about the Olympic games which will be held in Canada in 1976. I know this subject is controversial. As a Canadian, I hope that the city of Montreal is very successful in its endeavour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If it is successful, and surely we all hope for that, that city may have the laugh on the rest of the country. Montreal was not awarded the Olympics just by accident; the city officials went out and worked for it and the city evidently was prepared to finance the games. I say, God bless them in their endeavour. We are obligated to provide athletes not just from Montreal but from Vancouver, Hamilton, Galt, the Northwest Territories, Newfoundland and all across Canada. This grant will help our athletes and allow them to continue training.
February 9, 1973

I do not intend to talk much longer about these votes. I listened with attention to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who this afternoon lambasted the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) for not bringing forward the old age pension legislation today, or one month ago or whenever he felt it should have been introduced.
I listened carefully as my socialist friend suggested that the minister should name the figure that the old age pensioners are to receive. I do not blame government officials for not mentioning the amount of money that senior citizens are to receive. However, as a backbencher of the Liberal party I am by no means afraid to mention figures. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that our senior citizens deserve every cent that Canada can afford. But I say to my socialist friends, when they say the pension for people 65 years of age and over should be at least $150, that they are whistling Dixie; that Canada cannot afford it; that some of our senior citizens are quite wealthy.
Surely the hon. member knows that Canadians cannot afford to pay such a sum. Whenever somebody suggests such programs for Canada I wonder where the money is to come from. I appreciate the sentiments of my friend from Winnipeg North Centre when he advocates increased old age pensions, additional funds for CNR pensions, improved Canada Pension Plan payments, and so on-we all agree with those sentiments-but sympathy in the heart of mankind is not confined to members of the socialist party; it is to be found even in Conservatives and certainly exists in the hearts of Liberals because they have done more for pensioners than any other party in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Having said that, I impress upon my friends across the way and upon those in my own party that we can only afford to give what our younger people can afford to pay. At the present time the old age pension system in Canada is better than that of any country in the world. Tax exemptions in Canada are higher than those of any country in the world. Hospitalization and medicare provisions are just as good as those of any other country.
Having said that, I would be the first to agree that pensions should be increased. However, I suggest-I suppose I will be the only Liberal backbencher to say this- that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare brings in the bill to provide additional funds for our senior citizens he must remember that somebody has to pay for the increase. I hope he will use judgment and remember that the sons and daughters of senior citizens must pay for increased pensions.
In conclusion, let no one say after I have finished or at any other time that I am against additional benefits for our senior citizens. My mother, father, mother-in-law and father-in-law are senior citizens and pensioners. Naturally, no one would like to see them receive more pension than I would. Therefore my sympathy is with pensioners. However, as the father of five children my sympathy is also with the youth of this country. Having said that, I am very pleased to be able to vote for a bill that provides $1
Supply
million not just for my children but for all children across Canada in order to make them more fit and also to improve amateur sport across this great nation of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the $1 million supplementary estimate put forward by the government for the fitness and amateur sport program, as well as the Conservative motion that no more than $1 be spent on this program.
I have found the debate very interesting, especially the earlier debate on the supplementary estimate for the $1 million New Horizons program. I discussed this issue with a number of senior citizens last weekend. They were quite keen and enthusiastic about the program. They have some plans ready. The friends of the pensioners and the old age people in Canada, the Conservatives, have moved that no more than $1 be spent on this program. Not only have they slapped the faces of the pensioners but they have moved the same type of motion in respect of the program for the young people of Canada.
I find this very ironic, especially in the context of the issue of fitness and amateur sport, because it was a Conservative government in 1961 that introduced the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act. The purpose of the act was to encourage, promote and develop fitness and amateur sport in Canada. What has been the success of that act? The act was instigated from the revelation of lack of physical fitness among Canadians of all age groups, especially the young. It was designed to alleviate this problem in Canada. If you look at the breakdown of expenditures under the act since 1961, you will see that most of the money has gone to the top; in other words, in financing competitions rather than going down to the base, that is, broadening participation in amateur sports.
We have the problem of lack of physical fitness in Canadians. We have a problem with sports in general. There is a conflict between professional sports in this country and amateur sports and which is to have precedence in government priorities and the support of the Canadian people. We also have the problem that we are fast becoming a nation of spectators with regard to sports.
I would like to examine for a few minutes some of the reasons for this problem. One reason can be traced to the school system throughout this country. I was formerly a school teacher. I observed the physical education programs in the schools. I noted that their primary emphasis was not on the student body as a whole but on developing students who could excel in team sports such as football and basketball. The ordinary student who does not have great physical or sports prowess is soon discouraged; all the attention is lavished on those students who can excel in these sports. The extracurricular sports activity in schools is downplayed and downgraded.
Another problem is lack of opportunity for the public to make use of sports facilities, especially those in schools. Only recently did local boards of education open up the schools in the evenings in order for the general public to participate. Many school boards are still reluctant to do so. There is lack of opportunity with regard to available facilities. We have only to think of many of our summer

February 9, 1973
Supply
sports: where are the facilities for year around training or opportunity to enjoy these sports?
Another problem in this whole milieu of sports in Canada has to do with the commercialization of sport. All too often sport is run as a business in Canada. The guiding motive is not excellence but profit. One need only look at the hockey industry to see what I mean. What started as Canada's game is now controlled by foreign investors. We can recall the difficulty of the World Hockey Association in trying to wrest players from the National Hockey League. That in itself is a misnomer; it should be called the "American hockey league."
We can think of the problems of the city of Vancouver in trying to obtain a hockey franchise. The early applications from Vancouver noted that they could attract sellout crowds if they had a hockey team. However, the reason given for not getting the franchise until much later was that there was not a large enough television audience. In other words, the profit came before the sport.
Decisions regarding our national game are made outside Canada. This commercial aspect of sport, including hockey and other games, also dominates and controls our national amateur sport. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association is still dominated by the National Hockey League. Young boys playing organized hockey still have to register with the CAHA. Through the sponsorship of amateur teams and associated activities we still see the overriding control of the professional clubs in the area of amateur sport.
We should examine the contracts into which some young players are forced. I know a young lad in Sault Ste. Marie who had a contract that was approximately akin to slavery. If my memory serves me correctly, we abolished slavery in Canada in the 1830s. When you look at the fine print clauses in this young man's contract you can understand why he had to spend a lot of money on a lawyer trying to break that contract in court.
Another reason the amateur sport situation in Canada is not as good as it should be is the scholarship program. We must ask ourselves what we put first, academics or sports. Is the>student who excels in sport to be denied a scholarship to a university or elsewhere because of his academic ability? The government should rethink its position on this matter. The government in 1971 initiated a grant and aid program to help those who could not qualify for a scholarship. There were 392 students who received grants and aid. Hockey Canada received over 1,000 applications in 1971 from hockey players who wished to continue their studies. But because of these academic sports qualifications only 85 of them were granted scholarships. So we find more and more Canadians every year going to the United States and taking up sports scholarships from American universities in order to further their studies and their sports careers.
I understand the government currently has before it over 3,500 applications from young people desiring scholarships and other forms of aid so they may participate in sports activities such as the Pan-American games and the Olympics. The value of these scholarships ranges from $600 to $1,800. Many of the scholarships have been put to

good use even though they fall far short of what young athletes require. I have heard of athletes who have lived in university residences in order that they might have more time available to swim in the university pools, to save travel time back and forth to these facilities.
I have heard of students who have hired private tutors so that they can accelerate their studies and spend extra time in Australia where better facilities for swimming are available. This is indicative of a fault in our whole amateur sports program. We lend money to young athletes and then expect them to find the facilities of which there is such a desperate shortage in this country. I hope the government will reconsider its position and try to build more of these facilities so as to help people who obtain scholarships or grants.
The government has not come to terms with amateurism or professionalism in this country and I think it is about time it did. Thank goodness, last year the Olympic oath was changed so that young people who obtain scholarships can register for the games. Before the rule was changed, it was an offence to do so. But when we are talking about scholarships we are talking about an elite group, those who are going to universities. Why has the government not experimented more with grants to those outside the universities? Today such grants make up only a marginal part of the program. Under the present arrangements, working-class children who do not attend universities are discriminated against. Although they may excel at certain kinds of sport, these young people are handicapped because they do not possess the wherewithal to go on to higher education.
Attention should also be paid to the neglect of coaches in this country. Many of our coaches operate on a parttime, volunteer basis. It is not possible to find more dedicated people anywhere. At the same time, they lack the training which is desired. One has only to compare the hockey program in Russia with the hockey program in Canada for this to become clear. These volunteer coaches often find that a family situation develops which makes it no longer possible for them to devote their time to young people. We spend money to encourage young people to advance in amateur sport, yet we neglect the vital question of who is training them and how qualified these trainers are.
To be successful, athletes need support programs; they need coaches, facilities, medical advice. And by failing to grant money to these aspects of sport, to the provision of these facilities, the government has created a program which is not living up to our expectations. Why should a sprinter at Carleton University, for example, be obliged to sprint up and down the halls because there is no indoor track at the college? Athletes have to do their own work. The government hands out money but it does not provide the required facilities.
The expectations placed today on athletes in our society is extremely high. Many athletes do not know how to go about living up to them. There is a high dropout rate and the public becomes enraged and discouraged by Canada's performance in world competition. The government has provided the stimulus but it has failed to provide adequate support. I hope to see this amateur sport effort moving toward an integrated program. What we are doing
February 9, 1973

now is jumping into the fray and learning from our mistakes, instead of seeking advice first from the athletes themselves and others with expertise.
I support the supplementary estimates. I think the program is a beginning. But I urge the government to widen the opportunities available to students and to non-students. I urge the government to finance necessary support programs such as coaching and the provision of physical facilities such as I have mentioned. Finally, I would ask the government to seek advice from those involved in this field so that it may produce a comprehensive, progressive and planned program for sport in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) wish to speak to the motions now before the House?


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I would be glad to say a few words about the expenses indulged in with the savings of Canadians. We are now considering supplementary estimates amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars with a view to straightening out our economy.
Mr. Speaker, our economy is becoming more and more complicated. However, we have to find out where funds are most needed and then meet those needs. In that regard my colleagues of other parties have talked about the old age security pension.
I am-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper-


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: In rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we leave government business may I ask the acting House leader, whoever he or she may be, whether the arrangements agreed to earlier in terms of concluding the notice stage and moving to committee of the whole still hold good as far as Monday is concerned?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh! There he is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I, as one of
those who was a party to those discussions, indicate that there was agreement that early on Monday we would finish the debate on these nine notices and move to second reading of the bill.


Mr. Lang:: I thank the hon. member for that information. I did not understand the earlier discussion about what the agreement was and I do not understand it now. But I am glad agreement has been reached.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I add there will not be any recorded votes on the nine notices. If any
Indian Affairs
vote is desired it will come later on, on the bill itself or in committee.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful for these comments from the "government House leader" to my left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the Chair to understand that this is to be made an order, or that an order be made on Monday?


Mr. Lefebvre:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this was made a House order at the request of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) earlier this day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma) moved: that Bill C-16, to amend the Indian Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the amendment before the House this afternoon in the form of Bill C-16, I am very happy to be able to have the bill before the House. Although it has been listed on the order paper during the two previous sessions, this is the first time it has had an opportunity to be debated.
The purpose of this bill is very simple. It is to lower the voting age from 21 years to 18 years in elections for positions of chief and band councillor on Indian reserves. The idea behind the bill is so straightforward and logical that I am confident the debate will be brief and to the point and that the House will give its consent to sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for study and report.
I say that the idea behind my bill is straightforward because in Canada today the legal voting age for federal elections and for most provincial elections is 18 years. Three years ago, in June of 1970, we amended the Canada Elections Act and thereby lowered the voting age for federal elections from 21 to 18 years. At that time we recognized that such a reform was long overdue. The young people who were then unable to vote were considered adults for many other purposes, such as marriage, having families, driving cars, even serving in the Canadian armed forces, as well, of course, as paying taxes. They were also subject to the laws of criminal prosecution in

February 9, 1973
Indian Affairs
this country. Yet up to that time they were cut out from the decision-making process in that they could not vote in federal elections.
Recognizing this inconsistency, and realizing that young people have become politically more mature, more aware of society and the world around them-in large part because of our modern technology and communications- we accorded them the privilege of expressing their voice in a federal vote. In 1971 the province of Ontario likewise passed legislation to lower the voting age for provincial elections to 18 years. More recently it has passed legislation to provide for citizens to vote in municipal elections at 18.
This means that young adults of Indian bands are free to mark their ballots in federal elections and in provincial elections but not in their own band council elections. They are not allowed to participate in this democratic process on their own reserves. Surely the anomaly is obvious. Why should young band members on Indian reserves be prevented from voting for the representatives of their band councils when they are viewed as responsible enough to vote for their Member of Parliament? As of December 31, 1971, the latest official figure available, I understand some 10,000 Indians between the ages of 18 and 21 years who were registered band members were not permitted to vote. The figure is undoubtedly higher today. Over 10,000 young people who are considered adults in almost every other way, including being able to vote federally and provincially, have no voice in their own reserve elections. What kind of equality is this, Mr. Speaker?
The native people have not been silent on this subject. Let me relate to the House an incident that occurred in my own riding in the fall of 1971, shortly before I introduced this bill for the first time. The young adults of the Mississauga Indian reserve voted in the provincial election of 1971. However, when they came to the polling booths for their band council election they were turned out and were not allowed to vote. Naturally they were very upset and wrote to me, to the department and to the Minister of Indian Affairs asking why they were not granted the right to vote.
The native people of Algoma are not alone in recognizing this discrepancy. Numerous inquiries and letters have been sent to Members of Parliament and to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, queries from Indians and non-Indians alike, asking when further voting reforms will take place in this area.
I understand that several bands have taken formal action by sending petitions to the federal government, including the Saugeen reserve, the Six Nations reserve, the Thames and Chippewas of the Thames, from Ontario, the Montreal Lake and Beardy's band from Saskatchewan and the Ermineskin band from Alberta. All these bands passed council resolutions asking that the voting age be lowered to coincide with provincial and federal voting ages. Individual representatives of Indian associations have also discussed this proposal on numerous occasions.
It is only logical to allow these 10,000 young adults this democratic right to vote in elections on Indian reserves. For it is only when they are given the opportunity to participate that they can prove that they are responsible,

mature citizens. It is time we eliminated the contradiction that must be in their minds, namely, why in some situations they are adults whereas in others they are viewed as not being adults.
The intent of the bill is to resolve this anomaly and to give these young citizens their democratic voting rights. I would ask the House to support the bill that is before us this afternoon.
Mias Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands): Mr. Speaker, I too should like to see the democratic process observed for the largest number of Canadians possible and I commend the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) for introducing this bill. However, I want to see that democratic process exercised with the full consent of the Indian people themselves.
We have all seen and know the outcome and effect of legislation that has been introduced in this House without the views of the Indian people having been canvassed or consulted. We know the reaction to the white paper of 1969. It seems to me that once again we are perhaps being presented with a piece of legislation that did not originate with the Indian people or in which they were not asked to participate.
The Indian people of Canada are not limited to one band or to one region. They and their rights exist across the entire nation. It seems to me that this bill could have the effect of interfering with the internal workings of the band councils without their views being presented or without an opportunity for them to be heard. I should like to know whether the National Indian Brotherhood has been consulted on this matter and whether there has been consultation with member organizations in the various provinces. Are they all in agreement that this is what should happen in respect of local council elections, or is this just a view presented here this afternoon?
Hon. members of this party would readily accept a move to have the voting age in respect of band councils lowered to 18 provided we have the assurance that this is the wish of the Indian people. Too often in the past we here have been guilty of proceeding with legislation which we thought was in their best interests, without having made sure that this was so and that it was being introduced with their agreement. I believe the principle should be established once and for all in this House that any changes to the Indian Act and any moves that might affect the fundamental rights and practices of the Indian people should be carried out only after the widest opportunity has been given them to express their views and to formulate their position.
I would therefore ask the hon. member for Algoma to seek the consent of the House immediately to have this bill referred to the standing committee in order that representatives of the Indian Brotherhood all across the country can make their views known in order that we can be reassured once and for all that this is the wish of the Indian people. Perhaps the hon. member would amend his motion and ask that this bill be referred to that standing committee.
February 9, 1973


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in this bill presented by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and I should like to speak in favour of it. At the same time, let me say to this House that I think it is disgraceful that in 1973, in the House of Commons of Canada, the Indian people must have an act passed to give a basic human right. In this day and age this is a disgrace.
I agree in some measure with what the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has said, in that this bill perhaps may not be the result of negotiation or consultation with Indian people in this country. To repeat, I think it is a disgrace that a House of Commons act must be passed before the Indian people are given this democratic right.
The Indian people of North America have a terrific democratic system which has been in operation for thousands of years. Some constitutions in this part of the world have adopted ideas from the democratic process enjoyed by the Indian people of the Six Nations. Let me give you an example. One of the largest villages in the Northwest Territories, Fort Rae, has a population of approximately 1,000 to 1,200 Dog Rib Indians. They practice a democratic process from which most of us could learn. This is true not only of elections of chiefs but in respect of the passage of important matters.
The white society does not seem to realize the position of an Indian chief. It is my understanding, having been raised in an Indian village, that the chief is a servant of the people. He does not make decisions on his own and cannot come forward and say things shall be done. He can make decisions only after he has consulted with all his people.
The hon. member for Kingston and The Islands does have a valid point. However, I think at this time it would be silly to delay this matter longer in order to have consultation. This question involves a basic human right of which these people should not be deprived. The Indian people of this country have made many contributions in many areas of society. Pharmaceutical societies in America recognize that there are about 400 drugs used in medicine on the market today that were discovered and first used by the Indian people. I suggest these people can make further contributions to society if given the opportunity.
Canada has the second or third highest standard of living in the world, yet we have a situation in which the Indian and Eskimo peoples are the poorest of all the poor in Canada. We should all work together to remedy that situation. I suggest the Indian people can make further contributions to society if given the opportunity but it is not very easy for them to do so in their present poverty-stricken situation. These people must use their energies in order just to survive.
I commend the hon. member for Algoma for bringing forward this bill. I support it fully, not because I have consulted with the Indian people about this matter but because I know, having been born and raised an Indian, that this is a right of which they have been deprived. I have been an Indian all my life and will remain an Indian.
I think the only time one has a true understanding of the feelings of Indians, Eskimos or other peoples is when they learn their language, appreciate their customs, their foods
Indian Affairs
and other aspects of their culture. In speaking with 38 years' experience as an Indian, my feeling is that this is an important bill and I call upon members of this House to support it.
Indians have made many contributions in the areas of medicine, democracy, value of life, unity of brotherhood and sports. Perhaps I should give a further example of the democratic process at Fort Rae. When a major decision has to be made, the chief puts the situation to the people. He allows three or four days, or perhaps a week, for every member of the band to express his view before any decision is taken. This puts the chief in the position of being a servant of the people. In many cases he is looked upon as a ruler or a dictator, but the fact is completely the opposite.
I do not intend to take up any more time of the House. I hope hon. members will give their full support to this bill.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this bill. First let me say I am in full agreement with it and believe it should be referred to the committee as soon as possible. I have contacted the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who has indicated his agreement and that he thinks it is a very good move. I have also contacted the president of the National Indian Brotherhood on an informal basis. He also indicated full agreement and said he would like to see this measure enacted into law.
I know there has been a commitment by the government to consult with Indian people about any major changes in policy and legislation. That commitment still stands. The consultation process is being carried on actively in so far as major policy areas are concerned.
I feel this is an area in which many young Indian people, as the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) pointed out, are being denied a basic right. They can vote in provincial and federal elections at age 18 but cannot vote in their own band elections. I know the young people in my home area on the Vernon and Kamloops reserves, including the people in the 12 bands I represent, feel very strongly that they should have the basic right to vote in their own band elections. So this is a very popular issue. It is not one involving a major change to the Indian Act. I believe it is something we could accomplish very quickly in this House.
I should like to give an undertaking to hon. members, including the hon. member for Algoma, that when this matter goes before the committee I shall take it upon myself to see that there is consultation with the National Indian Brotherhood and other organizations across the country in a formal way in order to find out what their views are in respect of such a bill.
After consultation with a number of people, I believe this measure would be a very positive response to enable the young people to take part in the basic democratic process of electing councillors and chiefs of their bands. It seems ludicrous to the young Indian people of 18 years of age and over that they can vote in federal and provincial

Indian Affairs
elections but cannot vote in their own band elections. Therefore, without any further comment I hope that this bill will be referred to the committee.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up very much of the time of the House. I am totally in favour of this bill. As one who comes from a very progressive province where the voting age has been lowered for some years to include persons 18 years of age, I think the same privilege ought to be accorded to the Indian people of Saskatchewan and across the whole of Canada.
The hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) was a little concerned about the fact that Indian people were not consulted. This is not a compulsory act. If the voting age should be lowered to 18 it would not mean that in effect they must vote if they do not wish to do so. I know there are people in my province of various religious denominations who do not vote in any election. This is their privilege and prerogative. In fact, when I visited various homes during the last election campaign many people told me that they did not intend to vote for any of us because they did not believe any of us were any damn good. I suppose there are Indian people, whether 18, 19 or 25 years of age, who would not vote in any event.
This is merely a right and privilege which all Canadians have. It is not mandatory. This is a very simple amendment which I hope will pass. I wish, however, that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) had gone a little deeper into the Indian Act and suggested other amendments such as amendments which would lay some basis for aboriginal land rights, which would lay some basis for better protecting and developing their treaty rights, which would lay some basis for a full and equal settlement of their land claims, and amendments which would perhaps provide for native control and development of projects with the help of federal funds and resources but under the control of the native people. Perhaps there could be amendments which could deal with the whole issue of education so far as the native people are concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I do not wish to limit or restrict the hon. member, but I have difficulty following him and relating his remarks to the bill that is under consideration at this time. Of course, the bill relates to Indians but it concerns the lowering of the voting age. I do not think this debate should provide an opportunity for general argument or the suggestion of other solutions to different problems.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid I was carried away a little. However, I am totally in favour of lowering the voting age to 18. It is a right which every Indian should have, just as every Canadian has. They would still have the privilege of not exercising this right if they did not wish to do so. With that note I shall sit down and take part in the vote.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, we are greatly pleased to support Bill C-16, to lower to 18 the voting age of Indians.
We agree that all Indians whatsoever should enjoy equal treatment. It is unfortunate that this should not always have been the case. In fact, they should enjoy the same rights as all other Canadians and we do not see how they should be denied such rights.
Today, Indians have developed much more than they did in the past. We find among them, as in all other groups, people of great culture and highly developed skills.
I believe they should be granted every advantage of which others have availed themselves. They should enjoy them and we are happy to give unqualified support to the bill before us, bringing a little more justice to a class of society which has not fared as well as it should.
We would like them to enjoy the same advantages as the other Canadians and have the right, at election time, to say what they think through the exercise of their franchise. We cannot deny them this right, because it is only fair. We must be fair to all groups of citizens; the Indians must enjoy the same rights and prerogatives as the other citizens.
I shall not say any more. I thank the hon. member who has kindly introduced Bill C-16 which we support fully. I conclude my remarks so as to let others participate in the debate. We agree that this bill should be referred to committee or passed immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, because of the progress that has been made, unless the House disagrees I would suggest that since this bill has been referred to the committee the House might agree to call it five o'clock.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is a very good idea, Mr. Speaker. I hope the government has noticed that the progress was made because of co-operation here and that they will co-operate when we have private bills before the House which should go to committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I just say, "Hear, hear!"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 4.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.