1973-03-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in English and in French, the communique of the committee of the board of governors of the International Monetary Fund on international monetary reform and related issues.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which I would say almost affects the privileges of the House. This is the second occasion within a week's time that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, who have represented Canada at a series of the most important international monetary conferences, have resorted to the use of Standing Order 41(2) to table communiques that are very important so far as Canada is concerned rather than having the decency or, one might almost say, the courage to make a statement in the House with regard to Canada's attitude in these discussions so that representatives of the opposition parties could comment on these matters as they affect Canada. We now have to go to the Parliamentary Returns office to get a copy. I believe, Sir, that the least that should be done is for the communique to be printed as an appendix to Hansard so that all hon. members will have the text and the general public will be informed of it.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather that this is a rather brief document and that there would be no technical difficulty in having it appended to Hansard. Is this the wish of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of above communique, see Appendix A]


INDUSTRY
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to lay on the table of the House copies of a report and press release, in both official languages, on an inquiry respecting polyester filament and yarn.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed, how many persons have received payments thereunder?
2.	In each of the above years, what was the total amount paid out under the said Act?
3.	In each of the above years, what was the average amount paid under the said Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows (c) to others?
4.	In each of the last five years, either calendar or financial, for which statistics are available, how many pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows of public servants or widows of retired public servants, have been discontinued because of the death of the superannuate?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
Number of persons who have received payments in each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed.
Year	Number
1959-60	14,311
1960-61	13,885
1961-62	12,553
1962-63	11,709
1963-64	10,852
1964-65	10,077
1965-66	9,078
1966-67	8,162
1967-68	7,483
1968-69	6,860
1969-70	6,651
1970-71	6,474
1971-72	5,793

March 28, 1973
Order Paver Questions
2.	Total amount paid out under the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act for each of the above years.
Year	Amount $
1959-60	3,112,231
1960-61	2,956,515
1961-62	2,817,263
1962-63	2,657,706
1963-64	2,504,503
1964-65	2,344,711
1965-66	2,236,212
1966-67	2,038,329
1967-68	1,905,478
1968-69	1,777,869
1969-70	1,641,304
1970-71	1,515,000
1971-72	1,368,879
Average amount paid out to:			
Year	Retired Public Servants	Widows	Others$	$	$1959-60	226.72	124.88	12.321960-61	225.43	124.42	11.791961-62	222.01	123.92	10.351962-63	220.66	123.59	10.061963-64	220.26	123.75	7.991964-65	217.94	123.08	6.191965-66	216.03	122.69	7.131966-67	212.52	122.64	5.931967-68	210.27	121.27	6.111968-69	208.19	119.21	4.561969-70	196.52	125.05	5.791970-71	184.83	127.87	1971-72	177.51	130.19	4.	In each of the last five years, the number of pensions paid under the Public Service Superannuation Act which have been discontinued because of death.
(a) To Retired Public Servants
1967-	68	1,5721968-	69	1,7511969-	70	1,8991970-	71	2,0601971-	72	2,269


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) Do Members of the House of Commons qualify for receipt of a Red Ensign from the government for their personal use (b) do Members of the Canadian Senate so qualify (c) do Members of the Privy Council so qualify (d) do teachers of Canadian history in Canadian classrooms so qualify, if the intended use is in those classrooms (e) if the answers to any of the above parts are no for what reason?
2.	As of December 15, 1972, how many Red Ensigns were left in government stockpiles?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a)
to (e) Approximately 3,000 letters and requests for Red Ensigns, were received during the past year by the Department of Public Works. Included among these were requests from Members of the House of Commons, of the Canadian Senate and of the Privy Council; as well there were requests from teachers and many others. A decision was taken that, in general, distribution would only be made in response to the requests made by, and on behalf of, recognized Veterans' organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion and other officials institutions or associations. In addition requests from individuals deserving of special consideration were granted, such as Silver Cross Mothers, war amputees and others with disability pensions resulting from war service.
2. Five hundred and twenty-nine.
EMPLOYMENT OF E. MacCALLUM


Mr. Latulippe: 1.	During the fiscal year 1967-68, did the Department of External Affairs pay Mr, E. MacCallum for services rendered?
2.	Was Mr. MacCallum a public servant?
3.	What amount was he paid?
4.	What was the nature of his services?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Department of External Affairs employed a Miss E . MacCallum during the fiscal year in question.
2.	No.
3.	$2,100.
4.	Preparing for publication State Papers relating to Canada's foreign policy.


Mr. Latullippe: 1.	During the fiscal year 1967-68, did the Department of External Affairs pay Mr. E. R. L. Lloyd any amount in return for services?
2.	Was Mr. Lloyd employed by the Public Service?
3.	What amount was he paid?
4.	What was the nature of his services?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The Department of External Affairs paid out a certain sum of money to Mrs. E. R. Lloyd during the fiscal year in question.
2.	No.
3.	Although the precise pay records are no longer available we can estimate her salary to have been approximately $2,751.
4.	Mrs. Lloyd was retained as a secretary attached to the Canadian Agency before the Gut Dam International Arbitration Tribunal.
(b) To Widows
1967-68	503
1968-69	514
1969-70	508
1970-71	577
1971-72	588
[Mr. Drury.J
March 28, 1973


Mr. Stackhouse: How much was spent on entertainment by Canadian embassies and other diplomatic missions during 1971 and 1972?


Mr. lohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President oi the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: During the fiscal year 1971/72 a total of $802,778 was spent by Canadian embassies and other posts abroad on official hospitality extended to promote Canadian government programs and policies. A total of $859,800 has been allocated for this purpose for fiscal year 1972/73, of which approximately $659,000 had been spent by the end of December 1972. In so far as Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, primarily through Trade Commissioners posted abroad, expended a total of $383,513 to further the Department's trade development programs overseas during the fiscal year 1971/72, whereof $187,487 was expended in the period April 1 to December 31, 1971 and $196,026 was expended in the period January 1 to March 31, 1972. Reports for the period April 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972 indicate a nine month expenditure of $200,227 for the same purpose. In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: During the fiscal year 1971-72 the Immigration Division spent $117,668 on official hospitality extended to promote Canadian government programs and policies abroad.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Will the Secretary of State give priority to projects that had to be turned down last year because of lack of funds and, if so, does the Department hold on file projects from last year so that they may be given some priority consideration?
2.	Will reasonable answers be given to students whose projects have been turned down?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1. No.
The Secretary of State will not give priority to projects which had to be turned down last year because of lack of funds nor does the Department hold on file project applications from last year.
2. A detailed explanation of the process used in the selection of Opportunities for Youth projects will be given to students whose projects have been turned down.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many co-ordinators will be made available to assist the projects under the OFY Program in districts in Newfoundland?
2.	Is this number considered sufficient and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Will all Members of Parliament be notified or given information on approvals of OFY projects at the same time and, if not, for what reason?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. One
co-ordinator is responsible for the Atlantic region. Five Project Officers are now available to assist projects throughout Newfoundland.
2.	This number is considered sufficient.
3.	Yes. All Members of Parliament will be informed as Opportunities for Youth projects are approved.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total amount being spent by the government in all media for advertisements explaining the new income tax return form?
2.	What advertising agency is handling the placing of such advertisements?
3.	What was the fee paid to Mr. Fred Davis for his appearances in certain of these advertisements?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: 1. $1,205,146.10.
2.	Inter-Canada Advertising Agency Limited, 1350 Sherbrooke, West, Montreal.
3.	Mr. Davis was employed by the advertising agency, not by the Department.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): In 1972 (a) how many OFY projects were received by the Department of the Secretary of State (b) how many projects were approved (c) what is the breakdown by province (d) what was the amount approved for each province?


James Hugh Faulkner: (a) Over
20,000	projects were submitted, (b) 3,041 projects were approved; (c) and (d):


Mr. Marshall: Under the Group Travel Program is it the intention of the Secretary of State to give preference to young people who are from low income and geographically isolated areas and (a) if so, was this practice followed in the past (b) if not, for what reason?


James Hugh Faulkner: Under the summer Group Travel Program, the Secretary of State gives preference to young people from low income and geographically isolated areas, (a) Yes. (b) Not applicable.
No. of Percent of	Percent
Province Projects Projects Funds of Funds

Newfoundland	145	4.8	1,259,901	4.1P.E.I.	38	1.2	383,366	1.2Nova Scotia	161	5.3	1,457,013	4.7New Brunswick	134	4.4	1,159,916	3.7Quebec	982	32.3	11,833,880	38.1Ontario	740	28.3	7,000,688	22.6Manitoba	144	4.7	1,380,563	4.5Saskatchewan	116	3.8	1,225,824	4.0Alberta	188	6.2	1,570,644	5.1
March 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions
	No. of Percent of			Percent
Province	Projects Projects	Funds $ 211,440	of FundsN.W.T.	35	1.2	0.6B.C. and Yukon 330	10.9	3,128,424	10.1* National	28	0.9	410.037	1.3
*National projects are those which involve participation in more than one region in Canada.


Mr. Leggatt: With respect to Vancouver Lower Mainland LIP Project Nos. 1558, 1559, 1560 and 1561, are any employees on the projects related to senior LIP officer Mr. Don Good and, if so, what are their names and relationship to Mr. Good?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Ronald Good and Donald Good (Jr.) are employed by project sponsor Maurice Muirhead on LIP project X 1561. These two young men are in fact sons of LIP Project Officer Don Good (Sr.) who is employed at the Vancouver Regional LIP office, located at 549 Howe Street in Vancouver. Ronald Good and Donald Good (Jr.) were registered clients at the New Westminster CMC prior to their employment with the project and were referred to the LIP project by the New Westminster CMC.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	(a) How much has been expended to date (b) what are the estimated projected expenditures by the Department of National Revenue in its campaign concerning income tax forms entitled "For 1972 it's New and Easier than it Looks"?
2.	Of such amounts, how much of the said expenditure was paid for advertising in (a) weekly (b) ethnic newspapers?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: 1. (a) $124,500; (b) $1,200,000.
2. (a) None; however, the estimated projected expenditure is $108,000; (b) The estimated projected expenditure is $23,500 of which $1,500 has already been paid.


Mr. Boisvert: What is the amount of savings by province, invested in financial institutions or other?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: Statistics Canada does not compile this information.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of the Environment?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of the Environment?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. The Department of the Environment was not established at this date.
2.	N/A.
3.	9,712.
4.	$18,000, 160; $19,000, 91; $20,000, 115; $21,000, 89; $22,000, 74; $23,000, 57; $24,000, 51; $25,000, 42; $26,000, 41; $27,000, 30; $28,000, 11; $29,000, 9; $28,000 to $35,000, 21.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: 1. Four thousand two hundred and seventy-two.
2. Four hundred and ninety-five. The number of employees earning more than $15,000 annually on January 31, 1970, distributed according to $1,000 intervals is as follows:
Salary interval	No. of employees
$	
15,000-15,999	120
16,000-16,999	67
17,000-17,999	101
18,000-18,999	63
19,000-19,999	34
20,000-20,999	39
21,000-21,999	23
22,000-22,999	6
23,000-23,999	11
24,000-24,999	14
25,000-25,999	5
26,000-26,999	8
27,000-27,999	nil
28,000-28,999	2
29,000-29,999	1
Salary interval	No. of employees
$	
30,000-35,000	1

March 28, 1973

Order Paper Questions
3. 3,024.
4.	433. The number of employees earning more than $18,000 annually on January 31, 1973 distributed according to $1,000 intervals is as follows:
Salary interval $
18.000-	18,999
19.000-	19,999
20.000-	20,999
21.000-	21,999
22.000-	22,999
23.000-	23,999
24.000-	24,999
25.000-	25,999
26.000-	26,999
27.000-	27,999
28.000-	28,999
29.000-	29,999
Salary interval $
25.000-	31,000
28.000-	35,000
40.000-	45.000
No. of employees
49
57
42
19
13
9
No. of employees
4


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-ESTABLISHMENT AND SALARIES
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of External Affairs on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1, 1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?
2.	What is the cost breakdown between television, radio, newspaper and other media for the advertisements?
3.	What was Mr. Fred Davis paid to appear in this advertising program?
4.	What are the qualifications of Mr. Davis that entitle him to advise Canadians on filling out their tax forms?
5.	What did the Department of National Revenue spend to advertise income tax forms in each of the past five years?
6.	Does the Minister consider the expenditures to be directly proportioned to the Complexity of the income tax form?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation is concerned: 1. $1,205,146.10, including $119,228.32 in production costs.
2.	Television: $358,396.15; Radio: $181,640.80; Newspaper: $462,664; Other media: $83,216.83.
3.	Mr. Davis was employed by the advertising agency, not by the department.
4.	Since he is known nationally, Mr. Davis was chosen to add impact to the advertisements.
5.	1968-69: $350,210.35; 1969-70: $384,545.61; 1970-71: $352,792.17; 1971-72: $870,154.83; 1972-73: $1,205,146.10.
6.	The increase in expenditures for the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 bear no relation to the nature of the new income tax form, which is simpler for most taxpayers than the previous one. An increase in advertising was considered desirable because of new legislation, new regulations and new forms.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mitchell William Sharp: Full-time Employees:
January 1, 1963 January 1, 1973
Under $10,000-$10,000 $20,000 1,176	327
1,768	699
Over
$20,000	Total
13	1,516
284	2,751*
includes 170 employees integrated from other government departments April 1, 1971.


NATIONAL REVENUE-COST OF ADVERTISING NEW INCOME TAX FORMS
Mr. Bawden;: 1. What is the total cost of the advertisements explaining the new income tax form?

Question No. 1,290-Mr. Harney:
1.	What are the qualifications of the Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the position he holds?
2.	What are the relevant qualifications of the Commissioners for the positions they hold?
3.	What are the ages, the dates of initial appointments and the salaries, respectively, of the above?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. The background data requested is in the nature of personal information which is not returnable with regard to individuals.
2. The background data requested is in the nature of personal information which is not returnable with regard to individuals.
Position	Name	Age	Date of Appointments	Salary $Chairman	G. Cousineau	45	26-6-72	34,000-40,000Commissioner	T. B. Ward	66	22-6-64	22,000-28,000Commissioner	W. E. McBride	53	29-7-71	22,000-28,000
March 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions 'COST OF 1972 INCOME TAX FORMS


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What has been the total cost of printing the 1972 income tax forms and the materials sent out therewith?
2.	What has been the total cost of advertising, publicity and promotion in connection with the 1972 income tax forms?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned the answer is: 1. The estimated total cost is $1,798,000.
2. $1,205,146.10.


PHARMACEUTICAL EXPERIMENTS WITH PENITENTIARY INMATES
Mr. Howard: 1.	Have penitentiary inmates ever been used to test newly developed pharmaceuticals or for any other medical experimentation and, if so, what are the details thereof?
2.	Are penitentiary inmates currently used to test newly developed pharmaceuticals or for any other medical experimentation and, if so, what are the details thereof?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. The following medical experiments have, in the past, been carried out in Canadian penitentiaries: (a) In 1968 a study of the "Absorption of Aspirin" was carried out as a joint project by the Food and Drug Directorate and by a professor of pharmacology from Queens' University at Collins Bay Institution, (b) A trial of "Mogodon versus Placebo" was carried out at Joyceville Institution in December 1967. (c) A study on "Chromosonal Abnormalities" was conducted by Dr. G. D. Scott, Regional Psychiatrist, Ontario, in association with the Faculty of Medicine at Queen's University. (d) A study in "Psychopathy and Its Physiological Correlates" was conducted by Dr. D. Craigen, Director, Medical Services, in association with the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia, (e) A number of brief trials of various drugs were carried out in Archambault Institution by the Institute of Bio-Endocrinology in August 1971 and on six occasions during 1972. The number of inmates involved ranged from ten to 18. (f) In 1968 and again in 1972, Hoffman-La Roche, in co-operation with Dr. Harris, a physician employed by the penitentiary service, conducted studies on the blood levels of Valium and penicillin. On both occasions 20 inmates were involved, (g) A study on "Chromosonal Abnormalities" was conducted by Dr. Welch of Dalhousie University in 1969. In all of the above cases, the inmates' participation was on a completely voluntary basis and they were free to withdraw from the research at any time they wished. The inmates were well informed of the nature of the research in advance. Under no circumstances would authority be given for a procedure to be employed which would, in any way, be hazardous or detrimental to an inmate.
2. The only medical research currently being conducted is a study on "Chromosonal Abnormalities" in the Ontario region.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-INSTALLATION OF NEW POSTAL CODE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What is the estimated saving to the Post Office Department from the installation of the new postal code?
2.	What are the reasons for the saving?
3.	How many postal employees have been replaced by the automated system?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. Savings over 17 years, beginning in 1971, were estimated at $134,000,000 (discounted dollars).
2.	Savings will occur as a result of changes in future hiring patterns and increased efficiency in the department.
3.	None.


CBC-REVENUE FROM TELEVISION ADVERTISING
Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the annual revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from television advertising for the years 1965 to 1972 inclusive?
2.	In each year 1965 to 1972 inclusive, what percentage of that amount was spent by Kraft Foods from CBC television advertising?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. 1964-65, $30,537,000; 1965-66, $31,145,000; 196667, $32,939,000; 1967-68, $36,265,000; 1968-69, $37,548,000; 1969-70, $44,881,000; 1970-71, $42,851,000; 1971-72, $46,710,000.
2. It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose amounts spent by individual advertisers since such information could adversely affect the Corporation in its business relationships.


LIST OF CANADIAN FORCES AND PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTORS
Mr. Nesdoly: Is a Member of Parliament entitled to obtain a list of the names and addresses of persons who were registered in his constituency and voted overseas in the last Federal Election and (a) if so (i) in what manner may the information be obtained (ii) to whom must the request be made (b) if not, for what reason?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: It is assumed that the list referred to is the list of Canadian Forces and Public Service electors forwarded by the respective co-ordinating officers of the Departments of National Defence and External Affairs to the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 37(5)(c) of the Special Voting Rules for onward transmission to returning officers during a federal election on accordance with the provisions of subsection 28(2) of the Canada Elections Act. The provisions of subsection 28(2) of the Act limit the availability of these lists to the period of a federal general election.
March 28, 1973


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many inmates in federal penal institutions have participated in special leave programs in 1972 and what is the breakdown by institution across Canada?
2.	Of those inmates involved in special leave programs how many have not honoured the conditions of the special leave and how many of those who broke the conditions of special leave also committed crimes?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-EXPENDITURE FOR RESEARCH AND CONSULTING SERVICES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of Agriculture on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


PAPER MILLS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many paper plants are there in Canada and where are they located?
2.	Since 1968, has the government paid any subsidies for (a) the expansion (b) the operation of paper mills in Canada?
3.	How many plants have closed down (a) completely (b) partially?
4.	How many workers have been laid off by paper mills in Canada since 1968 because (a) the plant was closed (b) production had diminished?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-SUBCONTRACT OF FILMS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	(a) What volume of government film contracts was subcontracted to private film companies by the National Film Board for each of the past five years (b) what percentage of total NFB government contracts did this represent each year?
2.	(a) Which were the ten largest private film companies who received these NFB subcontracts (b) what was the total amount of contracts they received in each year, and what percentage was this of the total?
3.	Which of these subcontractors was not Canadian-owned?
4.	(a) How many film projects does NFB currently have subcontracted to non-Canadian companies (b) what is the value of each of these contracts (c) on which of these contracts were there competitive bids from Canadian-owned companies?
Orders for Returns
Return tabled.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to expedite personally the answer to question No. 1,392. I must now inform you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is the subject of very serious charges that are being dealt with on the two national television networks and on radio. The charges are in all the papers of Canada and the facts cannot be brought out to meet these charges against the government on the selling off our oil and gas lands in the north and on the continental shelf until this question is answered and we have the facts. I should like to impress on the minister very strongly, that it is the duty of this government to give this factual information immediately so that we can see what the facts are in respect of these very serious charges.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I too, would like to raise a point of order with respect to a number of questions standing in my name that have been on the order paper since January 16, two and a half months ago. Each asks for information about the action the government has taken with respect to specific recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, but not one question has been answered to date. Surely there should be a little more interest on the part of the government than to let these questions remain in limbo with no response whatever being given on the very important matter of the report of that royal commission. One can only conclude that the government has not done anything about of those recommendations.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a point of order. On January 12 I asked the government for a complete analysis of the opportunities for youth programs conducted during 1972 in my riding. The government has had all sorts of opportunity to provide an answer. When the government is spending the money that it is on these programs, surely it should be able to supply members with an analysis of the results of the projects during 1972. This is a very serious matter, and I think it is important that the Minister do something about answering this question.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I placed question No. 110 on the order paper on January 4 regarding contracts to outside persons and organizations for research and development for the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the answer has been prepared, has been in the minister's office for more than two weeks and that he is sitting on it for political reasons.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 202 is acceptable to the government.

March 28, 1973
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 202 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COPY OF REPORT &quot;ECONOMIC PROSPECTS FOR THE GOOSE BAY AREA&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 202-Mr. Rompkey:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report entitled Economic Prospects for the Goose Bay Area prepared for the government by the Bureau of Management Consulting.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 36, 37, 38, 135 and 188 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservation concerning confidential documents.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, does the House agree that notices of motions Nos. 36, 37, 38, 135 and 188 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF FISH PROCESSING PLANTS, BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government or any agency, branch or department thereof and any person or corporation involved in the processing of fish in British Columbia since January 1, 1969 relating to the potential purchase of any of the fish processing plants or fish canneries owned or operated by the said persons or corporations since January 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all studies, analyses and reports made by, or under contract with, any agency, branch or department of government since January 1, 1969 relating to the potential development of a fish processing plant along the northern coast of British Columbia whether or not those studies, analyses or reports relate to the involvement of the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government or any agency, branch or department thereof and any other person, group or organization since January 1, 1969 relating to the potential development of a fish processing plant along the northern coast of British Columbia involving the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 135-Mr. Stackhouse:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House all correspondence between the government and the Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Council of the City of Toronto with respect to the erection of the CN-CP communications "Needle".
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 188-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the Task Force on Northern Pipelines.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 118 and 134.


REPORTS CONCERNING FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 118-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports prepared within or for the government concerning the financial feasibility of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.


ROSS REPORT ON INTERNAL OPERATIONS OF THE EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 134-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Ross Report on the internal operations of the Export Development Corporation.
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no Ross Report on the internal operations of the Export Development Corporation. I would therefore ask the hon. member to kindly withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Agreed.
March 28, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the escalating wholesale price increase, up nearly 2 per cent for the month of February alone and up 13.6 per cent in February, 1973, compared with February, 1972. Does the Prime Minister propose to take any new measures with regard to the control of inflation or does he simply intend to let these wholesale index increases work their way through to the consumer price index without any further action on his part?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no policy statement to announce today on that matter.


TELECOMMUNICATION RATE INCREASES-REVIEW OF TRANSPORT COMMISSION DECISION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a more specific question that relates to the increase in rates granted to CN-CP telecommunications, in one instance as high as 50 per cent. Does the Prime Minister intend to review this decision under the powers vested in the government under the National Transportation Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult with the Minister of Communications to establish whether the decision has been received by him and what action he recommends.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact the Canadian Transport Commission presumably is related to the Department of Transport and the Minister of Transport, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consult with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Communications and the Minister of Transport to see who has the responsibility in this matter and whether any action is going to be taken?


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE TIGHT MONEY POLICY WILL NOT BE ADOPTED AND MEETING WITH PREMIERS TO DISCUSS PRICE CONTROLS
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the warnings expressed in the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada, can the Prime Minister assure the House that the government will not resort to the type of tight money policy that has created the unac-
Oral Questions
ceptably high level of unemployment we now have? Also, because of the expectation of increased prices, as expressed by the governor of the bank, will the Prime Minister agree to meet with the premiers of the provinces to discuss ways and means of holding down prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, I will ensure that the representations of the hon. member are communicated to the governor of the bank. On the second question, I would answer that the meeting of federal and provincial first ministers is being scheduled now and the items for discussion are being negotiated between the parties.


James Aloysius McGrath: My question was not for the governor of the Bank of Canada but for the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister if he will reassure the House and the country, especially because of the failure of the government's regional development policy to operate in the framework of a tight money policy and because of the importance of this question, that notwithstanding the warnings of the governor of the Bank of Canada the government will not resort to a tight money policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member appreciates that the governor of the bank has the primary responsibility for establishing monetary policy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Not so, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the recommendation of the hon. member has been noted.


George Harris Hees: The governor is responsible to the government, and you know it.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister's department now investigated the alleged refusal by Mac's Milk Limited to pass on tax cut savings to consumers? Will he report to the House on the findings of this investigation?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a complete report from my officials on the matter, but I noted that the report in one of the Toronto daily newspapers on which this question was based yesterday indicated that an official of the chain in question said that the directive to its stores had been countermanded. I will check to see if this is correct. After all, one would not want to see the Easter Bunny hampered in carrying out his appointed rounds.

March 28, 1973
Oral Questions


Terrence Wyly Grier: Will the minister indicate to the House whether the bureau in his department to monitor whether tax cut savings are being passed on to consumers is now functioning and, if not, when it is expected to be?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House yesterday that we were developing methods of ascertaining the effect of the tax cuts announced in the budget on prices of the goods in question. I am not yet in a position to give further information to the House on this matter.


Terrence Wyly Grier: In view of the fact that some details as to this bureau are already in the public domain, as reported in one Toronto paper yesterday, can the minister inform the House as to the bureau's proposed terms of reference, what steps will be taken to publicize violations, and what administrative or legislative action is contemplated by the minister to deal with violations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the press report in question appears to be based on some misunderstanding of the information the reporter in question was given. Therefore I do not think a further reply by me to the hon. member's question would be relevant.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by my leader. I wish to ask the Minister of Justice if either he or his officials have been asked for or have given any advice, orally or in writing, with regard to use of the War Measures Act as a means of establishing controls on incomes and wages and prices?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Can he tell us if he has communicated with the Quebec authorities to find out the circumstances surrounding the death of one Indian and the sickness of several others recently in New Quebec?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what incident the hon. member is referring to, but I will inquire and report to him and to the House tomorrow or the following day.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. Minister of the Environment. Could he inquire, at the same time as his colleague from Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with the Quebec authorities involved to find out if the poisoning of this person was due to fish poisoned by mercury?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that, according to the Steel Company of Canada, steel prices will rise on April 2 by $6 a ton, the third increase in six months, is the minister prepared to investigate this price rise to determine if it is really justified?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the report in question may have some relevance to the existing combines law, I am certainly happy to draw this fact to the attention of the officials who administer that law.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The industry is saying that the real reason for the price increase is the rise in scrap metal prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Will the minister investigate scrap metal prices to determine if that is the true cause?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will draw this further comment of the hon. member to the attention of the officials administering the Combines Investigation Act.


FINANCE
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On February 27, over a month ago, the minister indicated to me in the House that the government was setting up a monitoring system to ensure that tariff and sales tax reductions in the budget would be passed on to consumers. Would the minister tell the House whether the monitoring system to which he was referring is the same as the one to which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has referred and, if so, can he give us more information than the other minister was prepared to give us today?


John Napier Turner: The monitoring system to which my colleague referred is the monitoring system to which I referred.
March 28, 1973


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On Monday, March 19, I asked the minister whether he would investigate a charge by Murray Tate in connection with the government's crackdown on recipients of unemployment insurance benefits. He, along with others who incidentally are on the appeal board, said there was a witch hunt in progress and that the tactics used were terrifying people. Has the minister had an opportunity to investigate this matter through his officials and, if so, what report has he received?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: There were three such instances, I believe, referred to by the hon. member. The three gentlemen named have been contacted. The files have been brought to Ottawa, are under examination now and are being referred to the advisory committee which I mentioned in my earlier reply, but the report is not complete.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Apparently Mr. Tate has stated that the crackdown has resulted in a rotten situation, since those who belong to unions and who report to their unions have been automatically disqualified. This point was brought home to the unemployment insurance officials so that it might be rectified immediately. Is the minister aware of this situation and, if so, what action does he contemplate in order to rectify it?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, all the comments made are being investigated. I would prefer to wait for the report of the advisory committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was under the impression that the advisory committee would have reported before this. Can the minister tell us when he expects to receive the report of the advisory committee and when it will subsequently be made available to the House?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not yet have a precise date but we are pressing for this information to be supplied as quickly as it can be done completely.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
[Stage Direction]
STATUS OF TEMBEC APPLICATION TO REOPEN MILL IN Tl&MISC AMIN GUE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion arising out of the application by TEMBEC in Temis-camingue for a DREE grant to restart the plant that CIP closed down in that town. The application was made some five or six months ago. May I ask the minister what the present status of that application is?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this has been, and continues to be, a very complex subject, but I can advise the hon.
Oral Questions
member and the House that I have now completed an evaluation and that a series of recommendations by me will be considered by appropriate ministers within a matter of days. I am hopeful I shall have a positive announcement to make before the end of next week.


David Lewis: In view of the fact, according to information which has been sent to me, that the employees concerned have now exhausted their unemployment insurance entitlement and families are entirely without income, would the minister assure the House that a favourable decision on this application will be made and announced within days and that there will be no long delay such as we have experienced until now?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sure the hon. member will understand that I cannot give him an ironclad assurance that, in his words, a favourable decision will be made. I can assure him I will suggest that something along those lines be done. As to the second part of the question, yes, we will have an answer next week.


FINANCE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the communique which he tabled on motions. On page two this statement appears:
Members of the committee recognized that exchange rates must be a matter for international concern and consultation and that in the reformed system the exchange rate regime should remain based on stable but adjustable par values.
Would the minister advise the House as to the nature of Canada's proposal with regard to a fixed rate on a rather more flexible basis? Is this the so-called creeping peg? Would the minister also tell us whether Canada was the country that insisted upon the advisability of periodic floating rates?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the communique goes on to say in the next sentence: "It was also recognized that floating rates could provide a useful technique in particular situations." Canada's position is that the ultimate objective of a new international monetary system should be stable but adjustable fixed rates but that in the meantime we should not ignore the recent situation in the world with a good part of the industrial complexes on a series of floats, and that we have to build up this system before achieving a new monetary order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from saying that that is a mugwump position. However, there is the further statement that "there should be a strong presumption against the use of trade controls for balance of payments purposes." Would the minister advise the House whether United States Secretary of the Treasury Shultz subscribed to that statement, and did he

March 28, 1973

Oral Questions
give any assurances to the minister about the impact of the rumoured legislation that is being brought forward by the U.S. administration regarding trade restrictions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think it was the general view of the committee of 20, including the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, that resort to trading controls would be an extreme measure to be used only in the event that currency controls did not work. So that is the position that the secretary must be presumed to have taken if he subscribed to the communique, which he did.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to ask any more supplementary questions, but the answers that the minister has given give rise to a whole series of supplementary questions and point up the bankruptcy of the gesture made by the minister at the beginning of the session this afternoon. We should have had an explanation by the minister and been given the opportunity to comment on so important a subject.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I sent notice of this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration because of the important principle at stake. In view of the fact that Tara Singh Gill, a visitor from East India, faces a deportation order tomorrow because he is being treated by immigration officials in Edmonton in a manner that does not reflect the compassionate policy the minister said would be followed with respect to visitors who came to Canada prior to November 3, will the minister personally examine the facts of this case and rule that this man become eligible for landed immigrant status?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. I have not had an opportunity to review the case but I will do so. I will ask for a report forthwith. I cannot, of course give any guarantee or indication of the outcome of the review, but I will be pleased to inform the hon. member of the result as soon as I can determine it.


Douglas Roche: On March 1 I asked the minister whether he would assure the House that his compassionate policy was being communicated to his regional officials. Today I sent the minister conclusive evidence that that compassionate policy has not been communicated or is certainly not being followed. I ask this question since this man is facing a deportation order tomorrow, and I do not know how many others who may similarly qualify under this compassionate policy are facing deportation orders. Canada may very well be in the process of losing people who might make a positive contribution to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is, of course, a representation rather than a question.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Justice.
Can he tell the House if he has consulted his Quebec opposite about the possible release from prison of the presidents of the three labour organizations in Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not been in touch regarding that matter.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Can the minister give any indication when my Bill C-143, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, will receive second reading, as school boards across Canada have been patiently waiting for some action on this problem? Or does the government have any alternative proposal?


James Hugh Faulkner: I will discuss that matter with the House leader, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Sunbury.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad I wore my red suit. My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that present infrastructures and incentive grants to Atlantic Canada have failed to solve the chronic problem of regional disparity, would the minister consider bringing before the House a program of massive capital investment in large infrastructures, such as the Prince Edward Island causeway or the proposal regarding a corridor road from McAdam, New Brunswick, to Sherbrooke, Quebec, as one measure to deal with this problem?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is perfectly obvious that I cannot answer the question in detail now. However, I understand that the committee was established last night and I shall be appearing before it within the next

March 28, 1973

two or three weeks. I would be glad to give the hon. member an answer at that time.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact a recent study showed that 11 tax offices offering assistance to taxpayers for a fee in filing their income tax returns produced 11 different results from the same facts, would the minister inform the House whether his department is carrying out an investigation into this situation or has he any proposals to make to the House?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to tax consultants' services. Returns coming from such services are watched to try to ensure that there is not a pattern of inaccuracy or unfairness to the taxpayer. We shall continue to watch these returns and take such action as we can in order to make sure that taxpayers receive every benefit from the Income Tax Act.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of consumer affairs. In view of the national presence of some of these outfits like H. & R. Block, can the minister say whether his department is investigating the situation I have referred to in view of the fees charged taxpayers for the assistance that is given?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is something that perhaps could be looked into under the misleading advertising provisions. I would be happy to take note of the hon. member's question and pursue the matter further.


SUGGESTED SENDING OF ADVERTISING MATERIAL TO PRIVATE TAX CONSULTANT FIRMS
Right Hon. I. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. If 11 different opinions can be given by various officials across Canada appointed for the purpose of simplifying income tax forms and ensuring that ordinary Canadians understand them, in view of the fact that the minister's department has an advertising program costing $1,200,000 concerning income tax forms for 1972 entitled "It's new and easier than it looks", would he send copies of this advertising to those officials?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman has misunderstood the previous question.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I have not.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: It was not officials but private tax consulting services which were the subject of the previous question.
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if these people who are versed in income tax forms can give 11 different opinions and ideas, does the minister not think that something more should be done to let the Canadian people know for 1972 that "it's easier than it looks"?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, we have already extended the advertising program along the lines suggested by the right hon. gentleman, and I was glad to have his endorsa-tion of the program and his suggestion that it be extended to the weekly newspapers as I had already asked my officials to do. We will see whether there is any additional aid we can give the tax consulting services, but I do not think we can vouch for their services, particularly when some seem to have hired a good many extra people who perhaps have not received as good a training as they might have been given. Nevertheless, I am glad to see in the article, cited by the hon. member who asked the previous question that the district taxation office was able to confirm the calculation pretty much as the reporter had made it, and the reporter concluded that is someone followed the guide he could do it quite well by himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking an opportunity to ask supplementary questions. I wonder if we might not try to go to a different subject for a few minutes and return to the matter later.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, of which I have given him notice.
Further to my representations to the minister concerning the serious problem of the Saint-Hyacinthe College of Veterinary Medicine, would the minister have an encouraging report to bring forward here today so that the desirable progress of that school may become financially possible?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister can reply briefly to the question he will be allowed to do so, but generally speaking I have the impression this is the kind of question that could be considered at the time of adjournment. Certainly the minister may reply briefly to the hon. member's question.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have been authorized by the government to enter into deliberations with my provincial counterparts in Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan to discuss the enlargement of veterinary colleges.

March 28, 1973
Oral Questions FINANCE


RESERVE FUND HOLDINGS OF UNITED STATES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West of the Minister of Finance. Two or three weeks ago before the minister went to Paris he said he would be talking to Secretary of the Treasury Shultz about many things, including exchange guarantees. I wonder whether in Paris or Washington the minister had conservations with Secretary Shultz on either exchange guarantees or a policy of diversification in respect of our unusually high holdings of U.S. dollars?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I had several conversations with Secretary Shultz, as the hon. member can appreciate, but at no time did we get into specifics on exchange guarantees because neither of us at the moment perceives that to be necessary.


INDUSTRY
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the great shortage of lumber in Canada with resulting high prices and the impact on young Canadian families trying to build homes, is the minister considering the application of the same restrictions on prices and exports that he applied in respect of the copper industry in 1969 in order to meet a similar situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a rather similar question asked last week I mentioned that the government has put on export controls under the Export and Import Permits Act in respect of the export of logs and that in fact we are not an exporter of logs but a net importer. In that sense we have been helping to build the supply side for the use of lumber and plywood in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, but the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain rises on a point of order. The hon. member will be recognized in a moment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I asked a question about lumber and I got an answer about logs, and while there is a relationship-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[Mr. Whelan.j


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know that under the rules the minister does not have to answer, but perhaps I might be allowed to ask the question again in respect of lumber. Has he considered applying the same restrictions on prices and on exports of lumber as he did in respect of the copper industry in 1969?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker, but the question of building materials in Canada is one that we have under constant review.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question, you will be interested to know, is prompted by the plight of French-speaking students in Cornwall and the unhappy situation there. In view of the funds to be made available to enable English-speaking students to learn the French language, is there any likelihood that the Secretary of State will make available to areas in Ontario like Cornwall funds to enable French-speaking students to learn and improve upon their knowledge of the French language?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: As you
know, Mr. Speaker, I am very sympathetic toward this problem.


George Harris Hees: Otherwise he wouldn't have asked you the question.


James Hugh Faulkner: I would point out to the hon. member that, if my memory serves me correctly, between January, 1970, and March, 1972, the federal government has made available to the province of Ontario something like $18 million in support of French language instruction, plus another $5 million in support of administration.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In view of that response, Mr. Speaker, are representations being made to the Minister of Education of Ontario to ensure that federal funds are in fact used to encourage bilingual education in areas like Cornwall?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper!


NEW BRUNSWICK-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF USE OF FEDERAL GRANTS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the use that the provinces are making of subsidies from the federal government for promoting and developing the teaching of the minority's official language in the provinces? If not, does he intend to make a thorough investigation of the use that is made of this money, especially in New Brunswick,
March 28, 1973

where it is difficult to find out to what use these millions of dollars are put?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might respond to the two questions. I am not sure that the difficulty in Cornwall is at the level of the Minister of Education of Ontario. On the question of the use of funds, although it is difficult to generalize in this regard, we do plan to meet shortly with the provinces to go over the whole bilingualism support program. Because I have received representations of this kind, I plan to discuss this matter with the ministers of education from the provinces. I know they are concerned about it as well.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of National Defence. He announced very recently in a press release that men serving in the armed forces would in future be able to enroll at our service colleges under the university training plan to provide academic upgrading to degree standing. Will this same opportunity also be available to women serving in our armed forces and, if not, will he explain this discrimination?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question from the hon. member a few weeks ago. The answer is no.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is not at all the same question I asked the minister some time ago. At that time I asked whether the service colleges would be opened up to provide the same opportunities to young women as to young men. This is a different question which relates to a press release issued last week. It has nothing to do with my former question. Would the minister answer this question now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: May I then direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a supplementary question and then we will attempt to go to the next subject.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as it is obvious this government has decided to follow a practice of discrimination, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he sent forward a nomination for an Academy Award for the hon. member for York South as best supporting actor?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL-SECURITY CHECK-OUT OF AIR CANADA PASSENGERS AND NOT OTHERS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. I should like him to explain to the House why at the Ottawa International Airport passengers boarding Air Canada planes must go through a security check-out while just 15 feet away passengers boarding another commercial airline are not required to go through the same kind of security check-out?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago I met with all the airlines and asked them to implement some security measures while we were amending the Aeronautics Act. It is on a voluntary basis at the moment and that is why some do and others do not. As soon as the act is amended by the House it will be compulsory for all airlines.


An hon. Member:: Bring it forward.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


An hon. Member:: Sock it to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to ask him this question.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Since it has already been made an order of the House, can the minister say if the federal negotiating team has been set up to meet with the negotiating team of the Yukon Native Brotherhood with respect to their brief submitted to the Prime Minister on February 14?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet completed the formation of the federal group that will meet the representatives of the Yukon Indians. I hope to be able to announce the names of the group's members at the beginning of next week, for I do not think I shall be able to do so by the end of this week.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Since the minister mentioned next week, does he recall that the order requires that this negotiating team should commence its work before March 31 of this year?

March 28, 1973
Oral Questions
1Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there is a resolution of the House to that effect, but the House will understand that it is important to make up the best group possible. I apologize to the House for having to take a few extra days to do it, but I prefer to do my job as well as I can.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has a supplementary question to the previous question.


AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
RESERVATION SERVICE FOR OTTAWA RESIDENTS___

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns' Air Canada. Can the minister confirm that Air Canada has plans to transfer part of the company's information service to the Ottawa international airport and, if so, when will this take place?


Jean Marchand: I have not been personally informed, Mr. Speaker. I spoke to the president of Air Canada on this matter but I do not know whether they have immediate plans for relocating the service.


AIRPORTS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Brant. What plans are in hand to establish space and proper organization within airports so that security inspections can be properly carried out with some comfort for passengers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the question just a few minutes ago. As the hon. member knows, the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act will be before the House very soon. At that time we will have to work out with the airport authorities and the airline companies how we are going to implement the new act. The only authority there is now rests with the airlines themselves and not with the airport authority. We have no legal authority to carry out these inspections. In the meantime we have to rely on the right of the airlines to accept or refuse passengers on the basis of the private contracts they have with passengers. This is why there is this kind of confusion.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.
Will the minister soon take appropriate measures to establish a truly Canadian merchant navy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, according to the Menzies report, in order for Canada to have a merchant navy, not only would huge subsidies have to be granted but we would have to have our ships built abroad. This does not exclude the creation of a merchant navy, but it means that other ways will have to be found to achieve this aim, which I would like to make possible, if ever it is indicated it is profitable.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I give the floor to the hon. member for Drummond for a supplementary question.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Could the Minister of Transport tell us the impact on present unemployment rate of the establishment of a merchant navy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this question is hypothetical.


INCOME TAX
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Now that the government has given a good deal of advice to Canadians on how to fill out their 1972 tax returns, has the Prime Minister any advice to give to those Canadians over 65, to students, the blind and the disabled who have applied for refunds in respect of 1972 income but whose applications cannot be processed because the legislation which was supposed to be retroactive to January 1, 1972, has not been passed? Has the Prime Minister any advice to give to those poor unfortunate Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that they will be obtaining relief when the tax measure is passed with the support, I am sure, of all parties in the House. That poor, unfortunate condition described by the Leader of the Opposition will then be relieved thanks to the government's measure.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It's a poor way to run the country.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not these people who have paid their taxes on
March 28, 1973

Oral Questions FISHERIES
time and are being denied a refund because the appropriate legislation has not been brought before us by the present government will be penalized, and would he consider paying them interest on the money the government is using?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope that question will become academic soon.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of complaints expressed across Canada concerning the handling of mail and resulting breakages and other damage, and with reference to the editorial that was sent to the Postmaster General by the Sylvan Lake News, what action does the Postmaster General intend to take to ensure that the people who pay the postage receive the service to which they are entitled?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member's remarks, in such general terms. If he has a definite complaint, I will be glad to inquire. But I want to assure him that our utmost efforts are aimed at improving the postal service and the implementation of the new postal code will be a great step in that direction.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Have recent consultations taken place between the minister and his Nova Scotia counterpart on the environmental considerations implicit in the proposed petroleum or petrochemical development in the Strait of Canso area in Nova Scotia so as to avoid perhaps some of the difficulties that plagued this administration in the Come-By-Chance situation last year in Newfoundland?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and we expect the results will be the same, namely, that our national standards will apply not only in Come-By-Chance but in the Strait of Canso area also.


PROVISION OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the time limit on this matter, has the minister as yet received the certified audited financial statement from the Auditor General or his staff covering the past year's operations of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there have been some communications between the Auditor General's office and my deputy minister. I have not personally seen any of these communications.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: When the minister does receive this audited statement, will he table it according to the requirements of Standing Order 82(1)?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the government House leader. In view of the promise made in the Speech from the Throne that the government would introduce measures to increase Canadian participation in ownership and control of resource projects, would the minister inform the House how soon we can expect such measures?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be introducing a related measure this afternoon and probably he will have more to say on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a supplementary and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot for the last question.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the seriousness of conditions concerning our natural resources, is the government considering measures to place all the resources of Canada under the ownership of the people of Canada?


TAXATION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Having regard to the years of encouragement given by this government, and indeed by governments at all levels, to the
2702

March 28, 1973
Old Age Security Act
incorporation of Canadian family farms, and in view of the fact that the budget has provided no capital gains tax relief for this particular type of family farm, what steps has the minister taken to correct this inequality?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I do not agree with the premise of the question. I do not think there is the inequality that the hon. member says there is.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-147, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I would invite hon. members who want to hold conversations to leave the chamber. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
[Translation]	.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue my remarks in the same vein as last night while overlooking, if possible, the jarring notes we heard towards the end of the sitting. May I point out to the House that my contribution is certainly not intended to waste the time of the House.
I believe that this law should take into account the importance of the problems, and I think it is normal and logical for any member to claim the maximum of services it can ensure to elderly people.
Therefore, if some people wanted to claim that yesterday some members tried to waste the time of the House, maybe they should think that other members or other political bodies have done the same in the past. A simple glance at Hansard for 1971-72, containing debates over Bill C-176, will reveal enough.
I say this without spite, Mr. Speaker, and further to what I said yesterday in the House I would like to add at once that I do not intend to repeat my arguments of yesterday about the age of eligibility for the old age security pension at age 60.
As I was saying when we adjourned, I intend to propose an amendment, and this is what I will do in a few moments.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say why I shall introduce this amendment.
First, because I believe the legislation now before us is entirely inadequate since the proposed increase in the old age security pension does not even correspond to the

increase in food prices which the aged had to face last year, not to mention the cost of housing and several other essential services.
Second, on behalf of thousands of Canadians, it is my duty to severely condemn this government for its refusal to grant the old age security pension at 60, at least to spread it over a five year period.
Finally, I could move my amendment as a last effort to enable the opposition parties to force the government to introduce a legislation which would significantly the rate of reduce unemployment in Canada.
Yesterday I spoke about the effects that old age pensions at 60 would have, as other hon. members have done for several years. It is important that the people of Canada know the attitude of hon. members on that issue. I would also like, with this amendment, to allow the opposition parties to make their attitude known to the people of Canada.
We know the position of this government. They will perhaps be content with saying that this bill contains a sufficient number of interesting proposals in view of the amounts of money required. The proposed increases are valid but do not go far enough for the reasons I gave a while ago.
What is the position of the Progressive Conservative party? I think my amendment will allow it to express its views freely on the possibility of greatly improving that bill. I know for sure that some Progressive Conservative members are in favour of old age pensions at 60. I see the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who has already made his views known and I would like to say to him while he is here that I was very pleased to hear him advocate old age security at 60 during the election campaign. As far as I am concerned, I promised my electors that I would support the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe when the occasion would arise and I will do so with great pleasure at any time.
I indeed hope that my amendment will be put to the vote and thus enable us to know the NDP's position. We are aware of the respect they have always shown for the aged, and we know what principles they have always upheld in the House. So I consider that I am giving the New Democrats an excellent opportunity today to support their principles and to honour their commitments. If they should fail to do so today, I should be most surprised, although they have changed their mind on some principles since the start of the session; I leave it to the people.to judge their sincerity on this, the sincerity of those who, not so long ago, were so bravely making lists of all the things we ought to do for people in this category.
As for the Social Credit Party, I shall not speak for long about their position, since I think they demonstrated it very brilliantly yesterday. In fact, everything points to their supporting old age pensions at 60.
In conclusion, I will repeat certain words that my liberal friends know very well: Together, we can do something for society. Are we going to let such an opportunity escape us? I hope not. I for one am convinced that the request that I submit to the minister in favour of paying
March 28, 1973

the old age security pension at 60 is the perfect answer to an objective that not only the Liberals but all Canadians have at heart, that is a just society. So if we really aim at achieving this just society, I think that today is the time to improve the bill now before us.
Before introducing my amendment, in case this is necessary, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call immediately on the procedure experts of the opposition parties in order that it may be put. But, above all, let them not tell me that this would be delaying the implementation of this bill. It is common knowledge that the minister will always be able to make the bill effective as of April 1.
I believe that the argument brought forward by some hon. members last night that delaying passage of the bill means depriving senior citizens of an increase in benefits is absurd. We are quite aware that we can review the bill, that we should review it, and that providing old age security at age 60 would have tremendous consequences in our society, restoring a favourable social climate. Everyone knows that, the majority of hon. members are certain of it. Yet, it is a matter of a billion dollars.
I said last night and I repeat for the benefit of those who were not here, this billion dollars required for the provision of old age security at 60 would be compensated by the thousands of job opportunities for the young unemployed whom we are spoiling rotten by way of an ever increasing number of social measures.
Let us put things straight, let us give holidays to those who deserve them, and a job to those who are able to work in order to build up a much more flourishing Canada.
Once more, I suggest that this solution is much better than all the inventions the government has been trying over the last five years. We are well aware of the numerous injections which have been made in the economy, of the efforts which have been made. All these efforts have resulted in failure as regards unemployment and inflation. We suggest today-and I say "we" because I know that I will be seconded and have support-an amendment in order to reach a solution which might greatly reduce unemployment, which is the plague of this country. This solution might bring happiness for thousands of Canadians to whom we are responsible.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain, that Bill C-147, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in order that the minister responsible may appear again before the said committee for the purpose of amending the bill in such a way that it may better meet the needs of the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I might make a few comments before reading the motion moved by the hon. member.
Of course, I understand that the Chair is not supposed to determine the steps that might be taken by the committee, but it still experiences some difficulty to determine what action the committee might take, in view of the recommendation tacked on to the motion and also in view of the very specific proposals included in the bill.
However, with regard to the amendment, the Chair can hardly refuse it even if from a procedural point of view it seems to be a nonentity, knowing in advance that it must 26087-25J
Old Age Security Act
be difficult, even if the House decided to accept the motion of the hon. member, despite the presence of the minister in committee, to allow the committee to amend the bill one way or another, unless this were to reduce the amount of the pensions.
At any rate, I intend to accept the amendment in its present form and I will put it to the House.
Mr. La Salle, seconded by Mr. Matte, moves:
That Bill C-147, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in order that the minister responsible may appear again before the said committee for the purpose of amending the bill in such a way that it may better meet the needs of the people of Canada.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, do you accept my
amendment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Yes.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-147 may be considered as an interesting measure because it concerns quite a number of Canadians who have proved their eagerness at work and who have helped to make our country what it is today.
It must be recognized that the people concerned in Bill C-147 are not responsible for the increase in the cost of living. I also feel that it would be proper for them to benefit from a larger part of the Canadian production which increases each year.
Referring to the figures quoted by the Senate committee of inquiry on poverty, one finds that those who made $1,944 or less a year in 1970 lived in deprivation and poverty.
Today, by moving and passing Bill C-147 we will spare the old people hardships and we will place them on the threshold of poverty, on condition, however, that the two spouses are eligible for the pension and the guaranteed income supplement. Otherwise, married couples with only one eligible spouse or ineligible on account of their age will have to go on living in anguish, torment and hardships of all kinds.
As for couples with only one eligible spouse, as I have said, they will keep on depriving themselves since the social allowances doled out by Quebec are governed by quite unrealistic criteria.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Lafontaine is rising on a point of order.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the hon. member speaking on this bill. However, it seems to me that a motion has been moved and that it should now be discussed. And if nobody has anything to say about it, I think it should be put to the vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I understand the concern of the hon. member for Lafontaine, but I really think that the hon. member for Portneuf was not straying too far from the subject of the bill, or at any rate was coming back to it. I do not think hon. members can be restricted to the matter of the bill's referral to committee.

March 28, 1973
Old Age Security Act
The Chair may not, in my opinion, make this restriction as it would severely handicap members who might have comments or suggestions for the committee concerning {he bill.


Roland Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has proposed a motion for the bill to be sent back to committee so that the minister find ways of making it acceptable.
I do not wish to boast, but I have the impression that the advice I am about to give is calculated to help the minister in his work.
Mr. Speaker, I received yesterday a letter from a 61-year-old head of a family, disabled for 10 years, whose disability allowance was cut out when his wife became eligible for the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement. The same thing happens to disabled wives when the husband becomes eligible for the old age security pension.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) was most honest, because it applied to that group of individuals.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has introduced a motion to enable anyone reaching age 60 to receive the old age security pension. I congratulate the hon. member and tell him that his motion was very relevant since it dealt with people 60 and over. And there is a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, who have to live on the crumbs of the welfare plan. How many of those people are tired and incapable of any continued effort? How many are now out of a job and unable to get one because of their age? How many feel oppressed by the system because manpower is abundant and there is generally no room for people of 60 and over in the labour force?
There are people who have to leave their jobs because of exhaustion or fatigue and are further oppressed by another body of the government, the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In fact, if a worker leaves his job without reason he is not eligible for unemployment benefits. So, for the Unemployment Insurance Commission fatigue is not a valid reason. If someone loses his benefits because he left without a serious reason, he cannot even qualify for unemployment insurance by reason of illness because in the minds of the doctors of the Unemployment Insurance Commission fatigue is not an illness.
Mr. Speaker, it is with all that in mind that the hon. member for Lotbiniere proposed his motion.
Every day I receive letters from people in my riding who tell me about their hardship. As recently as yesterday a lady who is 60 and whose husband is 62 wrote me that because they owned a small house the Quebec social welfare service was giving them only $119 a month. How can two people clothe themselves, feed themselves, heat a house, pay for taxes, power and telephone and all other bare necessities of life with such an allocation? The lady who wrote me lists all they have to pay every month. In their case, they have only $35 left each month to buy food.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
I admit these people have not yet reached the eligible age, as indicated in the bill, but they have the same requirements as those who are 65 years old and over.
The handicapped in Quebec are another group of people who are having a rough time. They include persons of both sexes and of all ages. There are those who were born with a handicap and others who have been disabled by illness or accident. No matter how old they were when disaster struck they are up against serious problems. Besides being disabled or handicapped, they often have to cope with poverty.
I have been informed of two rather unfortunate cases- involving two disabled people aged 45 and 52, living with their mothers. The older women having no income, the other two were granted a small disability allowance. But that allowance is now going to be reduced because their mothers, respectively aged 70 and 72, had an increase in pension last spring. Mr. Speaker, to my mind it is ridiculous for a handicapped person of 52 to have no other means of subsistence than what he can get from his 72-year old mother's pension.
That is why I moved, under the terms of Standing Order 75(5) the following motion:
That Bill C-147, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act be amended by adding the following subclause to Clause 1 immediately after line 9:
"(2) Under the provisions of the present Act and regulations, a
monthly pension may be paid to every handicapped person who
has reached age 50.".
Mr. Speaker, the passage of this motion would be somewhat a harbinger of joy in the families afflicted with illness. A while ago, I referred to cases of disabled people who had to be supported by their parents, but we also know of cases of disabled persons who live at their children's expense.
Let us assume the case of a 60-year old disabled father, receiving social benefits and having one or two daughters who are working; every time his daughters get a weekly $5 increase, the father's allowance is proportionately reduced.
Mr. Speaker, strange things happen in the province of Quebec every time the Liberals come back to power.
I will give you another example. It is about a disabled family man, father of five living children. One of his children is working the year round while the other four go to school. Two of the latter find a job following the summer holidays. Therefore the investigator comes to the house with the result that the father loses his disability pension because there are three boys who can provide for the family's living.
Once back to school in September, the oldest of the boys, who is 20 years old, applies for a scholarship and a loan. And the Department of Education tells this student that he is not eligible either for the scholarship or for the loan because he worked during the summer months. He earned $750. This student appeals giving the reasons why he is broken: He was forced by the welfare bureau to earn a living for his parents. The Department of Education turns down those arguments, saying that the department cannot hold the young man responsible for the money he gave to his parents.
March 28, 1973

Mr. Speaker, to refuse a pension to the father of a family, the money earned by his children is taken into account. To refuse to one of these children a scholarship or a student's loan, the money he gives to his parents is not taken into account.
Mr. Speaker, 1 claim for all these reasons that it would seem fit that the age of eligibility for the old age security pension be lowered to age 50 for the handicapped.
Canadian production exceeds all our needs, so much so that the government has experts roaming the world to find markets for our surpluses. Before looking abroad and making gifts to strangers, Mr. Speaker, even if I am not formally opposed to that, I think it would be appropriate for the Canadian government to think first of the home market. And at that level, the handicapped and elderly persons of 60 or more could help us as consumers.
Mr. Speaker, if we establish measures generous enough for all these persons, the effects will soon be felt. In the end, if Canadian consumers, whatever their age, whatever their social position, have money to buy and obtain the necessities of life, the Canadian economy will fare that much better.
Mr. ]ean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is proposing a minimum guaranteed income. I suggest that what is guaranteed in the minimum guaranteed income is that it will be a minimum. It's a small income, a tiny allowance, to allow older people to nibble for the rest of their lives.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that granting a minimum income of that sort is to show ingratitude towards the senior citizens of the country, towards those who have built our country, towards those who have made Canada the country we know today.
According to me, hon. members, particularly those on the government's side, feel no pride in presenting a bill like that one. I believe it is a shame for a country as rich as Canada, a country were opulence is overwhelming. It is a disgrace to see our senior citizens treated in this manner.
Mr. Speaker, a minimum monthly income of $100. means $3 a day. Can anyone live today on $3 a day taking into account the cost of living? The Committee on Food Prices is studying why the cost of living keeps on increasing. That committee is trying to determine why it costs so much to live. It seems that the government is unaware of the existence of such a committee and that inflation is rampant in Canada.
Recently I read in Le Consommateur that fish paid 17c/ a pound to the fisherman was sold $1.70. Our senior citizens are now on a fish diet because it is all they can buy. We should consider the frightening increase of prices.
Other aspects should also be considered because, to speak as Yvon Deschamps, old people do think. You get the impression that because they are retired they have gone dead. They still have aspirations and ambitions even in retirement. They still make plans and have leisure time.
Old Age Security Act
It is impossible to have any recreation with $3 a day after you have paid for food and clothing. You stay home in the living room.


An hon. Member:: You don't have a living.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Another aspect should be considered. In view of the proposed minimum income, which is truly a minimum, many old people will get an increase, if it can be called that, of $13 per month. Let us try to suggest to a union, an increase of $13 per month for the employees, and we shall see what happens.
Many older people, I say, will see their increase cancelled by the increases in prices or the deductions made by the people who run the homes. That means that they will not have one dollar more left by the end of the month.


An hon. Member:: The provincial government is responsible for that state of affairs!


Jean-Marie Boisvert: No matter whether it has to do with the provincial or the federal government, those people will have nothing left in their pockets. Whether the provincial or the federal level of government is responsible, the problem remains the same if one is poor.
There is also another side of the question to be considered: many older people have to pay about $3 per day for drugs. Perhaps the government party has forgotten it, but when one gets older, one is more prone to illness. On getting older, one is liable to be sick, has to be looked after by doctors, and thus incur extra expenses. It should not be forgotten that those people do not derive as many advantages from the medicare plans as the young people working in factories or in offices. They are left to their own devices; they have to pay for all the drugs prescribed by their doctors. Perhaps the government is learning it through me, for probably it did not know. I cannot see how, if it had been aware of it, it could have given such a pittance.
Now, it gives $100 a month; when one is dying, it is a little late. That is often the problem with those who retire. You sometimes see them, which is most unfortunate, retire and die shortly after. The government should not wait till they have died to give them a decent pension. The government must not be so mean, so greedy, as to wait till the old people die to start paying them a pension.
That is why the government will have to consider the possibility of reducing the age of eligibility for a pension while at the same time reducing unemployment. Yesterday, when the amendment was introduced, we were told that it would entail expenditures. It has never been proved that those expenditures would exceed the cost of unemployment insurance, because thousands of senior citizens of 60 to 65 get unemployment insurance benefits.
We find thousands who benefit from the guaranteed income of unemployment insurance for a few months. As for those who do not draw unemployment benefits, we find quite a few at welfare offices because with the present cost of living the scanty savings which they made while earning $30 or $40 weekly are not sufficient to meet their needs.
Looking over this House, I see several here who belong to that category; they do not seem to realize it, Mr. Speak-

March 28, 1973
Old Age Security Act
er. A great many people between 60 and 65 years of age are ill, unable to earn their living and compelled to retire.
Evidently, some voluntarily retire for one reason or another, because their work was too strenuous or exacting. Every day we meet persons between 60 and 65 who have stopped working because they are unable to do a full day's work.
Those aged between 60 and 65 might benefit from a universal income plan, which would mean that one would not have to go down on one's knees for a small supplement. At present, rather than giving a reasonable pension, the government grants a supplement that tends to encourage laziness; if a person earns the slightest income, he loses as much in deductions. If a person receives income other than from his work, he loses the supplement. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the government is going to have to realize that there are people in difficulty in our society, there are people who have no help but themselves. Government members are going to have to pay a visit to their constituencies from time to time, to see what is happening there, to see that poverty exists and that there are poor people, that solutions must be found, that high finance and industry are not the only ones that need money, and, lastly, to see that there are human beings in Canada.
The government is soon going to have to grant a minimum survival income, the more so in view of the fast-rising cost of living, not a minimum income such as it now proposes, for that is just pulling the wool. It is misrepresenting its aims.
The guaranteed minimum income is a Social Credit term that the present government has borrowed and twisted into its own interpretation.
When the Social Credit Party speaks about the minimum guaranteed income, this is not what it is talking about, because this does not mean the same thing at all.
The government will have to come to the conclusion that the spouse will have to be considered as retired. The government imagines, it would seem, that when a person reaches age 65, his or her spouse did not age, that he or she has no right to live and that a person who receives $100 or more than his or her spouse will have the other one in continuous dependence. The government will have to lower the pension age-it has no choice-to reach a real system of minimum guaranteed income.
Maybe we will not win today, maybe the government members do not see clearly enough, but better late than never; better wait a year, if need be. But there is one thing I want to say to the elderly: we will never quit, we will never become discouraged and we will stop only when we have won.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I do not propose to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) despite the long and enduring friendship which has existed between us. I take this position mainly because I do not see how reference of the bill back to committee at this point would bring any advantage to the old age pensioners or achieve anything of benefit to them.

I have noted the pleas of one or two of the previous speakers for a larger old age pension. I can endorse their suggestion without question. Indeed, the objective of out party was a pension much higher than is proposed in this measure. But I do not know how it would be possible to obtain a larger amount by referring the matter back to committee. Motions would be required calling for the government to spend more money, and this does not usually happen in committee. Unless those who support this amendment can convince me that they can get more money by the reference they ask for, I will not support the motion. They have advanced no such arguments to this point.
I go back and forth to my constituency with some regularity-about every two weeks since the House came into session-and I know there are many senior cetizens who want this bill to pass and who want the extra benefits it will bring them. That is the situation. During the election, all candidates met with the senior citizens' organization in the city of Saskatoon. I do not know whether similar organizations exist in other towns and cities in constituencies whose members have already spoken on this amendment, but in Saskatoon there is an organization of considerable importance. The president is Mr. J. L. Phelps, a very capable man. Officers of that organization met with all the candidates and put forward, point by point, the desires and needs of their members. Those of us who attended came away with a good working knowledge of their objectives and needs.
Among those aims was a pension payable at age 60. I believe this should be a major objective of parliament, and I regret that so far we have been unable to attain it. There are some in my constituency, and indeed in Canada generally, who say it should be possible to provide a voluntary pension at age 55. Saskatoon and Biggar are both what we call CNR towns. The men who work on these railroads want the option of a pension at 55. We should be working toward this end.
Under the Local Initiatives Program, and so on, we are spending a great deal of money keeping our young people out of the labour force, or at least trying to provide for them since they cannot become full-time members of the labour force. I believe we should be placing the emphasis at the other end of the scale, so that those who have made a lifetime contribution to the wealth and well-being of this country can enjoy well earned retirement on the basis of the provision of adequate financial resources.
There are other areas of our pension program which urgently require consideration. Take the case of a breadwinner who is pensionable, but whose wife who is a few years younger that him cannot draw a pension since she has never been a member of the work force. In cases like this, real hardship is encountered. Then, again, an amendment is needed to make it possible for housewives to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan if they wish to do so, making it possible for them to receive the pension in their own right. As it is, only those who work and earn can contribute.
A further consideration is the position of farmers and self-employed businessmen who find that in a particular year their income falls below the $5,000 necessary before they can contribute to the plan to the maximum extent. As
March 28, 1973

a result, they find themselves unable to build up their pensions to the extent they wish. Progress is needed in all these areas, and I do not think it can be achieved by sending the bill back to committee. Rather, a complete program of revision is needed. At this point, the most we can do for our senior citizens is to pass the bill, such as it is, and make its benefits available as soon as possible.
I tell the House again that a great many senior citizens are waiting for the benefits of this legislation to become available in April. Anyone in this House who feels this is not the case has only to go home and talk to the people who are waiting for this additional money. I therefore urge the House to expedite passage of the bill and to make this additional money available to the senior citizens.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take too much of the time of the House. I am also aware of the fact that it is necessary to have this bill passed.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government gave many hopes to the people aged 60 to 65. With the introduction of Bill C-147, 98 per cent of those hopes have vanished along with the fine promises in the Speech from the Throne.
I will not delay the adoption of the bill because crumbs are better than nothing. I would like to point out that the proposed increase amounts only to 42.8c/ a day for the richest. For those who will receive the guaranteed income supplement, the increase works out to 65.75c/ a day.
We have 830,000 people between 60 and 65; 320,000 other people are married to people in their sixties, which, in all, accounts for over one million people.
Our currency is said to have devaluated by over 31 per cent since 1961. Considering the slight increase in the old age security pension and the lesser value of our dollar, I suggest that this increase is tantamount to crumbs and quite inadequate to meet the current and future needs of senior citizens. I also contend that this bill should take into account the spouse and eligibility for retirement at 60.
It is strange that when you meet hon. members outside the House they all seem in favour of retirement at 60 and substantially higher pensions, but as soon as they have stepped into the House, there is such a change in them that I have to assume that many intrigues are going on within the parties.
Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by expressing the hope that the government will meet our requests.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity to co-operate with the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) in the presentation of this amendment, I take the liberty of refuting certain arguments brought forth by the NPD member who spoke a while ago.
I do not think that this amendment can in any way delay the passing of the bill, which could become effective on April 2, at the discretion of the minister. Indeed, in the next 24 hours, the committee could meet, the minister could be heard and simply bring all the changes we all
Old Age Security Act
consider as essential to improve the condition of the senior citizens, especially those aged 60 to 65.
Such is the purpose of this amendment, and here I do not want to depreciate my colleague from Joliette, but I wish to point out that, having suggested that amendment to him, I thought it was an excellent means to obtain what we could not get yesterday, since we tried for a good part of the day to propose amendments that could have been in order. Now, we have realized that it would have a better chance if it come from outside our party.
In any event, we hope it will go as well with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). And why? Simply in order to bring this debate to an end, to give satisfaction to all hon. members and to demonstrate that while co-operating with the independent member of the House, we indulge in no kind of partisanship whatsoever. And as we do know that all hon. members are in favour of lowering the age of eligibility to the old age security pension, why does not the minister simply decide to advise us right away that he will introduce within one or two months another bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, to take effect retroactively as from April 1, 1973? The thing is as simple as that!
Consequently, in order to make it impossible for my colleagues of the New Democratic Party, when called upon to vote, to say, if they vote against the amendment, that they do so not to delay the passing of this legislation, I should like to disprove in advance such an argument, because, in my opinion, those who accept to vote for this amendment will simply suggest that they are in favour of granting the pension to any citizen at 60 and automatically to any spouse as soon as the other one reaches the age of 60. A vote against this amendment is a vote against that possibility. That is the purpose we had in mind when we helped the hon. member for Joliette move this amendment.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I think that all hon. members have an excellent opportunity to show that it is possible to reach an understanding, to work hand in hand and accept the most legitimate and sincere wishes of the people. There is no doubt that people want the pension at 60 for all the reasons given since this debate started. I think we have to be responsible and I should like very much to see the minister assume his own responsibility. If he could tell us right now exactly what his intentions are we could pass this motion. The minister could explain to us how he could amend the bill since this motion bids him to do so.
I conclude my remarks by saying that I hope all hon. members will vote in favour of this amendment for the greatest benefit of the people.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Sheiford):: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a speech but I want to give the minister the opportunity to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). Is he prepared to make a statement in the House right now to the effect that he will introduce another bill before the end of 1973 to lower the retirement age and to grant the old age security pension at 60, so that the hon. members will know where matters stand and will be in a better position to support that bill. Thus, the minister would himself help accelerate the passage of the bill and could assure the hon. members that he

March 28, 1973
Old Age Security Act
will introduce a new bill in a few days, after consultation with the provinces.
If I recall correctly the remarks he made in the House a short time ago, the minister had said that the provincial ministers of Health did not think it was possible to lower to 60 the age for eligibility to the old age security pension.
I do not question what the hon. minister said but I would like to know, if he is agreable, whether the provincial ministers of Health have changed their minds so that the minister will be able to have this bill passed today.
I would therefore be pleased to listen to the minister's comments in that regard.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been waiting patiently for the minister to speak, but perhaps he is not going to do so. I wonder if he would mind answering a question at this time. Is the minister going to speak? I will be glad to defer to him, both from the point of view of seniority and of interest, in order to hear what he has to say.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer a few points to the minister. It is not my purpose to add to the length of this debate. As a matter of fact, I waited until members of the Social Credit party indicated that they had completed their remarks before rising. The minister has indicated that he will reply, and I am sure we all look forward to his remarks. In view of that, I decided to put a few thoughts on the record because I did not speak on second reading of the bill although I am intensely interested in this matter, as is everyone in the House.
I am inclined to agree, and I am sure this will be confirmed that as a result of representations made with regard to lowering the age of eligibility to 60, some provinces have made moves in this direction. There has been concern about the means test aspect of pensions and I believe some provinces would prefer to provide relief by way of supplementary pension, leaving the old age security base where it is.
I am not really concerned about my friends in the Social Credit party suggesting that the NDP will be criticized no matter how members vote on this amendment. There is the suggestion that we will be accused of opposing the lowering of the pensionable age. However, I think our point of view is well known across this country. As a matter of fact, many of our critics from all parties have accused us of having dewy-eyed feelings about pensions, or having a pension paranoia. I think the Social Credit party has put itself in an excellent position to blame other parties for not lowering the pensionable age at this time. This is why I hope the minister will enlighten us on this matter.
Let me tell hon. members in the Social Credit party that if I thought we could get the pension age lowered, without delaying the pension increase to $100 and the increase in the supplement, by having this matter sent back to the committee where the whole exercise would be gone through again, I would vote with them. But I am not convinced that is the case. I have no secret line of communication with the minister, even though we share the same first name, but I think that by supporting this referral motion we will be accused of delaying and frustrating the immediate implementation of the increase. No matter what the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) has said, the Social Credit party will bear the brunt of the blame for holding up this measure, whatever their reasoning.
I have read the amendment very carefully and I see in it no refence whatsoever to the lowering of the age of eligibility. If it contained such a provision, it would be out of order. That party has simply proposed an amendement for the purpose of political gain. That is all right, because that is what we are here for-to make political points. We are politicians, we play political games and we might as well admit it. That party does not have a monopoly on political games: we are all fairly skilled in these games or we would not be here.


An hon. Member:: You should worry about your own party.


Mark Willson Rose: I know that some members sitting close to me would say they are not politicians but are, rather, statesmen. The amendment before us is very general, and no matter how the NDP votes, our record is very clear on the matter of pensions. We are not going to be concerned by parliamentary devices of this kind.
On March 1 we had the opportunity to listen to the very thorough, impressive and interesting speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in respect of social questions and old age security, although I thought he was almost defensive. I think it is important that we discuss old age security, and we have done so on many occasions. Old age is a time of great uncertainty. Legislators can do something about certain areas but there are others in which we can do nothing. People like my mother, for instance, have a great deal about which to be insecure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: That is because of her age. The minister dragged in his relatives during his speech, so I do not see why I should not be able to drag in mine.


Gerald William Baldwin: The only thing you have made secure is the government.


Mark Willson Rose: I am not involved in the question of old age security just on an altruistic basis. I am very interested in senior citizens and how we look after them, because I hope to be one some day. Great adjustments have to be made by the elderly because of a new life style. Perhaps they have suffered a recent bereavement or they wander around in their homes because their children have left. Perhaps because of the great mobility in this country, their families are spread across the land. There is the probability of loneliness, perhaps failing health or other discomforts. Legislators can do something to assist in this period of adjustment, euphemistically known as the golden years, but there are many things about which legislators can do nothing. Some problems just happen to be a natural part of the aging process.

March 28, 1973

I say in all seriousness that one thing we can do as legislators is to see that senior citizens are not short of money. We have failed in this regard for a number of years and are only now beginning to catch up. Incidentally, I think this is the result of leadership by some provincial legislatures. Several provincial governments have put forward a minimum income package, not just for senior citizens but for the disabled and the blind. Such initiatives have not been forthcoming from the federal government, although the federal government does contribute.
We have not made sure that people on old age pensions are not short of money. Many of them are too sick or too old to look after themselves, yet we have ignored thousands of them in this country. We force them to live out their lives in a grubby little room somewhere because that is all they can afford. We are to blame for this and there is no way we can escape that blame. No last-minute program increasing pensions to $100, or anything like that, will free us from guilt, and I feel as guilty as anybody else in this regard.
I admit that we have made some progress in respect of senior citizens' housing. We have made loans under NHA to erect vertical ghettos in some of our towns and villages, but we have doubled the cost of these buildings and made it necessary for landlords to raise rents to the point where there is little left to provide the other necessities of a decent living for senior citizens fortunate enough to be able to occupy these housing structures. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to risk your ire and to be called to order, so I will say only that on the matter of housing my province makes grants for senior citizens' accommodation. I think the federal government should do it instead of giving loans, which only puts up the rent and doubles the cost of a building over a period of about 50 years.
In the little time at my disposal I would like to speak about two main points. The first concerns a serious approach to lowering the age of eligibility for pensions and the second is the related matter of private pension plans. If there were amendments in federal legislation covering private pension plans, so that employees could have more say in them, we would not need so much public funding. At the moment, some of these pension plans are a rip-off-I hesitate to use the cliche-so far as employees are concerned.
All three opposition parties have insisted that a basic pension of $100 is still too low. I think most people would agree with that. But I also think that we are realistic enough to know that this is about all we will get this time around. We can wring our hands and decry this, but it is being realistic to accept it-unless the minister pops up with a surprise for us right now; and if he will, I will sit down and that will be the end of my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Pop up.


Mark Willson Rose: I would like to speak for a moment about persons under 65 years of age who need the government's help. The minister made quite a point in his speech on second reading and said, as I recall, that there are groups in society other than old age pensioners who need government assistance. I think he mentioned the disabled, the
Old Age Security Act
blind, some ethnic groups and the poverty groups. I agree with him. However, that matter is not before us now. He mentioned, also, that he is considering a comprehensive social security package designed to eliminate about 20 different overlapping programs dealing with general human welfare. I agree with him there, too. But that is not before us either.
What is before us is the matter of old age pensions and whether the minister will ever get around to a comprehensive scheme to look after the human needs of those who are not able to compete in our society. This is a matter of conjecture and we do not know when he is going to do this. I hope he will shed some light on the matter when he rises to speak in a moment. However, in his speech earlier he suggested that there are 830,000 Canadians between 60 and 64 years of age, and there are 320,000 spouses under 60 who are married to people over 60.
About two or three weeks ago, when I was holding interviews in my constituency and dealing with various problems associated with my constituents, three couples came to see me-spouses and pensioner husbands who were 10 to 15 years older than the wives. What is the situation, so far as they are concerned, when the husband is retired and cannot continue working, he gets $175-in British Columbia, $200-and his wife is, let us say, 12 years younger and cannot work? What it boils down to is that such a couple is living on a maximum of $175 or $200 a month. If this is not enough to satisfy their needs-and we all know it is not-then the local municipality must pick up the balance through welfare. I know that it is federally and provincially shared, but many people resist welfare.
The minister has obviously looked into this problem because he admitted in his speech that the financial difficulties facing these people are immense. He estimated that to include under OAS all the people between the age of 60 and 64, and all the people who are under 60 and married to people over 60, would cost $1.38 billion annually. But what are the alternatives? We know there is a cost. But what are the benefits? In an affluent and humane kind of society, what are the alternatives? The alternative is to have people get along on less than they need to maintain a decent standard of living equivalent to the rest of us, at a time when we are able to fight for ours but these people cannot.
I hope the minister will give serious consideration to this matter because I think it is also extremely important from another point of view. What alternative is there but to work or to go on welfare for a wife in her fifties who is married to a 65-year old pensioner whose only income is $175 in some provinces and $200 in British Columbia? There is no other alternative. As figures reveal, these cases are far from rare, and there are families in this category which are additionally burdened by the presence of teenage children in the home. In what position does this put the wives of pensioners who have predeceased them, as they so often do? A pensioner dies, leaving a wife perhaps 10 or 15 years under the age of 65: how can she get along?
I think what we should do is introduce the dependency concept into old age security. In this way, benefits would be permitted to pensioners' wives who are under 65 years

.26

March 28, 1973
Old Age Security Act
of age. This, perhaps, will be needed if the government continues to resist the attempts made by my party and by other hon. members, including, I think, some members of the Social Credit party, to lower the pensionable age across the board. Surely, if the government is not prepared to lower the pensionable age across the board, it should show its intention to introduce this dependency concept. It would not apply across the board but it would provide pensions to persons who desperately need them.
My point is that 250,000 young people under 24 have been out of work for the last two or three years, at a cost which is probably a great deal higher than that of the old age security plan. Then we must include lost production and the cost of various bandaid programs such as LIP and OFY. If we look at the comprehensive picture, we find it is far more costly, in terms of a person's selfesteem, to be constantly unemployed. We have the wrong people pensioned off. We pension off kids at the age of 21, and at the same time we keep the old man on the treadmill until he is 65. We have approached the problem backwards in this society.
I know this is the subject of an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan, but we must start looking at these aspects of the problem. It seems to me that if in Germany, for instance, railroad workers-in a country so seriously devastated at the end of World War II-now have a pension which provides them with 75 per cent of their earnings in the best five years, after they have worked 25 years, that is what voluntary early retirement is all about. We could do that in Canada. I can only speculate that we have not done it in this country because the two old-line parties are afraid of treading on the toes of the financial institutions which enjoy a very good market and supplement the pension scheme of those who wish, perhaps, to have more than the minimum provided by old age security.
I think there is a real need for us to provide for earlier retirement in this country. I do not know why we did not do it long ago. The minister says, "After all, it won't provide the kind of job openings we had hoped it would." I am not so certain, because I do not know what he bases his assumption on. But I am certain that jobs for young people would be found if people retired earlier.
I do not know how I stand with regard to time, Mr. Speaker, but you seem to be getting a little restless. Am I over my time? I would not want to disappoint any of my colleagues, who are obviously fascinated with my speech. I did not have time to prepare a short speech and that is why I am making a long one.
Let me deal with another area which I touched on earlier. This has to do with the need for close government scrutiny of private and company pension schemes. Approximately $11 billion of the money of Canadian employees is resting in various private pension schemes. They are contributory schemes and the contributions of employees and employers go into a fund which, by and large, is managed by the employers. In general, the funds are managed for the benefit of the employers, because each company has complete control over the investment policies of its pension scheme. This means that it can invest pension funds in itself at 1 per cent or 2 per cent

interest. Therefore, the plans do not mature and provide the benefits that they should if the schemes were opened up and representatives of the employees were allowed to make some decisions on investment policies. Since it is their money, I think that they should be running the schemes. Far too many pension schemes have been terminally funded. This was the case with the railways. However, a number of these schemes have been changed.
Recently I talked to a man on a picket line in front of Seagram's in New Westminster. He is a retired employee of that company. He was an employee for 20 years. His pension, under the contributory pension plan, is a miserable $84 a month. Seagram's have a company plan and it refuses to divulge even a copy of its trust agreement to its employees. In fact, companies are not required to do this by Canadian law. In other words, a company receives contributions from its employees and the employees cannot see the trust agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was given to understand that I was allowed 40 minutes for this peroration. If that nod of your head denotes agreement, I will continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I can reply to the hon. member: yes, and he did have that time.


Mark Willson Rose: No, I did not.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I would never quarrel with your ability to read the clock, but I promise to conclude my remarks in about two minutes. I wonder if I might have that much time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member asks for a few minutes to complete his remarks. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with the utmost patience and interest to the speeches that have been made yesterday and today during the debate on third reading of this bill.
Although there have been very interesting contributions to this debate, I must say however that some were purely demagogic rather than constructive contributions to the consideration of such an important bill as that now before the House.
This bill has been considered by all parties, passed the first and second reading stages and been considered by a committee of the House which reported on it. During the examination of this bill in committee, we secured consent from all parties to proceed quickly and have it back before the House as early as possible.
March 28, 1973

The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) stated before the committee, and I quote:

It is my disposition and suggestion that we proceed to pass the bill. [Translation]
He indicated that he had some reservations, but he also said, and I quote:

So far as I am concerned, if there is a general disposition to move this bill forward it would be a useful suggestion. Despite the literal interpretation of the word "parliament," there are times when, perhaps, we serve the over-all constituency best by expediting legislation; although it is not first-class, it is the best we have at the present time. Some day we hope to have something better. So far as I am concerned, I suggest that we are prepared to vote for it.
His party considered the legislation, discussed it in committee and supported it in committee. The same thing applies to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who spoke on behalf of his party. He declared in committee:
I want the report to go back to the House as soon as possible.
Then we had the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), representing the Social Credit party, saying, as reported at page 1:37 of the committee proceedings:
We want the report to be submitted to the House as soon as possible to meet the wish expressed by the hon. minister.

What was said then? We heard the views of the representatives of the other three parties expressed here in the house. They all stated: We would rather have a better, more generous bill, but for the time being this is the best we can get. Let us proceed as quickly as possible, let us pass the bill so that senior citizens may obtain their pension increases as soon as possible.
What has happened in the interval? Several amendments were moved by the Social Credit Party and were all ruled out of order.
What were the remarks? We came back to the House, for third reading and resumed the game that had been played in committee. The same kind of amendments were introduced, and I would even say amendments still more irresponsible than those which were put forward in committee. These amendments, Mr. Speaker, have all been negatived for the same obvious reasons.
In desperation, it would seem-according to what the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) said-that the Social Credit Party of Canada found a non official spokesman to introduce in this House an amendment which reads as follows:
That Bill C-147, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in order that the minister responsible may appear again before the said committee for the purpose of amending the bill in such a way that it may better meet the needs of the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, what was done in committee when the bill was introduced? These matters have been considered and discussions have taken place in this regard. What will the committee be able to do if the bill is referred to it?
Old Age Security Act
I have appeared as witness before the committee. At present, the estimates of the department are being considered. I shall appear and I made a commitment before all hon. members and all members of the committee to appear again before the committee to discuss lowering the eligibility age and the increase in pensions. All this has been considered by the committee and we have reached an agreement which is the record of the committee and under which I will appear and we will spend some time to review and discuss the whole matter.
At this stage, all that can only delay the passage of this bill. If the passage of this legislation is put off and results in withholding payment of pensions to elder people, I hope that the country will know who is responsible for this delay: the Creditistes, the Social Credit Party of Canada and in particular the hon. member for Joliette.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) on a point of order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I did not record the dates, but I know that the committee's report was submitted to the House and that the government waited for a week before tabling it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, that seems to the Chair to be more a point which one could argue or debate rather than a point of order. I think the Chair is in the position more and more each day of having to ask that when hon. members have a point to make because they disagree with another hon. member, instead of seizing the eye of the Chair on a point of order they should ask to be recognized in their turn and then make their argument. The Chair commends this procedure to the House if we are to have orderly debate. The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).


Marc Lalonde: I do not think I shall waste my time, Mr. Speaker, answering the hon. member's point of order. I will simply point out that we are examining a bill, that time is flying by and that an amendment has been introduced which is not only demagogic but, even worse, futile. Nothing will be achieved through this amendment.
As to the hon. member who introduced this amendment, where was he when this bill was considered in committee? He did not show up in committee; we examined this bill on Tuesday, March 13, 1973. The hon. member for Joliette did not attend the committee meetings. And what is he asking for now? He is asking that the minister return before the committee, while he would perhaps be there himself. We hope he would! In any case, one thing is certain: he did not find this bill important enough at that time to take the trouble to go to the committee.
The hon. member claims that he was in the House when the bill was examined by the committee. If I remember
26087-26)

March 28, 1973
Old Age Security Act
correctly, Mr. Speaker, the House was not sitting and he had ample time to go to committee.
We are considering a bill which requires quick passage if we want our senior citizens to benefit from it. Now, what are we going to do in committee? We are no doubt going to hear for the hundredth time the series of Credi-tistes proposals and amendments.
The New Democratic Party proposed $150 as the amount of the basic pension. Now, the Social Credit Party of Canada talks about $200. I am sure that in committee, they will talk about $250. Some talked about reducing the pension eligibility age to 60. Some also thought of something else. Yesterday, amendments were moved, according to which the pension would be paid to any 50-year old handicapped person. What is special about being 50 years old? Why not look after the 49, 48 or 45-year old handicapped persons? Why grant a pension at 60? Why not at 55 or as I said myself in the committee, at 43 or at 42? It could be optional. And all that without any computation of the costs. Of course, with the Creditistes, there is never any problem as to costs. They just set off the press and there is no problem: the money will go out.
That is of course a completely irresponsible attitude concerning that question, a completely demagogic attitude, that has nothing to do with the real problems of poverty in Canada at the present time.
If this bill is sent back to the committee, what is going to be done to it? They will merely try to reintroduce in committee the amendments that were ruled out of order. And the only result will be a general loss of time for the House and for the committee, and it seems to me that the hon. Creditistes members have already wasted enough the time of the house during yesterday's debate.
Mr. Speaker, I say once more that this amendment is absolutely futile.

The only thing this amendment can do is delay adoption of the bill. The government has declared its intention and there is a recommendation by the governor in council on this measure: it has been before the House and we have clearly stated our position. The House has pronounced itself on first reading, on second reading and in committee. As I said before the committee, the questions raised by members, of reducing the age for receipt of the pension or increasing the amount, deserve discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Members can applaud as much as they want to. I hope we will have a more responsible discussion than the speeches they have been delivering for the last two days in this House. I hope these hon. members will be in the committee where they can discuss this question. I hope the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) will take the trouble of coming to the committee.
We have an agreement in the committee to consider this whole question but, once more, it has to be looked at in the context of poverty in Canada. We have not only the problem of people aged 60 and 65 in this country, or of the handicapped above 50 as the Creditistes were talking about; we have the problem of all handicapped from birth to death. We have the problem of the single-parent family,

the problem of the handicapped and the blind, the problem of the people who are on welfare in this country. All these people also need to be looked after. It is not a question of just the piecemeal approach that the Creditistes are putting before this House.
I heard an unbelievable statement this afternoon by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert) who said, "Maybe it will be a year before we can give what we want to give to the old people." Mr. Speaker, they are ready to say, "Forget about this" and not face our senior citizens' needs now. Then we will have a year in which the Creditistes will have time to make more propaganda across the country and not achieve anything because, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) said yesterday, they have "ni la balance ni le pouvoir".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert) rise on a point of order?


Jean-Marie Boisvert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I feel my words are being deliberately misinterpreted. I said that even if we had to wait for a year to win our argument, we would do so but we do not want to delay passage of this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).


Mr. Bell:: Let's get on, and find out how the NDP is going to vote.


Marc Lalonde: On this whole matter the government has announced firm measures. I said I would appear before the committee, as this amendment proposes. We do not need an amendment for that: I will appear before the committee; there is an agreement to that effect. We are going to review the problems that would be raised with the lowering of the pensionable age and the increase in pensions.


An hon. Member:: When?


Marc Lalonde: Any time. I am in the hands of the committee in this respect. When the estimates are under consideration, we will consider the matter. This question has been discussed with my provincial colleagues and they have expressed reservations about changing the structure of the old age security program at the present time. They want a general review and want to discuss the whole problem of welfare.
One hon. member who said that British Columbia was paying $200 to senior citizens suggested that we might give this amount to everybody, everywhere. There is nothing to prevent the provinces increasing old age pensions if they want to do so. They are welcome to do so if they feel they have the funds.
Is the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) rising to ask me a question?
March 28, 1973


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make something clear. I did say that British Columbia was now paying a basic income of $200 per month to people of 65 and over and to the disabled and the blind. I think this measure came into effect just before Christmas; in fact I am sure it did. I agree with the minister that there is nothing to prevent other provinces doing the same.


Marc Lalonde: My point is this: I do not want to stop the provinces from doing this. I think they deserve to be congratulated if they do it. According to the figures of January 3 that I have, a couple on social assistance in the province of which the hon. member spoke are paid $169, while if they are 65 or over they can get over $400. In Saskatchewan, a couple are paid $176 if they are 64 or 59 years old-choose your age-while a couple in receipt of the federal old age pension will get $325. In Ontario, they are getting $235; in Quebec, $158; in New Brunswick, $180; in Manitoba, $179; in Nova Scotia and P.E.I., $200; in Newfoundland, $195. That is the situation with regard to people who are on welfare. Hon. members should compare those figures with the $325 that will be available to couples under our old age pension. The Creditistes have proposed an amendment that will permit an amount greater than $400 to be paid to a couple. If you take $400 plus the GIS, the amount would come up to around $525 per couple. That is very nice. Why not bring it up to $600 while you are at it, or $700 while the auction is under way?
We must think about all the other people who are on welfare. There are many people on welfare in the ridings represented by members of the Creditiste party, as they may well know. They should consider what they are doing. We will embark, with the provinces, on the consideration of all these aspects of poverty. This is not the time to push ahead with large increases of the sort recommended by the Creditistes or with lowering the eligibility age and thus using a large amount of our resources for that purpose. I have already given the figures to the House. If money is used in one way, it will not be available for abandoned mothers, for the handicapped or those below 65 or 60 who experience difficulties in life for a variety of reasons.
We will meet with the provinces, and the House and the committee of the House will have the opportunity to consider the social security review. I hope that this House and the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare will have the opportunity of considering this matter in a broad context, instead of entering into an auction between various parties who want to see which one will bid highest for the votes of senior citizens.
I repeat, my appearance before a committee of the House at this juncture on this particular amendment will achieve nothing except the further delay of the adoption of this bill. If this bill is delayed further, we will know where to place the blame. Second, I am committed to make known to parliament as soon as possible before the conference-I hope to be able to do this-our various proposals in the field of social security review. I hope the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare will have the time and opportunity to consider these proposals, as well as the provinces with whom we will meet at the end of April.
Old Age Security Act
In conclusion, not wanting to take up any more of the time of the House, may I say that all parties have agreed that we should speed up the consideration of this legislation so that the senior citizens of this country may receive the increases that are due to them. We should proceed to the adoption of this particular bill immediately, Mr. Speaker. We will have plenty of time to consider the other arguments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) rises on a question of privilege.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, as far as the
question of privilege is concerned, I just want to reply to the minister's question as to where the hon. member for Joliette was, if he was not in committee. I should be very smart if I said that last week I was sitting on the Agriculture committee and did not see the minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) there. I know he has other duties to carry out and that effectively he cannot be everywhere at the same time. However, I should remind the minister that I have never missed an opportunity in the House to inform him of my opinion about the bill. He has received copy of my correspondence and also a resolution prepared by the Conseil central des syndicats eath-oliques, and I feel that he cannot truthfully say he is not aware of my views.
Therefore, the argument I am supporting is one I consider to be valid, although the minister stressed his great willingness to do more and better. I appreciate that very much, but we do feel immediate action is important, tEnglish]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member really has not stated a question of privilege. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). I will be the only spokesman for my party on this item because, as the minister rightly said, throughout this entire debate we have endeavoured to suggest that we should expedite the measure. Puny though the measure is, it should be given birth. I wonder how much the cost of living has increased during the month in which this matter has been debated.


George Harris Hees: Quite a bit.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: On the other hand, I think it would be well, after the minister's outburst, to adopt a somewhat more reasonable tone. I will not use that tone which he used when replying to members of the Social Credit party. I am not given to making long speeches, nor am I very fond of our having a series of long speeches although I admit the right of hon. members to speak. If we were to hear all members of my party who have concern for the older citizens of the country, Santa Claus himself would deliver their cheques. However, we must refrain from expressing our views and we must expedite this measure.
The minister was good enough to quote the remarks I made in committee. Although I am a man of the utmost

March 28, 1973
Old Age Security Act
modesty, I am always pleased when somebody quotes my words and enables them to adorn Hansard for a second day. I should remind the minister, however, that at the time that I said we must move on this matter, I also said that if we could find any way that was procedurally proper, whereby we could bring about an improvement in the situation, I would support anyone who would bring forward such a suggestion. On the other hand, I would not think of gumming-up any parliamentary procedure with an amendment which I do not think to be proper.


Gerald William Baldwin: Me, too.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has brought forward an amendment which has been found acceptable by the Chair. I therefore think it is incumbent on the minister, rather than threatening the Social Credit party and denouncing them for being delayers-if I may be alliterative-to reflect for a moment and consider that if this motion goes through it would surely be an indication that the House of Commons does not view favourably, at this stage, the measure which is brought forward. It seems to me that the minister is not in the position wjiere he can denigrate the members of the party that brought forward this motion, but I am not so sure that he is on strong ground in saying the committee cannot do anything. If the committee gets the sense of its parent body, this House, then indeed it strikes me that it is a very much different consideration that the minister should be putting forward. This is another situation altogether.
The fact that we have an amendment before us which is in order should have evoked a little more moderation and humility from the minister. We are in a minority parliament situation. I do not think it is incumbent upon any minister to say that this measure, having passed one or two hurdles, must now go through-or else! This is the body over which the minister and his colleagues preside. It is the competence of this body which must be their sustenance as the executive. We are in an entirely new situation.
The minister is misreading what this matter is all about. This is not the time for vituperation. It is a time for reasonableness. It is up to all of us to see how we can best serve this sector of Canadian society. This is the kind of sweet reasonableness that I would endeavour, even at this eleventh hour, to breathe into-I hope-the receptive ear of the minister.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a question. The minister has already spoken, but I hope the House will give unanimous consent to allow him to respond to my question if he wishes to do so. I have been prompted to ask it by the very eloquent speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). If, in its wisdom, this House sees fit to pass the motion which contains the amendment now before the House, which would in fact give a mandate or directive to the government to review its position on the contents of this bill, would the minister take that as a directive and in fact review the bill and its contents, or would he ignore the wishes of this House?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think I said in my speech that the government had put forward a proposal, that this proposal was the government's policy and that there was a recommendation of the Governor General on this particular proposal. I also said that another return of this bill to the committee could not achieve anything, as far as I could see, in terms of changing the substance of the bill as it stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my position and the position of my party is that the basic amount of the old age security pension should now be $150 a month and that the pension should be payable at age 60. We are disappointed that the bill now before us does not achieve these two goals. It is our determination to continue to press for these goals until we win them. We believe that we shall do so.
My correspondence includes letters from a good many people who express the hope that we will continue to fight for $150 a month pension at age 60. To those who support us in that endeavour, we give our assurance that this battle will continue. But another message has been coming in today, for during the very few minutes that I was able to spend in my office this morning I received three telephone calls, one from Ottawa and two from Winnipeg. They expressed great concern about the news reports carried over CBC radio this morning. Hon. members probably heard those reports. They were to the effect that although the war veterans allowance bill was passed yesterday, the bill to increase the old age pension was blocked at 11.20 last night. I was able to explain to those people who telephoned me what had happened. I told them not to worry, the bill would soon be passed.
The fact that I received three such telephone calls in the short while I was in my office this morning indicates the concern in this country over the possibility of this bill being blocked or delayed. Much as we are determined to get further legislation later this session, or as soon as we can, increasing the pension to what it ought to be, we do not intend to be a party to any sterile or futile move the only effect of which could be to delay this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I commend my friends of the Social Credit party for the vigour with which they press their point of view. I even confess that I envy a bit their freedom to be as irresponsible as they are today. However, the fact of the matter is that the amendment now before the House does not make any reference to lowering the pensionable age or any reference to increasing the amount of the pension. In their speeches, some members across the way said that is what would be voted on when this motion is put to a vote, but that is not the case. The amendment simply asks that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs so that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) can appear before that committee and so we can discuss the bill still further.
If this amendment carries and the bill is referred back, that committee will not have the authority to do anything, during the second round, that it was not able to do during
March 28, 1973

the first round. During the first round in committee seven different amendments were moved to the bill seeking all the possible combinations by way of improving this bill. Every last one was ruled out of order, for all of them involved the expenditure of money and were not permissible as amendments by private members.
If this bill went back to committee, all that would happen would be a repetition of that process. The committee is already slated to meet tomorrow to deal with the housing bill. I do not know when it would get this bill. It could possibly be tomorrow, but more likely Friday or Monday. When one adds up the few days of delay that could occur, the result could well be that this bill would not be through in time for the $13.39 to be added to the April cheque, that being the additional amount that everyone of Canada's 1,800,000 old age pensioners will get if this bill passes. This motion is so empty, sterile and meaningless that this House would be acting in an utterly irresponsible way if it passed it at this time.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) confirm this afternoon what I attributed to him when I spoke on a point of order last night, namely, that he has agreed to appear before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to deal with the whole question of lowering the pensionable age and to deal with it in depth. The chairman of that committee was here a few minutes ago. He is probably still within the sound of my voice. The minister also made it clear in committee that as far as he could see, it would be in order if we made a report on the estimates of that department, including a recommendation with respect to the lowering of the pensionable age. Knowing the make-up of that committee, knowing the members, Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic Party, who believe in lowering the eligible age, I am confident that out of that discussion will come a report back to the House calling for legislation to lower the age of eligibility. If I have my way, that report will also call for action to be taken this session and for there to be another bill to amend the act with regard to the amount of the pension.
I agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) that there is need for us to discuss this whole question, to discuss all the aspects of old age security in a reasonable way, to discuss these matters in depth and to come up with long-lasting and satisfying solutions. I do not see how we can possibly do this in one day or two days, meeting under the gun of this bill with the necessity that it be passed so that these increases can go out.
If we did not already have a unanimous understanding in that committee, as well as the approval of the chairman and of the minister, to hold these discussions, some hon. members might say this was only a promise which might not be implemented. But this is our understanding. It is on the record of the committee, and it has been confirmed this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that we shall do, in the committee, with time available in which to do it, precisely what this amendment seeks. On the other hand, if the amendment were to carry and we were to send the bill back, we would not even have the authority to add to it or to report recommending
Old Age Security Act
anything. We could only return the bill to the House, exactly as it is. In the consideration of the estimates, however, we do have an opportunity to make a report, to make recommendations, and I believe this is precisely what we should do.
There is also something to be said for the fact that conferences among the 11 governments in this country are in prospect for next month on the whole question of old age security, the Canada Pension Plan and other forms of income maintenance and income security. If this session does continue-and one never knows; it is a week-by-week session-I see the possibility of this kind of discussion both in the standing committee and among the 11 governments of Canada resulting in further social security legislation this session. I say to the minister that this is what I want to see. I think I see his head nodding up and down. Yes, it is. In other words, he is hoping to see it too. Well, he is in a position to do something about it, and I suggest that if we are reasonable, if we get this bill passed and these payments into effect, we shall then have an opportunity to discuss further action which ought to be taken.
So, because of concern across Canada today as reports go out that this bill was blocked last night and is still being debated, I suggest we should not postpone a decision any longer. The passing of this amendment could have no worth while effect. The only result would be a few days' delay, which might jeopardize the revised cheques being received in April. This House should do the responsible thing-reject this amendment and pass the motion for third reading and send the bill to the other place so that it can become law right away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment (Mr. La Salle). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried.
And more than five members having risen:


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: the vote was carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the Chair is in some difficulty. Could I be allowed about ten seconds to get this matter straightened away?
Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


An hon. Member:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is it agreed that the members are here?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
March 28, 1973


Thomas Miller Bell: How long do this phony politics have to go on with this government? Those bells are going to ring all night, so far as we are concerned.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the House rises I would like to ask the government House leader to indicate the business for tomorrow. Before he does that, may I say how much we deplore this childish and irresponsible act-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -put on by those people across the way who are masquerading as adults.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that tomorrow we will deal with the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act bill, followed by the Crop Insurance Act bill and the review and assessment of foreign acquisition of Canadian business bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6110 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Division
Messrs.
Patterson
Pelletier
(Hochelaga)
Penner
Peters
Poulin
Frud'homme
Railton
Reid
Richardson
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Rompkey
Rondeau
Rooney
Rose
Rowland
Roy
(Timmins) Roy (Laval) Rynard Saltsman Sauv6 (Mrs.) Schellenberger Scott Sharp Smith
Stanbury
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Okanagan-
Kootenay)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Symes
Tetrault
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Towers
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London
East)
Turner
(Ottawa-
Carleton)
Wagner
Watson
Whittaker
Wise
Woolliams Yanakis Yewchuk-228.
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith
(Saint-Jean)

March 28, 1973


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Press Release No. 964
Communique of the Committee of the Board of Governors on International Monetary Reform and Related Issues
For Immediate Release March 27, 1973
1.	The Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund on Reform of the International Monetary System and Related Issues (the Committee of Twenty) held their second meeting in Washington on March 26 and 27, 1973, under the chairmanship of Mr. Ali Wardhana, Minister of Finance for Indonesia. By the courtesy of the Organisation of American States the meeting was held in the Pan American Union Building. Mr. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, took part in the meeting which was also attended by Mr. Wilhelm Haferkamp, Vice-President of the E.E.C., Mr. Rene Larre, General Manager of the B.I.S., Mr. Emile van Lennep, Secretary-General of the O.E.C.D., Mr. Olivier Long, Director-General of the G.A.T.T., Mr. Manuel Perez-Guerrero, Secretary-General of the U.N.C.T.A.D., and Sir Denis Rickett, Vice-President of the I.B.R.D.
2.	The committee received a report in which the chairman of their Deputies, Mr. Jeremy Morse, summarised the deputies' discussions to date on the adjustment process and exchange rate mechanism, reserve assets and convertibility, and capital flows.
3.	The members of the committee reaffirmed the need for a world monetary order, based on cooperation and consultation within the framework of a strengthened International Monetary Fund, that will encourage growth of world trade and employment as well as economic development and will support the domestic efforts of monetary authorities throughout the world to counteract inflation.
4.	The members of the committee exchanged views on the substance of international monetary reform in the light of recent developments in exchange markets and of countries' policy reactions to these developments, and instructed their deputies to take account of these events and their implications in their continuing work. The members of the committee recognised that the various elements of reform are inter-linked. Their discussion of a reformed system centered on the following points:
(a) There should be a better working of the adjustment process, in which adequate methods to assure timely and effective balance of payments adjustment by both surplus and deficit countries would be assisted by improved international consultation in the fund including the use of objective indicators. It was noted that the deputies are establishing a technical group on indicators. The importance of effective domestic policies for balance of payments adjustment was underlined. Members of the committee recognised that exchange rates must be a matter for international concern and consultation
and that in the reformed system the exchange rate regime should remain based on stable but adjustable par values. It was also recognised that floating rates could provide a useful technique in particular situations. There was also general agreement on the need for exchange market stability and on the importance of fund surveillance of exchange rate policies.
(b) There should be better international management of global liquidity. The role of reserve currencies should be reduced and the S.D.R. should become the principal reserve asset of the reformed system. The deputies were asked to study further the conditions for a resumption of general convertibility, including questions relating to consolidation of excess reserve currency balances and to methods of settlement.
(c) An intensive study should be made of effective means to deal with the problem of disequilibrating capital flows by a variety of measures, including controls, to influence them and by arrangements to finance and offset them. It was noted that the deputies are establishing a technical group on disequilibrating capital flows, including those associated with Euro-currency markets.
(d)	There should be a strong presumption against the use of trade controls for balance of payments purposes. Developing countries would, however, be exempt wherever possible from trade and capital controls imposed by other countries and their particular circumstances would be taken into account in assessing controls that they themselves felt it necessary to apply.﻿March 28, 1973
[Stage Direction]
5.	The members of the committee recognised the concerns of developing countries under current conditions and their interests in a reformed system. They affirmed the desirability on the occasion of the reform of promoting economic development and the flow or real resources from developed to developing countries.
6.	The committee approved their deputies' program of future work. In directing the attention of the deputies to those aspects of reform which have an important bearing on the current situation, they recognised that procedures are already established for coordinating the work of the
executive directors of the fund with that of the deputies. They noted that the deputies plan to expand their meeting schedule and to intensify their work between meetings, and they instructed the deputies to proceed urgently with the preparation of a draft outline of the reform, in which the major issues would be presented to the committee for decision.
7.	The committee will meet again at a time to be proposed by the chairman in the light of the progress of the deputies' work.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 29, 1973