1973-03-02

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Leeds rose on a question of privilege in reference to a news report published in yesterday's edition of the Ottawa Journal The member said in part:
The headline of the article and the article itself quote the special assistant to the Minister of Transport as referring to me as a "purveyor of hatred." "He is developing a reputation now ... throughout the country as ... the number one purveyor of hatred."
I undertook to look into the matter and give a ruling today. I think it should be mentioned that the words actually used in the report differ materially. The actual words quoted in the newspaper are: "purveyor of hatred against the government." This, to my mind, puts a somewhat different slant on the news story, and of course on the offending statement itself.
Do these words constitute a breach of privilege? I refer hon. members to citation 110 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:
But to constitute a breach of privilege a libel upon a member must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member and the conduct or language on which the libel is based must be actions performed or words uttered in the actual transaction of the business of the House.
The operative word in this citation is "libel". It is doubtful to me that a court would find the words allegedly used to be defamatory. Perhaps the real question relates to the propriety of a public servant, employed in the special capacity of assisting a minister, making derogatory remarks at a public meeting about a Member of Parliament. However, this being said, I would not think that any useful purpose could be served to assist the hon. member or to correct the situation by sending this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I would rule, therefore, that the motion cannot be put.
MR. MacINNIS (CAPE BRETON-EAST RICHMOND)- ALLEGED FAILURE OF CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO IMPLEMENT ACT


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege stemming from an attempt yesterday to find ways and means of acquiring a legal opinion from the government. I failed in that attempt, but I notice in yesterday's Hansard that the answer may have been provided for me by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) who stated, as reported
on page 1791, in answer to a question on why certain procedures were followed:
-because it is provided for in the act which the House passed not too long ago.
He also stated:
The Department of National Revenue is obliged to apply the law as parliament passes it, not as we would like it to be.
I feel that this answers the longstanding question about the legality of the performance of the Cape Breton Development Corporation with respect to an act of parliament, and in particular sections 18(a)(i) and (a)(ii) of that act which require Devco to set up pension arrangements for miners and their dependents, and for former miners and their dependents, and also section 28(e) of the same act which provides for pension arrangements for those not covered under sections 18(a)(i) and (ii), such as the president of Devco and others. Section 28(e) of the act covering the president and officers of Devco has been in effect for a number of years now while the requirements under 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(ii) have not been made available to the miners, former miners and their dependents. I should also like to point out that persons covered by section 28(e) can contribute to a retirement plan in a five-year period more than those who come under clauses 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(ii) can in 40 or 45 years.
The minister made a statement and I do not take exception to it but since it applies to the Department of National Revenue I take it that it also applies to other departments of government. The law is not being upheld. Officers and high salaried people in Devco can contribute as much in five years as a miner can in 40 or 45 years, but the pension arrangements made available to miners under sections 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(ii) have not been implemented despite the fact that the former minister indicated that they should be made available to them.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should indicate what the question of privilege is and in what way his parliamentary privilege has been breached. He has the floor on this basis and it seems to me that he is now making a statement in relation to the reply given by the minister yesterday. I would hope that the hon. member would indicate as quickly as possible what the question of privilege is so that the Chair can make a ruling.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege puts into question whether the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue yesterday and which appears at page 1791 of Hansard is accurate and whether it applies equally to the miners of Cape Breton and to those people whom I represent as it does to anyone else. The evidence I have placed before the

March 2, 1973
Privilege
House would indicate that the law is not being upheld as far as the miners are concerned. I believe that I have a question of privilege as the member representing these people. Further, Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would just indicate before resuming my seat, which I do not intend to do just because somebody over there wishes it-


Mr. Stanfield:: I hope not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: -that not only is the law not being upheld with respect to the welfare of miners but the law is being broken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I have to suggest to the hon. member that while it seems to me he may have a grievance I doubt very much that the statement he is making now can qualify under the heading of privilege. I would hope that he would reach the end of his statement as quickly as possible so that the Chair can make a ruling whether there is a question of privilege which ought to be pursued further.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if anybody in this House ever had a question of privilege I think I have one. For five years I have been trying to get the government to uphold legislation passed by this House. I want to make sure that a Crown corporation set up by this parliament will stop breaking the law. Evidence that it is breaking the law is contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. A document was placed before that committee which required-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has had the floor now for some time on a question of privilege but until now he has not indicated that there is a question of privilege. The hon. member says that he has a question of privilege. That is a ruling that the Chair has to make. Again I suggest to him that he may have a grievance and I hope he will give the Chair the opportunity to make a ruling as soon as possible.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to go along with your ruling, but representing the people that I do I think I have been detrimentally affected by the actions of a Crown corporation despite legislation passed by this House. Where do I turn? How do I get proper guidance when I ask for opinions from ministers in the House and opinions from departments? They will not even answer mail.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that I have a question of privilege in that I cannot find out for people I represent what justice means in this country and whether legislation passed by this parliament is to be implemented. The report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs indicates that the Crown corporation, Devco, for eight months acted illegally and that this action detrimen-

tally affected between 1,700 and 1,800 miners. The legislation required the approval of the Treasury Board under section 18(3) of the act and this requirement was not fulfilled until eight months or more after the act was put into effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth.



MR. KEMPLING-ANSWER TO QUESTION BY MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) to the members of this House.
Hansard for February 22, 1973, records the following question and answer between myself and the minister at page 1544.1 said:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister advise whether the Centre for Inland Waters at Burlington, Ontario, more specifically the $60 million hydraulic facility at this location, is studying the erosion effects of high water in Lake Ontario and, if not, will he direct that such a study be undertaken immediately?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I understand that a study along those lines has been under way for some time. It is being done in co-operation with the government of Ontario, and I expect that a preliminary report will be published some time in March.
I have since established that, in fact, no such study was under way, that, after my question, the minister contacted his officials at Burlington and received a reply. For the minister's purposes, that after the fact inquiry apparently justifies his misleading myself and other members of the House. If Your Honour finds that I have a legitimate question of privilege I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no hesitation in telling the hon. member that this is not a question of privilege. It has been ruled often that disputes as to facts cannot be the basis of a question of privilege. I refer the hon. member to citation 113 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. The hon. member may have a grievance or a point of debate with the minister, but that cannot possibly be considered as founding a legitimate question of privilege. Therefore I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that there would not be much point in having this dispute as to whether there was an inquiry or not looked into by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am sure the hon. member will find other ways to ascertain the facts or to confirm his interpretation of the facts.


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Can nothing be done to protect Your Honour, the House and the taxpayers from ersatz questions of privilege?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baldwin:: How about motions for papers?
March 2, 1973


Mr. Bell:: How about the filibuster on old age pensions?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister oi Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. members are aware that public hearings under the Expropriation Act of objections to the intended expropriation of land required for the expansion of Vancouver International Airport were completed last week.
Of the 170 properties required for this expansion, the government had completed the purchase of 117 prior to expropriation proceedings. The notice of intention to expropriate therefore affects a total of 53 properties.
The government has carefully considered the objections documented in the hearing officer's report, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), in particular, has reviewed the technical aspects. The government is convinced of the need to complete the planned expansion of Vancouver International Airport, and I am of the opinion that the designated lands are required for this purpose. Accordingly, I have signed the notice of confirmation of expropriation and requested the Attorney General of Canada to take the necessary steps to immediately effect registration of the notice in the local land registry office.
The objections made at the hearing focused on the possible impact of constructing a new runway. Notwithstanding the fact that noise studies already have been made and published, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) will conduct a thorough study during the next 12 months into the effects of a new runway on the environment. The findings will be published and open to public discussion before work begins on the proposed new runway.
I believe these arrangements meet the concerns of the residents of Vancouver, and in particular I can assure the House that each owner will be dealt with compassionately and given the full benefit of the new Expropriation Act.
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister did not provide us with a copy of his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why should he? You are not the opposition any more.


Mr. Hees:: You are in the same party.


Thomas Miller Bell: Go to caucus.


George Harris Hees: Did you not get a copy at caucus?
Vancouver International Airport


David Lewis: If you have had your fun, perhaps you will let me finish my point of order. I have not seen a copy of the statement, Mr. Speaker, and I could not hear the hon. minister because of the noise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I have it now, Mr. Speaker. I have been provided with a copy of the statement by a member of the Social Credit party.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to reply to the statement which has just been made on behalf of the government, may I say I noticed the singular silence evidenced by a lack of applause from the government benches when the statement was concluded.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: I think that silence was appropriate because the record of this expropriation and the lack of planning that has gone into this expansion of Vancouver airport is a classic example of what is wrong with our environmental decision-making.
I notice the statement says "The government has carefully considered the objections documented in the hearing officer's report". If that is so, the government is all the more condemned because documented in that hearing officer's report were facts such as these: No reliable NEF noise contour map exists; an estimate prepared by the Greater Vancouver Regional District indicates that approximately 135,000 residents in the areas mentioned would be placed within the NEF 25 contour. There has been no necessary co-operative planning with the Department of the Environment, the province of British Columbia, the city of Vancouver, the municipality of Richmond or the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
The minister also stated that "the Minister of the Environment will conduct a thorough study during the next 12 months into the effects of the runway on the environment." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, even that concession would not have been made if it had not been for the tremendous attack the government has been under in the past two months with regard to both this airport and the Pickering airport.
I ask all members, especially those on the government side, what kind of decision-making is this? The government is going to go ahead with the airport and then, because it came under attack in the House, it is going to have an environmental study. Suppose the environmental study shows you should not go ahead with it. What are you going to do?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: What if the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) says, don't do it? What about the neighbourhood that has been broken up and destroyed in the process? Can the government put that back?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I remind all hon. members that some years ago the then minister of justice, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), when he appeared

March 2, 1973
Vancouver International Airport before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on November 25, 1969, said concerning the section under which this expropriation is taking place and with regard to the hearing officer:
The type of person I have in mind is somebody from the community, a lawyer or someone who has had experience in arbitration matters, somebody having some experience in real estate, somebody who would give the parties a fair hearing. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that the procedure is pretty loose. We do not anticipate that this hearing would be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence, that type of precise hearing, we hope that the rules of natural justice would be followed.
Yet on the twenty-first of this month the Federal Court ruled that the hearing officer is not subject to the rules of natural justice. When I asked in the House whether the present Minister of Justice would consider holding off this decision until these objectors could be heard in accordance with the rules of natural justice, the government responded by doing nothing.
I regret the statement that has been made today. I think it is a classic example of the lack of proper decision-making in connection with environmental matters and the lack of response by government to an entire community that is very upset about what is going on in Vancouver.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I join with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) in expressing serious criticism of what has gone on in this situation. I had occasion to meet the people of Sea Island on a number of visits during the last couple of years and it seems to me that the way this matter has been handled over the last two years has done a savage injustice to the people of that island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I do not have the file with me this morning, but at one point a couple of years ago a representative of the Department of Justice, Mr. Troop, and the solicitor for the home owners on Sea Island had drafted and agreed upon a voluntary arbitration agreement. The home owners have ever since asked the department to approve that agreement since it has been approved by their representative after negotiations with the representative of the department. The department has not approved that voluntary agreement, and ever since the home owners have not known where they were going or what was going to happen.
There is still a portion of the area which has not been expropriated and which apparently is not to be expropriated. A commercial development involving hotels and motels is taking place. The people of the area have not been given an opportunity to take part in it. They have no idea what will happen to their properties and how badly their value may be depreciated by the developments that are taking place. The hearing held by the officer was the kind of hearing at which people talk but no one listens. I say to the Minister of Transport and to the Minister of Public Works that this kind of insensitivity-I suppose they really had nothing to do with it; the blasted mandarins in the department keep going at these things-this kind of treatment of people who have had a lifetime of association with the area is treatment no one can possibly
condone. They want to know where they are going and what may happen tomorrow.
I suggest to the Minister of Public Works that before he carries out any of the things outlined here, including the phony inquiry which is to take place after everything has been settled, he should make sure that the voluntary arbitration agreement to which I have referred is accepted by his department and by the Department of Transport so that the home owners may have an opportunity to present their case in full to a body that will listen to them and make some judgment based on the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WINNING OF WORLD FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIP BY KAREN MAGNUSSEN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion which I hope all hon. members, including, in particular, the Minister of the Environment, will find acceptable. It is brief and non-controversial. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this House convey, through you, Sir, our heartiest congratulations to Karen Magnussen of North Vancouver, who not only won the world figure skating championship last night but the hearts of all Canadians from coast to coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather there is unanimity. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on an urgent matter concerning credits granted by the government of Canada to the government of Quebec for student loans and bursaries.

March 2, 1973

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House instruct the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to carry out a thorough study of the Quebec education law and its application to student loans and bursaries, with a view to ascertaining whether the credits granted by the government of Canada to the government of Quebec for student grants are in fact used to that end, and that the committee suggest, if necessary, by what ways and means the government of Canada could ensure that the money granted to the Quebec government for that purpose should be used exclusively for the benefit of students.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, and so the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, before we leave motions I wonder whether I could raise a point of order. It has come to my attention that an error of some $47 million in the Canada-U.S. automotive trade figures released two days ago has been made by Statistics Canada. As a result, instead of having a deficit on trade in automotive products with the United States of $41.2 million as originally announced, there is a surplus of $5.8 million. I wonder whether we could ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) to make a brief explanatory statement to the House on this very important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that this is hardly a point of order. I would think it is a question that might be asked during the question period by way of a suggestion at that time that we might revert to motions for the purpose of hearing a statement from the minister. I think there might be difficulty if under motions hon. members ask questions of ministers to invite them to make statements during routine proceedings. Perhaps the hon. member might like to put that question during the question period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General, whom I reluctantly disturb at this particular moment. Can the Solicitor General reassure the House that the disturbances involving a sitdown at the Millhaven institution are under control and that there is no danger of an escalation which could cause serious injuries either to inmates or the custodial staff?
Oral Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a sitdown strike of inmates since last weekend, but there has been no real trouble. It has been a peaceful sitdown strike up to this point. Yesterday there was a meeting between officials of the department and representatives of the inmate population, and it is hoped that we will have a full report as soon as possible.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister reassure the House as to who is in control of Millhaven? Is it the custodial staff or the inmates?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the penitentiary system and the director of the penitentiary with his men are in control.


Erik Nielsen: In view of the fact that the Swackhamer report refers to a "custodial subculture" as having a detrimental effect on the over-all rehabilitation program, could the minister say what steps are being taken to ensure that staff at all levels and in all institutions are being accorded equal opportunity for training in modern methods of penology, which has not been the case up to the present?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, several months ago-I am not sure of the exact date-refresher courses were started for all levels of staff, including custodial staff, so that they will be trained in new rehabilitative methods.


Erik Nielsen: At Kingston?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, at Kingston College. I am not too sure how many from the Kingston area were involved. I might say that this sitdown strike started originally as a result of a stabbing incident between inmates. A frisking of the inmates was carried out to find out whether any weapons were involved and from there it went on to other things. We hope to have a full report on the matter as soon as possible.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF VISITORS COMMITTEES TO FACILITATE DISPOSITION OF GRIEVANCES
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Will the minister establish on a priority basis a penitentiary visitors committee to facilitate grievance procedures, which are now solely dependent upon prison administrations? Such a committee might be a source of relief for some of the bitterness and frustration that exists in Canadian penitentiaries.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the recommendations that has not yet been implemented but is under study. Personally I am very interested in it, and as soon as the studies are completed I will make a report to the House. I might say that there are experimental visitors committees operating with respect to some penitentiaries and we are using this experience in reaching a decision.


Mr. Fairweather:: Would the minister acknowledge that this recommendation was made in 1938 by Judge Archam-
1832

March 2, 1973
Oral Questions
bault and that the study has perhaps gone on quite long enough?


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF REPORT ON KINGSTON DISTURBANCES TO COMMITTEE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In light of the fact the minister himself has stated in connection with the Swackhamer report that public understanding of correctional problems would be enhanced by a study of the report with a view to protecting the public and providing opportunities for rehabilitation, would the minister take steps to see that the report is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for further discussion?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting suggestion and I will take it under , consideration. May I say that I will also take note of the last suggestion that was made, to which I did not have a chance to reply.


KINGSTON-REQUEST THAT CITY BE REIMBURSED FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES NECESSITATED BY RIOT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact the city of Kingston incurred direct costs of $22,000 in overtime pay for local police during the period of the Kingston penitentiary riot and that this was a service requested by the federal authorities, and that an additional $100,000 was spent on local police services for protection and investigation purposes during the period of the trial, would the minister consider very seriously reimbursing the city of Kingston for this outlay of $120,000, which was directly attributable to a major disturbance in a federal institution and did not result from any local situation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall having received a request to that effect up until this time, but I would be glad to give the hon. member's suggestion serious attention.


NATURAL GAS-ALLEGED SALE FOR EXPORT AT LOWER PRICE THAN ALTERNATIVE SOURCES IN UNITED STATES-POSSIBLE LOSS TO CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since National Energy Board regulations require the board to review prices of export gas and to report to the cabinet when these prices fall below alternative sources of energy in the United States, and in view of the fact that last Wednesday at page 1750 of Hansard the government in answer to my motion for production of papers No. 157 indicated no reports had been received from the National Energy Board since Sep-

tember 29, 1970, I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the fact that the Alberta Resources Conservation Board in its report of August, 1972, stated that Canadian gas was being sold at an average of 15 cents per m.c.f. below alternative sources? I should also like to ask the minister whether he asked the board for a report, why no report was received and why no action was taken?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this question in respect of regulation 11(A) to which the hon. member referred with the board and the chairman has advised me that when the parliamentary committee gets to the question of gas pricing he will be in a position to make a very full report of the rather complicated circumstances surrounding gas pricing in the export market.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that the Alberta finding applies to the whole export of Canadian gas, this dereliction of duty on the part of the government represents a loss of $140 million a year to the Canadian economy. I should like to ask the minister to explain to the House why he was derelict in this respect, and we will let the chairman of the National Energy Board explain when he appears before the committee in due course.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's question, but the hon. member may agree with me that this is more of an argument than a question. That having been said, the minister might reply briefly.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that I did not accept the hon. gentleman's premise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Irrespective of whether the minister accepts the premise of my question, Mr. Speaker, I ask him now whether the Canadian economy sustained a substantial loss as a result of Canadian gas being sold on the United States market below the price of gas from alternative sources, and why no action was taken by the government with regard to that matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the response to the question of gas pricing into export markets is a very complicated response and I do not really think I can go into it on orders of the day. As I have already indicated to the hon. gentleman and the House, we will be prepared to go into this very fully in the committee when we get to the question of gas pricing after the current discussion of oil exports.


IMPORTATION OF SNOWMOBILES-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
March 2, 1973

In view of the fact that Canadian plants producing snowmobiles have had to slow down their production during the past few months and that others have closed down because of over-production, may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he could tell the House why the government authorized imports of snowmobiles amounting to $47 million during the first ten months of 1972?


Mr. Speaker:: Here again I am under the impression that the hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement which normally should be made on motions. If the minister can reply briefly, I shall allow him to do so.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not got the figures before me but my impression is that there were much greater exports of skidoos from Canada abroad than imports into Canada. However, I will be very pleased to get the figures for the hon. gentleman.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
I regret that I cannot specify the date on which the answer was given in Hansard, but it was indeed related to imports. I was not wrong therefore in asking my question. I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce why the government had allowed these snowmobiles to be imported while Canadian plants are forced to close down?


UNITED STATES DISC LEGISLATION-INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING ASSOCIATION WITH EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY IN PROTEST
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Now that he has given us his various interpretations of the auto pact, I should like to ask him about another matter relating to Canada's trading position. Is it the intention of the government to associate itself with the proposed protest by the European Economic Community against the DISC proposals of the United States as a contravention of GATT?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have raised our objections directly with the United States on a bilateral basis.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am quite aware of that, having heard the minister say it in the House, but I should like to know whether he intends to associate himself or the government with the protest by the European Economic community? More specifically, has the government consulted with the European Economic Community through its ambassador to that organization with a view to determining the position of the community and, in particular, with a view to associating itself with that protest?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there is no plan to associate ourselves directly with the community. We have raised the issue in the councils of GATT.
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the attitude and the position of the government to go it alone in respect of protests against DISC rather than attempting to associate itself with any general protest?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would expect this will be one of the items that will be discussed at the forthcoming multilateral negotiations under GATT, particularly the whole area of non-tariff barriers.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question in this connection is directed to the Minister of Finance. Did the terms and the principal proposals of the budget of May 8, 1972, which were claimed to be counter-DISC proposals, shall we say, indicate that the government of Canada felt there was no recourse through GATT and, therefore, if we are now to associate ourselves with the European Common Market countries will the minister then abandon his proposals in that May 8 budget?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: In no way, Mr. Speaker. Those proposals were general tax proposal reductions not only as a measure that would take into account the proposal of the DISC legislation of the United States but also to render us more competitive in a world where trading negotiations in the GATT and international monetary stability are prerequisites to Canadian prosperity. In the current world I think these corporate tax cuts are even more important.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Were these protests he says have been made by the Canadian government to the United States government on the DISC proposition made by his officials only or has he done it on a minister to minister basis, which is the only effective way of making a protest of this kind?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it has been done on a government to government basis.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary question, but we are not moving very quickly with so many supplementaries to each question asked.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the minister to give a straight answer. Has he done this on a minister to minister basis or on an official basis?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it has been done on the most official of all official bases, a government to government basis, the Canadian government to the United States government.


George Harris Hees: You simply left it to your officials and you know it. You haven't got guts enough to call the secretary yourself.
25789-44J
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE

March 2, 1973


AMOUNT OF LAND IRRIGATED FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DAM- ALLEGED FAILURE OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT TO LIVE UP TO AGREEMENT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of the Environment a question in connection with the South Saskatchewan River irrigation situation where, as a result of the action taken by the government of Saskatchewan, the expected irrigation of 200,000 acres has been restricted to 15,000 acres. Has he communicated with the government of Saskatchewan to point out what a gross betrayal of the rights of the people of Saskatchewan this is as the result of action of that government?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister oi the Environment):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. I am consulting with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion under whom PFRA is now operating. We will be taking appropriate action when we have the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the question I asked. The government of Canada put up 75 per cent of the $120 million and the provision was that there was to be a certain amount of irrigation done. Has the minister communicated with the government of Saskatchewan to point out that what is being done is a repudiation of the agreement entered into with the government of Canada when the money was advanced which made possible the building of the dam with the assistance of the government of Saskatchewan? What is he going to do about it?


John (Jack) Davis: It seems to me that the right hon. gentleman is making a submission concerning an agreement with the government of Saskatchewan which he entered into in his period as Prime Minister of this country. We will look into it with a view to ensuring that the agreement is carried out.


George Harris Hees: Just answer the question. We just want a yes or no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Has wedded bliss between the government of Saskatchewan and the NDP in this House resulted in the fact that while the Liberal party in Saskatchewan is taking a strong stand against this, it is not going to receive the support of the government of Canada?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When the minister is looking in this matter, will he ascertain whether or not there was a government in Saskatchewan from 1964 to 1971 that discontinued the extension of the irrigation works and whether or not that government was not in fact supported by and very friendly to the right hon. member for Prince Albert?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that we are getting into the area of debate and argument.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: We are running short of time. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This will take very little time. It is very reassuring to hear the junior members of the coalition backing the senior members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: We shall now return to the question period. The hon. member for Selkirk.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and is related to the questions I asked yesterday. Was it on instructions from the Minister of National Defence that the Canadian Armed Forces undertook the somewhat unusual step of establishing a board of legal inquiry into the damage done to HMCS Restigouche in refit following the report of the board of inquiry, and was this step taken because deliberate damage that might even be termed sabotage was discovered by the original board of inquiry or was it for the purpose of determining whether the government of Canada can take legal action against the shipyard?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the dates. I think the inquiry may have taken place before I became Minister of National Defence.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Can the minister inform the House at this time what the cost of the repairs involved following the damage to the Restigouche has been and when the Restigouche will once again be ready for service? I refer to the cost over and above the $12 million incurred in the original refit.


James Armstrong Richardson: I cannot give this cost figure now, but the Restigouche will be back in service very shortly. It is in operational order.


PROPOSED WEST COAST OIL TANKER ROUTE-JOINT CANADA-UNITED STATES COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER CONTROL-PRESENT GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact, as reported yesterday, that the United States administration has now sent legislation to Congress which would circumvent the court's decision against the
March 2, 1973

Alaska pipeline proposal, and in view of the fact the premier of British Columbia is due to meet with representatives of the United States government in Washington, D.C. on March 9 to oppose the tanker route, can the right hon. Prime Minister today tell the House whether the joint Canada-U.S. committee set up last spring to consider joint control of the tanker route has in fact met and, if so, has that committee reported to the governments of Canada and the United States?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer to this. I took note of the question the other day and referred it to both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the Minister of the Environment to see who could provide an answer.


John Allen Fraser: I thank the right hon. Prime Minister for his answer and I direct the same question to the Minister of the Environment. I might point out that this is the third week that this question has been asked.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting shortly with Mr. Russell Train, U.S. presidential adviser on the environment, regarding west coast tankers and related matters.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, this is the third Friday this matter has been raised and it may become a weekly event. This is the most elusive committee I have ever known. I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House whether the government is sending a representative with the premier of British Columbia in order to show the federal government's support of the opposition of that province to the tanker route?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have offered to the premier of British Columbia to arrange his visit in Washington and to assist him in meeting U.S. officials. I believe we have the practice of ensuring that our ambassador or a senior official be present at such meetings. I might remind the hon. member that his belated interest in this subject really has not come as something new to the government. We have made representations to the United States government at all levels on many occasions. I told the House that I had discussed the matter with President Nixon himself. Of course, the hon. member is aware of the fact that the Liberal leader in British Columbia is responsible for the very good turn of events in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I say with respect that 1 do not mind waiting three weeks to get an answer but I do not think I deserve to have a lecture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government has stated its opposition to the tanker route and yet apparently set up a joint committee to study international control, can the Prime Minister tell the House what the present policy of the government is regarding the tanker route and, if the policy is opposition,
Oral Questions
what alternative has the government discussed with the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With regard to the matter of policy, Mr. Speaker, I think we have discussed it in the House in answer to several questions. I just want to remind the hon. member that what I said a couple of weeks ago, I believe, in answer to this question was that I had discussed this matter with the President. I suggested to him that we refer the matter to the International Joint Commission. The President suggested that it be done rather through a different ad hoc committee. It is this ad hoc committee to which I have referred. I have no report on how frequently it has met or if it has met at all. I do know that the matter has been pursued, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would say, between the two governments and the Minister of tne Environment has repeated again that he is proposing to meet his opposite number in the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition for a supplementary question. We are fast approaching the end of the question period and we have had a large number of supplementary questions on every question that has come up. I think that is the source of difficulty during the question period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister following his answers to the questions put to him. Is it not the position that the government, after assuring the House that an ad hoc committee representing officials of the two countries would be set up to study this matter, has done absolutely nothing about that since?


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and is prompted by the report that the minister intends to establish an advisory committee to study implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Is it the intention of the government now to delay the implementation of any of these recommendations or to delay the bringing forward of legislation until the minister has had a report from that committee?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, many of the recommendations have already been implemented and many are in the course of being implemented. The purpose of the advisory council is merely to assist the government in a judicious way in acting on other recommendations that have not yet been acted upon. It is designed to help. I would point out to the hon. member that there was a report tabled in the House in the latter part of last year indicating how many of these recommendations we have already acted upon, and I would be pleased to send him a copy.

March 2, 1973
Oral Questions


ACTION TO ENSURE EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. What steps is he taking to correct the situation that came to light recently in a departmental publication in which it was indicated that three million women in Canada are getting less than equal pay notwithstanding federal and provincial law to this effect? What steps is he taking within his jurisdiction, to correct that unjust situation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is aware that we passed a bill providing for equal pay for men and women at the federal level. It is a good bill, and we are taking action to see that it is implemented for the benefit of all those employees who come under federal jurisdiction. If some of the provinces would pass similar, strong legislation, this would have a noticeable impact on a great many more employees, most of whom come under provincial jurisdiction.


George Harris Hees: That bill is a snow job. It has no teeth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is the minister prepared to meet with his provincial counterparts to achieve the situation he has described in his answer whereby women will be treated equitably and justly all across the country, and will he discuss with his provincial counterparts some standard code across the country?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Ministers of Labour from the provinces will be coming to a meeting in Ottawa some time in the latter part of March or early April, and this undoubtedly will be one of the subject matters to be discussed.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
As he met last Monday with the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec, can he give the House the assurance that changes will be made soon in the feed grain policy and if so, can he assure us that they will reflect the representations of Eastern producers?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we did meet last Monday and there will indeed be a number of other meetings in the course of putting into effect the statement in the Speech from the Throne that prior to the beginning of the next crop year we will have measures in place to ensure fair and equitable pricing of feed grains
fMr. Munro (Hamilton East).]
across the country, always, of course, allowing for inevitable costs of moving and storage. Therefore, the representations of the producers in the province of Quebec are being taken into consideration, as are the representations from other producer groups across the country.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that for eight months the Cape Breton Development Corporation acted illegally in putting miners on the street because of age without the required approval of the Treasury Board, and is he aware that the corporation is continuing to retire people before the normal age of 65 despite a Federal Court ruling which removed that power from the government because the government was acting beyond its jurisdiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has an allegation of illegality against the government or any of its agencies, I think he should address the question to the Minister of Justice.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This gives me the opportunity to call the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that on many occasions I have asked the Minister of Justice to look into this matter. I have also written to the Minister of Justice. I have received no answers in the House or to my letters. It is time that the government and the leader of the government took the responsibility of seeing that the statement made yesterday in the House of Commons by the Minister of National Revenue, to the effect that the Department of National Revenue "is obliged to apply the law as parliament passes it, not as we would like it," is put into effect. If the Minister of National Revenue is going to remain an honest man, the government and the Prime Minister had better do something about this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from the fact-it will not be recorded in Hansard-that the Minister of National Revenue seems to see something in this to laugh about. I point out to him that his integrity is in question on this subject, and I repeat that if he is going to remain an honest man he should do something about this situation.
March 2, 1973


STATUS OF NUTRITION SURVEY
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Some time ago I asked him about the Nutrition Canada survey and he was good enough to promise to get some detail and to say when we could expect the results of the survey to become public. Does he have that information now?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
The survey of Nutrition Canada was the widest ever undertaken in Canada on Canadians' nutrition. During this survey about 28 million data were collected and they now have to be compiled and analyzed. Reports are being prepared for each province; the first ones will be ready by May and the others will be completed in October or in late September.
These reports will be conveyed to the government of each province as soon as they are completed. An agreement has been reached between the provinces and the federal government whereby all papers will be made public when they are ready, as regards all provinces. Even though the first reports will be conveyed to the provinces in late May, I hope to be in a position to make all these documents public by the middle of October. Meanwhile the provinces and the federal government will make a thorough study of them.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Will it be necessary to have the agreement of all the provinces on a course of action before we can expect action on the nutrition survey?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker. The only agreement reached with the provinces about the study was that reports would not be made public on a regional breakdown only, and in order to prevent a biased interpretation for the whole of the country, these reports were not to be made public separately. Of course, each government will be free to act as it sees fit within its responsibilities in the light of the report.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works. It is with regard to the error made by the Treasury Board and the Department of Public Works in awarding the build-lease Public Archives Record Centre contract in Winnipeg to the second lowest bidder when it should have been awarded to the lowest bidder, thereby saving the Canadian taxpay-
Oral Questions
ers $272,000. Will the two ministers order a halt to the second lowest bidder proceeding with any building plans until this matter has been fully investigated and a report made to the House of Commons?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into this matter. I am not aware of it. I will report back to the House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I have written both ministers on this subject, and I have been corresponding with their departments on it for the last three months.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I have given him notice of it. Would the minister inform the House as of February 28, 1973, to what extent has the Export Development Corporation's $850 million authority under sections 29 and 30 of the Export Development Act been exceeded?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this notice. As of February 28 the ceiling has not been exceeded.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister request the Auditor General of Canada to do an audit of the Export Development Corporation's books as of today, so that the House may be assured that the $850 million ceiling has not been exceeded?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider that necessary.


REQUEST THAT CORPORATION GIVE PRIORITY TO CANADIAN COMPANIES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the House if he has requested the Export Development Corporation to better serve Canadian-owned businesses as opposed to foreign corporations and to give more export assistance to small businesses in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we will have a full opportunity, I hope, at an early date to discuss the question of small Canadian-owned businesses and the great benefit that the Export Development Corporation has provided for Canadians and Canadian jobs.

March 2, 1973
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


AIR CANADA REQUEST FOR ROUTE TO PEKING- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the almost historic practice of allocating Atlantic routes to Europe to Air Canada and Pacific routes to Canadian Pacific Airlines, and in view of the fact that in later years routes were allocated to Canadian Pacific in Europe, can the minister assure the House that Air Canada's request for the route to Peking is being sympathetically considered, and will a decision be made at an early date?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think in both cases a decision is going to be made very shortly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Can the minister assure the House that no further erosion of Air Canada routes and opportunities, both in regard to the new landing sites in Europe and at Peking, will be countenanced and those routes will in fact be granted to Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think when the hon. gentleman learns the decision of the cabinet he will be able to draw whatever conclusions he wishes.


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question I asked on February 19 of the Minister of Transport which he answered by letter yesterday. In view of the fact that Canadian National Railways supplied only 13 out of the 207 cars for Okanagan apples shipped to the United States while Canadian Pacific supplied 115, and in view of the fact that the Okanagan fruit industry hauled 79 cars across the border at an expense to them of $15,000 as well as the loss of business because of the lack of Canadian railway cars-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question. I suggest that a question asked in those terms is somewhat irregular. The hon. member should ask the question as quickly as possible without conveying information to the House.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I will do that immediately. Will the minister assure the House that the CNR will now supply cars for this export business?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as of February 21, eight 40-foot cars and four 50-foot cars were on hand in the Okanagan. Twenty-eight 40-foot and 32 fifty-foot cars are standing by in Edmonton and eighteen 40-foot cars in Vancouver. Canadian National system cars that are being supplied are not foreign cars. In summary, CNR have supplied whatever cars have been requested.


WILDLIFE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the strenuous efforts made in the United States-may I start again, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


An hon. Member:: Tell Georgie boy to keep quiet.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In view of the strenuous efforts made in the United States to protect the Canadian timber wolf, what action is the Canadian government taking for the survival of this threatened magnificent species?

Hon. jean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that perhaps this question could be placed on the order paper. In view of the fact we have about reached the end of the question period, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply-whichever minister is responsible.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, a point of order before the minister does reply, I consider this to be a very important question and I want to get an answer this week, since there has been a Canadian wolf displayed in the United States House of Representatives. In view of the fact the wolf population in the United States has been reduced to 350-500 in Minnesota, three to five million in Alaska and 90 in Louisiana of French heritage, which I think are becoming extinct, I really think there should be something that the minister could say.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to attempt to reply to the hon. member. I can assure him that the species is alive and well. I saw the tracks of a wolf just about a mile from my house last weekend. I rather think it was a brush wolf and not a timber wolf because of the spacing between the tracks. I will try to ascertain which it was this weekend and perhaps reassure the hon. member next week.


POLAR BEARS-REQUEST FOR NUMBER SHOT IN ARCTIC
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for that explanation but I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a supplementary. When will the minister be prepared to indicate the number of polar bears shot in the Arctic?

Hon. jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Speaker, a quota has been set for several years on Arctic polar bear killed by Eskimos under Canadian Wildlife Service supervision and I think the situation is quite under control right now; I believe that even in the Churchill area, in Manitoba, they complain that there are too many polar bears.
March 2, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River rises on a point of order.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, the minister finally got up and answered the question, but I feel that he was unduly protected by Your Honour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that these remarks are entirely uncalled for. I will now call orders of the day. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby rises on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could get the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions for a brief statement to be made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to explain the $47 million discrepancy in trade figures announced by his department today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the answer. He has heard a no from one side or o her of the House. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-147, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this bill to increase the old age security pension adjourned last evening, I was making the point that for the vast majority of Canadians, but certainly not for all, these are extremely good days in which to be living in Canada. Because not all are sharing as they should in this general prosperity, it is imperative for us to bring in this legislation, Bill C-147, raising the old age pension to a minimum of $100.
In 1952, the basic universal old age pension was first introduced in Canada by the 21st parliament. It was to be $40 and for those who were 70 years of age and over. I suggested last evening, Mr. Speaker, that if in 1952 a cost of living escalator had been built into the plan, the pension today would amount to $64.62-that is assuming that along the way there were no other lump sum increases, but only percentage increases according to the cost of living.
Old Age Security Act
Today, rather than a $64 or $65 pension, what we have is a basic old age security pension of $100, with a supplement which could bring that amount up to $170 for a single pensioner or $325 for a married couple. As well, in both the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, there is now a built in cost of living escalator. The eligible age has been reduced from 70 to 65 and, in addition to this, there is the Canada Pension Plan for those who have retired fairly recently and those who will retire later. In introducing Bill C-147, the government has opted to follow the principle of universality rather than that of selectivity. The bill is universal in scope, in that the basic old age security pension has been increased to $100 per month. Everyone 65 years old and over will benefit.
At the same time, however, I hope that we have not entirely abandoned the principle of helping those who are in greatest need. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Which-er) reminded the House last evening that the government of British Columbia has decided to add another $30 to certain pensions, in order to help pensioners who are in special need. The federal government, under the costsharing formula, is paying part of that cost. The government of British Columbia has made sure that needy pensioners in that province will be paid at least $200. It astonishes me that Ontario, the richest province in the land, cannot see its way clear to act in the same way. A few days ago, 2,000 pensioners put such a request before the government of Ontario at Queen's Park. They did not see the premier; instead, they were given a nice little talk by the social services minister of Ontario who told them how good and kind the Ontario government had been in the past to the elderly in the province.
I sincerely hope that when the Ontario Legislature goes back to work-it meets so rarely these days-immediate consideration will be given to following the priorities laid down in this House, those to do with decreasing taxes and increasing pensions. I would encourage the needy pensioners of Ontario to keep up their campaign, and continue reminding Premier Davis that his government has some responsibility for helping those who are less fortunate in his very, very wealthy province. Let Ontario add to the pensions of its needy elderly citizens, because the federal government will share in the cost of that increase by virtue of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.
I have already mentioned the year 1952, when the universal old age pension was first introduced in Canada. Reading the Speech from the Throne with which the fifth session of the twenty-first parliament was opened in 1952, the governor general of the day said in part:
The primary reason for summoning you ... is to invite your consideration of a measure to provide increased security for our older citizens ...
That session was convened so that members could enact that important piece of legislation. Notwithstanding any other legislation that this House may enact during the first session of the twenty-ninth parliament, the law we are now considering to increase basic old age pensions will forever stand to the credit of this parliament.
In 1952 when the universal old age pension was first introduced there were 700,000 persons 70 years of age and over who became eligible. Hon. D. C. Abbott, then minis-

March 2, 1973
Old Age Security Act
ter of finance, estimated that the annual cost of the program would be $342 million. Today, there are nearly 1,-
800,000	pensioners who are receiving the basic old age pension and supplement. The total annual cost of the basic pension plus the supplement has now risen to nearly $3 billion. In 1952 the minister of finance, when talking about the $342 million, said that the burden of this duty we are voluntarily assuming is not a light one and that no one should be under any misapprehension about this. He told the House that the cost was a heavy one and reminded the House of the simple proposition that a dollar paid out to one person must first of all be taken from another.
If the cost was considered heavy in 1952, think of the cost of the program today, even if one discounts the factor of inflation. In that year, the government was prepared to spend $342 million. We are now being asked to spend $3 billion on a vastly improved program. The cost is high, there is no question about it. Yet it is a cost which I believe most taxpayers are willing to bear gladly. They bear the taxation for this program gladly because they see it as an insurance policy for their own old age, as a contributory plan for their own retirement. They bear the taxation for this program gladly because they know that the old age security program provides a greater measure of dignified independence for our senior citizens.
Before 1952, a very high proportion of Canadians in retirement were obliged to seek some form of social assistance in order to meet basic needs and just stay alive. If the legislation now being considered passes, it will be possible for all senior citizens, except a small number with special needs, to live without having to apply for social assistance of some kind or other. With respect to those with special needs, such as prescription drugs, care in nursing homes, or in their own homes, the costs can in part be met by the Canada Assistance Plan. The federal government pays 50 per cent of costs incurred under that plan. In addition, if the provinces wish to increase supplements that may be paid to the aged and handicapped, federal cost-sharing assistance is available, as I mentioned earlier.
The present level of taxation in all western countries which is needed to pay for programs such as old age security and many others which have been introduced would have been unthinkable 50, or even 20 years ago. Today, however, there is general acceptance of taxation levels needed to pay for these programs, because they are felt to be the result of social progress. It was pressure from the people themselves which made this progress possible. Under popular influence such social programs as old age security have given new rights to our citizens. I stress that the pension is given as of right. It is not a handout; it is a right of the citizens of our country. It has increased their opportunities and opened roads that were previously closed by poverty and secured people against risks that in earlier times were disastrous for individuals and families.
Despite wars and other adverse events, production has increased and incomes and standards of living of a broad stratum of our national community have been rising more rapidly than ever. As a result, the prospects of the young are much better than the prospects which faced their parents or grandparents when they started out in life. 
Because this is so, I detect in Canada today a general willingness-more than that, an eagerness, a pressure- for a universal pension program which is as generous as possible. This is one government program which provokes few complaints about the amount of money spent on it, even though we are to spend nearly $3 billion.
Speaking as one Canadian, I am proud of the way that Canada has provided a reasonable order of protection for its elderly citizens. Canada is one of the first countries in the world which has provided by legislation that pensioners shall, as a matter of right, without reference to contributions that they may or may not have made to any particular pension plan, and without the imposition of a needs or means test, be guaranteed an income which will permit them to live out their declining years with some measure of security and dignity.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very close to my heart. During the election campaign I continuously stressed the urgency of giving equitable treatment to our golden age citizens. I repeated everywhere that a nation that forgets its senior citizens is a heartless nation. And a government that refuses them a well-deserved comfortable life is a heartless government. I am therefore gratified to a certain degree by the very minor increase granted through this bill, but I recognize with much less gratification the diffidence of the government in a field where hearts with humane feelings should be inspired to greater generosity.
I read attentively the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I expressly say I read it, Mr. Speaker, because while the minister was delivering his speech I was attending a meeting of the House Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and it is one of the drawbacks of our way of proceeding that we should have to sit in a House committee while bills are being debated here in the House.
Still, I did read his speech very carefully and I was struck, right off the start, by the clearly partisan tone which coloured the first words of the minister. He hurried to give all the credit for this measure to a liberal minister, of a liberal government, succeeding other liberal governments, with the result that the liberals alone know what is good for the people, they alone have the monopoly of social security, and without them, we would be very helpless, very miserable.
I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the arrogance reflected in the words of the minister had disappeared as a result of the lesson taught on October 30 last. But it must be that feelings die hard and that attitudes persist in spite of the lessons of the past.
Mr. Speaker, in presenting such an important bill, the minister should have placed himself on a much higher, more detached and serene level. Does he forget, for instance, that public funds do not belong to a party, a minister or a member of parliament, that they belong to the Canadian people, that they are not the exclusive property of the liberal party?
March 2, 1973

Does the minister forget that the public treasury must be managed with wisdom, without any influence reflecting the colour of the distributor?
Has the minister forgotten that, as a Crown minister, he is first and foremost the servant of the people and not a Ceasar who gives arrogantly and says: Accept because I am Ceasar.
Mr. Speaker, on reviewing the speech and studying more thoroughly the legislation brought forward, I wondered whether there really was something to be so proud about. All I need do is reread the hundreds of letters I receive, like other hon. members, to be able to say that the measly allowance granted to senior citizens seems to be an extremely shabby measure to hundreds of Canadians.
When the minister tells us about an increase in his budget, an increase in allowances, he forgets that other increases have also taken place; he forgets that unemployment in this country has reached a record high. As a matter of fact, the rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec has reached 10.2 per cent.
The minister also forgets that the cost of living now stands at an unprecedented level in this country, an aspect which should hang in the balance when the minister brags about his own bill.
Mr. Speaker, my intention is not to give a detailed analysis on this measure. Besides it has been done quite competently and intelligently by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). I would still like to say why we have so much set our heart on this cause of the golden age people, and why we must give so much attention to it.
First, it is a matter of justice. If we consider the position of older people, we must remember the hard work, the sacrifices, the devotion, the taxes they paid, the services they gave and the devotion they showed, for we would not want all that to have been done for nothing.
These people have given us a much better society than the one they had known. The have endowed us with the material comfort which enables successive generations to progress and get better chances of success. They have left us, for instance, their daily experience, their way of living, all this moral heritage revealed by the traditional worth of our people: work, honesty, quest for perfection, faith. They gave whole-heartedly their health, their welfare so as to leave us with a country measuring up to their hopes.
In return, Mr. Speaker, the most elementary justice requires that we permit them, at this awkward age beginning at 60 to enjoy life just like ail other Canadians. This is a question of justice, but also of gratitude.
Gratitude stands among the noblest feelings in the heart of man, and we from Quebec have a motto that we like to repeat: I remember. We remember not only the past, our inheritance, but we are pleased on the occasion of the consideration of this bill to say that we also remember aged people.
It is all very nice, on certain anniversaries, on New Year's Eve, to offer our wishes to our parents, to wish them a long life, but I think that what should express our feelings are neither words nor compliments, but indeed
Old Age Security Act
positive and concrete actions. We have now reached the point where we can stop talking and do something.
It is also a matter of humanitarianism, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to show compassion for under-developed countries. It is a good indiction that we are not fenced in our own country and that we are looking to the world beyond.
We are quick to bring assistance to countries suffering from disasters such as earthquakes, erupting volcanoes or other things. And this is good.
A reconstruction program for North and South Viet Nam which have been ravaged by war for 40 years is now underway. There is agreement to finance this program costing billions of dollars which is good and worthy of praise.
There was even some thought given to prisoners today. During the question period, there were some comments on what is going on in penitentiaries. Authorities agree that penal institutions should be made more conducive to prisoners rehabilitation and reintegration into society. We are willing to spend $8,000 annually for each prisoner. And this is good. There are principles which warrant it. And yet when we Canadians deal with the golden age problems there is stinginess, there are delays, all kinds of pretexts are put forward, the budget is scrutinized and we start talking about priorities. That is a priority issue, Mr. Speaker.
Prior to structures, thorough consideration must be given human persons. I am all in favor of shipbuilding, ecology, highway construction and more embassies. But, there is after all the daily life of those men and women who have reached an age where they need the attention of the government.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am not the least ashamed to say that I will fight to my last breath for those people to whom I have promised it. I might also say that those people are in need of a basic, civilized pension. I have promised to fight for the progressive lowering of the eligible age to 60 so that even this year those who are 64 can receive it. As promised, I am asking the government either to amend the bill or to introduce another measure also beneficial to the spouse of a person already receiving a pension, in the sense that such a spouse be also entitled to the pension.
Mr. Speaker, this government-


Mr. Cyr:: And the provinces.


Claude Wagner: I just heard an hon. member on the government side say: And the provinces. He also is echoing the Minister of National Health and Welfare who seeks by all means, all excuses, all arguments to refuse to recognize the natural rights of those who have reached the golden age.
I am coming to the provinces.
I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government will thus have refused to increase old age security beyond the basic amount of $100. Any proposals along those lines, according to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I quote:
... would cost the federal treasury many more billions of dollars a year.

March 2, 1973
Old Age Security Act
It is true, Mr. Speaker, but it is also true that contrary to the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on February 19 last, the government-contributing to inflation-found enough millions, even billions of dollars to increase substantially its operating expenses. For instance, the estimates of the Department of National Defence rose from $1,933,8 billion in 1972-73 to $2,135,5 billion in 1973-74.
Since defence has come up, Mr. Speaker, I trust that these increased estimates do not contain another Bras d'Or or another Bonaventure, of illustrious memory.
Under the heading of general internal expenditure, Mr. Speaker, we also find a $190 million grant for culture and recreation, which is an increase of $11 million.
Under what they call foreign affairs, the sum has mushroomed from $387,200,000 to $426,600,000.
Under these five major headings alone, the budget estimates have gone up by over $500 million, and the overall budget estimates for 1973-74 are several billion dollars higher than those for 1972-73.
What effort has been made to limit expenditure? None whatever. This is administrative irresponsibility. I therefore find it hard to take when a member of the cabinet, even though he is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, comes here and talks about caution in the use of public money.
It is high time, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government set the example for provinces and municipalities that have not yet put their financial houses in order. But we all know that the present government, caring little about that ideal, is slow to heed the advice of even the Auditor General. Thus, Mr. Speaker, this argument about the limits of public funds, however true in itself, carries little weight coming from the present government.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) made it clear that a Stanfield government would have used a two-pronged approach of increased expansionary budgeting with a temporary across-the-board freeze, many on the other side called this approach irresponsible and simplistic. Had the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) been here throughout the speech by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), he would have seen further evidence of the way in which the government has missed the boat in terms of an economic policy which had truly beneficial implications in the area of social legislation.
Parliament will pass this bill. Yet while we debate here today we have little or no control over those forces which may now be working to relieve the pensioners of Canada of whatever increases we are endeavouring to approve in this parliament. How many pensioners living in nursing homes will find their monthly or annual rates increased just about the time they receive their first augmented cheques? How many will find the rents for their rooms or apartments going up in May? How many will experience the frustration of finally getting a raise only to see it fall into someone else's hands?
Members of this House are aware that the issue of rents is a provincial one. Nevertheless, the 60-90 day freeze would have given the federal government an opportunity to begin discussions with the provinces which could have led to some real restraint being imposed on rent increases. In my own province of Quebec, the government has already acted in a retroactive way to hold down unreasonable rent increases. The federal government has received, to my knowledge, no negative indications from any province with regard to co-operation in this field. The lack of a two-pronged approach in overall budgetary policy is now emerging as a major obstacle to any real social impact being produced in consequence of the increase we are discussing today. Indeed, it seems fair to conclude that this omission on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will serve to cripple and undercut many programs and approaches planned by the government in the future.

Mr. Speaker, this government keeps purposely to the status quo as regards the structure of the old age security plan. The government members will not recognize the needs of a pensioner's spouse, who would be less than 65 years old. Those same government members also close the door against all requests concerning the age of eligibility under the Canada Pension Plan. Now there are 786,000 Canadians between 60 to 64 and the only short-term comfort being offered to 64-year-old people-there are 171,000 of them-is the need for a preliminary and thorough study of an over-all social security policy, with the co-operation of the provinces.
That any matter related to the formulation and objectives of and the responsibility for a social security policy should be a subject of intensive exchanges with provincial governments, we agree to that, because that is real federalism, a federalism that is justified. But that has always been true.
Has this government only discovered since its licking of last October 30, that there are provinces and that those provinces have their own responsibilities and priorities?
What was this government doing at the height of its majority, from 1968 to 1972?
We know what it was doing and that is why, among other things, it was practically defeated on October 30. It was arrogant then, showing no flexibility at all, having no real dialogue with the provinces.
And now this government which was rejected by a great number of Canadians on October 30 is acting the same way towards older people.
Older people in general, especially those between 60 and 64, are paying today the price or part of the price of the arrogance shown by the Liberal government over the four last years.
Incidently, if the Liberal government, its mandarins and some gray eminence, at the time he had the upper hand in the Prime Minister's office, had not been so arrogant with the provinces from 1968 to 1972, a certain Quebec natinal-ist movement would not now have so much power in direct political action.

March 2, J.973

In a different context the Minister of National Health and Welfare now says without any apparent embarrassment, and I quote:
We must look at the question of overall priorities. These priorities have not yet been established. The relative social priorities of benefits for pensioners' spouses or for widows and single women in the same age group, or for disabled people of any age, or for families struggling to raise young children on limited incomes, ought to be closely examined.
And once more the government is confirming our own way of thinking when we said, during the last election campaign, that a national conference on Canadian priorities should be convened. Without governing the country we knew it but withdrawn in their ivory tower, they took years to learn it and recognize it.
It is true that in April a federal-provincial conference will take place on the overall social security policy. But this should not prevent the present Minister of National Health and Welfare from opening avenues and from adopting a progressive attitude.
I found very curious, Mr. Speaker, the two-fisted approach of the minister in introducing this bill yesterday. With one hand open wide, he spoke of how much the increase was and how important it would be to the senior citizens across Canada. At the same time, with the other hand the minister was very close fisted with regard to further progress in old age security planning in the future.
I find it very difficult to understand how a minister who spends a full 30 per cent of his speech extolling his party's commitment to progress in the social legislation field over the years can then spend almost as much time in his speech erecting obstacles to further progress in the field dealt with by the bill. His concentration on the administrative and fiscal arguments against progressing to the point where 60 would be the age of eligibility for a pension seems both overdone and somewhat reactionary. There were no fiscal impediments to mismanagement on the part of the government with regard to the Bras d'Or or the Bonaventure. There are no fiscal impediments to wild election promises, unsubstantiated by main or supplementary estimates. But when it comes to Canada's senior citizens, there always appear to be some fiscal impediments. That is the type of low priority that the government and this minister obviously attach to this area of social legislation. While this bill may be all right as far as it goes, I believe that it is essential that this parliament be on record as saying that in this area of social legislation we really can do better.
What the minister should have done, and indeed what thousands of senior citizens had a right to expect, was for him to make, along with this bill, a firm commitment to explore a reduction of the eligibility age to 60. We know very clearly the employment difficulties that those in their late fifties with no direct skill have. We know what type of employment insecurity the entire population endures, let alone the 50 to 65 group. While these social concerns should have been enough to encourage the minister to embark upon some commitment, surely the one rationale for this approach should be purely humanitarian.
Old Age Security Act


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry I must interrupt the hon. member, but it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, before the recess, I was trying to encourage the minister to adopt a humanitarian approach to this whole field of old age pensions. There are many who are suggesting, and quite frankly I happen to agree, that the old measures of a society's success, such as the gross national product and the balance of payments, are not all that relevant to the society in which most of us live. Many are saying that a society's success relates to its ability in terms of a meaningful social audit to measure up to standards of human dignity and social equality. It is in terms of this audit that we remain in the red, with so many just into or passed their prime. We have a responsibility to at least commit ourselves to balancing this particular section of the social ledger through progressive policies aimed at reducing the years of hardship for so many Canadians. It is the area of commitment to future policies that the minister has left far too much unsaid, and he has allied himself with those reactionary arguments that have always plagued societies seeking some very real social progress.
The area of social legislation is not one that can be attacked in short spurts either before risky elections or after inconclusive ones. This is an area of national policy that must have top priority at all times. The area of old age security legislation must not be closed off for a year or even a day. No bill must be allowed to be viewed as the end of any evolution. If Canadians are to have an integrated and comprehensive social legislative package to live with, its continued evaluation and re-examination must be looked at as a major priority for all levels of government.
I truly regret that the minister chose in yesterday's speech to cut off the question of lowering the elegibility. For him and for his government, this is a retrograde step. I think that while it is perhaps parliamentary form for the Liberal government to underestimate its opposition in this House and in the country, it is poor form for that same government to underestimate the Canadian people, their compassion and understanding.
Like most members, I come from a riding where concern for the aged is not confined to the aged. I come from a riding where people care more about each other and want to contribute to each other's welfare. This country, in my view, is made up of that type of person. This government has a responsibility to reflect that concern. This government is not being representative when it closes doors, as did the minister yesterday, to further progress in the old age security field. Indeed, it is doing a great disservice to those who look to government for leadership in the social field.

March 2, 1973
Old Age Security Act
I should like to associate myself and my colleagues with the thoughts expressed in the Senate Report on Poverty: To do what must be done will certainly cost money. Lack of action will cost many times more. What inaction will cost in lost humanity will cost many times more . .. Canadian people whose lives are spent in a far different world are ready to face the challenge ... it is for the citizens of Canada to demand that this be our priority project for the seventies ... we need search no further for a national purpose-
In closing, Mr. Speaker, no utterances seem to me more striking and more thought-provoking at the same time than those of Mr. Hubert de Ravinel whose charity organization dedicated to the golden age, the Little Brothers of the Poor, is so greatly admired and so worthy of our support.
In an interview given to the magazine Actualite in December 1972, Mr. Hubert de Ravinel expressed himself as follows:
An existence shared between day-to-day petty worries and the dreary view of a slummy back yard, or the solitude of a big institution for the aged ... waiting for pensions to be increased, for problems to be alleviated, each day similar to the one before, the monotony of an unchallenging future, such are, in brief, the board horizons offered to the senior citizens of our cities.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this House will see to it that the description given by Mr. Hubert de Ravinel will in time become just a bad memory.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured as a member of the government to comment on Bill C-147 entitled: An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. This bill is intended to increase the basic amount of the old age security pension from $80 to $100 per month effective April 1, 1973, with future escalation to commence May 1, 1974. Because of the escalation now in effect, the monthly pension that has been paid since January 1, 1972 is $82.88.
I would like to join with all my colleagues to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) for his quick response to the request of senior citizens who are rightfully asking the Canadian government to help them through an increase in the basic rate of pension, which will enable them to live more decently and to continue, even during their years of retirement, to do their duty as citizens and to be proud as Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I sent a questionnaire to all my constituents of Gamelin, and nobody will be surprised to learn that most of those who were kind enough to answer and to add some comments were mainly concerned with the welfare of our senior citizens, either with regard to pensions or to housing. It is precisely in that direction that this government is going.
I know that in Canada there are still some glaring injustices. It is not easy to eliminate them all at the same time. The present government is now trying to help first the most destitute, especially old people, large families, disabled persons, the unemployed and small wage-earners.
It is certain, as mentioned in the throne speech, that the next important piece of social legislation will be to

increase family allowances in order to make them as generous as old age pensions.
Mr. Speaker, it is good sometimes to compare oneself with others, to tell all Canadians what is going on outside our country, and to learn that Canada remains a forerunner in many fields, particularly in the area of social assistance. I have with me an article from the Toronto Globe and Mail, dated February 16, 1973. That article indicates that the old people in the United Kingdom, even if that country has now a Conservative government-maybe they are the elder brothers of our Progressive Conservatives- receive pensions that are not as generous as those received by ours, and I quote:

A retired person receives $16.70 a week if single. The state pension for a married couple is $27.25 a week.
If the old person has no income or savings, he or she can apply for supplementary benefits worth about $1 a week as well as for other payments to cover rent averaging $7.50.

And that's not all, Mr. Speaker.

Just recently pensions were increased,-

Just imagine what they were previously. And I quote further:

-with both unions and the government claiming credit though pensioners themselves played a role by staging a demonstration outside the House of Commons.

In fact, the senior citizens of Canada did not have to demonstrate in front of the House of Commons. This government had already increased the basic pension from $75 to $80 in April 1971, as well as the guaranteed income supplement to $55 a month for single people and to $47.50 for each spouse when both members of a married couple are eligible.
For those who received the GIS, the total pension was subject to an annual increase based on their pension tied to the cost of living index. We know that now total pensions will go up with the cost of living thanks to the new bill now before the House: single people who get the GIS will be entitled to $170.14 a month, and married couples to $324.60.
The old age security pensions amounted to $40 a month in 1952; from April 1, 1973 it will be $170.14 a month, including the GIS; of course, this represents an increase of over 400 per cent.
As a Canadian, I am proud to say that Canada is the first country in the world to provide that protection to the elderly. Canada is the first country in the world having legislated that people be eligible for a pension notwithstanding contributions they may or may not have paid into a pension plan and without subordination to various tests. The Canadian people are being guaranteed a revenue allowing them to live their retirement years with security and self-respect.
March 2, 1973

In order to improve the financial position of all Canadians 65 or over, this government has granted a substantial tax reduction for the year 1972. This applies instead of the additional tax exemption of about $650 granted to people having reached 70 years of age by the previous plan. Then, on reaching 65, people were entitled to a reduction of $1,000, which means that a single person 65 years old or over was entitled to the basic exemption of $1,500, plus an exemption of $100 for charitable donations, plus another $1,000, which altogether represented a $2,600 exemption for the year 1972, whereas the exemption for 1973 will amount to $2,700, plus a supplementary 5 per cent exemption its minimum being $100 and its maximum $500.
In the case of the couple 65 years old or over, similar reductions have been granted by this government.
In 1972, the total exemption could vary from $4,950 to $5,200 whereas, in 1973, with the adoption of the last budget introduced in the House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the tax exemptions will still increase.
According to the comments I have received from my fellow citizens in reply to questionnaires, many of them wish the old age pensions were granted to people 60 years old or over. In their views, this would be a practical way of creating jobs and allowing young people to find work more easily.
I think that this recommendation deserves to be thoroughly discussed right now, because in a few years, most workers will be entitled to the maximum under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. Indeed, the cost of the guaranteed income supplement will be decreasing, and I hope that those additional funds will be used to gradually lower the age of retirement, as it was done in 1966.
Yesterday afternoon, the minister said, and he gave some figures, that it was now difficult to look after citizens aged between 60 and 64. As so many others, government members would have preferred to see the situation or the lot of those people improved and since the minister and his provincial counterparts will meet in April to deal with that problem, we hope that a solution will be found in the very near future.
Other valuable suggestions have also been made. It has been suggested that the pensioner's wife, aged 60, should also get the pension and the guaranteed income supplement in some cases. If the legislation allowed the wife to receive the pension, that would be unfair to a widow or a single person who is 60 years old. I would agree if in the future all women of 60 or over could get the pension when they reach 60.
In my opinion, women at that age are facing difficulties greater than those which men may be up against. Even today many European countries already allow 65-year-old men and 60-year-old women to receive a pension. That is an approach which we could surely suggest here, and I agree with other hon. members that we should get on with it as quickly as possible, perhaps on the basis of the same principle used last year to phase down the eligibility age for pension. We should start to deal forthwith with that problem now confronting us.
Old Age Security Act
As long as we will not lower to 60 the eligibility age for pension to all persons, there will be reasons and obligations to keep on paying assistance benefits with the cooperation of the provinces on the basis of equal contributions. Each citizen has a right to assistance if his situation does not allow him to receive a sufficient income, and if my information is correct, the province of Ontario allocates to the spouse of a pensioner in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement an additional sum so that the couple receives at least $235 a month.
I wish the province of Quebec and all the other Canadian provinces could prove as generous in the future, because that assistance is also paid by the federal government on the basis of contributions.
One Canadian province already uses federal funds to help those who need it most; in British Columbia, old age pension and a guaranteed income supplement amount to $200 a month, and only half of those $30 is coming out of the provincial coffers.
Senior citizens also have a right to an active contribution to the community, and today 709,000 men between ages 55 and 64 have a job and 270,000 women of the same age group are also part of the labour force throughout this country.
It is acknowledged and accepted that compulsory retirement can destroy whatever has been and is important to the person who is forced to retire. That means that the establishment of a fixed age for retirement should be avoided and that the eligibility for jobs should be made easy until such time as a person wishes to retire or has to do so on grounds of illness. However, perhaps we should help the elderly person to withdraw gradually from regular employment, redefine the social role of a pensioner and encourage the greatest possible number of retired people to participate in community life.
Such ideas are not at all conflicting with the principle of the guaranteed annual income for people ranging from 60 to 64 years of age, but they suggest programs which would add to the financial assistance so as to give retired people the opportunity to put their idle knowledge and experience at the service of others. A fine example of this is the New Horizons program.
In conclusion, and subject to budgetary considerations, the federal government should first consider introducing a guaranteed annual income for people 60 to 64 years old. For the first year, if necessary, the pension should be granted to the 64-year olds, the age being reduced each year until the entire group is included. Then, the guaranteed annual income could very well be a little less than the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement combined. Finally, the program should at least provide an income equal to the guaranteeed income supplement.
Moreover, some tax legislation should be brought in jointly with the provinces to encourage the gradual transition from full employment to retirement, by putting at the individual's disposal means to engage in useful and creative occupations and to remove or reduce the age limit specified in the pension plans.
In co-operation with the provinces, programs should be developed to create part-time jobs, which would stimulate the participation in community life.

March 2, 1973
Old Age Security Act
Mr. Speaker, another area also affects people who are 65 years old and I think it is not the least important. When people become 65, they are often forced to leave their jobs. These people go to unemployment insurance offices where often steps are taken so that it is impossible for a man or a woman of that age to qualify for the benefits they are entitled to.
As chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, I remember that in 1971, when we passed this act, a worker who was 65 could choose to stay in the labour force-and, of course, he did not get a pension under the Canada or the Quebec pension plans-or to go on working; then he had to be helped to find a job and allowed to get his benefits as it is the case for every other Canadian worker.
I would invite this group of citizens to be careful when they meet people who have responsible positions in these unemployment insurance offices and to be available to take on the jobs they could be offered.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I remain optimistic as far as the economic and social progress of Canada is concerned. We meet everywhere Canadian men and women who are responsible, who are capable of leading and organizing their own lives, who are aware of their responsibilities and their needs and I invite them to go on trusting the present government, so that together we get more and more in the world the position and the influence we deserve.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again in this House on a Friday afternoon. My seatmate and I were discussing the formation of a new type of club, the Friday and Monday club. This club would have one difference in that members of it would attend on Friday and Monday when it seems so much easier to get the Speaker's eye than on the other days of the week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: This leads into my opening remarks. I am at my wits end to discover why any of us are here discussing this bill at this time. This is government legislation. I listened with interest yesterday to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) when they both agreed on behalf of our party that we would surrender our speaking positions on this bill if we could get agreement with the other parties to send it to committee. I do not think there is a soul in this House who intends to vote against this bill. If there is, I would be glad to surrender my place to him right now and we could move on with this legislation.
In my constituency of Victoria, British Columbia, there is a fine club for the elderly known as the Silver Threads Club. If they had the unanimity at their meetings that this House has on this particular legislation, they could handle the business more quickly than this House of Commons seems able to. Why has the bill not gone to committee? The government does not seem to want that to happen at this time. They are supported, although I think in error,

by the New Democratic Party, those who desire to talk about this bill rather than act on it. Certainly, the rather peculiar position of the government is that, in one sense, they are obstructing their own legislation. If the parties could come to an agreement, I would be glad to surrender the floor right now and have this bill go to committee.
It seems that we are not able to come to any agreement on this, Mr. Speaker. We seem to be the only party who would give up our right to waffle about this bill rather than act on it.


Erik Nielsen: Why are you filibustering your own bill over there? We are going to vote for it.


An hon. Member:: What's the rush?


An hon. Member:: The aged are in a rush.


Erik Nielsen: I will be eligible for the pension myself by the time this is through.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It could be that the Liberal party so seldom does anything for the aged of this country that they must get the last ounce of gratitude out of the elderly people. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we must talk about it instead of acting upon it, I presume I may as well do as some of the other members have and speak for a time on the history of it, not trying to deceive the people of Canada with statistics as has been done by others in the last few days.
The history of the old age pension did not commence in 1952; it was instituted in England in 1908. The Old Age Pensions Act was passed to establish a non-contributory system of pensions and it was amended in 1911, 1919, 1924 and 1925. The last amendments provided for contributory pensions for certain classes of persons. So they were talking about contributory pensions in England then, Mr. Speaker.
When I read the minister's speech yesterday-I was unable to be here as I was called to a committee meeting- I learned that he spent a great deal of time, as did the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), talking about what the country could afford. I should like to refer to something that was said about that bill in 1908 and hon. members will understand if it has a familiar ring. In 1899 Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said that the British scheme, which proposed to give pensions to everybody, was beyond the resources of the state, that it would make no distinction between the improvident and the thrifty, the drunkard and the spendthrift. He said that they should put aside at once every further attempt to secure compulsory contributions from working classes, which was the system in operation on the continent. So, Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the less they change it seems.
The pension was introduced in Canada in 1927 as a result of the previous election. The act was dated 1927 and stated that the maximum pension payable should be $240 a year, subject to reduction by the amount of the income of the pensioner in excess of $125 a year. We started at $20 a month. Who was responsible for starting this off? Everyone knows that the party in office at that time was the Liberal party. Anybody who wishes to be confused about
March 2, 1973

the history of old age pensions need only listen to members of the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party trying to claim to be the parents of that act. The New Democratic Party claim that they are the true and only sons and daughters of the CCF whose parentage is a little cloudier. In 1927 the Liberals were sustained by the Progressive party, as they are now by the NDP. Many of the Progressives became Liberals-some became Progressive Liberals, some became Senators and some faded away, but there was a kernel there which after being buried on the Prairies for six years, became the CCF. For them to claim that, through Mr. Woodsworth, they were the instigators of the old age pension is rather like claiming responsibility for this measure because of Hazen Argue.
We know that the Liberal party introduced this bill under a certain amount of pressure; I should like to think it was from the Progressives who went over to the Liberal party. In any case, old age pensions were introduced some 20 years after having been enacted in England. The New Democratic Party claim that, as a result of the CCF party being born in 1933, they had some peculiar prenatal influence on this legislation. When I say "prenatal" I mean that in a little different sense from the normal; they claim the unborn baby of the CCF somehow influenced the legislation six years before it was born.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) discussing the early days of the pension and he cleared up one point for me. I assumed the pension had gone from $20 to $40 in one jump, so I am glad to learn from his remarks that it went from $20 to $30. That, of course, is a jump of 50 per cent but the minister stated yesterday that the present rise is the greatest in pensions since the year one. I submit that a rise from $20 to $30, being 50 per cent and ten hard dollars, may have meant more to recipients then than the rise today of $13.39.
Elections followed in the natural course and, by a strange co-incidence, increases in the old age pension seemed to coincide more nearly with elections than with any other events in our history. Pensions increased to $40 and then to $46 just before the Liberal debacle of 1957; and, from $46 they went to $61. For the benefit of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) who, when talking about people in elderly brackets, referred to the penuriousness of the Conservative government, may I point out that a Victoria radio station every year holds an open line contest as to who is the most popular living Canadian. Many elderly people listen to this program and answer and ask questions on it. They make up about one third of our population. The most popular living Canadian in the minds of the elderly of Victoria is the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: His government was the first to adopt the idea that old age pensions could be raised substantially, if necessary; and that was certainly necessary in those days. So, the pension went up to $61. In 1962, it was raised by another $10, according to the minister. Then, in 1963 it
Old Age Security Act
was again raised by $10. This is when history apparently started because, if you accept the minister's calculation with respect to the $15 and $10 raise in pensions, the pension in 1962 must have been $65.
If this bill passes, and it is sponsored by a reluctant government, the pension will increase slightly. The difference between $65 and $82.88 is not great, dollar-wise or percentage-wise, especially when you consider that government revenues in the same period have just about tripled, to judge from the estimates. This year the government will spend more than $20 billion; in 1962 government expenditure was around $7 billion. If the old age pension were to increase at the same rate as the government's revenues increase, the old age pensioner would be feeling about as fat and happy as the government feels.
The next question is, can we afford substantial increases? There was much talk in the election campaign about the size of the old age pension and about how much it should be increased. We heard lots about this from the NDP. I am baffled as to why the NDP should continually be asking my party how much increase it would have given old age pensioners. Why did they not ask the Liberals how much they promised?


An hon. Member:: We did.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I will tell you why they do not ask. The Liberals did not promise a red cent; not a penny, and it is ludicrous for the NDP to give their unquestioned loyalty to the party which, during the election campaign, did not promise a single extra penny to old age pensioners. If the Liberals were not in their present perilous position, it is probable that they would not have given a penny extra.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: There has been some talk about how much my leader promised during the election campaign. I wish to put my version of the facts on record. In Victoria the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) met the press at a press conference about the first of September and he said that a $10 increase might have been enough to compensate for the increased cost of living in April or May. By September, the cost of living had accelerated rapidly and my leader said that he thought $15 should be the amount of the increase. Let me point out that $15 and $82.88 comes to $97.88. That was our suggested figure on September 1, in view of the way costs were escalating.
Our leader refused to participate in the auction on old age pensions. It is very easy for the party on our left to suggest that $150 should be paid, but it is not so easy for a party that is likely to assume power to make such promises. None the less, we all expected a great deal more from the Liberal party than we have been given so far. So, in future I would appreciate it if the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when speaking on what the party I support promised the old age pensioner, would be more factual in their statements. The figure was $97.88.
Let us now consider modern times. Yesterday i consulted Hansard and looked at the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I read over the words

March 2, 1973
Old Age Security Act
he had spoken so bravely on January 12 about what his party wanted in the way of an increase. It was to be substantial, Mr. Speaker. If one were a new student of English and reading the speech delivered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on January 12, one could be forgiven for assuming that substantial and increase together form one word, because the hon. member never used one without the other. I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if a $13.39 increase is his understanding of a substantial increase?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: No.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The difference between $82.88 and $150 is quite large; I regret the small size of the increase as much as the hon. member does. I regret that the hon. member was unable to have his way in this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I understand the position the hon. member is in. He is in much the same position as I am. I do not think the increase is worth very much, either, but it is better than none, I suppose. This leads one to this conjecture; how small would the increase need to have been before the hon. member and his party would have considered it an insult and refused to support it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, $97.88 would have been the figure.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the difference between $97.88 and $100 is $2.12. The hon. member is drawing a very fine line. It would appear that the party on my left really did not require any particular amount and that their attitude to the government was, "If you want us, just whistle."
Before the budget was brought down we wondered how much the increase in the old age pension would be. I guessed that it would be increased to $120 because I did not think the government could count on NDP support for any length of time if the pension went much below $120. On days when I was feeling good I thought it might increase to $130, and on days when I did not feel so good I thought the increase might be down to $115. Never in my wildest predictions did I think the pension would be so low, as a couple of distinguished members of the party to my left had demanded a substantial increase in the basic pension. I did not think, in view of the position of power which that party now occupies, that it would buy the increase to $100. When the government introduced the figure of $100, I turned to my seatmate that night and said, "The NDP will never support this." I am afraid I either overestimated the principles of the NDP or underestimated their fear of an election.
Why was the pension plus guaranteed income supplement increased to $170? That is a rather strange figure, although there is some rationale for it. If you have less than $170 a month, you are liable to starve to death or die of neglect. That amount, I suppose, will just enable one to buy shelter and food, and nothing else. That is why the figure of $170 was chosen. So, in considering $170, which is made up of the basic old age pension plus the supplement, we are considering an anount that will just enable

one to exist. It represents the barest minimum of existence. Everyone knows that you cannot live on $82.88 or $100. Therefore, the present old age pension is only a partial payment to enable old age pensioners to live at the barest subsistence level.
I am in favour of the universal approach, as is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, probably for reasons he did not mention yesterday. Under this kind of legislation, when it is so easy to apply, there is a great temptation on the part of some people to cheat a little bit. Can you blame them? They have been so grievously wronged that one can hardly blame them for cheating a little bit when the occasion arises. Some civil servant puts a piece of paper before them and says, "All you have to do is sign this piece of paper and you will get the supplementary payment. If you sign it, you will get; if you do not sign it, you will not." Many of our old people, when they realize how much they have contributed to our society and how little they are now getting from it, will be tempted to sign and so obtain the supplement. They know what they are doing, but one can hardly blame them when it is made so easy to cheat.
There are other ways of cheating, other ways of getting around the regulations. If you own property, you can turn it over to your children before you reach 65 years of age. I suppose another way of getting around the asset problem is to keep your money in a sock in the garden. They are only allowed to have so much.
When drafting legislation of this nature, we should consider the people who have to deal with it. I draw this to the attention of the minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Act. If something could be done to simplify that complex legislation, it would be a great boon to society and the administration of government. The Unemployment Insurance Act is very complex. Some of the people who draw unemployment insurance may understand it, but those administering it at the lower level certainly do not.
I wish to correct the statement made this morning by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) while trying to tell us how pure and virtuous the Liberals are. He stated that the British Columbia government added $30 to the pension to increase it to $200. Any sense of fairness and equity should impel an hon. member to state that the British Columbia government added not $30, but $50. The federal government is now catching up a little by increasing the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement to $170. It was $150 when the NDP government in that province, headed by Mr. Barrett, brought out the $200 a month income.
So that it will not appear I am turning toward the NDP, I must state that my understanding now is that this federal basic pension increase will not be passed on to some of the pensioners in British Columbia. Those receiving the guaranteed income supplement will not be getting $230 a month. They will still receive $200. The federal government monies will simply go into the general revenue to help British Columbia pay for the increase. I am not critical of this attitude of the British Columbia government, in view of the difficulty they have had getting the
March 2, 1973

federal government to assume its rightful share of the $50 a month increase for those receiving the guaranteed income supplement.
Another problem that has been concerning us is whether the pension should be paid to spouses below the age of 65. I have seen quite a few examples of this problem in my province. When the husband retires, there is a drastic drop in income. If the wife is a dependent spouse, one who is not working, she receives no pension to help defray household expenses. Other civilized countries have this type of legislation. In the United Kingdom the retirement age for men is 65 and for women, 60. In Italy, the retirement age for men is 60 and for women, 55. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is listening, because yesterday he told us we were light years ahead of every other civilized country. The retirement age in Poland is 65 for men and 60 for women. In Sweden, the forerunner of the social movement, both have to be 67; in the United States both 65 and in Denmark 67 for men and 62 for women.
We will not be breaking fresh ground if we give a pension to spouses at the age at which their husbands become entitled to a pension. There might be a floor established whereby the spouses could receive a pension at age 60 provided they are not working. Almost everyone who has anything to do with elderly people realizes the desperate straits they are in when a man retires and the income drops from an average of say $700 a month to $170.
Another area that should be looked at is providing federal help for elderly people who have to spend their last few years in extended care hospitals. This is a great problem in British Columbia. Quite a few people come to British Columbia from other provinces who eventually reach the stage where they need extended care hospitalization. This is generally paid out of their own pocket. Our new government has promised action on this, but it is not yet forthcoming. This is a very serious problem. They have a bit of ghoulish humour in Victoria; you are never allowed to die until you are broke. Nursing homes and extended care hospitals are a quick way of achieving this. An elderly person on an old age pension who is suddenly faced with a hospital bill of $400 to $600 a month that is going to continue for the rest of his life very quickly loses interest in carrying on.
I intend to vote for this bill. I would be glad to vote for it right now to get it moved along one stage. I wish the amount were larger.


An hon. Member:: How much larger?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: When we were estimating how much you people were willing to spend to stay in power, and how much pressure we thought the NDP could put on you, we thought it would be somewhere between $115 and $130. Our party would have voted for that had you introduced it. I would like to see the insulting increases of the past few years, 42 cents and $2.88, avoided. I intend to vote for this bill and the sooner the better.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), raised the curtain of
Old Age Security Act
history yesterday and gave us a very thorough story of how old age pensions came to Canada, I thought it would not be necessary for any of us to refer to it again. However, some of what I have subsequently heard makes me realize that some of the things that were left out, even by my thorough colleague for Winnipeg North Centre, need to be said on the historical side before we go any further afield.
Both the Liberal and Conservative parties had been in office at various times since Confederation, but there was not a single piece of social security legislation on the statute books until the end of World War I. When the old age pension legislation was finally forced on the Liberal government of the day, it became the first piece of social security legislation on the statute books of this country. It is very significant that it did not get there as a result of the efforts of either the Liberal or Conservative administrations of the past.
Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) stated that this was the largest increase that had ever been made in the old age pension. I am not very good at arithmetic, but in my opinion the best increase was the first pension that was ever paid, because going from nothing to $20 in those days was really something. After all, this was done after many years of stalling, stalling, stalling on the part of both Liberal and Conservative governments. And pressure was exactly what was needed to get it in 1927. That is why we got it at that time and there is no need to worry about who is claiming credit for it; the record is there in Hansard of the day. Some of these people who spin fine fancies as to how it got there should just go back and look at the pages of Hansard and they would have no doubt as to how it all happened.
As a matter of fact, listening to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) throwing all kinds of unflattering remarks in our direction, I was quite entertained, because he went through the geneology rapidly as to how the Progressive party faded out after 1921 and how some of them had faded out into the Senate-you would expect them to fade there-how others had faded out in the Liberal party-you would expect them to fade there-and how others had faded out in subsequent election contests, and you would expect them to fade there. But what he did not point out was that from all this there emerged an instrument of strength among men and women in this country who believed it was time that ordinary people in Canada, doing the ordinary work of farm, field, factory and household, stuck together to make a party of their own in order to get things done rather then having them just talked about.
If the hon. member for Victoria still has any doubts as to how old age pensions got onto the statute books, I would urge him to look back in Hansard and he will find out how the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who was the leader of the Conservative party at that time, turned to J. S. Woodsworth when the prime minister of the day, Mr. Mackenzie King, was bragging about how his administration put in old age pensions. Mr. Bennet turned to J. S. Woodsworth and said-these are his exact words-he was the man who forced this measure on a reluctant govern-

March 2, 1973
Old Age Security Act
ment. So if there is any authority required, I think the hon. member for Victoria will find it there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I doubt that it is a proper point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to say that I regret the submission the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has made. I agree almost entirely with what she has said, and I did not in any way intend to put down Mr. Woodsworth, for whom I have very deep admiration. I agree with the hon. member that the party on the other side never would have put in the legislation without his urging.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Before the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway continues, I would point out to the hon. member for Victoria that he did not, of course, raise a proper point of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I would like to say that I was not worrying about what was said about Mr. Woodsworth. What I was concerned about was urging the hon. member to go back and look at the Hansard reports of those days. There is no need to speculate about the circumstances; the written record is there.
I think we now have referred to enough facts in this connection. But I want to point out that even as people in those days were in a mood to get old age pensions on the statute books and intended to see legislation put there to that effect, they were organized to this end. And so, today, people in this country are in a mood to get things done as well. While I have heard members to my right speak in very beautifully couched and glowing sentences about how this is a very mean amount to give the old age pensioners and how, once they take office, endless and bountiful pensions will descend into the laps of old age pensioners, until the hon. member for Victoria spoke a few minutes ago I had not the faintest idea what amount his party intended with regard to old age pensions. Now, thank goodness, I have a very definite answer. They intended to give the old age pensioners $97.88. Well now, I think the old age pensioners, while they may not all be happy at having elected the Liberals to power, certainly will not feel they missed anything by not electing to power the bargain basement outfit to my right who would have given them $97.88.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am very grateful that under the prodding of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre the hon. member for Victoria has at last broken down and given us the figure the Progressive Conservative party considers to be appropriate for old age pensions, the sum of $97.88.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I think the hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Otto Emil Lang: Sit down.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: My point of order is, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is confusing the tense of my remarks. I said we promised that on September 1. I did not say that it was what we would now be satisfied with. Time marches on, even among the best of us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: That is not a proper point of order. I must remind the hon. member that the rules do not allow him to rise without consent unless he has a proper point of order. He may not use the occasion to raise a point of debate or give an explanation.


Winona Grace MacInnis: If you can take it, Mr. Speaker, so can I. The point is that if the $97.88 was promised on September 1, I would be prepared to bet it would not be higher now, because that date was just before the election. However, I would not want to do the hon. member an injustice. If the figure the Conservative party has in mind is different from what it was at that time, I wish they would tell the House what it is. We have been trying for some time to get them to name the figure they would set for old age pensions.
It is all very well to describe what they would have done in the most glowing and attractive terms. But what the old age pensioners want to know is, how much? So far, the figure of $97.88 is the only one I have been given. If there is a later amount, I think it would be a good idea for a speaker from that party to give the exact figure they propose now, before lowering the boom again on some subsequent speaker. It might be to their advantage to do so.
The fact is that there have been nine increases in old age pensions since the program was first established. Two of the increases have been made under Conservative administrations. It may be that this was because the Conservatives were not allowed to stay in power very long- they can have it that way if they wish-or, if they were in power, that they were not much more generous than they were last September.
I left out one footnote to history, Mr. Speaker, and I would just like to bring it forward. When J. S. Woodsworth and A. A. Heaps sent that famous and historical letter to Mackenzie King, I think it was the first and the last time in recorded history that Mackenzie King ever signed his name to a promise; he knew that a sharp and pointed instrument was aimed at a vulnerable part of his anatomy and he knew it was time to sign. When that happened, the Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was then the leader of the party of my friends to the right, was also sent the same letter. Mr. Meighen, with the same caution which is being displayed by his party today, sent back a lawyer's answer to the question, "Will you give us old age pensions for Canada?" He sent back a lawyer's answer that meant, "We'll see". Well, he was not given the chance to take office. The other party was sustained because although they did not give people all they wanted even then, they did give something concrete and tangible.
I think people to my right ought to take a lesson from that. People today want something concrete and not just glowing promises. It is like the girl who was boasting
March 2, 1973

about her fiance and said to her friend, "He said he would lay the earth at my feet". Her friend replied, "I would rather have a roof over my head". I think the old age pensioners feel that way too. Although we have had to fight very hard to even get this much-we still want $150- the old age pensioners will remember history and realize that we were the ones who got them the old age pension in the first place. We are the ones who have been fighting successive administrations for these raises ever since, and if the pensioners ever do receive $150 we will be the ones who got it for them.
Enough of history. Let me now come to more modern times. Every time this question is raised, we hear people ask where we are going to get the money from. We feel there are plenty of places that could be scrutinized and from which we could get the money. For example, what about the famous corporation tax reductions that are supposed to be coming before the House? I suggest that instead of bringing that measure forward, the Department of National Health and Welfare be given first refusal because it could put that amount of money to good use.
Of course we should be making provision for certain other groups in this country. It is ridiculous to expect two elderly people to exist in their old age on one pension. Yet there are thousands apd thousands of cases where the wife does not qualify for old age pension by reason of age and where she has to try-pitifully-to get along by making her husband's pension stretch for the two of them. If, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) says, the measure of our civilization is how we treat our fellow humans, then I say that our civilization is still at a very low ebb in view of the form of torture to which we subject these elderly people by making them exist on one pension.
One of the very next measures that should be put before the House is one making it possible for wives of older pensioners who themselves are not working to qualify for a pension. After all, they have to be housekeepers and look after their older husbands; therefore they should be provided with the means of life. We should also consider moving the age limit down from 65 to 60, just as it was moved down from 70 to 65. Why cannot that be done? The Minister of National Health and Welfare said yesterday that there may be a few low paid workers who would like to retire at the age of 60. Let me tell him that this country is full of people who are ill, weak or handicapped at the age of 60 and who have no means of support until they reach age 65. We should find money to enable us to look after the handicapped, the partially disabled and the sick.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, if we do not look after these people by giving them a decent pension we will have to look after them through additional costs of hospitals, mental institutions and these wretched nursing homes where so many of them have to be confined. So we shall have to pay in any event, but we will be paying for broken, disabled and miserable people whom we could have saved for a happy and effective old age. It is true that we can weep over mothers and fathers who are single parents and the sole support of their children. But there is no sense just weeping over their woes; we must do something about them. We must help them support themselves
Old Age Security Act
and raise the citizens of the future by providing them with pensions or allowances.
It seems to me we are dealing with this problem as though we were looking at a sinking ship and saying that there are only enough lifeboats to save certain people and that others will have to drown. We are deciding whether we ought to save single parents or throw them overboard, or whether we should save the wife of a pensioner of the old age pensioner himself, since both are unable to get along on one pension. I suggest we should not be satisfied with anything short of a policy that looks after all these people.
How silly it is to maintain a military establishment in the world that we have today. All the military hardware that we have is for what? It is no use in this world or in the next. It is a sheer waste of time and money, of good brains and good people to turn our energies into that particular channel. That is another matter I could deal with in some detail.
Of course we can afford decent pensions for our elderly people. Let me point out that the argument used today is exactly the one used in 1926 prior to the old age pension legislation of 1927. Our old boys in the Senate, above all else, were the ones who wept over the sacred duty of children to look after their aging parents and who said that on no account must we take that duty away from the young by providing a pension for their parents. The same crocodile tears are being shed today when it comes to raising money to look after people who need assistance in this day and age.
If better pensions were provided, a number of unthought of benefits would result. For example, it would provide a tremendous stimulus to our economy. People who receive pensions and allowances usually have to spend them at once. They are people for whom food, clothing, shelter and the few amenities of life are very sorely lacking today. In spending their pension money they would provide a market for farm produce and factory products, and they would engage in various forms of activity which presently are sorely lacking. We might even be able to do something in the land of heavy water, or in the land of the great trees and the ocean in my part of the country. Such a pension would provide these people with the services that they need.
If the sick, the crippled and the elderly were released from jobs which they cannot perform competently and which they carry out at great pain, misery and suffering to themselves, we would provide additional opportunities for employment of our young people. I am convinced that it would also provide opportunities for necessary community services provided on a voluntary basis. When I hear hon. friends to my right damning the New Horizons program as a waste of money, I wish that some of them would get to know an old age pensioner or two. If they did, they too would realize exactly what the New Horizons program means to them. It is opening the door to new activities, to a broader world. In many cases it is opening the door to programs that will enable the elderly to meet with the young, help the young and the old to close the generation gap that for so long has been allowed to exist.


Mr. Roche:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

March 2, 1973
Old Age Security Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Douglas Roche: When I referred to the New Horizons program last evening, I made it clear that my opposition to it was because senior citizens in this country are not entitled to be paid money for projects that they recommend and in which they take part. I am not opposed to the New Horizons program itself-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member knows that that is not a point of order; it is a point of explanation or debate. The hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has the floor.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not even hear the hon. member speak last night. In fact, I was referring to one of his colleagues who spoke earlier. Even though the cap did not fit, the hon. member insisted on feeling that it did fit and he put it on. However, I did hear one of his colleagues earlier do a good job of damning the program.
I think all the aspects to which I have referred ought to be discussed with the provinces. I wish the present Minister of National Health and Welfare-I admit he has made a good impression on many of us-would go out to the provinces with a real plan. I wish he would say that he does not care whether the premiers are NDP, Conservative, or what-have-you in the Maritimes, that this is what the government thinks is a really good program to replace the present social security patchwork. Let us try it out and see whether it will work. I think it will work. Draw it up and put it across, and invite these people to comment on it. This minister should not be afraid of the premiers of the provinces before he gets there-and I know a lot of this has been going on. I know several of them very well and they are not half as vicious as the minister may think. I am sure they would not be, if he went there and said he had something positive, produced it and asked them to make a start.
I should like to say a few words about another aspect of this whole matter which I think is important, but before I do so I should say again that we intend to support this legislation, not because it represents all we want but because we think it is a step forward. We would like to see old age security at $150 now, and when we accomplish that goal we will want more. We expect that by then people will have reached a higher level of civilization and we want to think that the elderly can share in the improvement.
I think it is silly and futile to provide old people, young people or people somewhere in between with sufficient pensions and allowances to live decently without taking precaution to see that they can keep the extra money. Often the elderly or people with low incomes are deprived of any increase as soon as or before they get it, because of increases in rents and necessities. These other people take as big a bite out of that increase as they can. In my view, the minister should be trying to establish this protection when he visits the provincial representatives. He should say that there is no sense in giving these people an 
increase unless protection is provided so they can keep the increase.
What does this entail? I suggest it means we must devise some form of price agency or review board to monitor prices. Such an agency would have to ensure that prices are held steady in order that the people I have referred to can afford more at their new level of income. We will have to establish rental boards. The province of Quebec is probably in the forefront in this regard, although perhaps it has not gone far enough. It does have a rental control board to which people can make representations if they feel their rents are unjust. We must take that sort of approach, and we must adopt other controls to protect these people from being gouged of their pension increases.
One may say that this cannot be done. I suggest that it can be done and I want to give one or two examples of how it can be done. A few years ago the people across this country grumbled and growled about the terrific cost of insurance on their cars. They complained about their young people not being able to drive cars because of the high cost of insurance. They complained about the high cost of accidents. When people were involved in accidents without being covered under a special policy, they were ruined for life. At least the people in two provinces today have discovered that you can have public car insurance which covers accidents at a cost less than that payable in other provinces without similar schemes. A third province has announced its intention to venture into such an insurance scheme this spring. With the success shown in these provinces, I suggest this can be done.
I do not know how we are going to accomplish what we have in mind to protect our citizens, but I do know that in at least two provinces experiments are being conducted with a view to protecting their citizens by means of providing medicinal drugs as a public utility. Every time I heard the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) suggesting that we should do something for our old people in respect of drug costs, I feel like reminding the House that years ago our ancestors thought that everyone should build his own piece of road and put a turnpike on it. But finally we got the picture and built our own national road with our own collective resources so that everyone could use it. You should hear the screams in British Columbia whenever anyone proposes putting a toll on a bridge now. We have had enough of that and we do not want any more.
I suggest that these things have to be done as a country. This idea of giving people increases and failing to protect them is not enough. We must adopt measures to safeguard these increases when we have them. We must protect people against having these increases taken away by stronger and more ruthless segments in our communities. We must prevent these more powerful people from moving in on any group which receives a little extra pittance.
I commend this action to the minister when he meets with provincial representatives, because it is something which will call for agreement between federal and provincial authorities. There is no reason under heaven why the provinces cannot cede or give authority to the federal
March 2, 1973

government, and vice versa, where it is necessary to handle the situation in these areas.
I have now said the things I wanted to say about this measure. There should be no doubt now about the views of those of us who have spoken from this group. We are going to support this legislation, not because it provides all we want for the elderly people of this country but because it is a little better than we could get from the bargain basement Conservatives. This Liberal group happens to be in power for the moment and this is all we can get now. I want to say that we will support this measure, but as soon as it is passed we will start on our next campaign for more.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join in the debate on Bill C-147, to amend the Old Age Security Act. In my view, income support for our senior citizens is one of the cornerstones of our social security policy. In correspondence and conversations with my constituents, the importance of ensuring an adequate standard of living for our pensioners is a constantly recurring theme. This widespread concern for the welfare of our old people can be accounted for on several grounds. In part it is a human response to a situation of obvious social and economic disparity. In part it derives from the fact that most of us have intimate associations with elderly people-our parents, grandparents and friends. In part it undoubtedly reflects the realization that all of us will one day be old.
In any event, I subscribe to the theory that the way in which we treat the elderly is an important test of our society's level of civilization. In this respect, I think Canadians can be justifiably proud both in the objectives they have set and in the progress they have made in achieving them. Although as members of this House we may disagree from time to time on specific measures and questions of detail and timing, there is a remarkable degree of consensus among Canadians-one might even say unanimous agreement-as to our society's obligation to ensure a decent standard of living for our senior citizens not as a matter of charity but as a matter of right. We want to ensure that our old people are able to share fully in our nation's ever increasing prosperity, a prosperity which their own past labours have done much to promote and which many of them never knew during their working years when they were struggling to raise young families and meet mortgage payments.
We still have a long way to go before that goal is fully realized, but much progress has been made since January, 1952, when the government of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent enacted the Old Age Security Act which for the first time provided universal pension payments to all Canadians aged 70 and over. Developments over the past 21 years, taken together, constitute a revolution in the government's approach to the elderly. The amount of the basic pension has been increased several times since then. The age of eligibility has been lowered to 65 years. The guaranteed income supplement was introduced in 1967. Last year an escalation clause to make payments reflect the full increase in the cost of living was added to both the guaranteed income supplement and the old age pension.
Old Age Security Act
This is a truly remarkable record of achievement for our country. Perhaps I might be permitted to add that it is a truly remarkable record of achievement for Liberal governments.
This progress is reflected in the proportion of our national wealth which we have committed to the task of ensuring a decent standard of living for our elderly people. The amount paid to old age pensioners during 1971-72 was over $2 billion, of which some $500 million, or one-fourth, was paid in supplements. Canadians numbering 1,800,000 are now receiving the old age pension. Of this number, 1,050,000 are also receiving the guaranteed income supplement, 500,000 are receiving the full amount, while 550,000 receive a partial amount.
The effect of these increased payments has been to progressively remove our old people from the welfare rolls. We have now reached the point where, according to the latest estimate available, only 5 per cent to 10 per cent of pensioners require welfare assistance, and this is in special circumstances and special cases. We have recognized as a society that old age need not be and must not be allowed to be synonomous with the indignity of abject poverty and deprivation.
This record of achievement of Canada and of its Liberal government is even more impressive when seen in a global context. The variety of different schemes for income support and social assistance makes direct comparison of pension levels between countries quite difficult. However, one central fact is clear: Canada provides a higher guaranteed income, a higher standard of living to its senior citizens than any other country in the world. This is a field in which Canada has led the way. It is an achievement in which we should take pride. At the same time, we must never fall into complacency for much remains yet to be done.
That the present government has not become complacent is evidenced by the bill now before us. This bill would raise the basic monthly pension for an individual from $82.88 to $100, an increase of $17, and for a married couple, from $165 to $200, an increase of $35. This increase-20 per cent on the basic monthly pension- represents the largest single increase in our history. Together with the guaranteed income supplement, it would ensure a minimum monthly income to every Canadian 65 and over of $170, in the case of an individual, and $325 in the case of a married couple. Just compare those figures with the $40 old age pension of only 20 years ago.
In discussing this bill and in assessing the adequacy of the proposed increases in pension payments, it is essential to take into account the combined impact on our senior citizens of certain other measures outlined in the budget speech. The reductions in personal income tax have been designed to give maximum relief to those most in need- low and middle-income Canadians, a category which includes the vast majority of the elderly. Old age pensioners will welcome, as will all other Canadians, the increase in personal exemptions from $1,500 to $1,600 in the case of individuals, and from $2,850 to $3,000 in the case of married couples. Together with the increase in the special exemption for pensioners-from $650 to $1,000, the highest in the world-this will mean that no individual over 65

March 2, 1973
Old Age Security Act
will pay tax on an income of less than $2,700, and that a married couple over 65 will be tax free on the first $4,100 of income.
Of the 750,000 people who will be removed from the federal tax rolls, senior citizens who tend to fall into the lower income groups can be expected to constitute a significant proportion. Those whose income is above these new thresholds will benefit from the 5 per cent cut in the federal tax rate, with a maximum reduction of $500 and a minimum reduction of $100. This tax reduction is even more significant when seen in the context of a family. For example, it constitutes a 47 per cent tax reduction for a family earning $5,000 a year. It amounts to an 18 per cent tax reduction for a family earning $7,000 a year. These reductions in income tax make this budget truly a family budget.
The budget measures designed to reduce consumer prices will benefit pensioners as they will benefit all Canadians. The removal of federal sales and excise taxes from certain consumer goods, including some foods and toilet items, and the average reduction of 5 per cent in the tariff on a wide range of consumer imports will be welcome news to our old people as well as to the young. The tariff reductions on food products such as out-of-season fruits and vegetables are especially important to our senior citizens and others on low or fixed incomes for whom food constitutes a relatively large proportion of the weekly budget. Of particular importance is the reduction of tariffs on drugs.
Our pensioners, like everyone else, will benefit from the new indexing system for personal income tax to be introduced in 1974 under which there will be annual adjustments in exemptions and tax rates to compensate for increases in consumer prices. For old age pension recipients and guaranteed income supplement recipients, this will mean specifically that they will not become liable to pay tax merely by virtue of increased pensions and supplements.
Taken together, these budgetary measures can be expected to have a significant effect in lowering the cost of living for old age pensioners and in reducing their income tax. Along with the increase in the basic pension payment, they will go a considerable way toward improving the financial position of senior citizens. In considering the requirements of our senior citizens and the adequacy of the proposed increases in the basic pension, we must always bear in mind that the old age security payments are but one element of the social security system that was evolved in Canada to meet the needs of our elderly.
Canada is a country which provides support to elderly persons by means of several schemes. The universal old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement are augmented, in the case of many pensioners, by a contributory insurance plan, the Canada Pension Plan, which will not only pay 25 per cent of the worker's average annual earnings up to $5,100 from 1976 but also provides a disability pension, a benefit for dependants of those disabled and unable to work, a pension for widows, orphans and disabled widowers and a lump sum death payment. Canada is one of the few countries which has this three-tier approach to income support for the aged. In addition,

a fourth tier is provided for many employed persons through private pension plans.
There are also several programs which provide special assistance to the elderly in many facets of life. The Canada Assistance Plan, introduced by the Liberal government in 1966, can assist with special needs such as drugs, nursing home care, home care, etc., with a 50 per cent payment by the federal government. In most provinces, under the medicare scheme no premiums are charged to OAS and GIS recipients for hospital and medical care.
The New Horizons program will provide funds of up to $10 million over the next 18 months for projects undertaken by the elderly. Over 200 projects have received approval to date, with grants totalling some $1.3 million. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the New Horizons program, although designed for elderly people, will provide benefits to people who though they may be old in age are young in heart. When I looked at the announcement of several projects approved recently I came across one for a project in Toronto entitled the Merry Hearts Club, another in Kingston was for the Gadabouts Club and another in western Ontario was for the Rhythm Rascals. After visiting some of the senior citizens groups in my own riding, I know that a great many of our elderly people are young at heart-and the New Horizons program is keeping them that way.
It can be seen that the OAS and GIS payments under the present system of income support for senior citizens merely form a base, a minimum level of income guaranteed by the federal government, and it can be seen that additional measures, both federal and provincial, are available to supplement this basic income in special circumstances for specific needs.
Judging from the record of past Conservative governments, and from the figures which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has quoted, suggesting his party would provide an old age security benefit of $92 or $95, it seems to me that we could have expected criticism from the official opposition suggesting that we are going too far and too fast. However, I was pleased to learn yesterday that the official opposition will support this bill, and to learn from the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) that he was suggesting an amount of $97 per month. Many of us would like to be able to do even more for our senior citizens and to raise the pension by an amount even greater than that proposed in this bill. But to do so at the present time would be very costly. I am convinced that this is the best we can do under the present circumstances.
Another area in our social policy concerning old age pensioners which is very important is the provision of the low rent, geared to income, housing program which has been available in Canada. Surely this program to provide good shelter at minimal rents is a most valuable one to our senior citizens who have to face the difficult years of retirement. This program in Ontario is financed jointly through the Ontario Housing Corporation and the federal government's agency, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with 90 per cent of the cost being paid by the
March 2, 1973

federal government and 10 per cent by the province. The program is administered by the Ontario Housing Corporation.
Any losses sustained by the program are borne three ways, 50 per cent by the federal government, 421 per cent by the province and 71 per cent by the municipality involved. I often wondered how much this 71 per cent cost would be to a municipality. I inquired, and the response from one municipality was that this cost was very minimal, that in fact it always got back more in rents than it had to pay out in picking up the 71 per cent loss sustained under the program.
The important thing is the benefit that the program provides to senior citizens in the form of safe, clean, low cost housing. Several of these complexes were built in my riding during the last few years, and I have never been so pleased with any federal government program than I am when I visit these housing complexes and talk to the people in them. A comparison of regular rents with those charged under this program readily reveals the advantage of it. A two-bedroom apartment in my area may regularly rent at $100 to $150 per month, but an old age pensioner who receives the OAS may pay rent as low as $39 per month. For a couple living solely on old age security, the rent may be only $74 per month. The only problem is that we need more and more of this type of housing for out senior citizens.
I was pleased yesterday to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) say that the problem of the working poor would be considered at the spring conference with provincial ministers of health and welfare. I regularly meet couples in my riding where the husband is working at the minimum wage, but the problem is that their family may include six or seven children. We must examine this problem soon to see if we can provide financial assistance to these working poor. I can think of a number of examples. There is one chap who was injured in an accident and as a result could not take a regular job. He had to take on a night duty job and could earn only $75 a week. He might have been able to survive on that wage if there were only his wife and himself to look after, but he had a family of six children and as a result had no alternative but to quit his job and go on welfare. That is something that must be changed. We must consider the provision of an improved family allowance program which takes into account a family with several children who have to be fed, clothed and educated. In other words, we must provide a supplement to low income workers. Such a program should have high priority for consideration by the ministers of health and welfare in the spring conference.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-147 which increases the old age security pension to $100 a month. It is in step with the times. The need is very great among our senior citizens. It is time to make this advance in our old age security system.


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on February 19 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), when he mentioned proposed increases in old age pensions, said among other things:
It is aimed at ensuring that older Canadians share more fairly and more fully in the growing national prosperity-which their 25789-45
Old Age Security Act
efforts during their working years helped to make possible-so they may better enjoy living in well earned retirement.
Yesterday, when opening debate on this bill, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) said among other things:
I, for one, am thinking of my 86 year old mother and my 81 year old father who all their lives worked extremely hard for their family's livelihood on a farm in Quebec and who, like all those of their time, gave everything they had for the raising and education of their children. In their humble way they made Canada a country in which one is proud to live.
I congratulate the minister for those obviously genuine comments about his parents, and those of their time, who worked hard to make this country a good place in which to live. They deserve the respect and concern of the many people carrying on in their wake. Mr. Speaker, I think of my father who died at the age of 63, short of pensionable age, after having worked hard to support his mother and father before they died, because in those days there was no pension plan. He began to raise his family at age 40, but died and left my mother without a pension because the munificent, giant American corporation for which he worked and upon which my hon. friends across the way are getting ready to lavish more windfalls, did not believe in pension plans. They did not believe in group insurance, either.
My father could not afford to carry very much on his own, so he left my mother to raise several children out of a family of five. She is now past the age of 60 and is still working toward her retirement in a couple of years. She is living in terror, Mr. Speaker, because when that day comes she will have to live on the amount of money that the Minister of National Health and Welfare tells us has banished poverty for old people in this country. I have sat in this House now for several months listening to the claims of the Liberal party, but that one, for sheer bunk, has to surpass any of the fatuous comments I have neard sail across this floor.
My leader and my party may support this bill if they wish, and the New Democratic Party may support it if they wish-their virtue has been so thoroughly compromised now that one more roll in the hay will not hurt-but I will not vote for the damn thing, Mr. Speaker. I think it is an affront to the old people of this country, I think it is cynical and I do not believe that any member of this House who is honest with himself believes that this amount of money can maintain a person who has no other income.
I should like to give a few figures to back up what I say. In the past four years, according to the government's own figures, the cost of living has risen by no less than 20 per cent. According to my arithmetic, the amount of money which this government, in its open-handed attitude to the people who have worked all their lives to pay taxes and educate their children, is about to hand out to them in its largesse, less the amount of money that has been eroded thanks to their incompetence, leaves the old people of this country a net increase of 75 cents a week. That is enough for a large packet of cigarettes and a couple of books of matches.

March 2, 1973
Old Age Security Act
The figure of $170 a month, according to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is enough to banish poverty in this country among old people. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to apprise him of a few facts. In the city of Ottawa, which is by no means the worst place in the country to live, it is very likely that an old person would have to pay $120 a month for a bachelor apartment. On top of that, I calculate food at $43 and some odd cents a month, based on $10 a week multiplied by 52 and divided by 12-not an unreasonable amount to spend on food. These two total $163.33, so they are left with $6.66 for the entire month to cover transportation, entertainment, clothing and insurance for their poor possessions if they have any left by that time. That, Mr. Speaker, is as close to poverty as I would care to see my parents come. I hope the parents of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who worked so hard all their lives, as he has said, and whom he holds close to his heart, who are always in his thoughts, are not dependent on the figures which he announced the other day and of which he and his colleagues are so very proud.
The government claims that the time is not ripe to impose any kind of controls on prices in this country. I wonder when it will come to the conclusion that the time has arrived, with inflation rising at 5 per cent a year and no evidence that any of the government's programs are going to abate that rate, and with inadequate escalator provisions built in to accommodate old people. I cannot imagine when the time has been more ripe for the imposition of some controls but the government says, "Not yet". I do not believe the government is really very concerned with these people.
When I hear hon. members opposite, such as the one who spoke immediately before me, claiming credit for this paltry accomplishment, I am left to wonder what they believe is a tiny accomplishment, if this is the best they can do. I notice that my time is close to running out, so I shall conclude-


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order to clarify immediately something that the hon. member has attributed to me. He quotes the imposition of certain criteria from the English Hansard at the bottom of the right-hand column of page 1793, ending with the words:
-it will be readily seen, Mr. Speaker, that this government has effectively banished poverty for persons over 65 years of age in the course of the last two years.
I recognize readily that the text that would have been distributed and which was to be checked against the English translation was this actual text, but what I said in the House and what is in Hansard and I refer here to the French text reads quite clearly:

When coupled with the cumulative benefit increases of $58.70 a month that have been provided and the provision for full escalation of pensions in future, it will be readily seen, Mr. Speaker, that this government has considerably improved the economic situation of persons over 65 years of age in the course of the last two years.

Mr. Speaker, this is what I said in this House in French; this is the actual text. I understand now that Hansard in English did not translate properly and correctly what I

said, and I hope that Hansard will be corrected accordingly. I never said such a thing. I am sure the hon. member will excuse me for interrupting him in this respect, but I would not like such an interpretation to be given to the words I said in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Keilly@: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot know with what relief I receive his remarks. I am glad he did not say such a thing. I conclude by simply saying that a country which does not take better care of its parents than this one appears to. be prepared to do, is a country which has some pretty strange priorities. When Members of Parliament meet in solemn conclave assembled to consider their own circumstances, their own aspirations, their own wants, it does not take very long to come to the conclusion that massive salary increases of the order of 100 per cent are merited and it does not take very long to conclude that pensions of the kind that we have can be implemented without any great jar to the economic system. I do not notice any blushes in their rubicund faces when they line up at the $1.50 buffet upstairs featuring prime ribs of beef and British Columbia salmon. If a pensioner could get one meal a week in that place he might be in a position to live on the money this government is prepared to hand out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but we have reached four o'clock and at this time the House will proceed to the consideration of other business.

It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, normally today we would be taking private members' notices of motion, but I think there would be agreement to take private members' public bills instead. Therefore I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre):
That the House now proceed to the consideration of private members' public bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the proposal of the parliamentary secretary. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nelson that Bill C-136, respecting Canada Flag Day, be read the second time and
March 2, 1973
[Stage Direction]
referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) has anything to say in view of the way this matter was left when it was discussed on the previous day.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, we last debated this bill on February 15 and, as Your Honour may recall, there was some confusion in the House. It was agreed that we would stand the bill we are now discussing, which would create a holiday of flag day, and at the same time it was agreed that we would bring forward the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and allow it to stand in position No. 2 on the order paper. This was done. There was some discussion at the end of the hour as to whether these two items ought to be discussed at the same time. There did not appear to be any agreement, according to Hansard, that they would be discussed at the same time, although the Hansard record is rather confused as to exactly what happened.
I would therefore suggest, if the House agrees, that we discuss the bill concerning flag day and, if hon. members are so prepared, the bill concerning Sir John A. Macdonald day. Then hon. members might want to discuss the possibility of referring to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs not both these bills but their subject matter, that is, the possibility of a holiday being held either in February or March. What that holiday should be called could be left for hon. members to decide at this time or when they deliberate in committee.
Speaking further on the point of order, may I say that from the legislative point of view the form of both bills is sadly deficient. There is some doubt as to whether, if either or both bills were referred to committee, satisfactory amendments could be introduced to bring forth the results that both hon. members wish. For that reason I would not want to send either of the bills to committee because it might not be possible to put them into the proper form which hon. gentlemen sponsoring them so obviously want. If that is agreeable, we would be prepared to permit debate to go forward on that basis.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary proposing that during this hour we should discuss the matter of holidays and talk at the same time both on the flag day bill and on the Sir John A. Macdonald bill, and that toward the end of the hour the parliamentary secretary would get up and propose that the general subject matter of a holiday early in the year should be referred to the committee, but that neither one of these bills should be referred to the committee?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in general that is what I have been saying. I want to emphasize that if we do send the subject matter of these bills to committee, that must be done on the basis that we are looking at a potential holiday in February or in March. That is as far as we have gone, because in those two months there is not now a 25789-45J
Canada Flag Day
statutory holiday. I should like to hear discussion on what we might call such a day.


Thomas Miller Bell: Discovery day.


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member says, "Discovery day". As there are a number of bills like this on the order paper, if Your Honour were to permit it might be worth while discussing all those which have been brought forward by hon. members.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the point of order. As one of these measures is particularly close to my heart, I have some question as to what method is to be used with respect to disposing of the bills. What will happen to the bills? I am wondering if there will not be even worse confusion than at present. I hear talk of transferring the subject matter of the bills to committee. Where will that leave the bills? I am also wondering exactly what will happen to the Sir John A. Macdonald day bill.
Some hon. members have already spoken on Bill C-136. The proposed administrative marriage might preclude them from speaking in today's debate. I fear that we may get into a sort of "lost in limbs" situation. I have heard some talk about a holiday in February or March. May I point out that one of the bills does not mention a holiday in either of those months. In view of all this vagueness I want a little more assurance, a little more clarity, so that we may have some better idea of what exactly are the terms of reference with which we are left.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria on a point of order.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the suggestion brought forward by the parliamentary secretary does not seem quite acceptable to me in some aspects because in my opinion it would lead us to insincerity. The two bills now before us, Bill C-136 titled "An Act respecting Canada Flag Day" and Bill C-95, titled "An Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day", deal specifically with two quite different matters. One seeks to honour our national emblem, the Canadian flag, whereas the other aims at recognizing the honour due to one of the Fathers of Confederation, perhaps the greatest of them, Sir John A. Macdonald. However, at the end of the time we have at our disposal the intention is to limit debate on those two bills, to a mere discussion on the possibility of establishing a legal holiday between New Year's Day and Easter. I suggest that we are straying considerably from the specific content of the bills and I am reluctant to accept the parliamentary secretary's suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I am sure it is the feeling of hon. members that we want to know what we are going to do during this hour, and that if possible we would like to agree to some course of action. I believe the point raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has to be considered, namely, that if we spend this hour

March 2, 1973
Canada Flag Day
ostensibly debating Bill C-136, we shall preclude the possibility of a number of members taking part in the debate. I wonder, therefore, if we could not arrive at this moment at an agreement to discharge these two bills, and, if there is unanimous consent, tell the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) to move a motion that could be debated and voted on at the end of the hour.
In response to the problem raised by the last speaker, I wonder if the proposed reference to committee as suggested by the parliamentary secretary could not include the subject matter of these two bills or the establishing of a holiday in the period between the New Year and Easter. In other words, my suggestion, since what has been proposed so far has not been accepted unanimously, is that the House should now agree to discharge these two bills and that there be debated in this hour an order to the effect that the subject matter of these two bills or the question of a holiday between New Year's day and Easter be referred to the appropriate standing committee.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite agreeable to what the hon. member has proposed if he will withdraw the word "or" and use the word "and".


Stanley Howard Knowles: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As some hon. members know, I also have a bill dealing with this general subject matter which I hope will be presented for second reading in due course. I am referring to Bill C-150, an act respecting discovery day. Perhaps we could include the three bills in the suggested motion and have this whole subject matter, including what I would like to say about discovery day, referred to the same committee.


Mr. Nelson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I support what the hon. member opposite said with regard to the subject matter of the bill. It was never my intention, and I think the bill is quite clear on this point, that debate be polarized on the question of which figure in history the bill should commemorate. It was simply and solely a request that a legal holiday be instituted on February 15 or the following Monday to commemorate our official Canadian flag. This was the sole intention of the bill.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would agree to the suggestion that has been made following my original suggestion that we discharge these three bills. Perhaps I could move a motion which the House would debate and we could then vote on it at five o'clock. The motion I would propose would be that the three bills be discharged and that the subject matter of a national holiday from, say, the end of January to the end of March, the two months in which we in Canada do not have a national holiday at the present time, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for further discussion. If that is agreeable to hon. members, I would be prepared to move such a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure hon. members do not want to spend the hour discussing a decision on which we do not seem to be making progress. The only way we can do this is by asking whether hon. members are prepared to accept the proposal of the parliamentary secretary and of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the subject matter of the two bills appearing on the order paper as items Nos. 1 and 2, along with the possibility of selecting a day for a national holiday in the period from the end of January to the end of March, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Is there agreement to this effect?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There does not seem to be agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I realize the position that the parliamentary secretary is trying to protect, but it seems to me it is not really fair to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) to ask him to discharge his bill in favour of this motion when the proposal is that the period within which this holiday is to be established does not include the day that he suggests, which is January. We are not deciding it here. The committee will, I am sure, come up with just one day. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary will accept the wording of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) that the proposed holiday be in the period between New Year's and Easter.


John Mercer Reid: I am prepared to accept that, Mr. Speaker, providing that it says "one holiday." I do not think I could defend a proposition where we end up with three national holidays in one year. If that is acceptable, I will certainly accept an amendment of that nature to my motion.


Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker, may I say, on the point of order, that we must be careful in selecting the date because several provinces have now instituted what they call a mid-winter break in March. To my way of thinking, a holiday in March would be superfluous.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have it clarified that the motion proposed by the parliamentary secretary will include the three bills, including Bill C-150 with respect to discovery day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The motion would read that the orders for second reading of Bill C-136, Bill C-195 and Bill C-150 be discharged and that the subject matter of a national holiday in the period of February and March be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: January, February and March.


John Mercer Reid: January, February and March.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Yes, that the subject matter of a national holiday in the period January, February and March be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

March 2, 1973


Stanley Howard Knowles: That covers it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is there agreement to this proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Then I so move, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: We have another difficulty. If we discharge the order from the order paper, it might be worth while either before or after to have agreement or unanimous consent to spend the balance of the hour discussing the subject matter of these three bills.


Eymard G. Corbin: I thought the question would be put at the end of this period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think all that is required now is to ask if there is unanimous consent for the discharge of these three bills and the making of the proposed motion by the parliamentary secretary. It is part of the unanimous consent that there will be debate until five o'clock, if we wish. But it would be understood that there is to be a House order that the motion be voted on not later than five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The motion before the House is now debatable and it will be put at five o'clock.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I preface my comments by saying that we are progressing in a spirit of national unity this afternoon by bringing together three distinct bills for at least discussion and referral to committee for examination. After living in the United States for ten years I returned to Canada in 1965. This was shortly after the new Canadian flag- which now graces this chamber by being placed to Your Honour's right hand-was displayed for the first time in our country and raised on the Peace Tower. I must say that it was with emotion and gratitude that I viewed the new Canadian flag. I am wearing in my lapel this afternoon, as are many members of this House, a replica of that flag as a reminder of the country that we in this House have the honour to serve.
In our discussion on a way to commemorate that flag and honour it, we should concentrate less on the aspect of a holiday or mid-winter break, nice as that would be and to which I am not opposed, and more on the sense of history in our country that our flag symbolizes. I said that I lived in the United States. Three of my children were born there. Some began their education in that country. Any child educated in the United States quickly obtains a sense of appreciation for his country and a sense of history. Shortly after being exposed to school, or even the nursery television programs, every child knows that
Canada Flag Day
George Washington was the founder of his country and Abraham Lincoln saved the union.
I was always impressed by the way in which the people of the United States carry with them through their lives an appreciation of their country. I wish that in our country we had had the same kind of appreciation. Of course, I found upon coming back that developments had taken place in the previous decade which helped to deepen our appreciation of Canada. Expo in 1967 was not only a memorable event but was probably the greatest event since confederation, one which brought together the Canadian people in a realization of what this country means, in a realization of the possibilities of this country in relating to the interdependent global society in which we live.
We are moving forward. This afternoon we are moving forward in trying to reconcile certain differences which occur in the presentation of the bills which are now before us, particularly Bill C-136 which deals specifically with the Canadian flag and Bill C-95 which deals with Sir John A. Macdonald and the third bill referred to this afternoon which concerns the whole question of recognizing the discoverers of this country.
I observed that on February 15 when we debated in this House the merits especially of Bill C-136 and tried to relate Bill C-95 to it, that there was, and let us be frank about it, a playing off of Lester Pearson against Sir John A. Macdonald. As I say, I came back to this country in 1965 when Lester Pearson was prime minister and the architect of the flag, and I noted with great joy the respect in which he was held throughout the world for his accomplishments not only domestically but internationally, for which, of course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Mr. Pearson was a man who served his country nobly. As a matter of fact, he gave us a lesson in "togetherness," a lesson, unfortunately, which was revealed to us through the funeral of this great statesman, for we saw on television, those of us who were in other parts of the country, at the time, the leaders of the great faiths in this country, men and women from all walks of life, coming together to honour this man. I said to myself as I watched the ceremony, "Isn't it too bad that it takes the funeral of a great man to bring together Canadians from all religions and walks of life." This is perhaps part of the price we pay for the discordancy of the times in which we live.
I stand second to no one in this chamber, or even in the country in my appreciation of Lester B. Pearson. Indeed, just the other day I wrote a letter to his dear friend, Bruce Hutchison, who preached the eulogy at a service in Vancouver for the late Mr. Pearson and I recalled in my previous conversations with Mr. Hutchison the manner in which Mr. Pearson led this country into what might be called the modern era, the international era which Canada has now clearly entered.
I do not feel that if we celebrate Canada flag day as a way in which to mark our sense of appreciation of the national unity which is desired in this country, a sense of appreciation of our history, that we want necessarily to circumscribe the full meaning of this holiday, of this day on which we are going to emphasize our history, by identi-

March 2, 1973
Canada Flag Day
lying it so closely with one leader, distinguished as he is, to the detriment or to the putting into the shadow of other great leaders of our country. There are a number of leaders in Canada's history who have made distinguished contributions.
We cannot for a moment forget the contribution made to our country by the founding father, Sir John A. Macdonald. For several years my hon. friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has introduced into this House a bill which would honour our founding father, Sir John A. Macdonald. I have noticed with a sense of sadness that this bill has been talked out, unfortunately; allowed to fall along the wayside of the parliamentary corridors. I have always wondered why we could not find some way to keep always before the Canadian people, one might say, in the same manner as we keep the external flame outside these buildings, the sense of the founding fathers of this country and what they have done for us.
This is in no way a partisan matter. I do not care to which party men like Sir John A. Macdonald, Lester B. Pearson or any of the other leaders who have helped to bring us to our stage of history belonged. They were great men. They were founders of this country. One need turn only to the Enelyclopedia Canadiana for a comprehensive article on Sir John A. Macdonald. I shall certainly not read the whole of this article now; I shall refer to only a couple of the points it makes which remind us how necessary it is to keep alive in our sense of history the role Sir John A. played, to recall in particular the role he played at the Charlottetown conference on December 1, 1864, and at the even more important conference which followed in Quebec on October 10. I quote from the enelyclopedia as follows:
Macdonald was thus at all stages a major formative influence in the making of Canadian confederation. His declared preference was for a strong national federation rather than for a weak decentralized union of powerful provinces, and he sought at all times- through the division of legislative powers and the organization of the new federal institutions-to ensure the primacy of the new dominion.
He went on, of course, to the great events of July 1, 1867, when the British North America Act uniting the provinces went into operation. As I was looking through this article I came across a passage which I think is particularly relevant to the problems we face today in our society, more than 100 years later, because we read that Sir John was convinced that the continental imperialism of the United States was, and always had been, the most serious threat confronting Canadian nationality. How many times in the debates which take place today in this chamber, on television and in the newspapers across the country do we hear the very same sentiment expressed? Is it not remarkable that Sir John had the prescience to foresee the difficulty we would encounter in establishing our Canadian identity and in preserving it while living beside the giant of the United States?
I am absolutely opposed to playing-off in any sense men like Lester B. Pearson and Sir John A. Macdonald, both of whom in their own way and in the fullness of their times made distinguished contributions to Canada. So, too, did Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Borden and other leaders who

have taken their place in this chamber and served their country in capacities beyond political life.
As Bill C-136 emphasizes, in protecting and underlining unity in Canada we must not turn this day that is hopefully going to be marked between January 1 and the end of March into a narrow expression of or focus upon our history, nor regard it merely as a holiday. If celebrating this day on Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday, January 11, is said to be too narrow and too partisan an approach, then let us at least include in the terms of reference and in the literature that will be written about this day the fact that we are honouring all the founders of Canada.
To me the word "founder" has a noble and lasting ring. It speaks not only of the beginning of our country but has a sense of continuity as well. As I remarked in my comments about Expo, we are surely continuing to develop this country. There is, again, a sense of founding, especially in the culturally explosive society that has been with us since the middle 1960s. There is a sense of continuing to discover, as my hon. friend who sponsored the bill respecting discovery day emphasized. That is why I say we should incorporate into the literature surrounding this holiday the names, the accomplishments, the sense of history of those who have helped make our country great.
If this whole subject is now to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, then let it be sent to the committee with the instruction from this House that the matter not be viewed in too narrow and partisan a way; that it not be viewed in a way that would hurt that national unity which all of us in this country desire-for as I remarked only yesterday in my comments on the pension bill, there is a temptation in this country to speak of national unity in too narrow terms. How many of us think, in the context of today, that national unity will be achieved if only we can solve the English-French question? Certainly this is a pressing priority, but it does not embrace the totality of what is national unity. To me, national unity means taking into account the problems of the aged, the problems of women and the problems of youth, three major components of our society. National unity means going back to the beginnings of this country and keeping before us the fullness of our history and all those who participated in bringing us to where we are today.
I want this day that will mark our country's acceptance of its flag to be more than just a holiday, as I have said; more than just a day on which we display our flag. The flag will be the symbol of what is underneath it. It will be the tip of the iceberg: The greater part of the iceberg will be the strength of Canada; this is what this day must focus upon. It will be a day that will help young Canadians who are now pursuing academic careers to achieve a sense of pride in their country. I have always felt that this country had a great future, one that belongs to us if only we do not give up on it because we feel that living beside the United States is too great a problem.
I conclude my remarks by saying that national unity is an elusive, precious thing but something we in this country need. We need to transmit it to our children. A burning desire to display our flag will remind us of Sir John A., of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Borden, King and Pearson. It will remind us of the founders of our country, of all those the
March 2, 1973

committee will declare as having made a great contribution to this country. Let there be a national debate, indeed anything that will give the Canadian people a deeper appreciation of the merits of this country, especially as we now move into the very challenging role Canada plays in accepting our responsibility to the developing, third world. Canadians cannot live alone. We have to project ourselves into the rest of the world community, because this is the kind of global society we are living in today. We need a sense of history in Canada which will enable our children to meet the challenges we are now facing.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, my little girl, soon after her sixth birthday, came back from kindergarten one day singing "I love my country, I love it". So I started to ponder not on the fact she was singing well what she was singing, Mr. Speaker, but on the innocence of that little girl who was expressing so well what she felt in the bottom of her heart and what she had learned from her teachers.
It is obvious that she was showing love and respect for her country, which she regarded in some way like her father and mother. When we hear children express such things candidly and innocently, we are entitled to ask ourselves why we adults find it difficult sometimes, even every day, to rediscover, to retain that innocence from our childhood when, serious matters are involved, matters of national interest, closely related to this country's unity.
Mr. Speaker, I was a little confused a while ago as to the procedure we were to follow this afternoon for the consideration of those two bills-now there are three of them- for the simple reason that when I read the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson), the sponsor of Bill C-136,1 noticed that he had actually given an explanation-and I quote the following from page 1327 of Hansard for February 15 1973:
-Bill C-136 is to establish February 15 or the Monday following as a legal holiday, to be known as Canada Flag Day.
Here is the explanatory note of his bill:
The purpose of this Act is to emphasize the unity of the Canadian nation, and further, to commemorate the ideals of the Canadian Bill of Rights and of the late Right Honourable Lester Bowles Pearson.
Of course I am not criticizing him for confirming this afternoon that the main objective of his bill is to proclaim another holiday in Canada.
However I cannot help but expressing how deeply I agree with the reasons which inspired this bill.
As the hon. member said, the bill is aimed at emphasizing Canadian unity and we quite agree with this because anything that can be done in this direction should be most welcomed. Nothing will be sufficient to reassert this Canadian unity which is so dear to us.
It has also been suggested to recall the aspirations of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I have no remarks to make in this connection; I am totally in agreement with the point of view of the late Right Hon. Lester Bowles Pearson.
We want the day in question to be called the Canada Flag Day. There are on the one hand some concepts which
Canada Flag Day
tend to concentrate everything on Canadian unity and, on the other hand, there are concepts which rather antagonize this symbol of unity.
And I am sure that all Canadians recognize in the maple leaf the concrete symbol by excellence of this unity.
This is why since the first reading, of Bill C-136, I devoted myself to support it without any reserve. For the sake of the proper functioning of the business of the House, and particularly for private members hour, I agreed to the subject matter of bills C-136, C-95 and C-150 being deferred to the committee because it now seems that the objective is not to honour Sir John A. Macdonald, the Canadian flag or Lester B. Pearson but rather to designate simply a new holiday and I think that we will have some difficulty in agreeing on how to call it.
I see my friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) opposite and I am sure he will insist for this day to be given the name which he recommended in his bill, namely bill C-195, and I think that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour is quite right when he wants that this holiday be called the Canada Flag Day.
I foresee that the debate just initiated will not be brought to a swift end. However, since this afternoon we showed concern for Canadian unity by agreeing in principle to the necessity of discussing all these matters together in committee, it is quite possible, Mr. Speaker, that we should find increased agreement within the committee and be able to agree on the designation of the legal holiday.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use up all the time to which I am entitled but I should like to say a few words about a related subject. It is not my intention to bring forward a bill in this respect, which might not be necessary, but it does seem to me that the time has come or is near when hon. members and senators will seriously consider the propriety of singing our national anthem in both languages, simultaneously or successively, once a week. It seems to me that singing the national anthem after the oral question period every Monday would have a unifying effect on us and would strengthen our will to keep Canadian unity strong and sound.
Mr. Speaker, this, in short, is what I wanted to say. I shall conclude by adding that the area I come from, which is not merely a tourist attraction, is rooted in history. It is that part of the country which is known as the "Republic of Madawaska", which is wedged in between Quebec and the state of Maine, which state also has a flag. Its flag was designed by Colonel Baker, a prominent figure in history who did live in fact and who, because of his convictions, was incarcerated in a military prison in Fredericton over a century ago. In Madawaska, we truly and sincerely love the flag of the "Republic". That is to say then, that amongst all peoples, the flag remains the symbol par excellence of national unity. Whether it be small or large, the nation always rallies around the flag, Mr. Speaker.


Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker, it is true that when I drafted the Canada flag day bill I mentioned in the preamble the Canadian Bill of Rights and the late Right Hon. Lester' Bowles Pearson. As I said earlier, the simple statement of the proposed act is a

March 2, 1973
Canada Flag Day
request that the 15th day of February or the Monday following be declared a legal holiday to be known as Canada flag day.
During a previous debate, because of an informal arrangement in the House I agreed to forgo speaking on the bill, and did so except to request its passage on second reading and reference to the committee. I spoke then for only 55 seconds, and I do not intend to speak at length now because I do not regard this as an occasion for patriotic oratory. We Canadians are not normally flag-waving, but I feel deeply that we should recognize the official flag of our country in a concrete way outside the House as we have done inside.
I was somewhat saddened by the turn of events in the previous debate because I did not intend or foresee that it would be polarized on the question of whether certain men in history should be commemorated. It was, I suppose, not necessary to mention in the preamble the contributions of both the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), through reference to the Canadian Bill of Rights, or the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson as the prime minister most directly connected with the adoption of the flag, as history has already taken note of contributions of men like these and many others. Neither was it my intention to denigrate the union jack or in any way to slight the monarchy or the commonwealth. Above all, I have no intention of resurrecting the flag debate.
I am a veteran of World War II and a member of the Canadian Legion in Burnaby, and I respect the traditions that have been built up in this country. In my first speech in this House I spoke of the importance of national unity. I believe that the Canadian flag is a symbol of that unity. My sole intention, as I say, was to ask for a holiday in the middle of February to recognize our flag, which seems to me to symbolize the ideals of all Canadians. If it seems presumptuous for a new member to introduce such a bill, I feel justified in that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as seconder, lends stature to the bill commensurate with its importance.
I am thinking primarily of our young people, Mr. Speaker. As a teacher for many years, I know that our July 1 holiday occurs long after children have been dismissed from classrooms across the nation. I had hoped that this occasion in the middle of February might help to instil in our children a feeling of pride and respect for the Canadian flag.
Furthest from my wishes would be the encouragement of exercises in every classroom in which children would repeat by rote an oath of allegiance or salute the flag, or both. I believe that teachers across the land can be trusted to discuss voluntarily the significance of our national emblem. Still further from my intent would be the encouragement of any jingoistic form of nationalism, because I believe that pride in our country and its institutions is best expressed by a quiet but deep respect for this symbol of our nation.
In every political party there are men and women whose contributions in particular fields earn them the gratitude and respect of all citizens regardless of political affiliations. I could name many such people from all parties

including my own. I doubt the wisdom of attempting to commemorate any one person because of the difficulty of making a choice, particularly among political figures. But the question before us, surely, is one that should be considered without reference to politics as such. The flag that hangs in the Commons chamber is our national flag. I would like to emphasize the recognition of that fact to the rest of the country through the institution of a holiday.
I would like to make one more point which is most important to me. There is growing up now a generation of young people for whom the maple leaf flag has a special significance, not only inside Canada but particularly in other countries because our younger people are travelling more and more in these modern times. If you travel to Europe you will see our flag displayed on packsacks, on camper windows and on signs that Canadian young people hold up to let motorists know that they are Canadian, not American, British or Australian. For these young people who are too young to recall many of the traditions associated with other symbols, this is the flag that says to them "I am a Canadian". For them it is a symbol of our nation.
In the intervening weeks since the bill was first placed before us there have been strong indications of wide public acceptance of this measure. By fortuitous circumstance, the middle of February seems to be the time when a holiday would be most appreciated. I welcome the decision of the House to refer the subject to committee but I must say in closing that, whatever the result, I hope our official flag and the unity of our nation will be honoured in whatever form the bill emerges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at the progress that has been made today with respect to the holding of a holiday in Canada some time between New Year's and Easter. I feel, from the tone set in the House so far, that it is likely there will be such a holiday established.
I would like to mention something about my "discovery day" concept. I feel that it is a broader concept than has been put forward so far concerning the nature of the holdiday which might be held in the period that has been mentioned. I believe that looking at our long history will help to renew our confidence in the future. I feel that in addition to Sir John A. Macdonald and the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, there are many politicians and exceptional men in other fields who have contributed substantially not only to the discovery but to the development of our country. I believe it would be fitting to honour these people by paying tribute to them on this public holiday.
I also feel that discovery day would be a day when governments, including this one, could designate people whom they felt had made a distinct contribution to Canada's development in the preceding year. These people would be honoured, not just with token recognition but in a very substantial way. In that way I feel we could look at our past and, I hope, our present and our future on a day which would be enjoyed by all Canadians during our relatively long winter season.
I would also like to point out that my bill proposes that the holiday be on a Friday, because I have found that
March 2, 1973

many people feel that a holiday on Monday is not as convenient as one on Friday in that with a holiday on Friday there is a natural evolution into Saturday and Sunday, the day of rest. I hope we will now vote on this question, and I thank hon. members for including my bill in the motion. I sincerely hope the committee will take action on this important matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Canada Flag Day


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay. There being no dissent, I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and the subject matter of a national holiday in the period January, February and March, contained in Bills C-95, C-136 and C-150, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, I do now leave the chair. This House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. March 5,1973