1973-09-06

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a question of privilege concerning a matter of which I have given Your Honour the notice as prescribed by Standing Order 17(2). As a matter of courtesy I have supplied the notice to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who is concerned with the privilege I intend to raise.
On Tuesday, September 4, the House passed the following motion which appears at page 6181 of Hansard for that day:
That all matters pertaining to the interrogation of myself and my staff on Friday last be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and report.
This related to a matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).
On September 5, the Solicitor General appeared in an interview given to parliamentary correspondents, part of the tape which was recorded at that time being used on "Telejournal" at 10.30 p.m. and the newscast of Radio Canada for the same date. The subject matter of the complaint of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was the subject of that interview. The questioning of the Solicitor General, and I quote from a transcript of that interview, was as follows:
Q: Mr. Allmand, you are responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Have you obtained supplementary details on the incident concerning the department of Indian Affairs and Miss Flora MacDonald?
A: Yes. First, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was not concerned with this investigation, since it is a matter of theft and in Ottawa, theft comes under the responsibility of the Municipal Police. There were two Ottawa policemen in this investigation and because it was a matter of government documents, there was an RCMP officer with the two policemen. Therefore, it seems, according to our information, that the secretary of Miss Flora MacDonald got in touch with an official of the department of Indian Affairs saying that she had information that someone was in the process of passing these documents to Flora MacDonald or that there was a possibility that these documents would be brought to Flora MacDonald's office.
Q: Not clear . . . Why to Flora MacDonald?
A: I don't know why but she had this information. The secretary got in touch with this officer from the department of Indian Affairs saying this without giving more information at that time. Later, when the three officers were present the same official of the department of Indian Affairs phoned the secretary once again to have more details. Following this telephone conversation the three officers visited the secretary, simply to find out how she had come about this information and to protect not to accuse, the secretary of Flora MacDonald, to protect Flora MacDonald and her secretary, her office, her office staff, against problems. For instance, if someone has really brought the documents into the
office, there might be problems for Flora MacDonald and her staff. And you must remember that at that moment there was an Indian demonstration on Parliament Hill, that morning, Friday morning, and many Indians were present on the Hill, about two hundred. Therefore there was a possibility that there had been such a communication on that morning.
Q: Did you have a sound recording of that conversation between the secretary and the department of Indian Affairs?
A: No, because it seemed at that time that the secretary was willing to cooperate, therefore it is her that phoned the department; it is not the police officers which first got in touch with the secretary of Flora MacDonald. She contacted the department of Indian Affairs concerning these documents. She instigated the matter.
Q: Therefore, for you the question of privilege no longer stands?
A: It is not for me to decide that, it is up to the Parliamentary Committee, but I understand that the officers are ready to give all this information to the Committee when it will sit, and I believe that the Committee will sit soon, in a few days, and the police officers are ready to give all this information to the Committee. But there never was any question of accusing Flora MacDonald and her staff, but only to protect her against the possibility of accusation; for instance if a stolen document is found in your house, you are immediately suspected. Therefore, it is to protect her against that, that the police officers visited her office after the telephone call made by her secretary.
I will be moving a substantive motion when I have presented my arguments to the Chair to the effect that the interview given by the Solicitor General and his statement given to the media on this occasion constitute a contempt of parliament.
I have already read to Your Honour the reference that was made to the House by the standing committee. That reference is to be found on the page I outlined, in Hansard for that day, and the timing of it, Sir, was four o'clock in the afternoon. The timing of the interview with the Solicitor General in the scrum room downstairs was approximately six p.m. that evening, well after the order of the House was passed sending the matter to the committee.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, in her submission to the House with respect to her question of privilege, stated that the interrogation of her staff by the police was done without her authority or her knowledge, and without the authority or knowledge of yourself, Sir. The intimation by the Solicitor General, in the remarks he made with respect to this, clearly is an effort to repudiate that statement made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. When she says that the interview of her staff by police officers was conducted without her authority or knowledge, her word must be accepted on that score and it is unbecoming, and in my view contemptuous, for the Solicitor General to suggest it was done with her knowledge indirectly through the members of her staff.
I have some citations to quote in support of the motion I will be moving. The first is extracted from May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, at pages 119 and 120. Under

September 6, 1973
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
the heading "Premature Publication of a Committee's Proceedings or Evidence" I quote:
By the ancient custom of Parliament "no act done at any committee should be divulged before the same be reported to the House." Upon this principle the Commons, on 21 April 1837, resolved, "That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House, and the documents presented to such committee, and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person." Where the public are admitted this rule is usually not enforced. The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of draft reports of committees before they have been reported to the House will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.
An example of indignities offered to either House is cited at page 120 where there is reference to "slighting and contemning an order of either House." If that be the case it is even more strongly a matter in support of my question of privilege, because if it be contemptuous for a member to disclose evidence of a committee, it is even more contemptuous for a member to disclose evidence before it is given by a very probable witness who would be called before the committee to give that evidence-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: -as to the involvement of an agency of the government coming directly under his jurisdiction, namely, the RCMP.
I have a further citation from Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, 1958, at page 429 as follows:
The House of Commons has disciplinary powers over its members, and a member who abuses his privilege of speech may be punished, not merely by suspension from the service of the House, but by imprisonment or expulsion from the House, or both.
I am certainly not suggesting that the House should go to those great lengths with respect to the Solicitor General, but I wish to assure hon. members that the matter I am raising is a very serious one indeed, and it simply cannot be equated to statements made on proceedings in this House by ministers outside the House while those proceedings take place. The fact remains that this very serious matter of privilege was referred to a standing committee of this House for investigation and report, and by his conduct the Solicitor General in effect has given evidence which should have been given before the committee, and therefore is contemptuous of the order of the House made on that occasion.
From Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, Fourth Edition, at page 474 I quote this citation:
It is, strictly speaking, a breach of privilege to publish the proceedings of a committee before they are formally reported to the House.
Again, Sir, this supports my contention that the evidence should be given properly before the committee and not before the media downstairs in the scrum room.
Again, Sir, in his book "The House of Commons at Work" Eric Taylor, on page 68, says:
Most cases of "breach of privilege" are contempts of the House. The House must preserve its own dignity and authority, in order to carry out its functions.
On page 69 of the same work the method of punishment of a member is set forth. There are other references in May's to which I would refer Your Honour. At page 132 of

the most recent edition under the heading "Contempt in General" appears the following:
It would be vain to attempt an enumeration of every act which might be construed into a contempt, the power to punish for contempt being in its nature discretionary. Certain principles may, however, be collected from the Journals which will serve as general declarations of the law of Parliament. It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
I contend, Sir, that the statements by the Solicitor General to the media were an attempt directly to impede and obstruct the work of the committee in reaching its findings and subsequent report to the House.
I contend also, that it was an act of disobedience for the Solicitor General, well knowing that he was likely to be called as a witness before the committee in this very important matter in which his department was involved, to have made these statements. At page 134 of May's under the heading "Disobedience to Rules or Orders of Either House" appears this statement:
Disobedience to the orders of either House, whether such orders are of general application or require a particular individual to do or abstain from doing a particular act, or contravention of any rules of either House is a contempt of that House.
The Solicitor General knew of the order of the House that the matter be referred to the committee, yet he flew in the teeth of that order and purported to give evidence before the media instead of before the committee itself.
Again, at page 140 of the most recent edition of May's under the heading "Other Forms of Misconduct" appears this example:
Giving evidence elsewhere in relation to any debates or proceedings in the House of which he is a member or officer, or any committee thereof.
That is an example of misconduct by a member amounting to contempt. Again, at page 142 of May's most recent edition under the heading "Premature Publication or Disclosure of a Committee's Proceedings or Evidence" is a statement I would refer to you.
But even more serious than the contempt of the House, or of equal seriousness, is the reflection which the Solicitor General indirectly cast on the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands when in his interview to the media downstairs on this occasion he said that the investigation was conducted at the request of a member of the staff of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. He is in effect saying that what the hon. member based her question of privilege on-that the investigation, the interrogation was conducted without her knowledge and consent- is false. It does not lie within the mouth of the minister, let alone a member, to say that sort of thing except before the committee. On page 148 of the same edition of May'$ this is made very clear. I quote:
Analogous to the molestation of members on account of their behaviour in Parliament are speeches and writings reflecting upon their conduct as members.
Now, Sir, the statement and the actions of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace would be bad enough if made merely as a member but he is a minister of the
September 6, 1973

Crown, and his references downstairs have to be taken as not only a member but a member of the Treasury Benches as well. In my view, no other conclusion can be reached than that his conduct amounts to a gross contempt of the procedures of the House, and certainly of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot make the motion now, but he might indicate to the Chair the motion which he would propose to move if there were a prima facie case of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member would defer the motion on this basis. Of course, the Chair is very interested to know what the motion would be.


Erik Nielsen: If Your Honour finds that there is a prima facie case of privilege I propose to move:
That the conduct of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace in publicly making material allegations and purported statements of fact on the 5th September, 1973 relevant to the matters of a question of privilege that were referred by order of this House on the 4th September, 1973 to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and report, the said committee not having so reported, is a violation of that order and a contempt of this House, and therefore this House censures the conduct of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, it is not the practice to engage in debate on such matters unless there is a finding by the Chair that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege. Naturally, as has always been done and in fairness to the hon. member whose conduct is impugned by the member's question of privilege, the Solicitor General should be given an opportunity to comment, after which the Chair will take the matter under advisement.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, of course, the statements referred to by the hon. member for Yukon are true. I did make a statement before members of the press yesterday on the subject, and the hon. member quoted from that statement. Although he did not have the full statement, what he did quote was correct.
I made the statement in response to a request from members of the press who asked me if I had any report on the investigation, and on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I must say that when I was first asked by the press to make a statement, I hesitated. However, after a certain amount of hesitation, I recalled that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, after the question was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, had made statements before the press. As a matter of fact, after Your Honour had accepted that prima facie case of breach of privilege, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands made a statement on television that night amplifying what she had said in the House, so that she has done the same thing of which I am now accused.
Second, before I made my statement to the press, I took the precaution of checking with the table for an opinion. I was advised by the table that it was in order for me to talk to the press about this thing.
Some kon. Members: Oh, oh!
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen


William Warren Allmand: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if I have breached the privileges of this House, so has the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wishes to rise on a question of privilege or point of order. I am sure the House would like to allow her to make any comment she wishes, in view of the statements made by the minister. But, again, I suggest to hon. members that if we become involved at this time in debate on questions of privilege, we will spend the afternoon on the matter before a ruling is made by the Chair and this is apt to be highly irregular. However, I think we should hear the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was referred to in the statement made by the Solicitor General. He said that I made certain statements following the ruling in this House. I wish to say that the interviews which I gave to the media, and which I had discussed with you prior to the interviews, were done at approximately 2.30 in the afternoon. The ruling was not made until four o'clock in the afternoon when the House reconvened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seeks the floor, as does the hon. member for Yukon a second time. I urge hon. members to allow the Chair to consider the matter and review the citations referred to by the hon. member for Yukon, which I think it is the duty of the Chair to consider, following which perhaps the matter could be considered further.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the table has been dragged into this, is the table not to be given a chance to speak?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the table is mute in debate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but my consultations were with the parliamentary counsel and not the table.


Erik Nielsen: While Your Honour is going to take the matter under advisement, I might suggest that authority will be found in the most recent edition of May's for the fact that the whole matter could be cured and allayed by the Solicitor General tendering a formal apology to the House in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I again suggest to hon. members that the proper course to follow is for the Chair to look into the matter further. In light of the citations quoted by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I should say to the House that having received due notice as required by Standing Order 17(2), I gave the matter serious thought during the last hour or two. I was inclined to make a ruling, but I feel I owe it to the hon. member for Yukon and all other members to look more closely at the situation and, in particular, consult the authors to which the hon.

September 6, 1973
Public Service
member has alluded in order to ensure that the decision which may be rendered will be fair to all hon. members, including the Solicitor General.



MR. REYNOLDS-REFERENCE TO ANSWERS TO ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS CONCERNING BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is with regard to some answers which the Solicitor General gave yesterday to questions on the order paper. They relate to the British Columbia penitentiary. Since I spoke to Your Honour, I have had an opportunity to meet with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and show him copies of correspondence I have from the penitentiary which dispute the answers given to me yesterday. The minister has agreed to hold an administrative inquiry into the issue if I supply him with the documents, which I intend to do. I ask Your Honour to withdraw my question of privilege until the inquiry is completed by the minister's department.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member has the Chair's consent to withdraw the question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the 125 Quebec veterinarians are meeting on September 8 in Saint-Hyacinthe to express their dissatisfaction with the Treasury Board which refuses, it seems, to grant them any salary increase, even though their collective agreement has expired last June, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Graftey):
That the President of the Treasury Board intervene personally in this dispute in order to avoid a serious disruption of the meat inspection and animal disease control activities in Quebec following a strike or other similar action on the part of the Quebec veterinarians.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under 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; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important and urgent matter.
Considering that the people expropriated in Sainte-Scholastique receive an average of $200 for 4/5 of an acre compared with $2,200 an acre given to the people expropriated in Pickering, Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That a special committee of the House be set up to study this enormous difference in the evaluations and the payments for the land in Sainte-Scholastique and that in Pickering, Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under 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; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF EXPROPRIATION PAYMENTS BETWEEN STE SCHOLASTIQUE AND PICKERING-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the fact that a 10 per cent cost of living bonus is being granted in addition to the $2,200 per acre paid for land expropriated in Pickering, Ontario, whereas nothing has been granted in Sainte-Scholastique, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That a special committee of the House be created to study the enormous difference in the assessment of the cost of living bonus between those who are being expropriated in Sainte-Scholastique and those in Pickering.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion of the hon. member cannot be put.
September 6, 1973


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF THE HOUSE CONSIDER DIFFERENCE IN LAND VALUES BETWEEN PICKERING AND STE SCHOLASTIQUE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important matter.
In view of the fact that $300 million have been provided for the expropriation of 18,000 acres of land for the development of the Pickering airport, while only $125 million have been provided for the purchase of 88,000 acres of land at Sainte-Scholastique, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That a special committee of the House be appointed to consider that enormous difference in the assessment of the purchasing cost of lands at Pickering and at Sainte-Scholastique.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I suggest to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that in moving a motion just introduced by another hon. member, he does not comply with Standing Order 43. I have already asked the House whether or not there was unanimous consent.
The House has indicated its refusal to give unanimous consent and it is in that sense that I believe it unfair that hon. members ask the Chair to put the same motion again.


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF DIFFERENCE IN RENTS BETWEEN PICKERING AND STE SCHOLASTIQUE- APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE SUGGESTED- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, although I take your comments into consideration, I would like in turn to move, pursuant to Standing Order 43, that since a yearly rent of $2,000 is being charged to the former owners of Sainte-Scholastique as against the yearly rent of $1 plus taxes being charged to the former owners of Pickering, Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That a special committee of the House be appointed to consider that matter of the difference in the assessment of rents in Sainte-Scholastique as compared with those at Pickering.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that there is here a clear case of abuse of the Standing Orders of the House and that this motion will not be put to the House.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette) rises on a question of privilege.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, since it is unfair to present motions one after the other under Standing Order 43 concerning the Pickering problem, may I point out to this House that the way the people of Sainte-Scholastique are treated is also unfair?
Oral Questions


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages the annual report for 1972-73 of the International Development Research Centre.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am pleased to table two copies in both official languages of the Annual Report of the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust for the calendar year 1972.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning the shocking 2.3 per cent increase in the wholesale price index, an increase which will no doubt be reflected in due course in retail prices. Does the Prime Minister now propose to institute any direct and comprehensive measures to hold the line on retail prices? I ask this question in view of the fact that the subsidization program announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday did not contain any such measures, and in view of the emphasis which the right hon. gentleman places upon the importance of timing.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The figures referred to by the Leader of the Opposition obviously reflect a situation which existed a month or so ago, and it is because the government was aware of this situation and conscious of the hardship being caused to the Canadian people that we have taken the double series of measures which I have had occasion to announce in and outside the House.


FOOD PRICES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: The answer being "no", I should like to ask the Prime

September 6, 1973
Oral Questions
Minister a further question. Bearing in mind the increase in the price of bread which has taken place in recent days, and in view of the assurance given by the right hon. gentleman in the course of his presentation on Tuesday, has any firm undertaking been received from the bakers of bread in Canada that there will in fact be no further increase in the price of bread in October? Has any agreement been reached with the bakers to suspend price increases and, if so, for how long have the bakers agreed to hold the line?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The same type of question was asked yesterday, and replied to by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. He indicated he would be informing the House as soon as possible of any final arrangement concluded with the Wheat Board to meet this problem.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister gave a firm assurance to the House on Tuesday that the increase in subsidy from $1 to $1.25 would prevent a further increase in price from taking place in October. Am I to understand he is now telling the House he is not in a position to say that the bakers have given a firm assurance, or that the government has entered into an agreement with the bakers to prevent a further price increase taking place? Is that the position?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board informed the House yesterday of the answer to this question, and unless my memory is inaccurate he also informed the House that he had received such an assurance from the bakers.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Drury:: Yes, he did.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Prime Minister a direct question, seeking a direct answer?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Having made a firm statement in the House on Tuesday, can the Prime Minister now tell the House that the government has a firm agreement with the bakers that the price of bread will not be increased in the month of October, and that the government has a firm agreement with the bakers as to the duration of that agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have the exact answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I don't know what all the excitement is about over there. I have been asked a so-called direct question but obviously members opposite do not want a direct answer.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON WHEAT SUBSIDY POLICY
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Since both the premier of Saskatchewan and the Leader of the Opposition in Saskatchewan have rejected the proposals made by the government as unsatisfactory, can the hon. gentleman inform us when he will rise in the House to place this policy on record and explain in detail how it is going to work to the advantage of either the producer or the consumer?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: I think it is very clear how it will work to the advantage of both. The firm price of $3.25 for sale of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board to the millers assures that the cost of wheat in products consumed in Canada will not increase through this long-term period, and therefore the consumers will have that assurance and a lower price available to them now than would be available if prices were simply allowed to be tied to the world price.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the producer the assurance of this long-term price regardless of world prices in the future is extremely important. Producers generally have favoured long-term agreements in order that they have orderly pricing and in this particular case this is effective of course in relation to the domestic market which is perhaps one-eighth or so of the wheat sold but it does give him a price at the floor of $3.25 over what is supposed to be a seven-year period and that amount is higher than any price ever received for Canadian wheat except in the last few months.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENT WITH WHEAT BOARD
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statement that the minister made in this House today and yesterday, will he now table in this House any agreement such as he described between the government and the Canadian Wheat Board or any Order in Council that has been passed instructing the Canadian Wheat Board along these lines and will he say whether either one of them is valid for seven years?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact steps for formally implementing this agreement or validating it will be put forward in due course and brought fully to the attention of the House.


FOOD PRICES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fatuous answer given to me by the Prime Minister, I think on July 26, when he said bread would go up only one-tenth of one cent, may I ask if
September 6, 1973

this is an indication of his expectation of controlling inflation? I should like to ask the Minister of Justice this question. How many representatives of the baking firms has he been meeting with and what was the nature of the verbal or other agreement that was made concerning the maintenance of the present price of bread during the next few months?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions both before and after the decision of several days ago. Also I went very carefully over the price increases which had occurred before that time. I was able to draw the conclusion from those discussions, and indeed I had the firm statement of representatives, that the price of wheat having gone from $1,951/2 in the early part of July to the level of $3.17 by which time the major bookings were made for the month of September, that that fact, along with other cost factors resulted in the increase in the price of bread which has been recorded of about six cents, and if the price of wheat did not further increase, that should obviate a further price increase in bread for six months to a year. This was not, of course, in the nature of any iron-clad agreement-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -but rather a statement about ordinary pricing practices. Of course, in every way possible, as in the case of all other pricing matters, this is subject to review by the Prices Review Board if inappropriate price increases occur.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall read what the minister said yesterday. This appears at page 6249 of Hansard. He said:
Mr. Speaker, we had discussions with representatives of the industry . ..
And so on.
. . . They also indicated that if the price of wheat were stabilized there ought not to be a further increase in the price of bread for six months or a year.
Is that correct? Is it correct that all that took place then was this: In their judgment without there being any binding arrangement, if certain things happened then there ought not to be an increase. Is that correct?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the words the right hon. gentleman quoted accurately portray what did take place. The baking industry was not saying that if all sorts of things happened it would co-operate. They would not be in that position. We were speaking particularly about what had been done in relation to their recent price increase. I am not here to defend the justice or otherwise of the six-cent increase, but I do know that approximately three cents of it could have been attributed properly to the increase in the world price of wheat, and the portion of it that was allowed to be reflected in the price being paid by the millers, and that no additional price increase in relation to this product should be required because of the stabilization of the price of wheat.
In addition to that I was told that the price increase of six cents had included the usual cost increases up to that date, which I think were normal, and that as a result no
Oral Questions
further price increases should be required for up to six months or 12 months.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the right hon. gentleman for a moment, and then I suggest that the Chair attempt to conclude the first round of questioning by going to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the hon. member for Temiscamingue and then return to questions by the hon. member for St. John's East and others.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought there were only two languages in this House, but now I find a third one.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. gentleman will be recognized, but the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has risen on a point of order.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lengthy statements by the minister and the lack of clarity of those statements, would it be in order to revert to motions so that he can put before this House in some detail the policy he has not been able to define up until now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister correctly there was no agreement but simply a declaration of the intention of the possibility that there would not be an increase if, if and if. The last portion of his statement yesterday is the most revealing. He said:
I would count on the Prices Review Board to ensure that this is so.
What would the Prices Review Board do? How would it understand the minister explaining the incomprehensible in a way which cannot be understood?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the question should be brief and the answer should be brief. It seems to me, in fairness to all hon. members, that we should try to get on more quickly. I apologize to the right hon. gentleman for interrupting him. I tried not to interrupt him or the minister who gave a lengthy explanation. I would hope that we could complete the first round of questions before the end of the question period.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that the minister went on to explain about the pricing, the "ifs" and the work of this government in respect of prices. All this has no reference to the questions I asked. May I summarize it this way? Am I correct in suggesting the minister talked with some millers who told him that if certain eventualities took place, which we do not know are going to take place, then in that case while there would be no undertaking-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether we might try to bring the matter to a conclusion. Perhaps the right hon. gentle-
6284

September 6, 1973
Oral Questions
man should ask a question now, and then we would listen briefly to the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I was trying to help the minister out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister this simple question, and he can answer it yes or no without all the equivocation and evasion in which he has indulged.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it now clear that there will be no increase in the price of bread as a consequence of the representations he has made and the statements made in reply thereto on the part of the millers? Is that clear?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my answer is clear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are through, Otto.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Otto ought to know more than that.


TEMPORARY FREEZE ON PRICE OF CRUDE OIL-POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and arises from his statement last Tuesday concerning, to use his own words, the price of petroleum products, including gasoline and home heating oil. The Prime Minister said, as recorded at page 6184 of Hansard:
The oil industry will be asked to refrain from making further price increases affecting Canadian consumers before January 30, 1974.
In view of the statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the House yesterday to the effect that this temporary and voluntary freeze will apply only to the price of Canadian crude oil, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he can clarify what appears to be a glaring discrepancy and specifically indicate whether the temporary freeze will apply only to crude oil or whether it will apply, as he said in his statement, to the price of petroleum products including gasoline and home heating fuels?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows the price increases in the Canadian market during last year resulted from increases in the cost of crude both east and west of the Ottawa Valley line. The position we have put to the industry is that there should be no more increases in oil prices until parliament has had an opportunity to act in respect of the number of control mechanisms to which we have referred. As a result of that,

there would really not be any justification for increases in the prices of crude, heating oil or gasoline.
I had an opportunity of indicating yesterday, in response to a question posed by an hon. member who suggested a retailer or retailers had increased the price of gasoline, that we exercise no control over the retail price through any legislation passed by this House. I would indicate that in the case of any general increase in the price by a group of retailers I would very much like to know the circumstances, as very clearly that is governed by the Combines Investigation Act and should be the subject of an immediate inquiry.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CONSUMERS WILL RECEIVE BENEFIT OF PRICE FREEZE ON CRUDE OIL
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since members of this party support the idea of a freeze on the price of Canadian crude, I should like to ask the minister what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the benefits of this freeze will be passed on to the consumers of gasoline, home heating oil and diesel fuel as was promised by the Prime Minister in his statement of last Tuesday.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have the expectation that the request to the industry will be honoured and there will not be increases. As I have indicated, I cannot prevent any individual retailer from increasing his price, but I am fairly confident that the industry as a whole will honour the request.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on his last supplementary, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue in appreciation of his patience and forbearance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that 99 per cent of petroleum refining in this country is controlled by foreign-owned oil majors, and therefore they are selling crude oil to their own refineries and their own distributors, I should like to ask the minister whether he has had any discussion with the major oil companies to ensure that the freeze on the price of crude oil will reflect itself in stable prices for the consumers in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had a response from all, but from the indications I have had at this point I think I can say that I am expecting the request for restraint to be honoured. In respect of individual retailers, as I have said, we are not in a position to control them, but I do expect that as a whole they will honour this request at all stages.
September 6, 1973

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering that people from the West Indies came to Canada to work in the crop fields-I have nothing against that-but considering also that the government pays their travelling expenses as well as their shelter expenses, would the minister consider inviting Canadians unemployed and on social welfare to work in the crop fields without losing their present benefits?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, to correct one aspect of the hon. gentleman's preamble, the payment of transportation for offshore foreign seasonal workers is borne by the worker himself and the employer, and I can assure him we do not subscribe to the idea of picking up the cost of that, although we do the organizational and informational work at government expense. We are certainly recruiting from every place we can unemployed Canadians to fill these jobs. In fact, in southern Ontario we have supplied some
18,000	of the 36,000 workers who are there now, and we will continue to invite Canadian workers to take these jobs on every possible occasion.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
We hear every day in the Montreal area on radio and television that apple, carrot, tomato and cucumber crops presently stand to be lost. Farmers are asking for manpower but the unemployed do not want to go because they fear they will lose their benefits. Could the minister not make exceptions particularly at this time of the year to allow those workers to receive their benefits while at the same time working at jobs offered by farmers?
[ English]


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the Unemployment Insurance Act would be violated if we were to permit those receiving benefits to earn money beyond the top limit that is permissible under the act. In fact, if there are people on unemployment insurance who refuse to take those jobs under certain well-known conditions their benefits would, of course, be challenged.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since a good number of Canadians are holding two jobs at the present time and contributing to the unemployment insurance fund in both instances, does the minister intend to review the Unemployment Insurance Act or at least conduct a study of the matter in order that Canadians who have the heart to work at two jobs not be penalized?
Oral Questions
t English]


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we would be disposed at this time to dictate to Canadians whether or not they can hold more than one job. That would have to be the subject of a great deal of examination.
If I may supplement my answer to the previous speaker, we are prepared to share with the provinces the transportation cost of Canadian workers to these agricultural locations he has described. In fact, this has been done in many cases where we pay 50 per cent of the transportation cost and the province pays the other half.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in answering the question, the minister misled the House, because Canadians who are seeking employment themselves are not remunerated by the manpower centre but only those who found a job through that centre. But Canadians who try to find a job themselves are penalized.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the statement made in the House on Tuesday by the Prime Minister will be about as effective in bringing down rising prices as was the budget brought down in the House by the Minister of Finance last February, as evidenced by the fact that the price of bread will continue to rise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member should now ask his question. He is obviously making a speech rather than asking a question.


Robert Knight Andras: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe we should try to make some headway. The minister is rising on a point of order. We would recognize that if every member asked a question that had a preamble to it, we would be unfair to other members waiting to ask questions. The Chair will recognize the minister on his point of order.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I did not mislead the House. What I was trying to convey, and what I did convey, was that the Department of Manpower and Immigration, in conjunction with the provincial governments, paid 50 per cent of the transportation costs of workers from their home locations to agricultural centres; that is, for workers seeking jobs. I did not say we paid their salaries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order and the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition will appreciate, at the same time, that the point raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere was not a point of
6286

September 6, 1973
Oral Questions
order. I thought it would save time and we could move on as quickly as possible if I did not make a ruling on a dispute over facts being brought before the House by way of a point of order or question of privilege. Making such a ruling takes time; that is why I moved on quickly to the hon. member for St. John's East. I think that is what hon. members would wish the Chair to do. I now recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.


FOOD PRICES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it seems I must continue to rise, like the price of bread.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: You are pretty stale.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that the price of bread will continue to rise, notwithstanding the statement made in the House on Tuesday by the Prime Minister, and in view of the 2.3 per cent increase in the consumer price index, I ask the Prime Minister if he is now prepared to appear before the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, in compliance with a majority vote of that committee this morning, to explain the failure of the government to cope with inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley, who will be recognized in a moment.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated by my patience that I had a very urgent and very serious question to direct to the Prime Minister. This morning the food prices committee, by a majority vote, called on the Prime Minister to appear before the committee to explain the government's policy on inflation, and more particularly his statement to the House on Tuesday last. My question is: will the Prime Minister appear before the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, that is hardly a point of order.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should forget about the question period, which does not appear to be producing very much except points of order and questions of privilege. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is true: a motion was passed in the committee this morning. I heard out of the hon. member's mouth that the procedure was to call the steering committee to consider the manner of inviting the Prime Minister. That is what I propose to do, and not by way of a question in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley.


WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO DOMESTIC PRICE IN VIEW OF SUBSIDY BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister in his statement said that producers would receive a subsidy of $1.25 a bushel for wheat consumed in Canada, will the minister confirm that regardless of the export price, producers will receive $3.25 from the mills plus $1.25, making a total of $4.50 for wheat used domestically?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the long-term arrangement being envisaged involves a firm price of $3.25 at the floor and a payment from the treasury as long as the world price is between the floor and the ceiling, to make up the difference to the producer of that amount.


WHEAT-SUGGESTION THAT PRODUCTION COSTS BE CONTROLLED OR DOMESTIC PRICE ADJUSTED ANNUALLY
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government's recently announced three-pronged attack on inflation was also part of a three-pronged attack against the west, I would like to ask him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I must remind hon. members that there are certain rules relating to the asking of questions. It seems to me that every question asked by hon. members is preceded by a preamble, an allegation or a statement. That is entirely irregular. I suggest to hon. members that they try to take this into account in asking their questions.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister whether he would clarify an important matter pertaining to the price freeze on domestically used wheat which will result in lower incomes for farmers. Is the government considering ways and means to control production costs as well and, if not, will the price for domestically used wheat be adjusted annually to reflect costs of production?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the self-appointed spokesman for the west says that an increase in family allowances and old age pensions is an attack against the west.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 6, 1973


WHEAT-FREEZE ON DOMESTIC PRICE-NEGOTIATIONS WITH ONTARIO WHEAT PRODUCERS MARKETING BOARD
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is he negotiating, or has he negotiated, a freeze on the price of wheat for domestic use with the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, is having discussions along these lines.


FINANCE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a policy adopted by the federal government at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, in Calgary. The federal government agreed to amend the Bank Act to enable provincial governments to hold certain equities in provincial or regional banks. I ask the Minister of Finance how soon the House may expect the presentation of such an amendment to the Bank Act.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when Premier Barrett put that question to me at the conference, I said I hoped to introduce legislation to that effect in 1974.


David Lewis: Could the Minister of Finance indicate why it cannot be done earlier, say some time in 1973? Why the delay until 1974?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is acting as a principal or as an agent, but in any event I must have regard to the total parliamentary time available to the House.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he say whether he has any new policy to introduce in response to the growing number of requests from Eastern farmers for better prices for feed grain?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the feed grains program has been announced. We said that the program will be fully in operation by September 15 and we are still shooting for that date.
Oral Questions


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the importance that eastern farmers attach to their requests and since they also have resolved to hold a demonstration in Ottawa if the government does not act before September 15, would the minister say what measures he intends to take in order to prevent this demonstration?
[ English]


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have informed them of what we are going to do. If they want to parade here and make a presentation, I have no objection.


FEED GRAINS-REQUEST FOR BETTER PRICE FOR EASTERN FARMERS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the talks that have been held between the Quebec Union des producteurs agricoles and the Department, has the framework which will have to be set to ensure equity between eastern and western Canada been actually accepted by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge they had no objection to it and seemed in full agreement.


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who has expressed the view that the best way to deal with food prices is to encourage production. In view of the fast write-offs and such measures granted to manufacturers to encourage production, does the minister propose to offer a complementary system of fast write-offs and fiscal inducements to farmers to encourage them to increase their production, particularly in view of the tendency of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to freeze their prices?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the preamble to the question first, the result of the corporate tax reduction is certainly having a paramount effect on the intentions of manufacturers and processors. They have raised their expectations by as much as 19 per cent for capital investment in the forthcoming year as a result of these reductions. As for the part of the question that relates to the farming community, that incentive applies to processors of both food and fisheries products.
September 6, 1973

Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the minister's desire to encourage the production of farm products, and in view of his boasted success with regard to encouraging manufacturing production by this technique, is he prepared to apply this technique to encourage the production of farm products?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think it is implicit and explicit in the Prime Minister's statement of Tuesday that we are encouraging the production of food. The hon. gentleman is right, maximizing supply is one of the ways to beat the world commodity problem at the moment. By putting a floor under the price of wheat and instituting discussions with the provinces to stabilize farm prices, we will do more to encourage that than anything the hon. member suggests.


HOUSING
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the proposal by the minister in charge of the Ontario Housing Corporation to match any reduction by the federal government of interest rates on mortgages in the next phase of the Malvern development so that interest rates there may be held at a maximum of 8.75 per cent, will the Prime Minister inform the House whether he has received information from the Ontario government to that effect and, if so, what will be the response of the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. As the hon. member only indicated that the question was for me in the dying words of the question, I will take notice of it and try to answer on another day.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I indicated in the preamble to my question-if the Prime Minister is listening now, as he was not then-that I was addressing my question to him in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Perhaps I may repeat the question. In view of the proposal by the minister in charge of the Ontario Housing Corporation to match any reduction by the federal government of interest rates on mortgages for the next phase of the Malvern development so that interest rates there may be held at a maximum 8.75 per cent, and the advocacy of that minister that interest rates for public housing be held at that level, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether the federal government has received any information from the Ontario government to this effect and, if so, what will be the response of the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire.


MANPOWER
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the recent announcement of the new Local Initiatives Program, would the minister make a statement on motions to clarify the guidelines in view of the fact that there are some confusing interpretations of the program?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I hoped that the letter I sent, with all the kits and material, to all hon. members had clarified that matter, but I shall most certainly give that request and recommendation my consideration.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerns the immigrant adjustment program which has been in operation for some three weeks. Can the minister inform the House of the success of the program and give some idea of the number of people who have applied to have their status adjusted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless the minister can reply briefly, I would suggest to the hon. member that this is the kind of question which could be asked at the time of adjournment. The hon. member is asking for general information from the minister, and such a statement should be made on motions. If there is urgency, the question could be considered this evening at the time of adjournment.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Since the collective agreement of federal veterinarians working in Quebec expired June last, can the minister say whether it is true that the Treasury Board is refusing them any increase and if such is the case, does he intend to meet personally the veterinarians involved in order to avoid any action affecting meat inspection and control of animal diseases in Quebec?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government does not expect any interruption of meat inspection. Negotiations are under way and I feel that they are progressing rather satisfactorily. As I have always main-
September 6, 1973

tained, it is not government policy to discuss terms of negotiations in the House.

[ English]


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding the recently announced $10 million ecological studies of the James Bay area. Can the minister tell the House whether these studies will deal with the possible displacement of several thousand Cree people who have lived in the area since time immemorial as well as dealing with the effects on the natural environment of the proposed hydro-electric scheme?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, these studies are made by the Department of Environment and I cannot give the hon. member a definite answer. I shall inquire of the minister involved and reply later.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON ALTERNATIVES
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that since we adjourned in July the government of Canada has entered into negotiations with the government of the United States with a view to persuading that country to cancel its plans to unload Alaskan oil at sites in Puget Sound?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire what particular initiatives were taken in that period of time and perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could answer the question.


MANPOWER
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware that ten classes plus instructors are to be closed and moved from the adult vocational training centre at Point Edward in Cape Breton? In view of the confusion surrounding this unfortunate action, may I ask if it is being brought about as a
Oral Questions
result of instructions from the minister himself or officials of his department?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice. I am not aware of the information the hon. member has given but I shall look into it immediately and report to him.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, a short supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member may have a supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. After that we will have to call orders of the day quickly as we have gone beyond the question period.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister, when he is investigating, if he would ascertain what part the provincial department of education is playing in this so that we will not be told by officials of that department in Nova Scotia that this problem belongs entirely to Bob Andras?


POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH CARE RESEARCH COUNCIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the past the minister has referred to the report "Health Care in Canada", a study prepared for the Science Council of Canada by Dr. Rocke Robertson. I should like to ask the minister if it is his intention to implement the recommendation to establish a health care research council and if so, when?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, these recommendations obviously have to be the subject of consultation and discussion with the provinces.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the answer given in this House on Tuesday to the hon. member for Vancouver South by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment, namely, that the government has not yet commenced negotiations for guarantees in connection with the delivery of oil at Cherry Point to avoid the Strait of Juan de Fuca route, can the minister advise the House when serious negotiations will commence? In other words, when will we begin to fight on this issue?

September 6, 1973
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the United States government are very well aware of the statements made by me on this subject, by the Minister of the Environment and by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We are preparing for the kind of negotiations that will be necessary. It is a negotiation, and it is one in which I hope we can succeed.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. As there are reports that the Canadian Postmasters Association will go on strike, what is the status of current negotiations between the Post Office and the CPA?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that a tentative agreement was concluded this morning with the Canadian Postmasters Association; therefore I doubt that there will be a strike. I am very hopeful that this settlement will be ratified by the postmasters.


RURAL MAIL CONTRACTORS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RESULTS OF STUDY
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In replying to the question I asked on June 18 the Postmaster General indicated that the representations on behalf of rural mail contractors had been under active consideration. Is the minister in a position to advise the House of the results of the review of the terms of rural mail contracts and the request made by myself and others on behalf of these contractors?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the last time such a question was asked of me I said I was most anxious to act in order to adjust some contracts between the Post Office and many of our rural route contractors. I had to wait at the time for a settlement with the Canadian Postmasters Association. Now we have good news for the postmasters. I am very confident that I will be able to announce in a few weeks' time very good news for our rural route contractors.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West and then call orders of the day.
(Mr. Leggatt.l


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question derives from the line of questioning begun by my leader at the beginning of the question period.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Peter Reilly: Which one? We have but one leader on this side of the House. But if we had two, we would have two more than hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would ask his question. As hon. members know, we have reached the end of the question period. Questions should be asked quickly and answers, if any, given quickly. After this question I will call orders of the day.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I am directing my question to the Prime Minister, with all the respect that is due to him. Following his statement the other day that there was no shortage of food in Canada, I want to know why it has been necessary for the government to have printed, by a firm in Toronto, millions of ration stamps, including those applying to food and other commodities.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. gentleman give me the source of this information, or substantiate it in some way?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If it is not a pure canard I will take the question most seriously, but I imagine it is either a figment of the hon. member's imagination or somebody else's.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the House would consent to my recognizing the hon. member for Malpeque. I had intended to recognize him earlier. He has been very patient.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader the usual Thursday question as to what business he proposes to bring before the House for the rest of this week and next week?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, we will continue in committee of the whole on the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. This will be followed by second reading of the bill to amend the statute law providing for the payment of supplementary retirement benefits, which will be followed by the bill to amend the Family Allowances Act. My hon. friend is aware that there are number of allotted days to be dealt with, and I am considering calling such a day for Monday.
September 6, 1973


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not raise my point of order earlier because I wanted to expedite the question period. In his response to me the Prime Minister suggested that I was a self-appointed spokesman for the west. That was an erroneous statement. I was appointed by the constituents of Athabasca.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert), but I shall give him tomorrow the opportunity to ask the very important question which he doubtless intended to ask today; therefore, I shall recognize him during the question period.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, September 5, consideration in committee of Bill C-219, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. Lalonde-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 1-" Consumer Price Index".
[ Translation]
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, Bill C-219, to amend the Old Age Security Act, now under consideration, is evidence that a bill can very well go through first, second and third reading in committee of the whole without being referred to a House committee. It is evidence that when the government wants to have a bill dealt with in a hurry, it is the first one to admit the inefficiency of committees of the House, because on account of the government control over these committees, the consideration of bills in these same committees has nearly never changed much to the original version of a bill. That is why almost all members are convinced that these committees are inefficient.
However, I appreciate this method of considering bills in committee of the whole, because it enables us to offer suggestions and move amendments.
This Bill C-219 to amend the Old Age Security Act has a praiseworthy intent in itself, but when put into practice it will be seen clearly that it is not the true solution to the problems of inflation and insecurity, because this bill will not solve the problem of inflation any more than all the other statements of the ministers, and specifically those of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in view of all the false solutions that have been put to us so far.
On June 8, 1970, the federal government declared war on inflation through its then Minister of Finance, Mr. Benson, and after that through other ministers who have made similar statements that they were going to stop inflation.
Today, the legislation on old age security, providing especially for a quarterly adjustment of old age security
Old Age Securi ty
pensions to the cost of living, is tangible proof that the government has completely failed in its efforts to curb inflation. The government, through its Minister of Finance, announced with fifes and drums on June 8, 1970, that it would conquer inflation. It was fantastic, on June 8, 1970, to hear the cabinet ministers, and especially the then Minister of Finance, strongly and enthusiastically announce that the government would fight against and conquer inflation.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the very speech made by the hon. Minister of Finance, as reported on page 7817 of Hansard for June 8, 1970. I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on the meeting of the Federal-Provincial Committee of Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers in Winnipeg last Friday and Saturday.
There were some significant developments during the course of this conference which have an important bearing on current economic conditions in Canada and which I would like to outline in some detail for the information of hon. members.
In my remarks to the conference regarding the economic situation, I reminded provincial ministers that the fundamental objective of the federal government is to halt the inflationary spiral of costs and prices in order to pave the way for a return to the path of strong but stable growth.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance claimed that it was dramatic for Canada to announce to the Canadian public that the government had decided to conquer inflation. He further stated, and I quote:
I want to make it perfectly clear that the federal government remains determined to break the back of inflation. We are hopeful that this further measure will prove effective, together with existing policies, in halting the cost-price spiral.
In September 1973, the government's drum against inflation is smashed in. It is not even heard any longer. The government has lamentably failed, unfortunately, in its Robin Hood fight against inflation. After hearing so much noise against inflation, many Canadians thought that the government had a really big gun to fight it, but today we realize that it was not even a slingshot.
The government has failed pathetically against inflation and the bill now under consideration admits; we have failed. We have failed to check inflation and we are now going to try to follow it. We do not know where it will lead us. We do not know where it is heading, but we are following it just the same. The government undertakes to lengthen every three months the scale of inflation by adjusting old age pensions to the inflation rate. At the present time, the government does not know what is the scale of inflation, but it is still ready to jump on it. The government is proving today that it did not know where it was going on June 8, 1970, that it does not know yet where it is going as concerns inflation, but it is still trying to go every which way.
Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of my hon. colleagues, I would like to repeat what I said on that date in this House on behalf of my party, in reply to a statement made by the Minister of Finance of the time concerning inflation. I quote from page 7822 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, we are quite willing to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the government take steps to fight inflation and we recognize that the minister is sincere when he talks about his anti-inflation policy, but we have serious doubts as to the means he is taking to attain that goal.
6292

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security
First of all, we should get a clear understanding of what is meant by the words used.
I then went on to define inflation, because the government wanted to fight inflation. However, inflation means an increase in currency beyond the proportion of available goods-that is the definition given in the dictionary-and we are now witnessing inflated production costs.
This is completely different, and whatever you may think, the government with all its economists has not yet found the slightest solution to the problems of inflation in Canada.
And I said further on:
The present "inflated prices", a more appropriate description of the inflation the Minister of Finance would have us believe in, result from increased production costs. Before establishing . . .
And it was then that the Minister of Finance set up the Prices and Incomes Commission.
. .. the Prices and Incomes Commission, the minister should have appointed a commission to determine the causes of these "inflated prices", which would probably have made it possible to take more realistic action, more likely to correct the situation.
For example, a few years ago the government lifted all restrictions on interest rates on mortgage loans . . .
Mr. Chairman, one does not have to be a genius in order to realize that since the federal government, through its Minister of Finance, removed the ceiling on interest rates on housing loans, which was then 6 or 6 !4 percent, the rate of mortgage loans in Canada now ranges between 10 and 11 percent.
It is very simple to see that when one pays 10 to 11 per cent interest on a mortgage, this automatically boosts the price of the rent. The same goes for the 11 per cent federal tax on building materials that the government has imposed and that it has never accepted to abolish after countless motions moved in this House to ask the government to do so. That is very simple to understand; the 11 per cent tax, the exaggerated interest rates are factors which have boosted costs and this has produced inflation. Instead of establishing a Price and Incomes Commission, the government should have analysed the costs or the causes of inflation in Canada. Today, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has to try to produce a "gimmic" which every three months will gear pensions to the cost of living. He does not say-he does not know, I am sure-where inflation will lead him; he does not know what level inflation will have reached in six months or a year. But the Minister of National Health and Welfare undertakes today to adjust pensions on a quarterly basis so that senior citizens may receive quarterly benefits.
Mr. Chairman, once again-and I say this today as I said it when the Minister for Finance made a statement on June 8, 1970-the government will not succeed. Why? And the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is here today, will not succeed because the government will base the quarterly increase in old age pensions on false data published by Statistics Canada concerning the consumer price index.
Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no faith in Statistics Canada and its data and the government will determine

the price index on the data published by Statistics Canada to adjust the old age security pensions.


Gilles Caouette: Lies!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain here the technique used by Statistics Canada to show that the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare and the government are wrong in 1973 as they were June 8, 1970 in wanting to rely on an organization which is absolutely anti-scientific et incompetent. I specify: I know very well the methods used to prepare statistics in Canada.
Throughout the country, there are about 800 people who are busy one week a month visiting 30 or 40 families to establish unemployment statistics. They have to visit about eight families a day during six days, one week a month. Each is paid $2.20 or $2.25 an hour, plus 13 cents or 16 cents a mile if he holds an insurance policy for pleasure and business driving and he must visit the same family every month for six months. Six new households are visited every month and the six families visited consecutively during six months are left out. Mr. Chairman, it is a real joke when you see the same investigator, who came during six consecutive months, coming to ask once more to the same family if they are unemployed and how long, how many hours they worked during the preceeding week. Sometimes we are surprised that some householders, as I saw it myself in the country, set their dog on the investigator, fed up as they are to see him coming at their door during six consecutive months. This is when the investigator, tired as well of having called during six consecutive months at the same houses, sets up his own statistics in his car with figures he determines himself. As I said on February 11, 1971 on page 3315 of Hansard:
I know that the third month, when he returns to the same household after finding out at previous interviews that the head of the household was getting annoyed at always being asked the same questions, the investigator feeling embarrassed always having to ask the same questions and since he would run the risk of getting a more or less rude answer as on previous visits, he merely fills his IBM forms with the previous answers or puts in imaginary answers in order not to bother again the investigated household.
Mr. Chairman, I could also give you the technique through which these statistics are falsified. To go back to my quotation:
With such methods, it is stated that the number of unemployed has been computed in Canada. With figures arrived at in such a poor scientific way from a sampling of 30,000 Canadian households per month they talk then in this House, with great compassion, on the most serious problem now-unemployment- leaving aside what is less important for the government, the unemployed in this country.
The 30,000 households "investigated" for six consecutive months constitute about Vz per cent of all Canadian households.
If, during these so-called inquiries, an average unemployment rate of 7 per cent was found for households visited for six months, the number of unemployed recorded is multiplied by the ratio represented by the 30,000 households investigated out of a total of 5,180,473-odd Canadian households in 1966.
I have before me the last issue of the Canada Year Book, that is 1969, which is available to every member of this House. One can see there the number of Canadian households visited. . . . On which figure and which year does the Dominion Bureau of Statistics base the "guesstimated" number of unemployed in order to supply monthly statistics on the unemployment rate? How is it possible to believe that the figures published by DBS are correct
September 6, 1973

while, on top of all that I already mentioned about the production of statistics, they instruct the 800 investigators who are on the road for a week a month to visit rural districts where there are fewer unemployed, because a farmer who works on his farm in the winter is not unemployed? And in the summer, they take a sample of the unemployed in the cities.
In winter, the Federal Bureau of Statistics orders a census taken in rural areas, where there is no unemployment, and in summer, where unemployment is less intense, that is in the cities. I resume my quotation:
Mr. Speaker, let us establish statistics now with statistics. For instance, the 800 persons taking the monthly census each represent about 6,500 households, because there were 5,180,473 households in Canada in 1966.
How is it that the province of Newfoundland has 71 census takers while it has only about 96,632 households? Therefore, there are about five times too many investigators in Newfoundland since they should be 14 and not 71. Are those statistics serious? With such random statistics it is no wonder that the government is all the time probing and searching. The governments are very well represented by such bad statistics. Our statistics are a joke when we know the way they are made up . . .
Since Prince Edward Island comprises 25,360 households, it should have four investigators instead of nine, so there are five too many.
Nova Scotia, with 185,245 households, should be entitled to about 29 investigators. It has 54,25 too many. New Brunswick has 141,761 households and is entitled to 21 investigators. There are 43,22 too many or twice as many as it should have.
The province of Quebec with 1,389,115-
-in 1969-
-households would qualify for 214 investigators, but since it has only 153 it is short 60.
Ontario has 1,876,545 households, should have 289 investigators, has only 201, therefore it is short 87 if ratios should be taken into account to get accurate figures. Manitoba has 259,280 households and would be entitled to 40 investigators but has 47, that is 7 too many.
We find the best balance in the province of British Columbia. And I quote:
British Columbia had 543,075 households in 1966 and while it was entitled to 84 investigators, it had only 81. Therefore, it was short three. However, it is still in British Columbia that the best balance is achieved as concerns investigators.
Mr. Chairman, if I delve into the matter even further, I find that figures are discussed which mean absolutely nothing even within the provinces themselves. I continue the quotation:
And if I should pursue a little further my examination of statistics for the province of Quebec, especially those concerning unemployment in the city of Montreal, there, again, I will discover most interesting facts. For instance, in nine constituencies of the city of Montreal where unemployment is high, there are ten investigators. The constituencies of Hochelaga, Lachine, Bourassa, Laval, Saint-Denis and Saint-Jacques each have one;
It is a very simple matter: Statistics Canada applies the same policy at the provincial as at the federal level, that is, investigators are not sent out when there is unemployment, but are when there is no unemployment! In the Montreal ridings, when there is unemployment, there are no investigators, but in those ridings where there is some, there are investigators. And after that, we see hon. members in this House maintain their points stubbornly, quoting figures that are totally erroneous, meaningless. Now, to go back to the quotation:
All statistics on unemployment are the result, as I explained
Old Age Security
earlier, of a heap of figures established in a non scientific way, that the government may change when they see fit by ordering inquiries in sectors or areas suitable for hiring, so as to better disguise unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, the government, and unfortunately the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), were going to base themselves on the consumer price index, on figures arrived at by Statistics Canada which are not and will not be any more serious than present labour force figures.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to add that this proves that the government has not found the solution to the problems of inflation, any more than it has found that to the problems of old age pensions in Canada by maintaining them at the level-


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him expired some minutes ago. I did, however, want him to be able to complete his argument with regard to the compilation of statistics. It is, of course, within the power of the committee to grant to the hon. member extra time as he enters into a new part of his argument. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, in concluding I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That in clause 1, the words "Statistics Canada" be replaced by the words "a scientific private body of statistics".


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. The hon. member for Shefford has sent the Chair a motion to the effect that Statistics Canada be replaced by a scientific board of statistics. The Chair has some question concerning the receivability of the amendment and is prepared to hear argument on the point at this time.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, in support of the motion moved by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), I should like to point out that in the committee of the whole, members have the privilege to move amendments to a bill.
Mr. Chairman, without referring specifically to Beau-chesne's Parliament, ry Rules and Forms or to the works of other commentators such as May, Bourinot or others, I will say that the purpose of the amendment is explained in clause 1 of the bill, and I quote:
""Consumer Price Index" with respect to any adjustment quarter means the average for that adjustment quarter of 10 the Consumer Price Index for Canada,-
Now we come to the crucial point, and I resume the quotation:
-as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, for each month in that adjustment quarter;"
We would like to replace that by the following words: "published by a private body of scientific statistics."
26454-34!

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security
That means, Mr. Chairman, that we are not changing the purpose of the act, we are not changing through this amendment the spirit of this legislation; we do not intend either to give rise to extra expenditures.
Mr. Chairman, that means that this amendment is against clause 1, as a question of principle, namely that at present statistics are prepared by a public body.
The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is a matter of replacing the federal body by a private one. That is why I refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
As we do not want to delay the debate, I shall refrain from giving references you know as well as I do, but since the purpose of this amendment is to replace a questionable organization called Statistics Canada, for the purpose of gathering basic statistics for the administration of the act by a private scientific body, so that the interests of Canadians are really respected, it is obvious to us that this amendment is in order.
Another reason for us to disagree with Statistics Canada-and this has nothing to do with procedure-is that if this body reflected more the policy of bilingualism in Canada, we would already be more inclined to look favourably on what it does. But since we are unable to obtain any information from this body or to get in touch with it except in English, we have even less sympathy with it.
Of course, this has nothing to do with procedure, but I should like to urge Your Honour to look favourably on this amendment because it would not result in additional expenditures; we simply want to have the right men in the right places.
[ English]


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I have been taken by surprise by this amendment. I am not clear concerning the body which the hon. gentleman mentioned. While this bill is anything but startling in its precision, I believe generally speaking one should strive in legislation for clarity concerning the sort of institutions we have in mind in carrying out a public trust. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has a definition of this body which could be inserted in the right place in the bill. I do not want to use the amendment as a vehicle for either praising or blaming Statistics Canada, but I am sure it would be helpful to Your Honour and to the committee-it certainly would be to me-if we had a definition of the body to which the hon. member refers so we would know upon whom the responsibility would be placed in this matter.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Chairman, in respect of the amendment presently before the committee, it seems to me it would be difficult for us to support the amendment in view of the fact that there is no such organization in existence which would be able to determine the consumer price index as is done now by Statistics Canada. I should like to point out to members of the committee that it seems to me this bill would be frustrated in its essential purpose, at least temporarily until such a body was set up, at being able to escalate, according to the consumer price index, the benefits to old age pensioners and recipients both under the OAS and GIS on the basis of increases in the cost of living. On that basis alone I would find it difficult to agree to this

amendment. In effect, it would destroy the bill at least in a temporary way until such a body was set up. That is not in any way a comment in respect of Statistics Canada.
In addition to that, we feel that the recommendation by the Governor General which accompanies this bill does not deal with this specific question but, rather, with the question of escalating the OAS and GIS payments; it does not deal specifically with Statistics Canada. For that reason also I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the motion before us is out of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Charlevoix on a point of order.
[ Translation]


Gilles Caouette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Charlevoix rises on a point of order.


Gilles Caouette: With respect to the discussion going on, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member of the Progressive Conservative Party asked for clarification about the organization suggested by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) to replace Statistics Canada. The parliamentary secretary suggests for his part that there are no organizations other than Statistics Canada to compile statistics. So, to clarify the discussion I would like to point out that all national food, clothing, petroleum producing corporations all year round commission statistical surveys from associations of economists in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver and those same firms of statisticians or economists can be referred to by the federal government. We say that Statistics Canada through its formulation, its basic principles, its action or working methods does not produce reliable statistics. That is why we want a private association of firms of economists in existence from which the government could easily commission statistical surveys on the cost of living. If the parliamentary secretary is not aware of that all he has to do is ask, probably the fund raisers of the Liberal party, if big corporations can give him information on their statistical surveys which, in many cases, are a lot more specific than those made by Statistics Canada.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, on what has been said I would like, in reply to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and for your information, to refer to paragraph (2) of citation 199 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which states:
(2) A motion is not irregular on account of its vagueness.
Supposing that this motion is vague, it is not a reason to rule it inadmissible. Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that it is the prime responsibility of the government to obtain valuable statistics. We question the work of Statistics Canada. This is why our motion is positive. And citation 198 stipulates that a motion must be positive. This
September 6, 1973

is why I continue claiming that this amendment is admissible.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Shefford has presented a motion for the consideration of the committee which if accepted would mean that clause 1(1) would read in part:
"Consumer Price Index" with respect to any adjustment quarter means the average for that adjustment quarter of the consumer price index for Canada, as published by a scientific private body of statistics under the authority of the Statistics Act, for each month in that adjustment quarter;
The Chair has very grave reservations about the amendment in that it might involve an amendment to the Statistics Act which is not before the House or the committee at this time. I have a further reservation as to the amendment. I would draw the hon. member's attention to citation 246(3) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, where it is stated:
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
With respect to the hon. member, I think his proposed amendment would be quite a departure from the recommendation of the Governor General, and on that ground would fail to meet the time-honoured practices of this House. For those two reasons, more particularly the second one because the Chair really does not know the ramifications of the proposed amendment in respect of the Statistics Act, I have to declare the amendment out of order.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
I shall be very brief. I would like, most seriously and sincerely, to thank you just the same-even though we are disappointed that our amendment was rejected-for having given us the opportunity of pleading its case. The right to do so was denied us, Friday, which is a pity. But now we see that the Chair is honest and objective.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on clause 1 of Bill C-219, there are a number of points I want to present to this committee. Specifically, I wish to clearly point out what I feel are the shortcomings of not only the bill but also the solution which, hopefully, is to be brought about in relation to the financial position or purchasing position of our senior citizens.
As a result of clause 1 of the bill before us we will see an adjustment on the basis of calculations to be made quarterly in respect of the guaranteed income supplement, in the hope that with these increases pensions will keep pace with today's rapidly rising rate of inflation. This bill will cause indexing to be done on a quarterly basis, and I assume it is the government's intention that this will enable the old age pensioner to re-establish his purchasing power. Let me very clearly point out to the minister that all we are doing by this bill in respect of indexing is enabling the old age pensioner to re-establish his purchas-
Old Age Security
ing power in respect of a three-month period during which that purchasing power has been severely eroded.
In addition, we are taking for granted that if the purchasing power is indexed three months back to before the inflationary spiral occurred, this will be sufficient. I submit this is not the case and it is a fallacious premise on which to start indexing old age pensions or social security payments. Let us for a moment consider the financial position of many of our old age pensioners. During their working years all too often the remuneration received for their work had to be used for buying the necessities of life; they had no financial ability or opportunity to establish a voluntary retirement fund. Therefore such a fund simply does not exist for many of these people.
Furthermore, the Canada Pension Plan came too late for many of these people, in that they were not able to contribute to it and thus supplement their old age pensions and social security payments. If they were able to pay into it, they receive only the minimum benefits after a five-year period. In spite of these encumbrances, many of our senior citizens scrimped and saved through the years and were able to build a small nest-egg which in many cases represented their only financial security for retirement. This small financial resource was to give these people security, and today it is being callously eroded by the high inflation rate. This nest-egg is literally worthless today compared with its value at the time it was saved. So what is involved is not simply indexing old age pensions but dealing with the inflationary situation in which we find ourselves.
The greatest tragedy is not simply erosion of purchasing power but erosion of the security to which these people are entitled and which they should demand because of the contribution they made to this country. It is our responsibility to return that security to them. The old age pensioner is no benefactor of galloping inflation, neither is the consumer. There is only one benefactor and that is the government. Although the income of workers and corporations has risen, purchasing power has not risen. It has not kept pace. But up until now the government has taxed higher earnings even though those higher earnings have not provided an increase in purchasing power. As a result, the government has a surplus of funds and with its largesse can now say, "We will give the old age pensioners some money."
The government now says it will provide indexing of pensions on a quarterly basis, something it said previously was financially impossible, not to mention logistically impossible. Suddenly it has become possible. The government now is going to repay the old age pensioners with money it has already taken from them. While I support indexing of pensions, one clear fact remains; that is that this bill will not restore to old age pensioners the purchasing power they had last January. Not only do we need indexing of the pension; we also need a higher base from which to start. Only in that way will we increase the purchasing power of old age pensioners. We are not increasing the purchasing power of old age pensioners through indexing. It is to be hoped that that power will remain equivalent to what it is now.

Old Age Security
The old age pensioner has become a pawn in what I believe is a very heartless political game. Yesterday, as recorded at page 6267 of Hansard, the hon. member for Vaudreuil said that on two occasions in the last year the government had raised the old age pension. I ask him and the government: where has the largesse come from? Why is there this magnanimity at the moment? It is clearly a reaction to a political situation that demands a solution. The government's answer is to index pensions-but is that a solution to the basic problem?
The basic problem is inflation. The government is saying to pensioners, "We will keep you in the same relative position but we will not cure the root of the problem of inflation." Will the old age pensioner be in a better position by virtue of the passage of Bill C-219 or will he still be the victim of inflation? The old age pensioner cannot financially protect himself as well as the active worker or corporation. It is our responsibility to protect him.
In reply to the hon. member for Vaudreuil, I submit that this is not largesse or magnanimity on the part of the government. It is a panic reaction after the government has made the old age pensioner a victim of inflation. We have all too often made the old age pensioner a pawn for political reasons, for election votes. Members on all sides of the House have been responsible for this. If votes were to be gained, pension increases were given. My political philosophy is such that I am not a proponent of increased government spending. I am not a proponent of simply handing out money when a crisis situation arises. But I want to place clearly on the record that a pension is not a handout: it is something one has earned.
In my opening remarks I pointed out that too many of our senior citizens did not have the ability or opportunity to establish a relatively independent financial position for themselves. As a result, they must rely on government. It is incumbent upon us to provide them with a pension on which they can live in dignity. Only in this way can they maintain dignity.
Even though we welcome this bill, what is needed is an over-all thrust at the root problem of inflation which affects every person in Canadian society. We are not simply faced with a rate of inflation to which people can become accustomed. Today we have runaway inflation. That is why the government must again adjust old age pensions. That is why the government must introduce an interim program to increase family allowances. It is because of the complete failure of the government's financial responsibility, to which the Minister of Finance alluded in his budget speech. The minister said that his budget would do two things-put more disposable income in the hands of consumers, and check runaway inflation. In placing this bill before us the government admits that those two statements are no longer true and possibly were never true.
If this bill is to be the thrust of the fight against inflation, at least according to the government, I point out it is not a prescription to cure an ailment. At best it is a shin-plaster to cure bone cancer. It is simply not enough to present this House with a pension indexing system to restore purchasing power to a level which was not adequate in the first instance.
(Mr. Epp.J
I wish to present one or two views that the department should consider. I shall digress from the group 65 years of age and over. The group of people between 60 and 65 years of age has already been mentioned by a number of speakers. As I travel through my constituency I receive many complaints from people in this group. Often they have had years of hard, physical work and now simply are not capable of meeting the physical requirements of their jobs. But they cannot leave those jobs because if they do they cannot find alternative, suitable employment. They are locked into a very difficult situation.
Therefore I submit to the minister, even though it has been done before, that his department should seriously consider reducing the pensionable age to 60, especially in light of the rate of inflation today. Perhaps it could be done on the same basis as when the age was reduced from 70 to 65. It might be done as a voluntary pension so that when a worker removed himself from the labour market he would be entitled to it. In that case, hopefully, the jobs vacated would be available to people between the ages of 18 and 25 where there is the highest unemployment rate. Not only would this government be responding to the needs of our older citizens, but it would be showing that it does not want to react in panic when inflation strikes and that it is seriously concerned about the purchasing power of pensioners rather than just making political gain when the need arises.
I submit, as other hon. members have, that we must look again at the basic amount of the old age pension which often is the only protection of senior citizens. It should be increased; this is the only way to increase the purchasing power and financial power of our older people. I am not so naive as to believe that the opposition can simply make suggestions without showing responsibility relative to the cost involved here. Naturally, the department would have to study the cost. But the government is well aware of its surplus revenue position and that revenues have increased sharply.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I emphasize one point. Despite what we do with Bill C-219 to index the old age pension, and despite the increase in the family allowance to $12 in October, we must get back to the root problem. The root problem, and the reason we are here today, is inflation. We cannot simply continue giving subsidies, indexing and reacting quarterly when we have to in an effort to beat inflation and protect the consumer. That just will not work.
Before the federal government, the provincial governments or the municipal governments curb spending in areas which do not have as high a priority as the one we are discussing today-and I think all hon. members agree with the priority of old age pensions-some relief must be given to the consumer, more purchasing power must be placed in the hands of the individual. Every Canadian is looking to this government, not for more subsidies but specifically to ensure that our position in October, November, December and next year will not have to be adjusted again. They want to know that a positive stance has been taken and that our relative purchasing power has not been eroded but, rather, increased.
September 6, 1973

It is incumbent upon this government to look seriously at the problem in that perspective and to find a way that will enable everyone to enjoy a better quality of life without having to accept from the government a quarterly handout the money for which came originally from the taxpayers themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I made an extended speech on this matter when we were at second reading and therefore I do not intend to take advantage of clause 1 to say it all over again. There are, however, one or two questions which I should like to put to the minister, and at some stage before we get through with clause 1 I should like to say a few words about the thousands of words used in this bill to try to say what it means.
My question to the minister follows the speech just made by the hon. member for Provencher. I was delighted to hear him take a strong stand for an increase in the basic amount of the pension but I think his statement would have been stronger if he had indicated a specific amount. As I said the other night, we think that the amount to go for now is $200 a month.
I should like to ask the minister what happened to that principle, that article of faith that he proclaimed before the committee on March 13 when he downgraded escalation on a quarterly basis as a means of enabling pensioners to catch up and instead said that he would prefer to see more frequent increases in the basic amount. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister who took such a strong stand does not feel happy about having to sit in the House during a couple of days of debate on a bill that is going to offer only a $5.30 increase for those who get the basic amount and only a $9.02 increase for single persons on the full supplement.
I take as the basis for what I am now saying to the minister not only my own speech of a couple of days ago but the speech just made by the hon. member for Provencher. I ask the minister why he did not come into the House at this time, in view of the tremendous pressure being exerted on our senior citizens, with something a lot better than this, namely, a substantial increase in the basic amount in keeping with his article of faith of March 13.
Since we are in committee of the whole I wonder if my friend from Temiscamingue would mind letting the minister answer my question.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I have not changed my point of view on this matter. I think all around it would be preferable still; I feel that we should proceed by an increase in the basic amount rather than just escalation. At the time I made that statement, however, I would remind hon. members that we had not had the increases in the consumer price index that have occurred over the last few months. Maybe I was naive, but I was certainly hoping that we would not see such a large increase in the consumer price index over the next few months. The events of the last few months have certainly required a re-evaluation of the situation.
As I said at the time, this change is going to cost between $11/2 million and $2 million in additional administrative costs. This is not the solution I enjoy. I would
Old Age Security
certainly prefer to see this $2 million go to our senior citizens in increased benefits. It is felt, however-and I feel this-that in view of the recent increase in the CPI, the move to a quarterly escalation is the appropriate move at the present time.
The hon. member has referred to "only an increase of $5.30" for a pensioner on the basic pension. May I go to the other limit and refer to the couple on GIS: this represents an increase of over $17 a month, which is pretty substantial. If it does not make the people richer in terms of real benefits, it certainly will make sure that they are not hurt by inflation. That is the object of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question for the minister. I wonder if he would not like to reconsider what he just said. He said that maybe he was naive in March. I liked him when he was naive. Is not the fact that the consumer price index has gone up so much more than he thought it would actually an argument in favour of the principle he announced in March, namely, that the best way to enable our senior citizens to catch up is by more frequent increases in the basic amount?
Before he answers perhaps I might say that I was not leaving out anything, at least I thought I was not, when I indicated only two increases, the $5.30 a month for a single person on the basic pension only and the $9.02 per month as the maximum increase for single persons getting both OAS and GIS. The minister quite properly added a third figure and said that a couple getting the maximum under OAS and GIS would get $17.20 a month more. But that is for two of them and is only $8.60 a month for each person, which is less than the single person gets. Surely the minister cannot be proud of that.
Perhaps I should not push him too hard. He has already said he is not happy about this. Is it not a fact that the very substantial increase in the cost of living that the minister referred to is an argument for a substantial increase in the basic amount of the pension at this time?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I would hate to disagree with the hon. member on this point. The fact that there has been a substantial increase in the cost of living requires a substantial adjustment that will take into account that increase in the cost of living. That is exactly what we are doing now. The matter of getting to our senior citizens a larger share of the gross national product or of federal government expenditures is an issue that is totally different from that to do with the cost of living. It is an argument saying that out of the money that is allocated in the social field we should at this time allocate again, in addition to the real increase that was granted as recently as within the last six months, another increase in real terms thus adding to the share that senior citizens of this country are receiving of the moneys allocated for social purposes. I do not need to recite all the arguments that have been made in this respect having to do with the level of moneys or social allowances paid under social assistance plans coming under provincial responsibility. The hon. member knows about them as well as I do.

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security
There is also the question of family allowances that are administered by the federal government. I submit that the government moved last April and made plans for increasing the basic amount of family allowances over and above whatever adjustment was required for the consumer price index. At present we are making sure that there will not be any long delay between when an increase in the consumer price index takes place and when there will be an increase in actual pensions. As I said, by reducing this delay to two months the government has gone as far as it can go sensibly and realistically in the administration of the plan. The issue that members of the opposition, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, are raising is a totally different one. It has nothing to do with the consumer price index itself. This is taking care of increases in the cost of living.
The other argument was whether, in view of all the other demands being made on government expenditures in the social field, the next step should be another substantial increase in the allocation of funds to senior citizens. I am sure we can always find that what is being done is not sufficient. A few months ago the hon. member was recommending a basic pension of $150 a month. Now his party has gone to $200 a month, to catch up with the Social Credit party. I am sure that the Social Credit party before long will advocate $250 per month. I do not want to embark on that race.
I think I have answered the point raised by the hon. member. His point had nothing to do with the consumer price index. That is another argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question, after which I shall yield to the hon. member for Temiscamingue. I recognize that the minister does not want to be involved in the race, as he says, between us and my hon. friends opposite. On the other hand, surely he does not need to lag so far behind.
My other question is this. I assume that, like all of us in this place, he saw the front page of the Globe and Mail this morning. That newspaper is a sort of daily bible here. It carried a story about the government having a $500 million surplus that it had not counted on. According to the story, only $290 million has been taken up. Did not the minister try to get some of the other $210 million for a further increase in the old age pension?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I read the Globe and Mail, but do not trust it.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up much of the time of the House but I should like to clarify a few points. A while ago, my colleague for the riding of Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) quoted facts concerning Statistics Canada which dealt with the percentages, 3, 5 and 5.3 per cent, etc. I think the government should order Statistics Canada not to make its surveys, for instance, in the field of prices, the day after Christmas or Easter because then there are special sales right across the country; instead, surveys should be made throughout the year. The same goes for unemployment in Canada. If we count the unemployed before Christmas or Easter, clearly

there will be more before than after. Statistics Canada does seem to play the game of the government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, about Bill C-219, which provides that senior citizens can look forward to receiving $179.16 in October instead of $170.14 and that a couple where both spouses qualify for maximum benefits will see their monthly payments grow from $324.60 to $341.80.
Yesterday, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) talked about the advantages of having a minority government, saying that the New Democratic Party had asked for these things, that the NDP had asked for higher pensions, but he forgot to say that when we moved motions in the House to bring down the pension age to 60, to have the pension paid to the spouse, even if he or she had not reached 65, all members of the New Democratic Party voted against these motions. When we moved a motion to grant a pension of $200 a month to a single person and $350 to a married couple, the New Democratic Party voted against this motion. Today, they tell us: It is the New Democratic Party which asked for higher pensions.


An hon. Member:: Whited sepulchers!


David Réal Caouette: Whited sepulchers, that is the right word.
Mr. Chairman, that is what they say, but yesterday, as we can read on page 6272 of Hansard, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), who was talking about the intellectual honesty of the members of the New Democratic Party, the socialist members, said, and I quote:
The NDP is different when it forms a government from when it is in opposition. We have heard the NDP talk about $400 a month, but what does the NDP government give when it is in power in certain provinces? In British Columbia they suggest $250 a month is enough. In Manitoba it is $242 a month. In Saskatchewan it is $219, plus a 5 per cent increase announced in August which takes it to $230 a month. What is the highest figure in one of the richest provinces, British Columbia, where most of the money to be spent was raised by the Social Credit Party?
The NDP boasts of having increased pensions in British Columbia with the money left to it by the Social Credit when it came in power.
-$250 a month. Half of that amount comes from the federal treasury.
Moreover, $125 a month come from- they have run away, Mr. Chairman. They cannot face the facts.
Mr. Chairman, they do not boast of having voted against all our motions. That is not all. In 1962-and I refer to the Liberals to whom I will give a dressing-down by the way-in 1962, during our electoral campaign throughout the country but more specifically in Quebec, the old age pensions amounted to $65 a month.


An hon. Member:: True or not!


David Réal Caouette: We asked for $100 a month. The Liberals were laughing at us.


An hon. Member:: They found it funny!


David Réal Caouette: It was funny! It could lead to inflation. The old people who were only receiving
September 6, 1973

$100 a month would have lost their children's respect. They were laughing at us, the Creditists, we were crazy.
Mr. Chairman, today the Liberals are introducing a resolution increasing that pension to $179.16.
Mr. Chairman, this will be reported in Hansard tomorrow. In 1973, that is 11 years later, the Liberals have become $77.16 a month crazier than they were in 1962.
We are asking a $200 monthly pension at 60 years of age because at 60 a man or a woman can no longer find employment. We all know that. At the present time we see a pensioner of 65 with a wife aged 61 trying to make both ends meet with $150 or $160 a month. If the mother asks for assistance, she is told: "You should apply for public welfare".
I have seen cheques of $1 a month addressed to a 61 year old mother of a family, as adjustment payment on a pension of $160. That made a total of $161. The social welfare added a dollar to get this total of $161.
Mr. Chairman, there are women of 55 or 60, mothers of familes in Hull and Ottawa who have to scrub floors at night in public buildings, even in Parliament buildings, because they don't have a pension that would enable them to live decently. If only they could have a pension at the same time as their husband.
Mr. Chairman, some young men would cheerfully do this type of work without much effort and they would be happy to have something to do. But no, women of 55 or 60, mothers of large families are compelled to work hard all their life, scrubbing floors in public buildings.


An hon. Member:: And when they do, their husband's pension is reduced.


David Réal Caouette: That is true, Mr. Chairman. If they work at night scrubbing floors, the husband who is 65 years old has his pension reduced and is told: You are receiving another income.
Mr. Chairman, another hon. member had something to say yesterday. It is the hon. memner for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), a former Liberal. He nearly became a Creditiste but is now a Progressive Conservative. As we may read on page 6270 of yesterday's Hansard, he said and I quote:
In any case, Mr. Speaker, this bill pertains only to those 65 and over. In support in that regard of my colleagues of the Social Credit I ask the government in the expectancy of a guaranteed minimum income for all, to refer to the committee of the House that whole question of the 60 and 65 year olds. Is this financially possible? What are the true objections? What are the statistics concerning this? How can this be interpretated in the various areas of this country? What decisions should be taken and can the budget warrant such a decision?
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) should have said: I support the request of the Creditistes, instead of: With the support of my colleagues of the Social Credit, I ask-
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe never asks anything with our support! And this is so true that he voted against the amendments we moved. It is so true Mr. Chairman, that his own leader-


An hon. Member:: Which one?
Old Age Security


David Réal Caouette: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has never talked yet of paying the old security pension at 60. He was asked about it in western Canada and he said: I will consider the matter. As he is not quick, he will not be quick about it.
Mr. Chairman, one must be honest, after all. Some Progressive Conservatives say one thing, others say the opposite, they do not agree, they are afraid to take position. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe mentions the matter because he heard me speak about it in his riding. It seemed to register and he said to himself: In that case, I shall bring up the matter. However, when he proposes the payment of of a monthly pension of $200 at 60, as we are urging, he cannot get the support of his own leader. So, I call them jokers, hypocrits. It is as clear as that.
The New Democratic voted against our proposals and they said today: We are the ones who asked for higher old age pensions. Liars! They voted against our motions to this effect and the people of Canada know that the Credistes are the first to have called for the payment of a monthly pension of $200, $350 for a couple, throughout Canada.


An hon. Member:: At 60, and you support this?


David Réal Caouette: At 60! It is true, Mr. Chairman. I must give his due to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who supported our motions, and now-


Mr. Olivier:: He will support anything!


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier), where is he? I do not see him.


An hon. Member:: He never proposes anything.


David Réal Caouette: That is true. The hon. member for Joliette cannot support the hon. member for Longueuil since he never proposes anything.
Mr. Chairman, some people say that the hon. member for Joliette will become a Creditiste. I urge him to do so. As for me, I was a Liberal at one time, like those I see before me. Then, when I had enough, I at least had the heart to dump the Liberal party and go elsewhere. At that time, I became a Creditiste. I was fooled for a while, but I was not fooled all of the time. According to an old saying: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time." This is not true!


Mr. Godin:: Mackenzie King used to say that!


David Réal Caouette: You are right. It was the leader of the Liberal party, the Right Hon. William Lyon MacKenzie King, the father in spirit of all those before me, who used to say that. We should say the same thing. In any event-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was a
bachelor.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tells me that he was a bachelor. He would still receive a pension of $179.16 a month under the new legislation.

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security
Mr. Chairman, I am stating these facts to draw the attention of the House to the work that we have accomplished, and not only for electoral purposes. I congratulate the government-it had to do it-on having managed at least to give $341.80 to an aged couple. This is getting close to what we were asking for, that is $350. That $341.80 is not too bad. People aged 65 or more will do a little better with that.
But I deplore, on the other hand, that the government, the minister, has not introduced a legislation in favour of the sick, the crippled, the blind, the welfare cases. This morning, I received a letter-


An hon. Member:: That is under provincial jurisdiction.


David Réal Caouette: True, but they should have convinced the provinces of that ten years ago.


An hon. Member:: We pay 50 per cent.


David Réal Caouette: That is right. I received a letter from a mother from Saint-Jerome; she has five children at home, pays a rent of $80 a month and gets $147 in welfare allowances, half being paid by the federal government. How can they believe that a mother with five children can live with $147 a month?
I am in favour of paying an old age pension of $341.80 for two people, but I should be in favour of paying a pension of $400 for instance to a needy mother with five children at home.
I ask the minister some questions; the minister answers with a smile, he is so kind, he is a good guy, he answers that Quebec is paying one half and we are paying the other. Quebec says: "We do not have our half, and if you do not have yours, well, we do not have it either! Then, the pension is not increasing!
Well, Mr. Chairman, it is very important to look after the invalid, the disabled, the blind and the welfare cases, not after thieves. Let us give them pension increases so that they can live properly.
Mr. Chairman, this was a matter I had to clear. My colleagues and I will support this bill; we shall try to have the age of eligibility for this pension lowered to 60. If the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will let go of the purse strings-he will ask for it? Fine! The day before yesterday, he told me that he would meet here, at the end of this month, with provincial representatives to discuss the possibility of lowering this age for the interested party and also examine the spouse's situation.
I hope the minister is taking notes of our requests; I do not want at all to get the credit for it, the minister will get it. We shall be satisfied with passing measures to improve the living conditions of the Canadian people as a whole.
[ English]


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Chairman, speaking to this bill I wish to deal mainly with the high cost of living. I then intend to make some remarks on the economy. Some members opposite would like to pretend that the package presented on September 4 was designed to curb or stop inflation. This is, of course, nonsense. Inflation is not caused by old age pensions being too low. It is not caused by retired civil servants receiving pensions which do not

keep up with rising prices. The two bills, C-219 and C-220, will not affect inflation in the slightest. So let us not parrot the local headline writer who wrote "Government clamps down on inflation". Perhaps that headline in the Ottawa Citizen was the right length to fit the space available, but it would certainly mislead anyone naive enough to assume that headlines refer to the stories upon which they are placed. These two bills are designed, I suppose, to render a temporary palliative to the sickness of inflation. They make no attempt to cure the disease, and to claim they do is about as truthful and realistic as to claim that aspirins cure cancer.
Let us consider the plight of three large groups in our society-those on fixed incomes, those operating small businesses and those workers who are not enrolled in powerful, multinational unions. First, take the position of those on fixed incomes, the pensioners. The government's plan is to allow inflation to go unchecked and raise pensions when forced to do so. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should have been ashamed to bring in this bill without apologizing to the elderly of the nation for the months of needless mental distress he caused them by his remark last May that he would not bring in quarterly adjustments because to do so would mean an administrative nightmare. But what else could one expect from this erstwhile grey eminence of the Liberal administration? In the meantime his department has been decreasing such things as grants for cancer research.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Post Office; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Agriculture; the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Labour Relations.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notice of motions (papers), public bills.
September 6, 1973


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders of Bill S-7, an act respecting the National Dental Examining Board of Canada-Mr. Railton.
Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who has this bill in his name is not prepared to proceed with it at the present time. There have been discussions and I think there would be agreement to take notice of motion for the production of papers No. 88 in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent that we consider at this time, and stand other items, notice of motion No. 88 as it appears on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the latest year for which parliament approved departmental expenditures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the debate this afternoon in effect continues one begun last May 24 when a similar motion for the production of a program forecast for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was considered by this House. I wish to be as brief as I can, bearing in mind that a number of points on both sides of the argument have already been made. I think it is worth repeating, however, that this motion for the production of papers has perhaps less to do with the Department of Veterans Affairs per se than it has with the principle of the need of hon. members for information upon which to base their judgment concerning the wisdom of expenditure proposals of the government.
I may say in passing that there are a number of similar motions standing in my name for the production of program forecasts for other departments. The debate is really about the kind of information available to members of parliament upon which they can come to some kind of informed and educated conclusion concerning the wisdom of the vast array of expenditure proposals put before them in the form of the main estimates, the blue book.
Motions for Papers
I noted when I last spoke on the subject that there seemed to be a general tendency on the part of governments of all political stripes to regard material produced within the public service as secret, confidential and not for the eyes of the public, the media or members of parliament. While I admit at the outset that certain kinds of documents, in the interest of the public service and in the interest of effective and fair government, perhaps ought not to be made available, my view is that this general tendency extends to almost any documents at the disposal of the ministry in the course of its arriving at proposals.
I pointed out at the time that the program forecasts would be of particular use to members of parliament in so far as they provide really three forms of illumination upon the process through which the ministry goes in arriving at its final expenditure proposals. I noted that program forecasts really fall into three categories. There is budget A, which is simply a forecast of expenditures in the current year for those programs undertaken in the previous year; second, budget B contains a schedule of the cost of new implemental programs which the ministry would wish to undertake; and, finally, there is budget X, which refers to the programs which, other things being equal, the ministry might be prepared to dispense with in order to obtain funds to proceed with new programs.
It seems to me that kind of information, perhaps in modified form, would provide members of parliament on all sides of the House with an insight into the type of considerations the ministry went through, and would save time and provide a good deal of valuable information to members in coming to a conclusion concerning the wisdom of the government's expenditures, which I need hardy tell this House run to many billions of dollars.
The ministry has at its disposal all the resources of the public service in the preparation of its estimates and programs, and so it should. But speaking as one member of parliament, I wish some of those resources, or should I say some more of those resources, were shared with the ordinary members of parliament on all sides. We are not asking for all the data having to do with the planned programs and budgeting system as suggested by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming). I would be prepared to settle for some editing of the program forecast as it now stands, in order to protect the curious inner workings of the ministry and to prevent public servants feeling inhibited in making recommendations.
It may well boil down to the fact that what I would be prepared to settle for lies somewhere between what the government is now prepared to give us and what these motions call for. But I see great merit and great need for the provision of some information which would present members with a broader base upon which to come to a judgment without imperilling the government's budgetary system.
As the hon. member for York West said last May, the power to govern rests with the government. I cannot quarrel with that. But the right to grant or withhold supply is the most ancient right of parliament itself which was wrested from reluctant governments over the course of centuries. What I am asking for is more sound information on the basis of which parliament can grant or withhold supply. I am not talking about prejudging the conclu-

September 6, 1973
Motions for Papers
sions of the cabinet, as the hon. member for York West suggested. It is not a question of wishing to see the information before the cabinet and the ministry have provided their recommendations to this House. On the contrary, I am talking about information to justify and give reasons for those recommendations.
During the same debate last May, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Breau), made some remarks on this matter which I feel should be repudiated. He said that the government does not need copies of the minutes of the NDP caucus meetings in order to make up its mind concerning policy. The analogy hardly stands up. I am not calling for the production of the minutes of the meetings of the Privy Council or of the cabinet, and therefore it is not analogous to suggest that the hon. member is doing me a favour by not asking for the minutes of the NDP caucus meetings.
What we are talking about is not an analogy between two parties but, rather, about the basis on which the government of the country forms certain conclusions and the basis on which parliament judges those conclusions. I think it does no service to the principles which we are debating here to exaggerate the request being made.
The hon. member for Gloucester went on to say that he did not understand why the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore should have trouble arriving at a political judgment as to which program should be voted for. But that is not the point. On the contrary, I am trying to get some information upon which I can form a judgment which is not purely dictated by political motives.
If you deny members of parliament information in respect of the dogma or ideology behind a program, you will have political judgments and nothing else. Surely members of parliament-I readily admit to being a very junior one-find ample time during the course of committee proceedings to put aside narrow political judgments and try to make some objective evaluation of the worth of a program. I have no difficulty in arriving at a political judgment, but I have some difficulty in arriving at an objective judgment in the absence of any substantial information upon which to make it.
The hon. member referred to evaluation reports which members of my party had asked for in the course of committee hearings during the winter. These evaluation reports, among other things, dealt with a program involving about $150 million undertaken by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We were told in the committee by the hon. member that these evaluations were being carried on, but we have never seen the evaluation reports. In the first place, I would ask why we have not seen them when the expenditure of so many million dollars rests on them and, secondly, I suggest that when we never see them we can perhaps be forgiven when some of us wonder if in fact they exist. The hon. member for Gloucester said that the NDP seems to be looking for independent evaluations. By all means let us have independent evaluations, but such an evaluation is not precisely the same thing as the program forecast asked for today.

These reports are a part of the total, and it is an important principle to provide members of parliament with information on the basis of which they can make objective and sound judgments. We do our homework in the opposition, as I am sure the supporters of the government do, but the resources at our disposal, I think it goes without saying, have very real limitations. Faced with committees day after day and the need to judge the worth of programs day after day, it seems self-evident that in the government's own interest, if for no altruistic reason, it would make sense to provide us with more information.
The opportunities for scrutiny now open to members of parliament could be better used than they are. Again speaking as a very junior member of the House, I was not a member when the estimates were considered in committee of the whole, but I have been impressed by the opportunities for scrutiny which are available in committee although not on all occasions have I been impressed by the extent to which those opportunities have been utilized. I would concede to the hon. member for Gloucester that on many occasions these opportunities are largely utilized for purely partisan political purposes, but I believe that if more information were available there would be less of that and more objective evaluation of the cost of many government programs put before us.
I am willing to be quite realistic in attempting to meet the legitimate inhibitions and reservations expressed by members of the government to providing documentation of their eventual decisions. If it makes it easier not to insist on getting program forecasts, surely that is something that can be worked out. But the principle of the thing and the point of the whole debate is to urge upon the government the value and the wisdom of providing members of parliament with something other than the figures contained in the blue book and such other research information, very often of a partial nature, which they may be able to produce.
In conclusion, I know some government members have not yet had the privilege of finding themselves in the opposition and perhaps do not fully appreciate some of the difficulties involved. They may find it difficult to believe that an opposition member might occasionally be prepared to drop his partisan cloak and get down to brass tacks, in dollars and cents, about the internal financing of government programs. But believe it or not, I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to members opposite that is very frequently the mood in which an opposition member goes to committee meetings.
Time and again we find ourselves bereft of all but the scantiest information provided by a ministry. Whatever else we can pick up and use to substantiate conclusions, in the absence of the kind of information I am seeking, is very often dictated by political reasons alone.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to listen as carefully as possible to the remarks made by the mover the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Herbert) to find out why last May he failed to convince my colleagues from York West (Mr. Fleming), Vaudreuil (Mr. Bmard) and Gloucester (Mr. Breau), of the merits of disclosing government long term plans. I was hoping that today he would take the time to give us all the
September 6, 1973

arguments he can muster to convince us that actually if the government made known the long term plans of the various departments, the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and other departments, that would be beneficial to everybody. I fail to see any such benefit for General Motors or Chrysler as well as other industries which compete against one another and also stand to gain by keeping secret the main elements of their long-term plans.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, he mentioned with felt nostalgia I think the disappearance of a practice that formally existed whereby the committee of the whole examined most bills. Today, as one knows, the committee of the whole is only used for bills from the Department of Finance or others which call for the spending of public monies.
However, the fact still remains that each and everyone of us has the opportunity and advantage, if he wants, to attend, contribute to and participate in the sittings of various committees where, for example, the estimates of every department can be examined. Moreover, after the implementation of projects and programs everyone of us can, if he wants, attend the sittings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and check again on the activities of the various departments.
And so, the mere fact that the committee of the whole is not used to the same extent as previously, and also that long term programs of the various departments are not announced do not jeopardize the interest of Canadians, and Canadians do not miss anything by being unaware of those long term projects.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I take this occasion that is offered to me to speak of the Veterans Affairs Department, for many reasons. As you know, I participate in the debates of the standing committee, and it is a department I have very much at heart. I would like to present some information on the activities of the department.
In accordance with long standing practice, the government's spending proposals are presented to parliament before the commencement of the fiscal year in the form of the estimates' blue book, a document with which hon. members are quite familiar. Hon. members will appreciate that these estimates represent the end product of a great deal of effort by literally thousands of people in all departments and agencies of the government, both in Ottawa and in the many far-flung locations where Canada is represented.
Although the main estimates represent a relatively short-term spending plan, the dynamic nature of Canadian life inevitably gives rise to changes that affect the expenditure proposals contained in the blue book, with the result that supplementary estimates are often required to provide for changes made necessary by the constant search for a better life for all Canadians.
Hon. members will also realize that although the annual estimates present the government's short-term spending proposals, continuous planning is takingg place on a longer term basis in an effort not only to anticipate future
Motions for Papers
needs but in an ongoing search for new and better ways of achieving objectives and allocating resources. One element in this continuing process is a procedure whereby approximately one year before the main estimates are tabled in parliament each minister puts forward his recommendations for changes in existing programs to improve service, increase efficiency and to meet new demands not currently being met. In the same manner, recommendations for new or substantially changed programs are submitted for consideration by his colleagues.
It is widely and correctly recognized that these various planning documents prepared within departments of the government are of necessity confidential papers. Indeed, I would refer hon. members to Hansard for February 28 of this year, at page 1747, when this same subject was briefly discussed arising from one of the notices of motion placed by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier). At that time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Breau) replied as follows:
Notices of motions for papers Nos. 87 to 1X4 are internal documents of a confidential nature and therefore cannot be tabled.
This is still the situation as it relates to the notice of motion now being debated. I would reiterate, however, that particulars of approved programs are made public in the form of annual estimates.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is a relatively senior department in terms of age. Few departments, however, have experienced so much change in as short a time as veterans affairs has in the last few years. Only six years ago, in 1967-68, the total expenditures of the department amounted to $399 million. The published estimates for 1973-74 amount to $480 million. Furthermore, although the current fiscal year is not yet six months old, it is already forecast that expenditures will exceed $540 million because of recent measures approved by parliament. That is close to a 40 per cent increase over the last six years.
The substantial change in current spending is due primarily to the passage of two pieces of legislation. Bill C-148, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act which received royal assent on April 5, 1973, and more recently the adoption of Bill C-202, a piece of legislation which is truly a high-water mark in the history of veterans legislation and which resulted in major changes being made to the basis on which the rates of disability pension are determined. This latter bill received royal assent on June 28, 1973, and became effective on July 1.
It has been my privilege to serve as chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which has the responsibility of examining the estimates and draft legislation respecting the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is noted for the non-partisan and co-operative manner in which it operates, and I know that hon. members will understand and excuse my pride in having had the opportunity to play a part in bringing about the legislative changes to which I have referred and which have done so much to improve the financial lot of disability pensioners and war veterans allowance recipients.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I may, to review briefly the measures adopted during the last few months for the

September 6, 1973
Motions for Papers
benefit of veterans. I do so for many reasons. As I said a short while ago, I have a very legitimate pride, because I have the privilege of chairing the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and also because, like you, Mr. Speaker, I have a certain feeling of solidarity towards my former buddies in the air force and those in the army and the navy as well.
And in a short period of time, Mr. Speaker, measures have been announced and implemented precisely so that our companions who fought with us and many of whom came back physically disabled be treated with a little more fairness and honesty.

I would like to deal first with disability pensions. Less than two and a half years ago the Pension Act was the subject of a comprehensive overhaul. The major improvements legislated at the time included the creation of the exceptional incapacity allowance, the clarification of the benefit of doubt clause, the introduction of special consideration for Hong Kong veterans, the establishment of a totally independent bureau of pension advocates, and the creation of the Pension Review Board. This landmark legislation which became law on March 30, 1971, resulted in increased benefits for veterans and their dependents and also opened the door to many thousands of others to apply for pension or to renew a previous application which had been rejected.
All hon. members will be aware of what has happened as a result of this opening up of the Pension Act. Many thousands of applications have been received and the Canadian Pension Commission has had to be expanded substantially in order to cope with the resulting avalanche of claims. I am happy to report that the backlog of applications, although still very substantial, has now started to diminish.
Although it is less than two and a half years since these major amendments were made to the Pension Act, it is noteworthy that the act has been further amended three times and that rates have been increased on four occasions. On April 1, 1971, basic rates were raised by 10 per cent. On January 1, 1972, and again on January 1, 1973, pension rates were escalated in accordance with a cost of living formula in order to maintain the purchasing power of the pensioner's income. Most recently, Bill C-202 was enacted on June 28, 1973, and this was truly a red-letter day in the history of Canadian pension legislation since the basic rate structure is now tied to the composite of five unskilled categories of public servants.
This change followed the recommendations of a joint committee of officials of the department, the Canadian Pension Commission and representatives of veterans' organizations and resulted in an average increase in basic pension rates of 24 per cent. It is estimated that the full year cost of this increase alone will exceed $50 million. No provision was made in the main estimates for this increase in pension rates for obvious reasons and, as a result, appropriate inclusion will be made in supplementary estimates to finance these increases.
The situation with reference to war veterans allowances has been equally dynamic and since April 1, 1971, the rate structure has been increased on four occasions, the most recent being April 1, 1973, when rate increases of $20.14 per month for the single recipient and $39.60 per month for the

married recipient were granted. At the moment, the actual income ceiling for a single recipient is $2,293.68 and for a married recipient $3,926.52.
In addition, recipients age 65 and over also benefit from the regulation which exempts $15 per month, if single, and $30 per month, if married, of their old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments. Over and above these income values, recipients may now earn up to $1,000 per annum, if single, or $1,500 per annum, if married, without affecting their war veterans allowance payments.
There were other significant changes and Bill C-148 is one of them. They became effective on April 1, 1973, with the result that war veterans allowance has been changed from a means tested program to a modified income tested program. For example, the former limits on savings and personal property have been removed and the recipient will now be able to own his own home, regardless of value, without his allowance being affected. In addition, war veterans allowances, like disability pensions and old age security, will be automatically increased in accordance with changes in the consumer price index.
Although veterans affairs is considered a mature department with well defined and well established programs, I have attempted in my remarks to illustrate the rate and extent of change which has been occurring in the recent past. In many instances, these changes could be foreseen only in very general terms and I have indicated the extent to which supplementary financing will be required in the current fiscal year.
My remarks are not intended in any way to suggest that every effort should not be made to plan as carefully as possible, but merely to indicate how the best of plans are subject to unforeseen change or to timing which cannot be accurately predicted.
I have dealt with only two programs of the department, namely, pensions and war veterans allowances, since these have been the two most dynamic in recent times. In closing, I would like to mention briefly a study which is currently being made by treatment services on the long term effects of imprisonment on former prisoners of war in the European theatres of operations. This study, which is being made by Dr. J. Douglas Herman of Ottawa, is an attempt to determine if the hardships of incarceration in prison camps produced any identifiable or delayed action disabilities on those who were unfortunate enough to have been prisoners of war. What this study will reveal and where it will lead is, of course, not known at this time and I mention it merely to illustrate the type of research which conceivably could give rise to further changes in any one of several departmental programs.
I would like to speak at greater length on the programs for which the minister is responsible, but since I do not wish to encroach upon the time available to other speakers, I will terminate my remarks at this point.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are dealing with asks for a complete copy, including budgets, of the program forecast of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expendi-
September 6, 1973

tures. The hon. member who just spoke indicated that he is chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He has done his best on that committee but I do not know why he was reviewing things that happened in the past. What we want to know about are the things that are going to happen in the future.
One of the most important of these came to light in the last couple of days when the old age security bill came before the House to provide for an increase of 5 per cent in the basic rate of pension, raising it by $5.30 and the OAS and GIS by $9.16. With the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I have been pressing the minister this past week to make those amounts exempt for those war veterans over the age of 65 who are receiving war veterans allowance. We have received evasive answers to the effect that they are going to be dealt with fairly, but unless we keep pressing this matter, nothing will ever happen.


Maurice Dupras: Oh, come on.


Jack Marshall: I heard somebody say "oh, come on." Certainly I know that the Department of Veterans Affairs has done a lot of good for veterans and I have complimented the minister on this. But strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, in that great reef of documents that the Prime Minister read the other day there was not a word about the war veterans in our country. There are 900,000 of them and with their dependants the number climbs to three million, yet there was no mention of them until we brought the matter up in the House.
The government keeps bragging about what they have done for the veterans. They seem to forget, however, that in 1914, over 54 years ago, a commitment was made that the veterans of Canada in the first world war and subsequent wars would be looked after by the Parliament and the government of Canada. The government may brag about what has been done in the last two or three years but they should see the suffering of those veterans who are considered burnt out at age 60. If it had not been for the veterans of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945, a lot of us would not be here today trying to deal with the problems of the country and the 5,000 poverty-stricken Canadians who live in this wealthy nation.
The government should not be too smug about what has happened in the past but should be considering what can be done for those veterans who are in the 70 to 80 years of age bracket today who are not getting the benefit of the commitment that our predecessors made some 54 years ago.
I have to bring up one matter which disturbs me. If the chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs thinks that the press is going to pay any attention to veterans affairs, he has another thought coming. The irresponsibility of the press is demonstrated by the ignorance of most Canadians regarding matters relating to veterans. I could stand in the middle of the House of Commons and do bayonet drill, but nobody would pay any attention because the veterans who built a base for this country 54 years ago are forgotten.


Maurice Dupras: That is not true, you know.


Jack Marshall: It is true.
Motions for Papers


Maurice Dupras: Stop playing politics.


Jack Marshall: "Politics" the man says. If there was ever any politicking it was in every word that came from him.
On a number of occasions I have told the Minister of Veterans Affairs that I respect what he is trying to do, but the fault lies with the government. It is just baloney to say that anybody is being political. I can only say that I hope the other notices of motion on this subject will not be treated in such a ridiculous fashion.


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) seems to think that because the opposition, by their right, have the opportunity to bring up such subjects as they wish in this House, it is all right to suggest that no thought is being given to the veterans in the legislation under discussion. This matter has been under active discussion, Mr. Speaker, certainly between myself and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) as well as the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), to ensure that there will be the necessary legislation or order in council so that veterans will benefit from the increase in the old age pension. We hope this legislation will be passed by this House, effective in the month of October. I was surprised, having heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) ask a supplementary question, to hear the suggestion that we are playing politics. Surely the opposition is playing politics, as that question was an attempt to get on the record the suggestion that only the opposition ever thinks about our veterans.


Jack Marshall: What happened last week, when I asked a question and got an evasive answer?


Harold Thomas Herbert: I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate, for surely there are all too few occasions when we can speak in general terms about the veterans charter and the way in which it has been and is being administered.
I consider that in certain respects Canadian veterans have been most fortunate. I believe that the veterans charter has been, and continues to be, the most comprehensive, constructive program ever developed for men and women who have placed their lives, voluntarily in most cases in Canada, at the disposal of their country in time of war. Indeed, they could be considered to be doubly fortunate, for the administration of that compendium of excellent legislation has been of an extremely high order. Dedicated public servants have given an imaginative, positive, humane and personal service to their clients, the war veterans and the widows and the orphans of those who gave their lives. Their efficiency and effectiveness means that we hear little about them. Like the water in a well or a good wife in a home, they are taken for granted as long as they fulfil their functions satisfactorily.
But we do hear, or read, from time to time suggestions that the veterans affairs portfolio is an anachronism; that with the last major war ending 28 years ago the ministry has outlived its usefulness and should, in fact, have been phased out years ago. Such statements are based on a pitiful ignorance of the veterans charter legislation and its

September 6, 1973
Motions for Papers
long-term benefits; and I want to take a few minutes in this debate to look briefly into the future of the continuing benefits and, to some extent at least, put the record straight.
First of all, just who are the veterans affairs clients, and how many of them are there? Canada still has approximately 900,000 veterans, most of them with wives and some with dependant children. The number of widows of fatal war casualties and of veterans is unknown; only the number of widows and orphans drawing benefits of one kind or another is known. Naturally, a large majority of the veterans are productive, self-supporting members of their communities, but are receiving benefits of one kind or another. Moreover, the last survivor of the 1885 Northwest Field Force died only about 18 months ago, and war veterans allowances are being paid to seven widows of members of that force.
"Old Soldiers Never Die-" goes the song, and a DVA welfare officer once added: "And their wives live even longer". Needless to say, allowances are still being paid to a relatively large number of veterans of the South African War and to widows of such veterans; and, of course, to those of World War I and, increasingly, of World War II. The same is true of disability and widows pensions, or compensation, to be more precise.
How long will these programs continue? It is hard to say, but a veterans affairs statistician, using standard life mortality tables, came up with a statistic a few months ago which stated that, assuming no more wars, the last disability pensioner would die about the year 2030. With modern science extending life expectancy, that prediction may look very conservative in a decade or so. The statistician did not even attempt to predict when the last dependant's pension would be paid. In other words, it looks as if there will be a group of public servants administering the Pension Act for more than half a century.
Obviously, the cost of a war does not stop when the last bullet or arrow is fired. Indeed, veterans programs only being when the servicemen and women exchange their uniforms for "civvy street" attire. That is when the expenditures for rehabilitation programs, medical treatment, home construction, pensions, allowances and so on begin. How effectively those programs are administered has an important bearing on the economic and social stability of the country; for those who have been good citizens in time of war are potentially even better citizens in time of peace, if they can be helped to make a satisfactory transition.
The rehabilitation of the World War II veterans was well done and was completed long ago. Naturally, they are the largest group of veterans we have now. Their average age is between 58 and 59. What of them in the future?
The majority of them, being still sound of mind and limb, are providing for themselves and their families. In the next ten years, however, there will be a certain percentage who will pass on and leave impoverished widows or will have to retire to economic conditions which will cause distress. Because of their service to their country, these people are entitled to the benefits of the veterans charter. Apart from these potential clients who are today healthy both physically and financially, there are about
150,000	World War II veterans and dependants receiving

disability pensions or war veterans allowances, at a total annual cost of around $200 million.
Medical treatment, of course, is another major requirement for veterans, regardless of age. Nearly ten years ago the government of the day decided to transfer the DVA hospitals to responsible authorities who would agree to certain conditions regarding standards of treatment, employment of staff, etc. What is the current situation? At the end of last year there were more than 5,000 patients in eight hospitals and three veterans homes. More than half of all DVA patients are under what is really nursing home care. In plain language they are old folks just growing older. Obviously the problem is not decelerating.
It is difficult to engage and retain highly qualified medical staff to work in a strictly domiciliary or chronic care climate and the number of acute care cases is gradually diminishing. But the department is still committed to providing first class care for those they do have.
The hospital transfer policy was first implemented in 1966 by the transfer of Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto to the University of Toronto, and later by the transfer in 1968 of St-Foy Hospital in Quebec City to Le Centre Hospita-lier de l'Universite Laval, and Lancaster Hospital in Saint John to the province of New Brunswick in 1972. These transfers have fully justified the validity of the premise which occasioned the government's decision.
There have been many other ricochet benefits to the Canadian community at large as a result of the pioneering done in the forties and fifties by DVA treatment services. For example, Lyndhurst Lodge in Toronto is probably the most up-to-date and efficient rehabilitation centre in the world for paraplegics and quadriplegics. This hospital is now operated by the Canadian Paraplegic Association but it was set up by DVA originally in 1945 for the 225 paraplegic and quadriplegic victims of World War II. By 1950, the rehabilitation of these veterans having been completed, it was turned over to the Paraplegic Association and since then more than 3,000 civilian patients have been treated and discharged from Lyndhurst and are, once again, leading reasonably normal lives and are productive members of society.
The prosthetic device division of the Department of National Health and Welfare is a direct successor to the prosthetic services set up by DVA after World War II for the Canadian veterans who had suffered the loss of limbs or eyes. Many of the supervisors and technicians in this service are former DVA employees who were transferred to health and welfare when this service was made available to the general public.
The research and development programs carried out primarily for the disabled veterans represented a major contribution to all disabled persons. Our comprehensive experience on veterans covering a period of over 60 years is available to medical science and is an invaluable source of research information, especially in the study of geriatrics.
Land settlement and home construction is another program that has been a boon to thousands of World War II veterans and their families. It is being phased out now, the
September 6, 1973

final application date for new loans being next March 31 and for all loans March 31, 1977.
However, these loans are for up to 30 years, which means that the administration of the Veterans Land Act will continue well into the 21st century. To illustrate, lending under the Soldier Settlement Act of World War I ceased in 1924, but there is still one outstanding account. We know that the Veterans Land Act took into account the lessons learned in the administration of its predecessor, but changes in the national economy and in the circumstances of the individual veterans and their families ensure that public servants will be required to manage the VLA loans until they are paid out.
The other large veterans affairs program is welfare services which provides, among other things, field services for the War Veterans Allowance Board. Obviously, those services will be required as long as WVA application are received and payments are made.
Perhaps equally important are the counselling services the welfare officers provide to their clients. These men and women know the various social and philanthropic services that are available in their particular areas and they are able to advise a veteran, a widow or an orphan in need of the services that will help them to cope with that need. Sometimes they act as a co-ordinator to ensure that the different resources available are utilized to the best advantage.
Usually, too, their standing in their communities is such that other agencies accept their recommendations without question when the need is immediate. That is a great advantage to veterans and to the dependants of veterans.
How long this special service will, or should, continue is unpredictable, but as veterans and their families grow older and life becomes more complex, their need for good advice and counsel is more likely to increase than it is to decline. That need will have to be met by an organization of qualified public servants.
What these remarks boil down to, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the veterans charter provides many continuing benefits, benefits that will have to be administered for half a century or more. Obviously a point in time will be reached when a full-scale federal department cannot be justified for this purpose, but the functions will have to continue even though the administrative groups are branches of one or more other departments.
I hope these few remarks will put in perspective the outlook for veterans' benefits and will explain why it will be some time yet before the veterans affairs portfolio is likely to disappear, and several decades before the responsibilities it now looks after will have been fully discharged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) is one of 27 motions in his name that call for an expression of opinion on the right of parliament to see the program forecasts that are worked out by various departments of government. In no case does any one of these motions call for an examination of work done in the respective departments, but rather each of these motions relates to the principles of secrecy which the government continues to
Motions for Papers
practice with regard to so many of its reports, papers and documents. However, since the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), followed by others, chose instead to treat this as though it were a debate on veterans affairs in general, I wish to say just one word before Your Honour rules me out of order on the basis of what I have already said.
The hon. member for Labelle read from his prepared statement a sentence that I think was very important. He said that the $15 increase to individuals in old age security and guaranteed income supplement that was provided in 1972 was given special status for veterans 65 years of age or over. That special status is contained in an order in council which says that a veteran 65 years of age or over may exceed the ceiling in the War Veterans Allowance Act by $15. The hon. member also pointed out that in the case of a married veteran the figure is $30. There is nothing vague about that. It is clear and straightforward, namely that veterans who are 65 or over got and still get the $15 increase that was added to the OAS/GIS in 1972.
All that the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and I are asking is for the same kind of clear statement with respect to the increase in OAS/GIS that will come in October.
I like the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) very much, but it is not good enough for him to stand up in this House and say the government will take steps to see that the veterans get a fair deal. That is fine as a general statement, but until we know what it is, I will suspect that that means some kind of compromise, something less than we got in 1972.
I ask the hon. member for Labelle to go back to the minister and the department so we will have the very simple answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, namely that there will be an order in council exempting the full amount of the OAS/GIS increase coming in October so the veterans will get the full benefit of that increase without any question.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I take exception to the fact he mentioned I had a prepared text. As I have not mastered the English language, I like to have a text before me. I will show the same deference to the hon. member if he ever speaks in French.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I extend my apologies to the hon. member. I hope he will take the message I gave him to his minister.


Maurice Dupras: I will.
Privilege



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair give the ruling, which I indicated earlier today would be made at the first opportunity, in relation to the point of order which was raised earlier today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier today the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rose on a question of privilege relating to statements made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in a press interview where questions were asked about a matter previously referred by the House to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The duty of the Chair is to rule whether there is a prima facie case of privilege that would make it possible for the hon. member for Yukon to put a motion of censure against the minister.
The hon. member made a well researched presentation to the House. He cited a number of authors and precedents which the Chair agreed to study before making a ruling.
I should apologize to hon. members. Looking at my notes, I feel it might be an imposition on the House to continue at this time. On reconsideration, perhaps the House might allow the Chair to postpone the ruling. I am thinking, in any event, about the absence of the hon. member for Yukon, and it occurs to me it might be a matter of courtesy to have him in the House when the ruling is made. So having read the introductory paragraph, perhaps I might continue when we reconvene at eight o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Earlier today, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rose on a question of privilege relating to statements made by the hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in a press interview where questions were asked about a matter previously referred by the House to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The duty of the Chair is to rule whether there is a prima facie case of privilege which would make it possible for the hon. member for Yukon to put a motion of censure against the minister.
The member made a well researched presentation to the House. He cited a number of authors and precedents which the Chair agreed to study before making a ruling. I have now had an opportunity to do so and am prepared to give hon. members the doubtful benefit of the knowledge

gained from a study of the precedents cited by the hon. member as well as other precedents and citations.
Hon. members will appreciate, I am sure, that it is an extremely serious matter for the House even to debate a motion of censure against one of its members. My information is that the last instance of such a debate goes back to 1925. This in itself is an indication that the House does not lightly embark on such a course of action and the Chair itself must exercise extreme caution before allowing such a debate to take place under the guise of an alleged breach of parliamentary privilege.
The submission is that statements made by a member outside the House, contrary to an order of the House about matters currently under investigation by a committee, constitute a breach of privilege and a contempt of Parliament. In support of his claim the hon. member has quoted citations from Beauchesne, Bourinot and May. He refers firstly to a citation in Mays 17th edition at page 119. The author states that:
. . . by the ancient custom of Parliament no act done at any committee should be divulged before the same be reported to the House.
However, this principle clearly deals with in camera sessions and I find it difficult to relate that citation to the present circumstances. The hon. member has cited Bouri-not's 4th edition at page 474. The same principle is quoted to the effect that it is a breach of privilege to publish the proceedings of a committee before they are formally reported to the House. As I have said, this citation does not appear to be applicable to the present case.
The hon. member then refers to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 429. The author quotes the following doctrine:
The House of Commons has disciplinary powers over its members, and a member who abuses his privilege of speech may be punished, not merely by suspension from the service of the House, but by imprisonment or expulsion from the House, or both.
It should be pointed out, however, that this is an excerpt from a report of a committee of the British House dealing with the British Official Secrets Act. Again I suggest respectfully that the citation is not applicable to the case now before us.
I think the essential procedural point to be considered is the distinction between statements made in the House and statements made outside the House. It is a well known rule that members ought not to comment in the House about proceedings in a committee until such committee has reported to the House. This cannot possibly apply to statements made outside the House. The distinction is consistent with the ruling made by the Chair yesterday during the question period, and consistent also with a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Macnaughton on June 5, 1964. On that earlier occasion the Chair agreed with the argument put forth by the hon. member for Yukon that, when breach of privilege is claimed, a distinction must be made between words spoken in the House and words spoken outside the House.
The hon. member has referred finally to a citation found in May's 18th edition at page 132, as follows:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has
September 6, 1973

a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
Were the words spoken by the minister an attempt to impede and obstruct the work of the committee? Was the making of a statement outside the House contrary to the order of the House? In fact, the order of the House was that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections consider a matter raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). The suggestion is that the action of the House ordering that a matter be considered by a committee is at the same time a prohibition that it be commented upon otherwise than in committee.
I have been unable to find any precedent to support this suggestion. In my estimation the citation from May's 18th edition dealing with the impeding or obstruction of House business contemplates situations that are entirely different from that which is now under question.
The examples given by May of misconduct which may be treated as a contempt of Parliament refer to misconduct of strangers, misconduct of counsel, misbehaviour on the part of witnesses and disobedience to rules or orders of either House. Examples of such disobedience are given as the refusal or neglect of a witness to attend, the neglect to make a return, neglect to withdraw from the House when so directed, disclosure of proceedings in secret session. All these are clear examples of malfeasance which, in my view, do not appear to be relevant to the circumstances of the case before us.
The contention of the hon. member, based on a citation from Eric Taylor's "The House of Commons at Work", is that a breach of privilege is also a contempt of Parliament. This may be so but the fact remains, however, according to long established practice, that a prima facie case of breach of privilege must be first established.
The hon. member has indicated the terms of the motion which he has proposed to put to the House. It reads as follows:
That the conduct of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace in publicly making material allegations and purported statements of fact on the 5th September, 1973 relevant to the matters of a question of privilege that were referred by order of this House on the 4th September, 1973 to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and report, the said committee not having so reported, is a violation of that order and a contempt of this House, and therefore this House censures the conduct of the member for N otre-Dame-de-Grace.
The purport of the proposed motion is very clear. The hon. member would ask the House to censure an hon. member for a statement made outside the House. On the basis of this motion itself I must find that there is not a prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I may say without hesitation that I accept the ruling. The Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) is rather fortunate, for if the House had debated the matter it might have involved the ultimate penalty of imprisonment. He probably would have been on temporary leave of absence in any event.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that the Chair is very grateful to the hon. member for Yukon for so graciously accepting the ruling, which I appreciate is perhaps difficult in the
Old Age Security
circumstances. I am grateful to the hon. member and appreciative of this gracious acceptance of the ruling.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-219, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. Lalonde- Mr. McCleave in the Chair.
Robert Jardine McCleave: The discussion is on clause 1. The hon. member for Victoria.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, when we rose at five o'clock for the consideration of private members' business I had just made the point that it ill becomes the Minister of National Health and Welfare to act as if this government is a great blessing to Canada while at the same time his department has been decreasing research grants for cancer. This kind of action comes from the same coalition that exists in my province of British Columbia on a federal-provincial basis.
In that province the federal Liberals and their soulmates the NDP can share the blame for the fact that elderly citizens requiring domiciliary care, while in theory coming under government medical coverage, in practice find no coverage and must instead pay $400 to $600 per month for private hospital care. Then we have here displayed-and the party to our left must accept 31/140's of the responsibility for the actions of this government is an uncaring and callous attitude toward the reality of the desperate situation of those elderly people. The party to our left, the NDP, must accept its responsibility for the situation in that they have maintained these incompetents in office.
Let us look at the situation in respect of the small businessmen or women. They are caught in price squeezes which unfortunately are all too often caused by the ineptness of the Liberal-NDP coalition government. I spoke to a feed mill operator last week in Victoria; he had phoned me to say that his feed grain supplies of grade 3 wheat could not be delivered. The Canadian Wheat Board had supplies of this grain in the elevator in Victoria but could only sell it at export market prices. The net result was that this feed mill proprietor faced an increase in cost of feed grain from $138 a ton to $200 a ton in one day.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. I hestitate to interrupt the hon. member. The discussion has been pretty far ranging, but generally it has been within the field of welfare and security. I hope the hon. member will be able to bring his remarks more closely to the subject of the bill.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I only strayed to the extent that these bills were produced as a package, as I

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security
understood it, to combat inflation, and I thought I might be allowed the same discretion or leeway granted the Prime Minister in introducing this as a package. It is extremely difficult for me to speak of the plight of the elderly citizens in my constituency without speaking about the price of the food which they cannot afford to eat. I trust I will not be too bitter in my condemnation of the government for its fiscal policy, but it is very difficult today to separate the need for increased pensions from the cost of food, economic fiscal policies and their effect on the high cost of living. In any event I will attempt to follow your suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
I have heard many quotations from the speech of the Minister of Finance when he introduced the budget on February 19. No doubt it will be a favourite mine for other parties for some time when they are looking for nuggets of bad guessing, inappropriate forecasting and general lack of understanding of the economy, present and future. My favourite quote is when the Liberal Minister of Finance, to applause from their coalition partners, said:
This budget is aimed at reducing inflationary pressures in Canada-
Later in the same paragraph he said:
It is equally essential to reduce the squeeze of rising prices on family budgets and the erosion of the hard-earned savings in Canada.
I realize there will be arguments from my colleagues as to which of all the inexact, inappropriate claims made in that budget speech is the furthest removed from what has since transpired, but the statement I have just read is my choice. It displays an almost unbelievable lack of prescience. This Minister of Finance, who considers a $500 million miscalculation to be of no consequence, boasts of the Canadian dollar keeping even with the United States dollar, but neglects to mention the disastrous decline of the U.S. dollar that he is so proud to accompany in its plunge. This is rather like the first mate on the Titanic boasting that he is not going down any faster than the captain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The fiscal and economic policies of this government have brought on inflation, and inflation brings on labour demands for higher wages. What else could be expected to happen? Inflation robs the workers of part of their pay cheques and this brings on labour unrest. As this government seems unable to devise any legislation that even approaches the problem of inflation, I predict continuing labour unrest. The cause is inflation, and in its customary fashion this NDP-Liberal coalition ignores the cause and legislates against the effects.
I have done a little reading on the matter to see what some learned people have thought about inflation. I noted that Bernard Baruch said:
Inflation-the most important economic fact of our time-the single greatest peril to our economic health. I
I came across another quotation I should like to read from an author one might find unusual to be speaking about inflation. Hemingway said:

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin.
Perhaps the one quotation that would be the most popular in this House with this minority government would be this quotation from a prominent world statesman of another country who said:
In country after country, it is becoming inconceivable that national economic policies will be developed which do not contain, as a significant element, some form of incomes policy.
That was stated by Harold Wilson, former Prime Minister of Great Britain and leader of the Labour party who could hardly be said to be anti-labour. He said that in any advanced country today the number one problem is containing inflation.
I now wish to speak about the spirit of uncertainty in the economy. Rapid changes in prices, interest rates, performance of stocks, etc., have created uncertainty, apprehension and even fear among investors, businesses and the public at large. Businesses are hampered in making any long-term decisions by the great uncertainties in both supply and demand.
The average Canadian is confused and worried. Can he buy a home for his family with interest rates in excess of 10 per cent? Will his savings be rendered insufficient for his needs through the ravages of inflation? Will he even be able to provide for the present with the prices of the very basics of his existence, food, clothing and shelter, soaring?
This is what Canadians at every level face-uncertainty and apprehension about the future. The pensioner is worried as he sees the purchasing power of his cheque shrink; the worker is worried as he sees his hard-earned wage shrink in value each time he goes to the store; the businessman is worried about increased wages and higher interest rates; and the producer is worried about the costs he faces for machinery, labour and supply.
Who is to blame? Can the farmers be blamed for increased production costs and for their desire for a reasonable standard of living? Can the manufacturers be held utterly responsible for the greater amount they must pay for raw materials and labour? Can the worker be blamed for demanding raises when the real value of his wage is sinking? Finally, can the pensioner be blamed for wanting to live with a modicum of dignity? I suggest the answer to all these questions is no. The disarray into which the present government has allowed the Canadian economy to slide is the reason for the uncertainty and fear.
Granted, a very few producers may be taking advantage of the fears of shortages to make a fast buck. A very few companies may be gouging the consumer with unwarranted price increases, just as a very few groups may be making unjustified and inflationary wage demands. But to single out any one of these as the cause of the economic problem is to live in a dream world. It is like looking into the problems of the 19th century for solutions to the problems of today.
What is our government doing? The government has produced this hodgepodge legislation in answer to the very real problems of the Canadian economy. These measures are gravely deficient, however, in that they treat only the symptoms and not the disease. This does not mean our party opposes the measures, for it is foolish to
September 6, 1973

oppose anything that will relieve some of the suffering of the sick patient. We do support these specific moves because in some small way they will relieve some of the immediate suffering of some Canadians.
However, we in the Progressive Conservative party advocate and seek to do far more for the Canadian people. Our economic policies are aimed at treating the disease. They are not like the Liberal's bandaid policy for treating symptoms, and I might say that they are not like the NDP policies either. The main difference between the NDP and the Conservative party is that the Conservatives want all Canadians to be rich and the NDP want all Canadians to be poor.
We propose a comprehensive freeze on prices, profits, wages and interest rates. Immediately this is suggested in this House we hear questions about the United States freeze. Let us look at it for a minute. The area right now that seems the most disastrous is that in respect of beef prices. Freezing beef prices has caused grave shortages in meat supplies. Why is this the case? I suggest it is because the freeze was not comprehensive. It was, like the Liberal policies, a bandaid approach. To expect producers to be able to supply beef at fixed prices when the cost of feed grains was soaring was absurd. The inevitable result was that suppliers withheld beef rather than sell at a loss.
It was because Nixon treated one symptom and rejected any comprehensive approach that his policies failed. Now we are presented with this Liberal bill which advocates exactly just such a bandaid approach. It too will get no closer to a solution to the basic problems which plague our economy.
Many advanced industrial nations face inflationary problems today. These are frequently blamed on the rapid rise in the international prices of raw resources of food, minerals and oil. The government often points this out and claims that these pressures are beyond its control, and it claims to be blameless for Canada's inflationary woes. A government leader gets up and says: "Every western industrial country has serious inflation; what can we do in face of such international forces?"
For a moment it sounds plausible. But this excuse will not work because what they never mention is Canada's unique position among advanced industrial nations. Canada produces and exports vast quantities of those raw materials which are soaring in price internationally. Canada should be repaying the benefits of those increased prices, not suffering from the ravages of inflation.
If the government had the wisdom and the courage to look at the whole Canadian economy, to introduce dramatic, sweeping and intelligent resource and industrial policies for Canada, then all Canadians would benefit. These stop gap measures will never cure anything. The Progressive Conservatives want comprehensive controls so that the Canadian economy will no longer continue its erratic, leaderless wanderings. We want this to enable us to implement real policies directed at leading the Canadian economy to a period of stable development which will benefit all Canadians. Under proper leadership Canada, with her raw resources in ever increasing demand, can create jobs and prosperity without the uncertainties of inflation for
Old Age Security
decades ahead. The Progressive Conservatives can provide such leadership, and we have sought the opportunity to do so.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I will, of course, vote for the bill. It is the least that can be done to relieve the distress placed upon our senior citizens by the mismanagement of the government. I would much rather be voting for measures that would do something to remove the cause, and I hope that some day this government or its successor will attempt to deal with the root cause, which is inflation.


Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my remarks on this bill by heaping a bit of praise on the head of the Minister of Agriculture, that great friend of the bedevilled and exploited Canadian consumer. I salute the hon. gentleman for being the first minister on the government benches to admit publicly, some time last May, that he was aware that Canadian consumers are angry about the continuing rise in the cost of living.
That was a very astute observation on the part of the minister, and it could lead to any number of things. To begin with, even at this late date he might send notes to his colleagues informing them of the seriousness of the situation. He might even let the Prime Minister in on his secret.
Last night the Minister of National Health and Welfare went to great lengths explaining what a great boon the Liberal government has been for the Canadian people since 1963.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was the
night before that.


Duncan M. Beattie: The night before that? Then I am sure you were here. Obviously the minister had been doing a little research on the subject. I wonder would he tell his colleagues that the crippling spiral in the rate of increase in inflation began immediately after the Liberals took over government from the Conservative party in 1963? At that time the rate of increase in inflation was 1.2 per cent. Last year, from April 1972 to April 1973, the rate was 6.6 per cent. That could come as a surprise to the Prime Minister and other ministers, but these are facts and figures that cannot be disputed.
In 1962 food prices increased by 1.8 per cent over the previous year, with a Conservative government in power. Last year, under this government, the increase was 7.6 per cent. God knows what it will be this year.
The Minister of Agriculture also said that Canadians have been spoiled by low food prices over the past 20 years. But here he was wide of the mark. Canadians were spoiled by low food prices up to the time the Liberals assumed office in 1963, but from that time on it has been quite a different story.
If the government really does have contingency plans to deal with inflation, as it implies it does, then it is time that it unveiled them. Inflation is not a contingency, it is a fact. Inflation is a cruel fact. I say to the minister and his colleagues that the Canadian consumers are not only angry over the situation but are completely fed up with the government's lack of concern and lack of action.

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security
A great deal has been said in the past about the pros and cons of capital punishment, but I have not heard anything said about the punishment of capital as a result of the government's failure to come to grips with inflation. Punishment of capital is the erosion of savings, pensions and other assets accumulated by Canadians who plan for their years of retirement.
Punishment of capital downgrades one of the most precious of virtues, resourcefulness. It is a process that penalizes people who are frugal, people who save their money and invest in securities or property that they feel will ensure them a reasonable return on their investments. These are people who want more than a bare existence from their government in their years of retirement, and who are willing to plan and work to that end.
Let us see how these people fare under our present government and compare their situation with that of people who do not save, plan or invest, but who elect to retire on old age security pensions and supplements. In the first place they pay taxes on their earnings before they take out a few dollars to put into a savings account, an investment or a retirement plan. Then they pay taxes on the earnings on their savings through the years, and on dividends. Then, if their income is over a certain figure after retirement, in spite of the fact that they have been paying taxes on that same money all their working lives, they pay more taxes on their retirement income. But what is even worse, their income is further reduced by the total of the increase in inflation during the years that they have been working.
This is real punishment and it has a crippling effect on initiative and resourcefulness. It puts a heavy price on human endeavour, and it has the effect of denying Canadians a fundamental right, the right to guarantee themselves a comfortable old age by their own efforts.
Anyone who saves and invests for retirement is further penalized by receiving a lower pension than those who do not plan their retirement income. They receive the basic pension, while a person who does not have any other source of income receives the pension and a supplement. I am not opposed to giving the supplement, Mr. Chairman, but it is necessary simply because the pension itself is not adequate. No better evidence can be presented than the fact that the government recognizes the necessity for a supplement when the pension is the only source of income.
When this aspect of the problem is added to the immediate effects of inflation on Canadian consumers, especially on those consumers in the lower income brackets, then it is obvious that we cannot wait any longer to come to grips with inflation. I simply cannot understand why the government does not at least try some of the proposals put forward by the Official Opposition. I am thinking specifically of temporary vfage and price controls proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. The government has tried almost everything else, and it is not good enough for it just to state that controls will not work if they have not even been tried. It is obvious that we will have to take drastic measures in the fight on inflation, and we must begin now. The Food Prices Review Board does not seem to be getting anywhere. When we consider that the government has not put forward any other concrete proposals to deal with the problem, Mr. Chairman, then we also have

to consider that we are going to use up still more precious time debating and procrastinating.
In the meantime, consumers cast about for their own solutions. Unfortunately, while such things as meat boycotts are well intentioned, they do not have any lasting effects. Prices continue to spiral; some retailers and wholesalers are taking this opportunity to gouge consumers and blame it on inflation, and even innocent retailers who are caught in the squeeze are being maligned.
The government's spokesman on the issue, or one of them at least, calls on Canadian consumers to rejoice in the fact that they have been spoiled by low food prices and to take the present inflationary spiral in their stride. Naturally, Mr. Chairman, it is easier for the government to let ministers interpret the situation in their own way and give the public slanted versions of the seriousness of the problem than to take positive steps to get inflation under control.
The Minister of Finance gave his version of the problem when he said that wage and price controls would not work in Canada and that they had not worked when tried in the United States and the United Kingdom. On the first point, I do not see how the minister can say that they would not work when he has no evidence to support his claim.
If wage and price controls have not been tried, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance is not in any better position than I to determine whether or not they will work. I doubt that even he could quarrel with that logic. On the other point, there are conflicting opinions whether or not they worked in the United States. The best evidence we have is reflected in the fact that the rate of increase in inflation in the United States is less than in Canada, so it would appear that something is working for them.
The Prime Minister has stated in the past that the government's abortive attempts to implement wage and price controls on a voluntary basis proved that such controls would not work. He also said that labour would not co-operate with the government in voluntary restraints and therefore that precluded any possibility of success with the program.
I cannot accept that argument either, Mr. Chaiman. Because there were no clearcut guidelines for anyone to follow, and the government's program of voluntary restraints was purely and simply an attempt to pass the buck and place responsibility for inflation on anyone who happened to be handy. The government could not have cared less whether the culprit was industry, labour or the country's wholesalers and retailers.
In fact it was not a program at all. It was a shallow attempt to put off making a decision, an attempt to buy time in the hope that divine providence would intervene and solve the problem for them. The only thing that divine providence has ever done for this government is to deliver the N.D.P. as a Liberal rump, stripped of their doubtful principles and philosophy and laid bare for the government to use as they see fit. If they are waiting for divine providence to deliver us from inflation, and it appears that they are, then we will have a very long wait indeed. But the Canadian people, particularly our older people, are
September 6, 1973

tired of waiting and the time has long since passed when the government can avoid making a decision.
The senior citizens in this country will never be able to make ends meet until such time as the government comes to grips with this cancer. How can they relax in the evening of their days when they see their only hope of justice in the form of a rail strike to bring the government back to a point of temporary sanity?
Before my time runs out I should like to make one more point with regard to the government's responsibility in this matter. The case has been made over and over again that the government has failed to measure up to its responsibility in fighting inflation. Now that is a fact of our daily lives.
However, there is another area in which the government has failed in its duty to the electorate. This government has doubled the national budget in the last five years over what it had become in the previous hundred years. When the present Prime Minister took office the national budget was about $10 billion. In the coming fiscal year it is just short of $20 billion. I charge this government with doing more than anyone or anything else to contribute to the present spiral in the rate of increase in inflation. It is obvious from the estimates that it does not have any intention of reducing expenditures, or of even trying to hold the line.
The villain in this piece is not the labour unions, or industry, or the wholesalers and retailers in our country. The culprit is not some person or thing outside the country, as we have also been led to believe. The villain in this shabby drama sits there across the room, smug and complacent and determined not to take suggestions or advice from anyone who seriously wants to restore the buying power of the Canadian dollar.
We have already been warned by the garment industry that clothing in Canada will probably increase in price by as much as 50 per cent in the next six months, and possibly sooner. Industry knows or suspects that this is going to happen, but the government appears to be completely unaware of this fact or is completely disinterested. There are signs that food and shelter are also going to experience dramatic price increases in that period but still we have had no indication that the government is aware or interested.
We cannot wait for several more months for these things to happen, Mr. Chairman. We must take some sort of initiative now. I call upon the government to stop worrying about the NDP support and begin to act like a government. If the government table legislation that is designed to grapple with national problems, they can forget about the NDP; we have already demonstrated that point. They will not need them, for the simple reason that we will give them the support they need. But the government will have to start acting responsibly, and this could prove refreshing as well as fruitful for the electorate after months of OlaY*ng games. At least in my opinion it would be worth a try.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two. It might be more than a word or two but it will be about clause 1.


Marc Lalonde: Hear, hear! You are the first one.
Old Age Security


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my tone of voice seemed to suggest that some of the speeches made recently have been out of order, that is what I meant. It seems to me that the time comes when Standing Order 55(2) should be applied, as indeed Your Honour tried to apply it a few moments ago.
I should like to talk about the language of this bill, some examples of which are to be found in clause 1. I know that the law has to be clearly written so that every loophole is covered and no smart lawyer can get around it. But I also believe that the law is written for the people, and it seems to me that a law that provides a pension for senior citizens ought to be written in such a way that an average senior citizen can pick it up and know what it means.
I am not sure that all of the 264 members on the floor of this House can pick up this piece of legislation and know precisely what it means, except, of course, that they have read about it in the newspapers. Let us take clause 1. Part of what I say refers to clause 2 as well, but I will make my remarks in relation to clause 1. In the main, clause 1 of the bill tries to tell us that the consumer price index will be used for the purpose of the quarterly escalation of the Old Age Security Pension and the payment of the Guaranteed Income Supplement. In order to do that it tells us in the paragraph on page 1 what is meant by the consumer price index and makes reference to the adjustment quarter. Then we discover that there can be two kinds of adjustment quarter, the first adjustment quarter and a second adjustment quarter, and that there can also be a payment quarter.
Having given us that information, the clause proceeds to define these various concepts. In order to define the first adjustment quarter, it uses four full subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). They define what the first adjustment quarter is in relation to each of the four different months in the calendar year in which the escalation is to take place. Then, not in any logical sequence, but I suppose because of the alphabet, we are given a definition of payment quarter. I would have thought that we would be given the definition of the first adjustment quarter, then of the second adjustment quarter, and then of the payment quarter; but no, we get the definition of the first adjustment quarter, then of the payment quarter, and then of the second adjustment quarter.
For the purpose of defining the second adjustment quarter, the bill again has to use not one or two simple sentences, but four subparagraphs, (a), (b), (c) and (d). After that we are told, as we read on in the bill, that payments shall be adjusted quarterly. And just in case enough has not been put into the bill, we find this phrase, "in such manner as may be prescribed by regulation .. .".
Having read all that, we then come to a clause or two that tell us how much a pensioner will get under the provisions of this bill in various quarters. Up to this point I have just been describing in my own words what the various clauses do. But having looked over the first three or four pages of the bill, I find that there is a honey of a clause that starts at the bottom of page 3 and continues over on page 4. I should like to read it into the record. It is

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security
the part of the bill which says how much money a person will get in any quarter, and it goes like this. The amount: (a.l) for a month in the six-month period commencing on April 1, 1973 is the basic amount;
(a.2) for a month in the payment quarter commencing on October 1, 1973-
Until I let Your Honour know differently, I shall be quoting from one sentence. I continue with the words that say that the sum to be received:
-is the amount obtained by multiplying
(i)	the basic amount,
by
(ii)	the ratio that the average for the ten-month period that ended on July 31, 1973 of the Consumer Price Index for Canada, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, for each month in that ten-month period bears to the average for the ten-month period that ended on September 30, 1972 of that Consumer Price Index for each month in that ten-month period; and
(b) for a month in any payment quarter commencing after December 31, 1973 is the amount obtained by multiplying
(i)	the amount of such pension that might have been paid to such a person for a month in the three-month period next before that payment quarter,
fay
(ii)	the ratio that the Consumer Price Index for the first adjustment quarter that relates to that payment quarter bears to the Consumer Price Index for the second adjustment quarter that relates to that payment quarter.
Finally there is a period.


Marc Lalonde: It is obvious.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is common practice in this institution for members to criticize what somebody has done but not say how it can be done differently. I thought, having been a printer and having had to work with words in one way or another, and having been in another profession in which one makes use of words to convey ideas, that I might try to see if I could not put in a reasonably simple sentence all that this gobbledygook says. I am not going to move an amendment. I would not suggest that our law should be made so simple that an ordinary person can understand it.


Mr. Baker:: Or lawyers couldn't make a living.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My learned friend from Commanche Drive is obviously worried about what would happen to lawyers if the law were written in simple language. But let me indicate what I think should have been done. I know we are having a bit of fun about this, but I am also making a serious point. The individuals who draft these laws, instead of trying as hard as they can to make them obtuse and incomprehensible, should try to make them simple and understandable.
Let me try something on for size. For purposes of this draft I accept what the bill tries to do. I might disagree with some provisions, but I accept what the bill tries to do. Let me read what I think might have been drafted. That clause could say:
The quarterly escalation provided in this act shall take place, each year, in January, April, July and October, and it shall be calculated on the basis of the increase in the Consumer Price Index during the three months that ended two months prior to [Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).}
each January, April, July and October, as compared with the Consumer Price Index in the immediately preceding three months period.


Mr. Blenkarrt:: It's too simple.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from Mississagua finds it too simple.


An hon. Member:: He's a lawyer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might have been useful to put a simple statement like that in the explanatory notes, but it is not there. Perhaps those who draw up the explanatory notes could not figure the clause out. It is really quite simple.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare, his parliamentary secretary, the government House leader and the very useful help which is sitting in front of the Minister of National Health and Welfare say that I have not taken into account the fact that we must consider the special circumstances that relate to the first payment, the one that starts this October, let me say that I have drafted something to cover that as well. What I have already suggested as a first paragraph would cover the picture in general terms. I see the parliamentary secretary nodding his head. I suspect this is the first time he has understood the bill.
As for the first payments, the first increases which are to come into effect in October and which, by the way, are spelled out in that long sentence I read, the matter could be reduced to this:
The escalation to come into effect in October, 1973, shall be calculated on the basis of the increase in the Consumer Price Index during the ten months from October 1, 1972, to July 31, 1973, as compared with the Consumer Price Index during the ten months from December 1, 1971, to September 30, 1972.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone says, explain. If my hon. friend will look at Hansard tomorrow, he will realize that that is what all the gobbledygook in the bill is. Tonight it is not as important to make this change as to get the bill through.
However, I am glad that we have gone through this exercise in committee of the whole so that the important and competent officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare who are with us, and they are important and competent, will, next time this kind of legislation is to be drafted, say to the drafters, "For heaven's sake, put this stuff in plain, ordinary language that can be understood."


An hon. Member:: Even by the lawyers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, even by1 the lawyers, so that they can understand what is in the law without having to seek the advice of counsel. When the minister gets to his feet, I would be glad to hear his comments on what I have been saying.
Now may I ask on what basis the government picked these two particular 10 month periods for the purpose of calculating the increase that is to come into effect in
September 6, 1973

October? I can understand the time sequences that were chosen for the regular quarterly escalation. In other words, if a quarter starts in January, you have to pick a period as recent as possible, so the government picked a period that ended two months before that. However, on what basis was the decision made to pick a particular 10 month period compared with another 10 month period? If the minister tells me they did some experimenting and calculating and found that that comparison gives the old age pensioners more than some others, I will be quite happy. However, if that calculation does not give them the best possible increase, why did they not pick one that would have done that?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I might now answer the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. With regard to the last question he raised, these two particular 10 month periods were chosen in order to make the catching up effective.
The hon. member will remember we amended the Old Age Security Act as of last April. We made an increase which included the adjustment in the cost of living of the previous year and also included an increase in real terms in old age security payments. That part of the increase made in April represented the adjustment in the consumer price index.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Roughly three dollars.


Marc Lalonde: That is correct. That was based on the act as it stands at the present time. The act now provides for an annual escalation every April for the year ending the previous October. At the present time there is a six month time lag in the adjustment of the consumer price index. Last April we brought the CPI component of the total increase up to the previous September 30.
We are now catching up from last October to the most recent date possible, July 31. That is a 10 month period. We selected that particular period to ensure there would be no loss to senior citizens in the adjustment. We had to refer that 10 month period, October to July, to the previous 10 month period which dated from December 1971 to September 1972. That is the only reason we picked that particular 10 month period. The existing act explains the catching up.
With regard to the other worthwhile points raised by the hon. member, for a while I was wondering whether he had been looking over my shoulder or that of my parliamentary secretary. The suggested drafting he proposed was extremely close to what I had written in the margin for my benefit to show the meaning of the particular clauses which the hon. member read. Having been a practising lawyer for a few years and having tried my hand at drafting certain pieces of legislation, I must say I quickly abandoned the profession of drafting legislation, immediately recognizing my incompetence in that field.
I am not going to deal with every suggestion made by the hon. member. I have taken note of them and they will certainly be discussed with those drafting these particular bills. I am sure the hon. member understands it would not be appropriate for me to say all his points will be included in the drafting. This would require a complete redrafting of the bill since it has been drafted on the basis of particu-
Old Age Security
lar quarters, as spelled out in the bill. I am sure the hon. member s points will also be noted by the ^Minister of Justice and those in the Department of Justice who are responsible for drafting legislation for the government.
There is a long standing tradition in the federal government as to the particular school of drafting. I have always found this difficult to follow. It seems that federal bills are drafted in a much more complex way than provincial bills. However, being a lawyer, I find it difficult to argue with other lawyers and win my point. I will pass on the hon. member's comments.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct a question to the minister. It arises out of my concern for those senior citizens who live in provinces such as British Columbia which can be classified as "have" provinces.
The Premier of British Columbia is rapidly emerging as one of Canada's most ambitious entrepreneurs. He is implementing all kinds of social services that are not that much in tune with the rest of the country. I worry about the senior citizens who have to live in these "have" provinces on an income based on federal contributions that exist throughout the land. British Columbia is so wealthy that the Premier and the government of that province found it necessary to introduce social services in addition to those in which the federal government shares.
Have the minister and the department given any thought to making it mandatory for these provinces to pass on these increases as well as the additional payments which the provinces are making, or will the provinces be able to take advantage of the additional contributions from the federal government and simply absorb them in their own payments?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, there is certainly no intention on our part to make any such mandatory requirements. Obviously Parliament is free to pass whatever law it wishes to increase social benefits to the citizens for whom it provides benefits. Similarly, the provinces are free to add to those benefits if they wish. The fact that the federal Parliament decides to increase a particular benefit does not take away freedom of action from any particular province.
I was happy to note that, at this time at least, the government of British Columbia has decided not to take away, if I may use that expression, the increase the federal government has given to the senior citizens. I understood the Premier of British Columbia to say they will pass on to the senior citizens the increase which this particular piece of legislation provides, contrary to what happened last April. I am sure that made quite a few senior citizens in British Columbia most unhappy. I must say my feelings at that time were very much with the senior citizens of British Columbia.


Frank Oberle: Do I understand, then, that the hon. gentleman has a commitment from the Premier of British Columbia that he will pass on the benefits of this bill to the senior citizens?


Marc Lalonde: I do not have a commitment, but the Premier of British Columbia has given a press conference
6316

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security
on this subject and issued a press release. So I presume he has made a commitment to the public of British Columbia.


Mr. Jelinek:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief as there is not much more left to be said about Bill C-219 except to state emphatically that the measure is long overdue and falls far short of satisfying the requirements of the senior citizens of this country. Let us also realize that the bill would not be before us had it not been for the inability of the government to solve the railway dispute without recalling Parliament.
The government continues to spend millions upon millions of dollars on programs which have little to offer the country in the way of constructive development, but when it comes to our senior citizens, those same citizens who have made this country the great nation that it is today, like amounts of dollars can never be found. It makes no sense to me that the government should spend millions of dollars each year on Rochdales, Satan worshipers and on LIP or OFY programs, far too many of which are worthless, while the incomes of our senior citizens decrease in value because of the spiralling increase in the cost of living.
The bill presently before the House deals only superficially with the real problems facing senior citizens on fixed incomes. Once again the government has introduced legislation which the opposition parties have been insisting upon for months. As always, the senior citizen bears the brunt of government inaction and is forced to take the largest cut inflicted by the sharp knife of inflation.
While the government urges all sectors of the economy to curb inflationary spending, it continues to disregard its own advice by embarking upon a program of government expenditure unparalleled in the history of any country in the world. In the area of government salary administration alone, in the last ten years the number of people making the equivalent of $20,000 a year has doubled. Quite simply, if the government itself is not able to control spending effectively in its own departments, it certainly cannot be expected to control spending in other sectors of the economy.
One aspect of the bill which even the government is conceding is that inflation under the Liberal administration will continue to take its course. Not only are members opposite incapable of controlling this inflation, but they are anticipating such increases in the future that they have attempted to placate senior citizens by appearing to give them something, though in reality all they are doing is letting them remain at their already low standards. If the intention was to make this legislation truly effective, the effects of the spiralling cost of living over the past year should have been taken into consideration.
The subject is a most serious one, Mr. Chairman, and I would be remiss if I did not express my disdain for the tone in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare addressed the House and the partisan stand he chose to take when presenting this bill. His attack on all members of the opposition was unwarranted and in questionable taste; in no way did it enhance the stature of himself or of his party.
As I have often stated, all hon. members in this chamber naturally approve any proposals for increasing financial

assistance to senior citizens. But is the government seriously suggesting that the passage of the bill before us will in any way help fight the high rate of inflation, or, more specifically, deal with the high cost of living? We all know from recent statistics that in the past few months the cost of living in Canada has increased more rapidly than during any similar period in the past 25 years.
I am sure no Canadian needs to look at statistics to realize that we are in the midst of one of the worst inflationary periods the country has ever known. Every time we go into a store, whether it is to buy clothing, food, or any other commodity, we are confronted with dramatic price increases. And if one has been following developments in the real estate market, it soon becomes evident that owning a house has become only a dream for the majority of Canadians.
Rents, too, are rising, as are interest rates. Everything is more expensive and, as usual, the people most dramatically affected are those who must live on low and fixed incomes. Once again the government is trying to escape these facts by presenting superficial bills, such as the one before us, which provide no relief but only serve to perpetuate an already intolerable situation.
The time has come for the government to face its responsibilities to the people of this country. Indeed, it has long passed. We are in the grip of an inflationary spiral which threatens to strangle our economy if we are not prepared to take positive action now. On one hand, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance oppose economic controls. On the other hand, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are imposing selective controls.
Upon close analysis of recent, so-called controls applied to the petroleum industry it becomes increasingly apparent that the government has failed to offer any real protection to the Canadian consumer. We all recall the measures taken to set up the Food Prices Review Board. Here another piece of toothless legislation has been drafted as a smokescreen to cover up inaction and a genuine lack of concern. It is obvious that the credibility of the Liberal government will soon sink as low as that of the NDP.
It must be made clear to everybody in this country that what is placed before us in Bill C-219 is not progressive legislation but merely one step, long overdue, which falls far short of providing meaningful gains to the senior citizens.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Chairman, I like the way in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been generous in sending out copies of his speeches to his colleagues at public expense. I have read them with great interest and appreciation, so much so there are times when I think the Prime Minister might well appoint the speech-writer to be Minister of National Health and Welfare. There seems to be such a gap between the sentiments expressed by the minister in his speeches and the action embodied in the legislation which he submits.
One of the things that concerns us in the present debate is this gap between promise and performance. Certainly we see it in the bill which is before us, a measure which offers all too inadequate a solution to the needs of the old age pensioners. I can remember just a few days ago when people from one coast to the other ridiculed the minister of
September 6, 1973

finance of that day as "Six buck Harris" because he offered an increase of $6 a month. I am wondering whether we shall soon be talking about "Five buck Lalonde", because that is what he is offering people who are now suffering as a result of the heavy increase in the cost of living which has fallen upon senior citizens as upon all others in this country.
The pension increase which has been enacted and the increase proposed in the legislation before us amount to far less than the actual increase in the cost of living since November, 1970 when the Prime Minister said inflation had been licked.
Is it not extraordinary that three years later we are now offering an increase in the pension to meet the challenge of inflation-three years after the Prime Minister said that inflation had been licked? Inflation will lick him, and it is high time. Certainly it will have to lick him if we are to help the people, because his government is offering inadequate support to those people who need it the most.
I think we must recognize that the proposal in this bill simply does not meet the needs of those people in terms of the increase in prices and the cost of living which the old age pensioners must bear along with the rest of the people in terms of their needs as human beings. What we should be equally cognizant of is that the way in which we are increasing the pension will not solve the problem. It is not enough simply to give them $5 if that $5 is worth nothing. It is of no help to increase their pension and at the same time allow prices to escalate. This really does not help our old people.
The problem will not be solved simply by increasing pensions and wages. Some restraint must be placed on the rise in the cost of living. I think this government should be judged by the way in which it has brought in, at this emergency session of Parliament, a promise of a package that would deal with inflation but which does not include some effort to control prices and bring a halt to the escalation in the cost of living. I believe this bill is inadequate in meeting the needs of the people because there is no reference to the needs of those people who require government support because of disability and infirmity. If we simply pass this bill, add quarterly escalator to the old age pension system, and do nothing about those people living on a disability pension, we will simply be doing something for the senior citizens and nothing for those who suffer from infirmity and disability.
I think we must consider this problem very seriously. Because even though it requires the co-operation and agreement of the provinces, surely it requires initially the enterprise and initiative of the federal government in seeking that kind of agreement and common policy which would more adequately meet the needs of these people who number in the thousands. Let me simply cite the experience of one such person, a 61-year old widow in the metropolitan area of Toronto. The following report appears in the press:
"I'm lucky if I can buy hamburger once a week, the way prices are today, "she said in an interview last night.
Old Age Security
Until four years ago Mrs. Ritchie worked in a bank and took home $117 every two weeks. Then she had a kidney removed and had to leave her job.
Now she spends $43 a month for her one-bedroom apartment on Mornelle Ct., $7.83 for a telephone, and $15 for bus fare. With the $77 that remains, she buys food, household supplies and drugs not covered by government funds.
"It's terrible. It is awful living this way. I can't describe what it's like, really."
That story could be repeated a thousand times. It is so impressive that in one of his fine speeches the minister referred to this particular matter and showed that it is important not only in his thinking but in the thinking of his provincial counterpart. For he says the following in one of his speeches:
. . . some provincial ministers were not completely enthusiastic about the latest increases in old age pensions. Some argued that we should look at the needs of other deserving groups such as the blind, the disabled, single parent families, etc.
In another speech he says:
In the first place, the social security plan shall ensure to persons unable to work, the elderly, the blind and the disabled, an annual guaranteed income that is fair and compassionate.
He goes on to say that one of the needs in reorganizing the social security problem in this country is to integrate the various assistance programs so that the disabled and the infirm can be more adequately supported. I agree with that, but we know that while there is provision in the bill for a legislative program supposedly to meet the inflationary challenge to those least able to cope with it, there is no reference to these people. In March of this year the following statement was made on technology and the handicapped:
Canada's bill of rights should be amended to include full rights for the disabled-
These people are being denied adequate pension provisions. I plead that we not let this program go by without some reference to the need of the disabled and the infirm to receive more adequate recognition.
Indeed we might well call in another outstanding authority, Senator David Croll, whose voice surely is heard with respect on the other side of the House as it is in the other place. He is quoted as saying in a news report:
Income-security benefits for the aged are "disproportionately high when compared with social assistance payments for other groups."
The senator also referred to the way in which, to a large degree, those who are receiving disability and infirmity pensions through co-operation by the federal and provincial governments are being inadequately provided for. I submit that the initiative lies with this House of Commons and that this Parliament has a duty to challenge the government to meet that need. I would say that on this point we might very well remind the minister of a quotation which he cited in another impressive address from T.
S.	Eliot who said:
Between the Idea/and the Action
Between the Conception/and the Creation
Between the Emotion/and the Response
Falls the Shadow.
When we look at this bill and think of the needs of the people throughout this country, particularly those who are
26454-35 S

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security
disabled and infirm, we must all agree that between the idea the minister had in some of his speeches and the action he proposes in this legislation falls the shadow of disappointment and disenchantment.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the minister sponsoring this bill, if I can quote from Hansard, said that the opposition reminded him of the magic men from the carnival medicine shows peddling the same thin sugar and water concoctions as a cure for everything that ails us. If I might continue in the same carnival metaphor, I would suggest that the demeanour of the minister and his accomplices is rapidly taking on that of another kind of carnival operator who used to operate what is known as the shell game-now you see it, now you don't.
In March 1973, when the minister introduced his $100 minimum pension, he said it was enough to banish poverty among the old people of this country.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member is referring to a so-called quotation that he knows very well was incorrect. I never said that, and he acknowledged that, indeed, there was an error at the time.


Peter Reilly: I acknowledged that the minister said it was an error. He accused Hansard of improperly translating his remarks, but in all of the time I have observed the proceedings of this House and in all of the time I have taken part in the proceedings here I have found the Hansard reporters to be impeccable in their interpretation.


Marc Lalonde: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants to make a specific accusation or charge I challenge him to do so. I never accused Hansard of anything. I corrected Hansard on the basis of what I actually said, and that part of Hansard was a translation. If he reads the French text, which was the actual text, he will see that I never said anything of the sort. I should think that the hon. member would at least have the courtesy of taking my word for it. If he does not, I challenge him.


An hon. Member:: We are going to have a duel.'


Peter Reilly: What I suspect really happened was that there was a press release prepared by the minister's office and given to Hansard, as is very often the custom, and the minister revised the speech when he found the particular phrase to be fatuous. But somewhere along the line he slipped up. I believe someone in the minister's department in a fairly influential position in fact believed that a $100 pension was going effectively to abolish poverty among the aged in this country. I believe such people still exist and are still trying to convince us of that view.
Before I go any further I want to ask the minister the same question I asked him twice yesterday, to which I received no reply. I want to ask him, first, is it not true that since 1963 the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar has shrunk by almost 50 per cent? Secondly do he and his colleagues sincerely believe-and I think the country has a right to know this-that the figure now proposed for an individual or a couple is enough to allow that

individual or couple to live in dignity and in comfort? I want a yes or no answer right now.


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member will sit down I will stand up, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: This is not the question period.


Marc Lalonde: Are you ready now?


Peter Reilly: Yes.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the first part of the question is concerned, I do not have the exact figures of the increase in the consumer price index over the last 10 years. It may be what the hon. member suggests, but I do not know. It may well be different.
One thing that should also be mentioned is that the real income of Canadians during that period-and I suspect that the hon. member took that period because it was 10 years of Liberal government-has increased very substantially, much greater than the increase in the consumer price index; and he can check that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As to the second part of the question the hon. member has raised, everybody has his own view as to what the figure should be, but I might indicate to the hon. member that the Economic Council of Canada published figures some time ago as to what they called the poverty level.


Paul Yewchuk: When?


Marc Lalonde: These figures have been adjusted to the present time taking into account the increase in the consumer price index. I am sorry, the figures are as of the end of 1972. The council suggested that for a couple the figure was $3,516.
I might remind the hon. member that with the increase which was granted in April we raised the guaranteed income of a senior citizen for the first time above the level as defined by the Economic Council of Canada. As a result of the measure proposed today, the income of a couple is going to be $4,101.60, if I know how to multiply $341.80 by 12. Whether this is enough or not, once more anybody can have a view on this, but I would think as compared with other situations, and particularly those in various provinces under Conservative administration-and I refer to the case of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the point he raised-


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask for a political speech. I asked for a yes or no answer and I did not get it.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Peter Reilly: I believe I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: Ask a question or sit down.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Will the hon. member take his seat. The hon. member knows that under the procedures of the committee once a member relinquishes the floor to someone else, even if it is to answer a
September 6, 1973

question posed by the hon. member, that member then has the floor. The hon. member for Ottawa West cannot force an hon. member to limit his remarks to a yes or no answer. It is very difficult for the Chair, because when recognizing a member the Chair must allow him to speak for 20 minutes to complete his remarks, and at that time advise him that his time has expired. Then the hon. member can seek the floor again.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the hon. member wanting to prevent me from quoting the figures that the Conservative government of Ontario has adopted under social assistance. I thank you for allowing me to complete my remarks.
The social assistance figure for Ontario, as checked this morning with Toronto-I remind hon. members that Ontario is the richest province in Canada, and certainly that government cannot plead that it cannot get more funds-for a couple is $246.75 per month, or a total of $2,900.61 per year. This is over $1,200 less being paid by the Ontario government than what is now proposed.
In respect of the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona covering the disabled, the handicapped and people under 65 years of age who are really in need, perhaps I could give the figures for Alberta, at least for the edification of the hon. member. The figure is $244 for a couple in Alberta.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member keeps referring to myself as the member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I am the member for Scarborough East. This indicates two things to me: first, he knows very little about the west; secondly, his knowledge of geography is as impoverished as his knowledge of social needs.


Marc Lalonde: I apologize to the hon. member and I hope he is not taking the attribution of this particular riding as an insult.


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would kindly quote the same figures for the Liberal governments of P.E.I. and Nova Scotia?


Marc Lalonde: I do not have those figures right now but I can tell the hon. member that out of their provincial income those provinces are contributing more to social assistance than the provinces of Ontario and Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I now have those figures. They are published in a very good document that I recommend to the hon. member entitled "Working Paper on Social Security in Canada," tabled in this House last April. Table 8 in annexed page 53 shows that in P.E.I. the figure in April was $2,188. There may have been an increase in the meantime. I do not have the exact up to date figure, but that is poor little P.E.I. for you. If you look at the expenditure in terms of percentage of personal income, P.E.I. is contributing to social assistance 3.4 per cent of its personal provincial income, while the great big generous government of Ontario is contributing 1.4 per cent.
Old Age Security


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Paul Yewchuk: That is a pretty poor excuse.


Marc Lalonde: If you look at Table 7 on page 52 of the booklet in question, you will find that the two provinces-


Peter Reilly: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the query is merely whether the minister believes that the amount in question is enough to live on. I do not think this calls for a lengthy, impassioned peroration on the crimes of the government of Ontario. I am not here to apologize for the government of Ontario; I am here to attack him and his colleagues.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member would not wish the Chair to intervene between two hon. members in a debate or to give direction to an hon. member as to what he should say or should not say in his speech as long he follows the rules and the practices of the House. The minister has been allowed the floor by the hon. member for Ottawa West-


Peter Reilly: For the purpose of answering a question.


Gérald Laniel: -and it is impossible for the Chair to remove the floor from the minister unless he has completed his 20 minutes.


Marc Lalonde: I will leave hon. members to guess which of the two provinces in Canada give the smallest percentage of their personal income to social assistance. These are the two provinces under the leadership of Conservative governments, Ontario and Alberta, with respectively 1.4 per cent and 1.7 per cent.


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, all the minister has done is indicate that the very good governments of those two provinces, which happen to be the richest provinces, have most of their people working, and they do not need to pay so much.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair asks the co-operation of hon. members. If we are going to use points of order to ask questions and to give hon. members' opinions, the committee will not progress. I would invite the minister, if he has not completed his remarks, to do so and the Chair will then return to the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Marc Lalonde: I just want to say, in conclusion, that I am sorry the hon. member who has just spoken apparently is satisfied with the levels being paid for social assistance in the two provinces to which reference has been made.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Chairman, I got no answer to the question I asked, but I really did not expect one anyway. There are many deficiencies in the manner in which all governments perform. As I said before, I am not here to deliver an apologia for the government of Ontario. I am here to try to talk some sense to this government.


Paul Yewchuk: An impossible task.

September 6, 1973
Old Age Security


Peter Reilly: I may be wasting my time but I have a few minutes in which to do it and very little else to do this evening, so I might as well waste it this way. I would like to give the minister and his accomplices over there a few reminders, going back to 1969 when the Prime Minister discovered inflation. He told us it was the worst problem we had to face. He told us of the people on fixed incomes, how they were suffering, and how he was going to go about easing their plight.
He was warned at the same time by the Economic Council of Canada, which the minister a few minutes ago was so ecstatically quoting, that if he followed the plan he had announced two things would happen. One of them was that inflation would not be beaten, could not be beaten by that plan; and the second thing was that unprecedented unemployment would follow. And they were right. Arthur Smith was right. For his pains he was fired, banished, never to be heard from again.
What did we hear then? As my colleague pointed out a few minutes ago, we heard that inflation was licked. Then it turned out that it wasn't licked. We got a budget that was supposed to solve the whole matter, but it did not.
What happened then? We had a parliamentary committee on prices. What was it able to accomplish? Nothing. Now what do we have? We have the Plumptre committee, whose chairman is a Rockcliffe $40,000 a year ancient party wheelhorse who, from her mansion up there in the most exclusive part of Ottawa, advised the poor of this country that if they did not like the price of something they saw on the shelves in their grocery stores, not to buy it. A lady called Marie Antoinette gave essentially the same advice to the poor of Paris when they could not afford bread, but at least the people of that day had the wisdom to cut off her head.


An hon. Member:: I thought you were against capital punishment.


Peter Reilly: What we have from the famous Plumptre committee, and it is endorsed by the government, is yet another subsidy. Who is going to pay for that subsidy? One again it will be the middle class, the middle income people who have carried the country on their backs for so long. Because taxes rise inexorably due to things like the Taj Mahal on the Ottawa that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has built himself-Temple Pearson.
The fact of the matter is that we have been through Plan A, Plan B, Plan C and Plan D. And there is an exigency operation, as we all know, an emergency plan in Toronto, covering the printing of food rationing stamps and gasoline rationing stamps. The government has not tried to deny this.
In fact, the government has failed in its every attempt to cope with the problem of inflation, and now it proposes to give an extra $5 a month to the pensioners who already cannot properly exist. The minister would not say whether he believed $340 per month was enough to live on in dignity. I would remind him that in the province of Ontario the minimum wage is $2 an hour which, translated into a 40-hour week, works out to $80 a week. Multiplied by four it comes to $320 per month. That is a good deal

more than he proposes to give to the person who has worked all his life, the person who worked at a time when very likely there were no contributory pension plans and whose savings have been eroded to the point where he is lucky if he can exist at all. The minister is proud of the fact that he has raised these pensions above the poverty line. I would not be very proud of that where I the minister.


An hon. Member:: You will never be the minister.


Peter Reilly: I certainly would never be the minister in your outfit. I think the hon. gentlemen over there dined a little too well. They are just clutching their bellies in spasms of uncontrollable mirth at everything I say. To be heckled by the backbench of the Liberal party-


An hon. Member:: Is an honour.


Peter Reilly: -is an honour, you are right. It shows at least that they are listening.
I am not going to make the mistake of asking the minister or any of his colleagues any more questions before I conclude lest the floor be taken away for all time.
I will merely conclude by saying that the minister knows full well that, while the purchasing power of the dollar has declined by 50 per cent since his government took power, he also knows full well, but refuses to say that he himself believes, that the figure he offers is not enough to live on in comfort and with dignity. In his moving address in March he told us that he often thought of his own father and mother who had worked hard all their lives. I told him then that I hoped they did not have to exist on the pension he was handing out. He is now handing out another five dollars in the middle of summer. I can only conclude by saying that I hope he is a hell of a lot more generous to them at Christmas than he is in September.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I will take the opportunity to close the debate for the official opposition. I have enjoyed hearing the contributions of my colleagues and I hope the minister will pay attention to their good ideas. I enjoyed both interventions by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. 1 enjoyed seeing the NDP cohabit with the Liberals and compete with the Social Credit party at the same time. That made an interesting exercise.
When I looked at the bill I thought the person who had been a party to the FISP bill in the last Parliament, whom we thought was out of the way, had returned. The bill is incomprehensible. We believe that in some mathematical conjuration we will get an improvement for the senior citizens four times a year, and because we have supreme faith we are supporting the bill.
I have two pieces of advice for the minister. He who presides over more federal-provincial consultations than any other minister, perhaps, in my judgment is ill-advised-to waste his time in political tub thumping and criticism of Conservative governments in this country. That is not the way we make a better Canada for the older people of the country who live in all provinces. The better administration of shared programs is not aided by the kind of partisanship that we saw tonight.
Having noted this, and having expressed the faint hope that the minister might take note of what advice was
September 6, 1973

given to him today, may I end with another piece of advice. I hope he will have someone who knows something about the difference between good English and legal English write a brochure so that the older people of Canada may know what the bill is all about.
Having offered that faint-hearted goodbye, I may say that as far as we are concerned we are now prepared to have this measure move into the concluding stages in the hope that tomorrow we can get into something more substantial that will help fight inflation.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member. I do indeed carry on a lot of consultation with the provinces on a consistent basis. The points I made tonight are points of fact which are there for everybody to see. They are not meant as charges but they certainly are meant as valid answers to certain silly accusations made against the government.
As to the hon. member's suggestion for a brochure for the senior citizens, I might say that such a brochure does exist at the present time. It is available and is widely distributed to senior citizens.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: On this bill?


Marc Lalonde: Not on this bill but on the law as it stands now. Obviously there will be an updating and the brochure will be made available to all senior citizens. In that way they will become well acquainted with their rights.
As a matter of fact, the brochure sent out goes much further than just summarizing the bill; it provides an actual table for the various categories and the various levels of income. Just by looking at it anybody can see, is he is in a certain rate of income, what he is entitled to under the old age security and guaranteed income supplement programs. I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member and will make sure that all senior citizens receive such a brochure in the very near future.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something before this matter is closed. I have been in this House since January 4, 1973, during which time there have been some committees of the whole. However, I believe this is the first time in that period-indeed it may well be one of the very few times-that this House has had the opportunity of seeing, among those who advise the minister, one of the distinguished lady public servants of Canada. I think it is worthy of note.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: This evening, when the last few moments have an air of unanimity, I think it is fitting that we recognize the contribution that has been made and will be made in an increasing way to the public service of Canada by the women who form part of, and work side by side with their fellows in, the public service of their country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the comment just made by my neighbour, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. The young lady in question, having had this tribute paid to her,
Old Age Security
deserves to have her name recorded in Hansard. I, too, salute Miss Norma O'Brien.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair agrees with the hon. member and joins in saluting the lady mentioned.
Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On Clause 3-
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are two comments I want to make. At least, I want to make a comment and ask a question about clause 3. I am pleased to see in clause 3 a subclause which says-and one wonders if this will ever happen again-that if the consumer price index goes down, that will not result in the reduction of the pension. That sort of provision has been included in bills ever since the escalation provision came into effect, and it is a good idea to continue it in this case. Of course, if the CPI were to go down, it would have to go back up to its original level before there could be further escalation. It is good to see that point covered.
The other point I wish to deal with by way of a question. I think I understand this but I want it to be clear. My query has to do with the amount of increase that will be received by those on the guaranteed income supplement. To keep it simple, I will talk only about single persons. As I understand it, every single pensioner in receipt of any amount of guaranteed income at present will receive in October an increase of $9.02. In other words, I understand that this is not a matter of prorating, because the amount of any reduction is based on other income, and this calculation has already been made. In point of fact, whatever the amount of guaranteed income supplement a single person now may be getting, it will go up by $9.02 in October. Is that correct?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct, and all people on GIS will receive the full amount mentioned by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On Clause 5-
Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Chaiman, I should like some clarification with respect to clause 5. I notice that clause 5 permits the Governor in Council to make regulations with respect to the determination of the average of the consumer price index. I wonder if the minister could explain this and tell us how this procedure is to work, and what is contemplated in this provision.


Marc Lalonde: This has only to do with the rounding out of figures when we are dealing with infinitesimal fractions. That is the purpose of the regulations.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is this a case of rounding out figures where many decimal points might be involved? Is that what the minister is saying?

September 6, 1973
Adjournment Debate


Marc Lalonde: Yes. When dealing with the figures, you may end up with thousands of decimal points, and this regulation would permit us to round out the figures to the closest point. That is the purpose of it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: the third reading of the bill.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, in my eagerness to speak I rose to my feet before the third reading motion had been put. I merely have a comment one sentence long to make to the minister. Next time he takes one of our policies, if he would give us a little notice we would expedite his bill even more quickly than we did this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have just one short sentence to say, and I suspect the minister can hear it even before I say it. May the next bill to amend the Old Age Security Act include a substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age pension.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the comments made by hon. members. The only question left in my mind is, if this was Conservative policy, why did the Conservatives talk so long and delay passage of the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the bill was too conservative.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

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

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, there is no department of government that receives more attention than the Post Office Department. I think it has the highest track record for complaints which are debated on the motion to adjourn, and this has been the case for

some considerable time. I recall my predecessor on this topic, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), hit, I think, the highest ratings on the late show in bringing this matter up, and that record is being met in the present parliament.
The matter I want to discuss tonight with respect to the Post Office Department has to do with a problem that has persisted for a number of years, namely, the declining morale of the workers. The Post Office Department has been emphasizing automation at the expense of the wellbeing of workers. You cannot have a happy organization unless the people who are delivering the service are happy in that service. It is said that to err is human. I agree; but if you really want to foul things up, you must rely on the computer. This situation describes the present mess in the post office precisely.
The fact that the Post Office Department is not really coming to grips with the matter was demonstrated in a question that was fed to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) today with regard to the group postmasters. Over the years, this group of employees served beyond the call of duty and never complained. These are the people who provide service in the small communities, the post offices in the corner stores. Even they are becoming a bit restless and unhappy because of the failure of the Postmaster General and the government to deal fairly with them in the wage negotiations that have been going on for over a year.
Many questions have come up in recent weeks. The one I want to deal with tonight arises out of the project adopted by the Calgary regional office of the Post Office Department. In an attempt to get to the root of declining morale among the postal employees in that area, demonstrated by the rapid turnover in staff, it took the initiative in instituting a survey among former post office employees.
On July 26 I asked the Postmaster General if it was true that a survey of this kind was being conducted. I took the trouble to notify him of my question earlier in the day because usually the Postmaster General replies with pious platitudes that everything is the best in the best of all possible worlds. But he confirmed this was so in the Calgary office. I agreed it was a good idea and asked whether the survey might be conducted right across the country. The minister said he would give this consideration.
I hope whoever is responding for the Postmaster General tonight will be able to inform us whether the very creative idea which originated in the regional office in Calgary has been carried forward across the nation in the interest of improving vital postal service as rapidly as possible.
I could have raised another question tonight. On July 17 I asked about the discontinuance of the directory service of the Post Office Department. This ensured efficient service to the people of Canada. The letter carrier kept an up-to-date list of changes of address. In its wisdom, the Post Office Department decided to add yet another frustration: this service was discontinued, notwithstanding the fact the letter carriers are willing to carry out this

service. Indeed, they have been urging the government to restore it.
These are seemingly simple matters on the surface, but it is the little things which destroy the quality of service. I am sure hon. members will agree that if we have a happy public, we have a happy employee.
The Postmaster General is not with us this evening. He was not present when I spoke on the last occasion, July 17, just before the House adjourned. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Marceau) replied. His words of wisdom, as recorded at page 5730 of Hansard, began as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I will not take up the nonsensical accusations of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) because the government has no time to waste.
I remind him and this arrogant government that it has all the time in the world to waste because it is living on borrowed time. If it does not deal with fundamental matters such as efficient postal service that affects every citizen of Canada, in a very short time it will have all the time in the world to twiddle its thumbs, as it is doing at the present time.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to the hon. member on behalf of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet).
The purpose of this questionnaire was to discover the causes of the relatively high rate of personnel turnover, that is 10 per cent.
Last June, this questionnaire was sent to the Calgary area. To my knowledge, this is the only place where such a questionnaire was used.
In their desire to improve relations with their employees, Post Office Department officials sent out these questions, which concern the department in general, supervision, conditions of work, training, promotion opportunities, descriptions of duties, shift assignments, etc.
Fifty replies have now been received. These answers are now being analysed.
Since this questionnaire deals with an internal problem and is of limited scope, I do not think it necessary that it be made public.


AGRICULTURE-POSITION OF CANADA ON NEW INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, as usual I have my loyal audience at this hour thanks to an immense amount of co-operation between the House leader and the whips.
I rise to call attention to a question which has been aired in the last few days and which deserves to be restated. It relates to whether or not the government is taking any initiative toward establishing an international wheat agreement or an international grains agreement. The last time I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)
Adjournment Debate
whether moves were being made in this direction he told us he was looking into the matter but that he had to attend a meeting of provincial ministers of agriculture in Charlottetown, and, following that, of provincial premiers in Calgary. After his devastatingly poor showing there it is incumbent upon the government to outline the steps it is taking in an effort to establish international agreements respecting wheat and grains.
Steps in this direction should be taken now because the suppliers, the exporters of grain, Canada among them, are presently in a position to take the initiative. I refer to the fact that the World Agricultural Council has reported that world production is likely to fall at least 200 million bushels short of world demand. In such circumstances we as Canadians should take it upon ourselves to press for an international agreement under which producing countries are guaranteed a reasonable price over a period of time, and importing countries are assured of some certainty of supply. In other words, there would be some order in the world grain market the result of which would be to provide a measure of security to Canadian farmers.
I bring up this question tonight bearing in mind that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has called the world's major wheat exporting nations to a meeting on September 10 to seek means of alleviating the consequences of the shortfall in world cereal supply. Canada is obviously one of the nations involved and it should be incumbent on the government to bring up the question of international wheat and grains agreements.
In addition, one or other of the ministers concerned should outline to the House, or at least to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the direction government policy is taking in terms of the international situation, so as to bring some order into the marketing of grain for the benefit not only of Canadian farmers but also of the millions of hungry people in the world.
Further, on the issue of grain, for the first time in a long time the people of Canada are starting to realize the fundamental importance of farm production in terms of food supply in this country. If this government is going to make this kind of a move with relation to grains it should not do so until it is enunciated and discussed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture or on a statement on motions in this House of Commons.
I need mention only a few points. What are they doing in world negotiations on trade? What are they doing on the international scene and in respect of an international grains agreement? Why do we not have a full airing and discussion of the policy enunciated the other day when the western farmer at this point in time is subsidizing the consumer by $1.15 due to the maximum price of $4.50 and the minimum price of $3.25? Ten months ago I asked why this government was not changing its two-price system and subsidies because the wheat producers in my area were being left out.
If we are to be called upon to do this kind of thing by the government, then it is incumbent upon the government to give the representatives of those people a full opportunity to air and discuss measures of that type. Further, this government ignored a meeting of all ten
6324

September 6, 1973
Adjournment Debate
provincial agricultural ministers in terms of telling them what the feed grain policy was. They similarly ignored a meeting of the four western premiers of the areas in which the feed grain is produced. They ignored telling parliament what the feed grain policy was and took the opportunity late in the day when the press was not there to sneak into the Regina Inn and announce their feed grain policy. That shows how much confidence the government has in its feed grain policy. The matter ought to be aired in this House and in the standing committee as soon as possible.
That policy takes away a certain amount of control from the Wheat Board and the west loses its natural advantage in terms of farm production. Then the government had the audacity to move that the Export and Import Permits Act have control over the import of grains into Canada, and that this control be taken away from the Wheat Board. Although that policy has not been criticized too much- and probably that is our fault-it probably is one of the strongest moves by the forces of conservativism to take away the forces of orderly marketing from the Canadian Wheat Board.
Finally, may I say that in the world situation as it is today, and with the desperate situation in which many of our buying countries find themselves in trying to meet the price-buying countries which have been prepared to make 3, 4 and 5-year agreements to buy grain-we have an opportunity as a supplying nation to once again take the initiative in bringing world order into the marketing of grain and to enunciate in this House for the farmers of Canada a clear and definite statement on the approach we are taking to the establishment of an international wheat agreement and an international grains agreement.


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the hon. member in the name of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
The hon. member's question of July 23, 1973, to the Minister of Agriculture was whether or not the minister would make a statement on motions. The minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, is still the same; he is considering the matter.
The minister has already established that a type of agreement on grains is under study. It might be important to remind the hon. member of two facts: first, that international agreements were not always concluded to the satisfaction of Canadian producers and, second, that it is not always judicious to reveal to the persons we are negotiating with the state of our position before time, if this time ever comes. Canada still continues to hold its position concerning an efficient international wheat agreement, as previously agreed, but, apparently, several of the main parties to this agreement are still not ready to start the necessary discussions.
I do not think any other comments are necessary, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR RELATIONS-SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC INTEREST DISPUTES COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on the day we came back, August 30, I asked the Prime Minister if the government had any intention of introducing legislation along the lines recommended by the Woods Commission in 1968, and in particular with regard to a public interest disputes commission.
In 1966 we had a national railroad strike and parliament was recalled. The usual legislation for compulsory arbitration was banged through, and as a result of that the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson established the Woods Commission to inquire into methods by which we could more properly handle Canadian industrial relations. That task force made an exhaustive study of industrial relations and produced a 100,000 word report. That report cost this country $1.5 million.
On receipt of that report the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. Bryce Mackasey, said he would study it and might prepare some legislation, but that might take a year or so. One year went by, another year went by and several more years went by. Last year we had to come back again, and this year we had to come back again, produce ad hoc methods and go through the ritual dance, settling another industrial dispute in an area of essential service.
The Woods Commission recommended a public interest disputes commission, and to give this House some concept of what that might do I make these suggestions. The commission at the outset would be independent, not representing labour or management but representing the public and the public interest. That commission would determine what industry and what part of the industry or service is absolutely essential in the public interest. The commission might suggest in respect of railways, for example, that passenger trains are not essential and a strike may take place in some part of the country in that area. It would obviously decide that ferry services are necessary, and that it is necessary to move food to the north, to move grain shipments and perhaps certain bulk products to keep our industrial machine going.
Perhaps the commission would decide that certain strikes could be held on a limited basis. It might also determine special procedures whereby certain standards could be established in the case of wage disputes. For example, it might decide in respect of the railways that the durable goods industry's average wage payment scale might be the pay scale applicable. In respect of air controllers it might decide that the pay scale should be similar to that of employed lawyers, or something of the sort. This would be the purpose of the commission, to set guidelines and determine in the public interest which services are essential.
The commission might recommend to the government that a dispute cannot be allowed to continue any longer, that recommendation being made public, or it might allow a partial discontinuance of service. It might decide that if a union did not co-operate there should be a trusteeship, or that if a company would not co-operate there should be a seizure of its assets.
September 6, 1973

The commission might recommend such a thing as a statutory strike during which nobody gets paid but everybody works for a time and profits and incomes are set aside awaiting the outcome. It might even recommend compulsory arbitration. But the commission would be on top of the dispute from the very outset. When the rail dispute started and bargaining commenced back in November a public interest disputes commission would have been there. It would have been down at the table and representing the public interest. Because there is a public interest. We cannot go on having rail strikes. We cannot go on having air controllers strikes. We cannot have our harbours and canals tied up. This nation depends on these methods of transportation, communication and service.
The trouble with the strike weapon and the lock-out weapon is that they are the old trial by battle. We abandoned trial by battle in the judicial process a long time ago. We abandoned it probably because as a nation we got tired of looking after the widows and orphans who did not quite make it in battle. We must have a government that has leadership and that will develop a method of solving these kinds of disputes. This nation cannot afford this kind of activity any longer. It cannot afford to have its whole economy held to ransom.
The government has now had the proposals of the Woods Commission for five years. I do not say, and this party does not say, that those proposals are the last word. But my leader has said on several occasions, as have other hon. members of this House, that the Woods Commission is a start. It is a suggestion. It is something on which to base some legislation.
What have we got from across this chamber? We have got nothing-no leadership, no desire, no belief in how to solve the problem. That is the kind of government this nation has put up with. This nation cannot afford the kind of answers such as that given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to me on August 30, when he said, "Mr. Speaker, I have no announcement to make in that regard today". I had asked him would he introduce legislation that would make it no longer necessary for this House to be recalled in the fashion that it was recalled. He could not even be bothered to answer. That is the leadership this nation has had in labour relations. This has to stop. We are entitled to a government that is prepared to govern.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the working and union people of Canada are in the wrong profession. If they were doctors, lawyers, dentists, wholesalers, retailers, etc. there would be no need to strike or even negotiate. They would simply raise their wages and prices, and the public would pay. Like the hon. member, maybe we should belong to a closed shop group, the lawyers.
The public interest disputes commission, if the recommendation were implemented, would be composed of three men appointed to serve on a part-time basis. The commission would be independent of parliament, of the executive, or of any government department, and would report to the
Adjournment Debate
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The commission would be composed of public members only, without representative character.
They would be selected in consultation with a Canadian industrial relations council, another of the bodies recommended by the task force, which is to be a representative body. The commission would have a small full-time secretariat of high calibre and have access to the Department of Labour and other sources of assistance.
The two major functions of the commission would be, first, to determine special procedures for resolving industrial disputes in industries that are likely to jeopardize the public interest, and second, to deal in an advisory way with actual disputes threatening the public interest. Parties in federal industries would negotiate their own procedures, but on failure to agree, or if the procedure was deemed inadequate, the commission would prescribe a procedure of a limited nature that would not lead to finality by way of compulsory arbitration, or control, or seizure of the operation, or other extreme measures.
The present system of disputes settlement, as contained in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, prescribes a common procedure for the settlement of all disputes arising in the federal jurisdiction. The parties negotiate and, failing a settlement, they can apply for a conciliation officer or a conciliation board. If an officer is appointed and does not settle the dispute, a board is appointed if the dispute is of a critical public interest nature. Not many boards are required, an average of 25 per year being used over the past eight years. Where no settlement results, further mediation efforts before strike are made by the department. The parties are free to go on strike or lock-out seven days after the board of conciliation report is received by the minister, not when the agreement expires as recommended by the task force. Under this system disputes are settled and screened out in direct order of difficulty in successive stages of negotiation, conciliation and mediation. Very few disputes go through all stages.
The existing system for dealing with disputes in the federal jurisdiction is successful in getting settlements in 95 per cent of disputes, with an average of six strikes per year and with only six disputes having to be placed before parliament for legislation in the past 30 years.
The question must be asked whether the scheme recommended by the task force can be even this successful- in view of its many imponderables. Will an elaborate and involved system, in which the government will operate under a gun held by a commission and in which a Minister of Labour will have no authority, serve any effective purpose? In federal jurisdiction there has been an average of only 115 disputes per year in the past eight relatively busy years, and this seems an insignificant caseload for the research-oriented scheme conceived by the members of the task force. While they may be true to their calling and their academic background, labour and management disputants are more realistic in approach and outlook.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.
26454-36 (

Friday, September 7, 1973