1974-12-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments-Mr. McCleave.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Presenting Reports from Standing and Special committees:
November 29, 1974 Mr. J. Campbell (LaSalle-Emard-COte Saint-Paul) chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
That the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Thursday, November 21, 1974, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, in reference to this subject matter, it was indicated that the Chair was in considerable doubt as to the propriety of the report from the procedural point of view. I invited hon. members who wanted to do so to contribute to that subject today. It would be my intention to hear hon. members who wish to make a contribution and probably to reserve whatever judgment I propose to deliver until some time later this week.


Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday apparently there was procedural difficulty regarding this recommendation brought before the House. We have been able to gather some material that I believe will be helpful to the Chair in reaching a decision. During the consideration of private members' business last Thursday there was an indication that the Chair might be asked to rule at the appropriate time on whether or not the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications could be received. Before such decision is taken I would seek from the Chair permission to make some comments.
It was argued last Thursday that it was beyond the capability of a standing committee to make a report of this nature to the House since its order of reference was only to consider Bill S-ll. The authority cited was Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 304, where it is stated:
(1)	A committee may only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the House.
(2)	A committee is bound by, and not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference.
Beauchesne himself cited his own authority, which was the Fourth Edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 469. It appears that the House may have strayed from the original principle in recent years to the point where it may be useful to quote the original authority in extenso: I believe most hon. members are aware that the two paragraphs I have mentioned go beyond Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure. There are two sentences in this citation which should be considered very closely. The first is:
Consequently, if a bill be referred to a select committee it will not be competent for that committee to go beyond the subject matter of its provisions.
It would appear clear that committees are not restricted to the provisions of a bill but can also consider the subject matter of the provisions of a bill, public or private. Accordingly, committees should indeed be competent to submit to the House recommendations dealing with the subject matter of the provisions of a bill. Should the judgment of the committee be challenged, then it should be through a decision of the House and not a decision of the Chair. The second sentence or part thereof which warrants attention is the following:
No such restrictions apply to committees on private bills ...
There may be some who would argue that this citation finds no application, but the fact is that there appears to be no precedent where the House or Mr. Speaker have refused committees the right to submit to the House reports of the nature of the report now brought before it. Dealing in particular with recommendations submitted by committees in relation to private bills, Bourinot at pages 603-604 reads as follows:
In case the bill is withdrawn or otherwise fails to become law, the fee of $200 is refunded, generally and properly on the recommendation of the committee on the bill. Sometimes the committee will recommend that it be refunded on other grounds:
Because a bill has been rendered necessary by the action of the general legislature. Because the necessity for its passage arose from no fault of the promoter, but from circumstances beyond his control. Because the committee have materially diminished the powers asked for. Because it is not liable to the fee and charges levied on private bills. Because it is a mere amendment to the general act respecting banks and banking. Because a project is of a great public benefit to a locality, because the promoters of the bill have agreed to accept the provisions of a general act passed that session: because it has to a great extent been superseded by the provisions of a public bill. Because a bill

December 3, 1974
Transport and Communications
has been consolidated with another, on which fees are paid, or because it is a mere amendment to a previous act.
The only vehicle available to committees, on a bill for presentation to the House, of such recommendations is a report. The House has consistently received from committees dealing with private bills, reports containing recommendations without challenge. The fact is that if the Chair refuses to seize the House of the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications it would probably be establishing a new rule for which it would be difficult to find a precedent. Should the Chair allow itself to be placed in a position where it would be substituting its judgment for that of a committee on grounds other than procedural grounds? The question is of some importance because there does exist an analogous precedent in recent years, at least as far as procedure is concerned.
It is true that the mode of relieving a company of charges levied under standing orders is different, but that is a matter of judgment to be decided by the House and not a matter of procedure to be decided by the Chair. On May 30, 1967, the House referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, Bill C-104, an act respecting the Bell Telephone Company. On October 20, 1967, the committee submitted to the House the following report:
Your committee has before it Bill C-104, an act respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Your committee unanimously recommends that the capital stock charges in the amount of $150,400 collected and paid to the Receiver General of Canada, and deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the course of the past session (1966-67), by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, be applied to the capital stock charges levied at this session.
The said report was concurred in on October 24, 1967. The Chair then had no objection whatsoever to the moving of a motion for concurrence in the said report. It is therefore difficult to understand why any objection should be raised to a motion for concurrence in a similar report at this time. The Chair is now being asked to rule out of order what the House declared in order only a few years back. Should the Chair decide that committees cannot submit recommendations in any form to the House in connection with their consideration of bills, then there will undoubtedly arise problems of a practical nature. May I quote, as one example, the report submitted by the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines on March 24, 1960, which was concurred in by the House on the same day:
Your committee reported this day Bill S-16, an act to incorporate Matador Pipe Line Company, Ltd., as its fourth report.
Clause 3 of the bill provides for capital stock of one hundred thousand common shares without nominal or par value.
Your committee recommends that, for taxing purposes under Standing Order 94, each common share shall be deemed to be worth one dollar.
By unanimous consent, on motion of Mr. Howe, seconded by Mr. Baldwin, the said report was concurred in.
If committees are not permitted to report recommendations to the House, then in such cases there can be no application of the provisions of Standing Order 91 inasmuch as there would be left no vehicle whereby the committee could ask the House to agree to an evaluation of shares. The same would be true of Standing Order 105.

May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that the committee, in ordering the presentation of its second report to the House acted in good faith and within the four corners of parliamentary tradition. If Your Honour decides to take under advisement the objections raised, then may I suggest that the following points be considered. First, there is little basis for the contention that committees charged with the consideration of a bill cannot submit recommendations to the House. Second, dealing with private bills specifically, there would appear to be no precedent where a committee report was ruled out of order on the grounds that the bill was the order of reference and recommendations could not be received. Third, the report submitted to the House by the committee is procedurally consistent with each and every report of the same nature submitted by this or any other committee in the past. It has not been brought to the attention of the Chair that any such report was ever ruled out or order, and the Chair might not wish to impose upon committees conditions which the House itself did not impose either through its Standing Orders or its decisions.
Fourth, a decision to deny committees considering bills, public or private, the right to submit from time to time reports containing recommendations would necessarily entail far reaching consequences in several areas: For instance, where a committee submits that a bill be divided, that a witness has refused to appear, that the order of reference should be expanded, that the bill should more properly be considered by another committee, that the committee be allowed to travel, etc.
In conclusion, the committee which honoured me by electing me its chairman has taken a unanimous decision which it hopes will be submittted to the judgment of the House. Decisions of the Chair are not subject to appeal, and should the decision of the Chair be that the report of the committee is out of order there would be no opportunity left for the members of the committee to justify, in parliament, their position. The committee felt that it was acting within its capability, competence and responsibility and hopes that its decision will be concurred in by the House.
I would respectfully request that the motion be put, but if there are misgivings it would be my suggestion that all the matters raised today in this respect be referred for immediate consideration either to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization or to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset indicate my support for the position which the committee has taken in this report, namely, that the company concerned should not have to pay the very extravagant fee which is apparently required in this case. However, there is a procedural point of some importance here. It concerns the powers of parliamentary committees to make representations to the House of Commons. Your Honour will recall that your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, on June 18, 1973 delivered a ruling on the nature and the ability of a committee to make a report on the estimate. Taking that as the beginning, I submit that the restriction on a committee to make reports on bills
December 3, 1974

referred to it is equally restrictive and obligatory, and that the committee may report only on a bill and amendments thereon. I do not think it necessary to quote the report of the standing committee or the reference. I think these are easily found.
However, I want to deal with House of Commons Standing Order 65(8) which reads as follows:
Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and, to report from time to time, and, except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records .. .
The point is that the matter of the fee in Bill S-ll, according to the reference on Thursday, November 7, was not referred to the committee and is not encompassed in the reference that was made to that committee. What was referred to the committee was Bill S-ll which the committee must report with or without amendment to the House of Commons. Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 304(1) at page 244 reads:
A committee can only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the House.
Citation 304(2) clearly states, and I quote:
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference. In the case of a Select Committee upon a Bill, the Bill committed to it is itself the order of reference to the Committee, who must report it with or without amendment to the House.
May's eighteenth edition at page 620 makes the following point:
A select committee, like a Committee of the whole House, possesses no authority except that which it derives by delegation from the House by which it is appointed. When a select committee is appointed to consider or inquire into a matter, the scope of its deliberations or inquiries is defined by the order by which the committee is appointed (termed the order of reference), and the deliberations or inquiries of the committee must be confined within the limits of the order of reference. But when a bill is committed, or referred, to a select committee, the bill is itself the order of reference, and the inquiries and deliberations of the committee must be confined to the bill and amendments relevant to the subject-matter thereof.
What the House might wish to do concerning the fee paid by British Columbia Telephone Company is a totally separate issue from Bill S-ll. In view of the fact that Bill C-29 will apparently standardize the fees paid by companies seeking to enlarge their capitalization, the House may wish to consider bringing its Standing Order fee provisions into line with the new legislation or it may wish to order the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications or the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders to consider the question of the fee to be paid, or not paid, by British Columbia Telephone Company. Beauchesne, citation 304(3) at page 244 reads:
When it has been thought desirable to do so, the House has enlarged the order of reference by means of an instruction or in the case of a Select Committee upon a Bill by the committal to it of another Bill. Mandatory instructions have also been given to Select Committees restricting the limits of their powers or prescribing the course of their proceedings, or directing the committee to make a special report upon certain matters.
(4) Sometimes a committee may have to obtain leave from the House to make a special report when its order of reference is limited in scope.
Transport and Communications
Means exist, therefore, under the rules of the House to allow the committee to consider, and make recommendations on, the fee to be paid in connection with Bill S-ll. However, such means do not now exist under the committee's present order of reference with application to Bill S-ll and any recommendation other than reporting the bill with or without amendments is out of order.
The important thing here is the nature of the reference and the fact that in commenting on the fee payable the committee exceeded its order of reference. The normal procedure of the House of Commons is that a committee has the power to amend a bill, by which means it expresses its opinion on the bill. Such a report, including an amendment, is, in effect, a report to the House of Commons that a substantive change is necessary. But the authorities do not contemplate at any point the possibility of a committee making extraneous reports or commentaries on legislation referred to it in the form of a bill.
I think Your Honour must find, taking into consideration the arguments I have advanced, and the direction your predecessor has provided, that this report is out of order.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the problem inherent in the procedural point raised regarding this report is referable to section 16 of the Financial Administration Act. While I am in considerable sympathy with the remarks made by the learned chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communication, I should like to call the attention of the House to an interesting reference by a former Auditor General, Mr. Watson Sellar, in an audit office guide which he wrote for the instruction of Treasury Board officers in 1958. On page 24 of this publication, he mentioned a situation which arose in 1929 when motions to remit funds for private bills withdrawn were, for the first time, rejected by the Speaker whose explanation was:
It is essentially contrary to section 35 of the Consolidated Revenue Act (now section 16 of the Financial Administration Act) which stipulates that any fees received by the officers of the House shall be deposited at the bank, when they become the property of the Receiver General of Canada. To remit such fees would require an estimate from the Minister of Finance.
This was reported in Hansard of June 14, 1929, at page 3762. The Speaker's ruling was not, of course, binding on the Senate, so a degree of inconsistency existed in practice until the act was amended.
It seems obvious that the moment the funds were paid by the B.C. Telephone Company they became the property of the Receiver General of Canada and should have been, and likely were, deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Chief Clerk of Committees.
It would therefore seem there would be little point at this time in sending a reference to the committee instructing it to deal with the question of the funds, should such action be contemplated, if only because the funds are not there any more; the only way to have them retrieved, if, in fact, it is proper to do so, would be pursuant to section 16 of the Financial Administration Act which is entirely within the discretion of the Minister of Finance. So, regardless of what may happen with regard to Bill C-29, the Canada Business Corporations Act, discretion remains

December 3, 1974
Transport and Communications
with the Minister of Finance to take whatever action he deems to be equitable in the circumstances.
This question is causing considerable concern because of the size of the fee and the relevance it might have to telephone rates in British Columbia. While I am all for seeing the powers of committees preserved and, if possible, extended, I have grave doubts as to the relevance of this recommendation. We are dealing here with a delicate matter related to the responsibilities placed upon some of the officers of the House in connection with fees of this type.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise, really, just for the purpose of asking whether the provision set out in Standing Order 99-


Mr. Grafftey:: You just couldn't keep out of it, could you, Stanley?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -have been carried out with respect to this bill. Standing Order 99 reads as follows:
No motion for the suspension or modification of any provision of the standing orders applying to private bills or to petitions for private bills shall be entertained by the House until reference has been made to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders ...
And so on. It seems to me if that reference were made, then, of course, the committee could report thereon. If that reference were not made, it would seem to me that the committee does not have the right to report thereon but that a request would have to be made for that reference.


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


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my comments to myself since the chairman of the transport committee is aware of my views. I have no comment to make now.
However, I wish to point out on behalf of my fellow Social Crediters that an unfortunate situation has now occurred. Today is an opposition day allotted to our group for the consideration of subsidies. It is our only opposition day before the holidays and since the beginning of this Parliament, and already 20 or 25 minutes have gone by, the question period has not yet started and the orders of the day are not yet completed.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the point of order, I wish to convey our regrets and ask the Privy Council to try to plan better its agenda, so that when it asks the co-operation of members for the passage of government measures we may be in a position to co-operate. On the other hand, it should also co-operate with us when it comes to allotted opposition days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thank hon. members for their valuable contributions to the question, and as I have indicated will be delivering my ruling and the reasons therefor probably tomorrow.


MANPOWER
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask permission of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity with regard to the Local Initiatives Program and to copies of additional government documents which I would be prepared to table today. I ask permission to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
In view of copies of further government documents now available today, including ones signed by D. C. Trehearne, R. J. Gairns, Robert K. Andras and others, showing evidence of political interference and manipulation with the Local Initiatives Program as illustrated by project numbered X1074 in the constituency of Capilano in the province of British Columbia, the House requests a full and independent inquiry by a royal commission to determine the extent of political scandal in the handling of the Local Initiatives Program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Because of the reference in the terms of the motion to documents which have become available this day, there would be some element of immediacy to it which did not exist hitherto. However, the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it requires unanimous consent before it can be debated. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to ask whether I have the permission of the House to table these documents. Surely, the government is not afraid. If it has nothing to hide and there is no scandal, why will the government not agree to my tabling the documents?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows there is no provision in the rules for a private member to table or file documents in any way. However, the hon. member, having the documents in his possession, presumably can make them public in a number of other ways.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-368, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (independent members of the House of Commons).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House of Commons can always be relied upon to uphold the rights of minorities in this House. To this I might add that Your Honour, as Speaker, and your staff have been of tremendous assistance to myself as an independent member. Truly, you have been like a godfather, very co-operative.
December 3, 1974


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


Leonard C. Jones: However, membership on committees is subject to the vagaries of the party whips, and the purpose of this bill is to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act to provide that independent members or those not associated with any recognized party shall be entitled to membership on at least two standing committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill? I hope that is not construed as an offer that the House cannot refuse!


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
In answer to a question asked a few days ago, the minister indicated that grain inspectors had the right to strike and he expressed the hope that an agreement would be reached by normal means. Is the minister now in a position to announce that indeed such an agreement has been reached?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: No, Mr. Speaker.


GRAIN INSPECTORS STRIKE-ADEQUACY OF SUPPLIES IN EASTERN CANADA THIS WINTER
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, but perhaps the Prime Minister can give me the information. In view of the strike and the absence of any report of a concrete nature from the President of the Treasury Board, and in view of reports abroad that this means a shortage of grain in the east for milling and other purposes, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether his government has had an examination of inventories conducted and that he can assure the House there will be sufficient grain in eastern Canada this winter to meet the needs both for human and animal consumption?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, of course this matter deeply concerns the government, and the minister in particular. We discussed it this morning, he and I, and we will continue to do so during the course of the day. As far as the exact inventory to
Oral Questions
which the Leader of the Opposition referred, it is obvious that that depends on the assumptions considered, namely whether the strike will last any length of time or not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister has stated to the House that no inventory has been taken, but his answer depends on certain hypotheses. In view of the fact that the government has substantially created this problem itself, does not the Prime Minister feel under any obligation to give the House and the people of the country some assurance that there will be no shortage this winter? Finally, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has been able to create a mess like this without even trying?


GRAIN INSPECTORS STRIKE-USE OF OCEANGOING VESSELS ON GREAT LAKES TO TRANSPORT GRAIN TO EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board and it arises out of the fact that as of midnight last night there were approximately 80 oceangoing vessels above the port of St. Lambert and 63 above Port Waller, all of which must be out of the Seaway system by two weeks from today.
In view of this fact that there are currently numerous ocean vessels in the Seaway system capable of transporting grain to eastern terminals before the closure of the system, can the minister assure the House that these vessels will in fact be utilized to alleviate the supply situation in eastern Canada, and that they will not be allowed to leave the system empty of grain cargo?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, all these vessels are not scheduled to carry grain and, according to the events, we will see what use we can make of them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Perth-Wilmot on a final supplementary.


GRAIN INSPECTORS STRIKE-CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR TRANSPORTING GRAIN TO EASTERN CANADA
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will address my supplementary to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It is estimated that a ship is capable of carrying up to one million bushels of grain per run, while a boxcar can transport only 2,500 to 3,000 bushels. In view of the fact it now appears that if government action is not taken immediately to end the grain inspectors' strike, the seaway will in fact close and domestic grain supplies will be dependent upon rail transport, will the minister reveal the contingency plans which the Minister of Transport indicated he would be preparing to ensure that there are grain supplies in Eastern Canada for the upcoming winter, especially since this is a matter directly related to the public interest?

December 3, 1974
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Transport very carefully avoided going into detail about the nature of the plans and for the rather good reason that while negotiations and discussions are going on it is inadvisable to examine in the House the alternatives based on a number of hypotheses. Naturally, at the same time we examined what can be done in different circumstances and when the time is right we will make the plans known.


GRAIN INSPECTORS STRIKE-PROTECTION OF CONSUMER AGAINST PRICE INCREASES FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that a continuation of the grain inspectors' strike until the closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway will create a supply situation which will promote inevitably an increase in the price of domestic milling grain in eastern Canada, will the minister inform the House of the contingency plans he has created to ensure that consumers in this part of the country will not bear the burden of unnecessary price increases in essential consumer items, caused in part at least by government inaction in formulating an acceptable settlement of this strike?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, not only is the conclusion a simple barb not designed to get at any part of the whole question, it is clearly in those terms hypothetical. We are hopeful that a great volume of grain will still move down the seaway.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that General Motors Corporation of Canada announced there would be 2,095 employees laid off by that company in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of lay-offs in the automotive industry somewhere in excess of 9,000, I should like to ask the minister if he has been in touch recently with the corporations in Canada to find out what their plans are for the coming weeks and whether he would tell us what plans his government has to deal with the anticipated increase in lay-offs.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yes I have. The position I announced in the House the other day described the condition as then existing as cautiously optimistic, and this has been confirmed by the heads of the major automobile manufacturers in Canada. I have been advised also in respect of the General Motors lay-off to which the hon. member referred that even after it is completed there will be 30,850 employees whereas in January this year employ-

ment was at a level of 31,500 reflecting on a year over year basis only a very modest change in that corporation.


AUTOMOBILES-DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN PRICES IN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: There is a marvellous optimism which prevails, Mr. Speaker. I have a second supplementary. Since the price of automobiles is obviously related to the number of cars sold, and since the minister has frequently told the House that the difference between the Canadian and United States price is in the neighbourhood of 7 per cent, could he inform the House if that 7 per cent figure pertains to 1975 models?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that figure is within the ballpark. The reason I have a slight reservation is that there is a different percentage for each of the three major companies. If we take the three major companies I think that would be of the right order. The point I have made in the past is that there has been a diminishing percentage over the last few years.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a final supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a random check of the three major motor companies in Canada, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors, recently taken in respect of the prices at which they were selling cars in Canada compared to the United States indicated that the price difference today for a medium-sized car is in the neighbourhood of 17 per cent and the price differential for a small sized car in respect of all three companies, which I think is rather curious, is in the neighbourhood of 11 per cent, would the Prime Minister take steps to have either the minister's staff changed or the minister himself so that we can get some accurate information.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the difference comes from the fact that the hon. member is using retail figures, as I understand it, whereas the figures on which we rely are wholesale figures. Perhaps the hon. member, if he does not change his staff, will send me figures.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Of these 9,875 Canadian workers who are facing various periods of unemployment in respect of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Canada, 2,965 or almost 3,000 have been informed that their termination of employment is for an indefinite period. As there seems to be some question of interpretation by the Unemployment Insurance Commission officials concerning whether indefinite termination actually qualifies these people for unemployment insurance, I wonder if the min-
December 3, 1974

ister is in a position to clarify the situation of confirm that these benefits are payable to these workers.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my first impression is that they would not be denied benefits, but I should like, with respect, to have the opportunity to examine the hon. member's question and give him an answer at the earliest possible date.


FINANCE
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In the recent budget speech, he has announced a 10 per cent surtax on pleasure craft with 20 or more horsepower engine. This measure seriously affects that industry which, on the one hand, has been subsidized to create jobs and which, on the other, sees the price of its craft increased to a prohibitive level, even though they consume very little gas. Has the Minister of Finance received representations from craft manufacturing companies all across the country and, if so, how well has he received their representations that he merely abolish that tax?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. I think we will consider the representations from those companies. We still may discuss this question in the House, in committee of the whole, when we will consider the bill.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Before I ask it I am sure I speak for all members of the House when I say we wish him well on his very important visit to Washington tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: In view of the very short space of time that is allotted to the very important discussions that will take place between the new United States President and the Prime Minister, does he feel confident that he will be able to create the good impression which is so vital at the present time which was so startlingly absent during the President's last visit to Ottawa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member will realize why it is not possible to spend more time with the President if he recalls the motion made by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I am pressed to go on to Winnipeg as soon as possible, but I will
Oral Questions
do my best in the short time I will have with the President.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the short time he has during his conversation, if the Prime Minister begins to get the feeling that criticism will be unavoidable will he do his very best to have himself compared to a more lofty portion of his anatomy than was the case the last time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is interested in literary matters and I would refer him to the Dictionary of American Slang where he will see that I came out of this as a very good friend.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I think the Prime Minister was referring to the fact that he had said earlier, and said again today, that I do not know the difference between a hole in the ground and razzmataz. It is a very serious charge against a member of parliament and therefore I looked up the definition of both terms in both French and English dictionaries. The best definition by far of "hole in the ground" is given in the French dictionary as follows: "hole in the ground or water hole- un trou d'eau". The word razzmataz -very important in this case-is not listed in the French dictionary, but in the English dictionary the definition reads: "razzmataz, what Nixon described Trudeau as".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: It is obvious to all hon. members that there is no difference between the two expressions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Let us see him match that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in view of this enlightening information I would now amend my earlier statement to say that the hon. member does not see the difference between a hole in the ground and a hole in his head.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: New writers are needed.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fisheries). At a press conference in Newfoundland last week the minister announced that the RCN destroyer Annapolis had left the previous day to do patrol work off the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and would do on-board inspection of foreign ships fishing in that area. Can the minister tell the House how many ships have been boarded, if it was found that some of the foreign ships are

Oral Questions
violating the quota system worked out by ICNAF and, if so, what actions have been taken by this government?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, at one point during that conference I thought the hon. member had resigned from the House and joined the press corps. I was very pleased to see him in attendance.
However, in response to this very serious question I must say that I have not had a report on the results of these boardings as yet. I will look into this matter and inform the hon. member.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
William Heward Grafftey: My question is based on the fact that the federal government's annual expenditures have more than doubled over six years from $12 billion to over $26 billion. In view of the statement by the chairman of th Economic Council of Canada that domestic inflation is largely caused by federal government expenditure duplication and waste, I should like to ask the minister when the federal government will take a leadership role in battling inflation and when the Minister of Finance will present to the House of Commons the government's precise program to wrestle inflation to the ground.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was here on budget night and he heard me elaborate on that quite fully. The chairman of the Economic Council also referred to structural changes in the cost of energy, the cost of food and other contributing factors to inflation in this country and elsewhere.


William Heward Grafftey: In view of the fact that the minister himself stated that the government in the budget was more preoccupied with the problem of recession, is it not his intention at a future time to present a precise program to the House to battle inflation as opposed to the recessionary considerations with which he was involved in the budget this year?


John Napier Turner: That is not exactly what I said on budget night. I said that there were twin problems, the problem of inflation and the problem of the threat of recession, and in order to fight them, I recommended for the 1975-76 year a stimulus in the amount of a cash deficit of $3 billion, largely achieved by tax cuts both at the corporate sales tax and the personal tax levels which would give that stimulus in a non-inflationary way. In other words, I hoped to achieve a stimulus to protect us against the threat of recession but in as non-inflationary a fashion as I could.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to other questions but it relates to the non-movement of grain. It arises from representations made only this morning to me by feeders in my area. I will put my question to the Prime Minister; perhaps he can do something about it before he leaves for Washington.
As a result of the continuing grain inspectors strike, orders for grain and stock and poultry feed placed by feeders in our section of Ontario through the Prescott elevator are now going unfilled or partly filled or interrupted. Because of the adverse effect of this situation, will the Prime Minister please press for an early resumption of the movement of grain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a repetition of the representation made earlier this afternoon. The House is aware that meetings were going on this morning and that we hope for a very quick settlement of this strike. We will certainly have to inform the House of whatever new developments there may be during the day by tomorrow.
* [DOT] *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. When he visits Washington, will he make the strongest possible representation to President Ford to call a halt to all construction of the Garrison Diversion unit project in North Dakota because of the serious pollution and massive flooding problem it will generate in Manitoba?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will
certainly take note of the representation. It is something in which the federal government is very interested of course. As the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings reminded us, the meeting will not be a very long one and I cannot guarantee that I will be raising every subject which is of interest to Canada and to hon. members.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs might have more time in Washington. In view of the serious shortage of water in the United States, will the Prime Minister or the minister impress upon President Ford that it would be only logical to divert water from the Garrison project for use within their own country?


MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER WITH PRESIDENT FORD- REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF SUBJECTS TO BE DISCUSSED AND REPORT TO HOUSE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in reference to his visit with President Ford tomorrow. I wonder if at this time he is able to tell us the priorities that he will be outlining and discussing with the president in the short time he has. I am thinking of the security of supply of energy and the automobile pact. Has there been a priority set for this interview which is so important at this time for the economic life of both nations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the Prime Minister would tell us what those priorities are. If he is not able to tell us now, will he be making a full report when he returns from Washington?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh no, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will ask this then: is this meeting with the president so confidential that the Prime Minister cannot tell the Canadian people and the House what the priorities are or report on the discussion when he returns to Canada? Is it a confidential meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a private meeting so far as our side is concerned, but the policies which will be discussed are of interest to Canadians and to the House of Commons and I will be prepared to answer questions or make a statement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You said you would not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You mentioned Washington, not Ottawa.


MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER WITH PRESIDENT FORD-REQUEST THAT JOINT APPEAL BE MADE TO RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES FOR MORE HUMANE TREATMENT OF VALENTYN MOROZ
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the recent open appeal made by the wife of Valentyn Moroz to all good and compassionate people, which included the Prime Minister and President Ford, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of such a letter, and further, whether he will use the occasion of his visit tomorrow to ask President Ford to join him in taking joint action to appeal to the Soviet authorities for a more humane treatment of Mr. Moroz, and in particular to urge the Soviet authorities to remove Mr. Moroz immediately to hospital because of his deteriorating condition.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the letter to which the hon. member refers. As to whether the question will be raised, I can only give the same type of answer I gave to an earlier question: there are many matters to be raised and I cannot guarantee that they will all be raised.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that December 10 has been designated as International Human Rights Day does the Prime Minister not feel it appropriate to renew his efforts on behalf of Mr. Moroz? Does he not consider the evidence of Mrs. Moroz as substantive proof that the health of Mr. Moroz is deteriorating and death is near unless medical treatment can be provided to him immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my information is that medical treatment is being provided and that Mr. Moroz is in hospital. This information was conveyed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by the Soviet ambassador when our minister spoke about this matter to the ambassador a week or two ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: One further supplementary for clarification, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister indicate whether Mr. Moroz is in a hospital in prison or in a hospital outside the prison?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we know it is a hospital but we do not know if it is in or out of prison. I suppose that as in Canada they have hospitals in prisons and outside.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware of the announcement by Bevis Corporation Limited, a British controlled company, that it has discovered a loophole in the Foreign Investments Review Act permitting it to avoid approval of takeovers and if he is, does he propose to take any steps to block this loophole?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have seen a reference in the Globe and Mail. The transfer of voting rights by non-Canadians without the corresponding transfer of equity ownership is not by itself sufficient to change ultimate control of the corporation. This is patently so where those voting rights will revert to non-Canadians some time in the future.



PROPOSED FUNDING OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR NATIVES ON USE OF ALCOHOL-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, 1 address this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recommendations resulting from a series of workshops held in the western Arctic a few months ago sponsored jointly by the Northwest Territories government and the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories on the subject of alcohol problems in the north, does the minister intend to initiate any programs in the near future to increase the funding avail-

December 3, 1974
Oral Questions
able for alcohol education in the Northwest Territories and to set up community rehabilitation centres staffed by northerners?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows my department is providing some funds at the present time, particularly with respect to the problem of alcoholism among natives. I am currently reviewing our program in this respect but I am not in a position to make an announcement at the present time. We are examining the matter, however.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Has the minister undertaken any studies recently on the effectiveness of alcohol education and rehabilitation programs in the Northwest Territories?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I know of no specific survey or review in the sense of a scientific review of the programs currently being operated in the north. One thing is sure, however, we are not satisfied with what is taking place at the present time and should like to improve on it.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister inform the House how many grades there are in the beef grading system in Canada and whether processing plants are allowed to pay for cattle using their own grading standards?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows how many grading systems there are in Canada. To give a detailed explanation of how the grading systems work would take up too much of the question period, but I could send him a breakdown of the information. We have one of the most advanced grading systems in the world, I can tell him that.


An hon. Member:: How many?


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, a short supplementary. Would the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I confess I have some reservations about whether the answer to the hon. member's first question could not have been more properly sought through other means. Perhaps the hon. member can clarify that through a supplementary.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Fine, Mr. Speaker; I will forget my supplementary.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport? Is the minister aware of plans to close permanently the parking garage at Vancouver International Airport and to replace the parking space lost with an open parking lot in spite of an offer from the parking operators to replace the lost space with a new double deck garage? Will the minister investigate the situation in order to avoid the necessity of a shuttle bus service and other inconveniences that would be suffered by travellers?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this project that they may have but I am going to investigate.


An hon. Member:: What are you aware of?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there are about 2,000 airports in Canada, so I do not know everything that is going on at each one. I will get the information and give it to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary South.


Mr. Bawden:: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Prime Minister but I see he has gone.


An hon. Member:: He is out looking for the airports, too.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: My question was also for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I should like to begin by welcoming him back to a friendly audience after meeting with the Liberals in Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question concerns a group the minister did not meet there, the Treaty Seven Indians, whose grievances concerning the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development led them to occupy departmental offices. I should like to know from the minister whether he would now give an undertaking to meet both the chiefs of Treaty Seven and representatives of the Urban Treaty Alliance to discuss their grievances and to meet them in Alberta rather than Ottawa?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should
December 3, 1974

like to correct the mistaken impression left by the hon. member. I found the Liberals of Alberta very warm and cordial.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: All three of them?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I had sent a telegram to the chiefs of Treaty Seven indicating that I would be happy to meet with them and suggested it would be preferable that we meet in Ottawa.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As he is absent I will put it to his parliamentary secretary.
Could he tell the House when he will be able to announce that a husband or a wife will receive a pension similar to that of his or her spouse?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin-


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question because I notice that the minister has returned.
Could the minister tell the House when the government will be in a position to grant the old age pension to the pensioner's spouse?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been replied to. It will be done in October 1975.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. In view of the filibuster on the redistribution bill last night, can the minister indicate when that bill will be brought forward again?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of Privy Council):: As soon as I have some indication that progress is desired on the other side, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions GRAIN



EFFECT OF GRAIN INSPECTOR'S STRIKE ON CANADA'S REPUTATION AS GRAIN SUPPLIER-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. The most recent stoppage of grain movements caused by the unfortunate circumstances of the grain handlers' strike in Vancouver, has cast shadows of doubt on Canada's international reputation as a grain supplier and also has given rise to uncertainties concerning future foreign commitments. Does the minister not consider that a second stoppage within two months will further damage Canada's reputation, especially in view of the widely publicized world food crisis. If so, what does the government intend to do about it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are always concerned about the problem of delivering grain on time. At present, negotiations are continuing in an effort to deal with the dispute in progress. In a number of areas within the grain handling system, either in the private area or in the area under government management, employees have the right to strike as part of the process. Where bargaining fails and where, as in this case, employees do not want to accept the recommendations even of the majority report, that right is available to them under the law. That brings certain consequences for the grain industry and, in certain cases, for other individuals. Nobody can put forward easy alternatives for dealing with labour difficulties when the collective bargaining process does not achieve agreement.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. When, if ever, will the minister make a statement, in accordance with the request of the prairie ministers of agriculture, about the problems cattlemen are facing? Will he make it before cattlemen unload their cattle even at today's depressed prices or does he intend to sit this one out like an old maid at a ball?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the last part of the hon. member's question, although I think I know what he said. I am certainly aware of the different provincial programs which are in effect. We had a meeting with the prairie ministers of agriculture a week ago yesterday and discussed with them what we ought to be doing. We met with the NFU and talked with the CFA about what we ought to be doing, and I hope we will come up with a good program for the producers concerned.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What plans has the minister to save the land which was seeded to grass at an expense of some $40 million two or

December 3, 1974
Oral Questions
three years ago at the instigation of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and what plans has he to prevent that land from being used again for the growing of crops.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. As the minister, fortunately, has now seen fit to provide relief from federal sales tax for taxpaid inventories of trucks and other transportation equipment, will he inform the House whether he intends to take the same action and provide relief for those who have paid sales tax on building materials.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. I refer the hon. member to the special circumstances mentioned in my reply yesterday to the hon. member for Red Deer and elaborated in the press release that was issued following my answer in the House.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As it is the department's policy to provide incentives for Francophone people to immigrate to Quebec, an area of high unemployment, is there not some special incentive applicable to the province of Alberta, where the unemployment rate at present is less than 2 per cent and where a serious labour shortage exists at present.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there are no special incentives for people to immigrate to Quebec, at least so far as the federal government is involved. As I explained to the House, we are working in co-operation with officials and departments of the government of Quebec to establish offices abroad. As for the recruitment of required workers to Alberta, I have discussed this thoroughly with Dr. Hohol, my counterpart in the government of Alberta and with people in industry in that province provided they are prepared to first try to recruit Canadians from Alberta and the western regions and nationally to Alberta and failing success, we will help them recruit from abroad. If they satisfy those certain conditions, including, where practical, willingness to train Canadians first, without success, we will certainly consider getting workers from abroad.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Cyril Sjrmes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that Judge Estey in his inquiry on steel profits was not permitted to examine the implications of the oligopolistic practice of price leadership by the Big Three, and since Judge Estey concludes, "This is a matter ... of such complexity and importance to the industry and commerce of Canada generally as to require its own separate study ... ", will the minister now establish such an inquiry into price leadership?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously, Judge Estey's report is comprehensive. It speaks for itself and stands on its own.



STEEL-REASON FOR ACCEPTANCE BY JUDGE ESTEY OF LIFO SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING

Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my question about price leadership. May I ask another pertinent question. Can the minister explain why Judge Estey accepts the steel companies' inflation accounting system of LIFO, last in first out, in computing costs, whereas the Department of National Revenue and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants have ruled that LIFO is not a proper accounting method?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think that the report speaks for itself and stands on its own. I think Judge Estey clearly examined various accounting principles. He sought the best advice available and he put forward his views in the report.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice being absent, I shall direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the reply the minister made yesterday that there is not enough feed grain in eastern Canada, due to the grain inspectors' strike, can he assure the House that domestic needs will be given priority, and that steps will be taken to prevent current grain stocks in eastern terminals from being exported, as long as the present situation has not been remedied?


Mr. Speaker:: I must regretfully advise the hon. member that this is the third time this question has been asked today during the oral question period, and in exactly the same terms.
[Mr. Korchinski.J


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have only one question today. It relates to-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, could we have silence in this House? My colleagues on your right are charitable people, but they sometimes take the liberty of disturbing hon. members who ask serious questions, as I am doing now, and I do not like this. I respect other hon. members, so they should respect me in return.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Then, my point of order is as follows: since the question I asked the minister deals with the fact that indeed there are problems-I do not blame anyone for that, but there are problems-with the feed grains which are now stored in the east, and since it is impossible to ship them in sufficient quantities, I ask the minister whether he can assure the House that these feed grains will meet domestic needs before being exported to outside markets.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret, but I still insist that this question is identical to the one asked by another hon. member at the beginning of the oral question period.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: What was the answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier in the question period the hon. member for St. John's West directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries. The minister undertook to answer as soon as possible. I have received an indication that the minister is now prepared to answer that question, and his answer will probably bring the question period to a close.



FISHERIES


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, in answering the question of the hon. member for St. John's West, may I inform the House that five boardings of Russian fishing vessels have taken place by fisheries officers travelling on the Annapolis acting as a designated ship in the last two or three days. No violations were found and the ship is now moving off Cape Freels, where there is a heavy concentration of fishing vessels, to continue inspection and boardings.



ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ICNAF QUOTAS BY BRITISH FISHING VESSELS-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State (Fisheries) on that particular point. According to the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries, ICNAF, fishermen operating on Brown's and Georges Banks have a zero quota on an endangered species, had-
Oral Questions
dock. However, the crew of the American coastguard cutter Vigorous recently boarded six British stern trawlers, namely the Marbella, the Seafridge-Skua, the Farnella, the Coriolanus, the Northbella and the Southbella, and found all of them having catches vastly in excess of the amount permitted. In fact, one had 130 tons of haddock out of a total of 135 tons. Has the minister or any official of his department made representations to the British government to see if they intend to continue violating ICNAF regulations?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to look into this matter and hopefully have an answer for tomorrow's question period. I do not question the hon. member's word, but if the allegations are correct, this is a matter which we would find intolerable.



SUGGESTED PAYMENT BY DEPARTMENT FOR USE OF NAVAL VESSELS AS PATROL SHIPS

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I will make my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries) in the form of a supplication or request. In this most worthwhile and useful exercise of utilizing vessels of the Canadian armed forces, will the minister's department undertake to pay the underpaid and under-funded Canadian armed forces, particularly maritime command, for the fuel they use so we can get on with some training from time to time?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, that is a most valid suggestion. I hope the hon. member will support me when I go to treasury board for supplementary estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Jelinek:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a point of order or question of privilege, but I do so because there is some immediacy and urgency involved. If I did not raise this matter, it could result in a meat shortage in retail outlets in the Toronto and Hamilton areas. Because of a back-up in the deliveries of meat products from packing plants and food terminals in the Toronto and Hamilton areas that is being caused as a result of federally employed meat inspectors walking off their jobs yesterday, and as of an hour and a half ago were still not back to work, I wish to bring this to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister assure the House he will take immediate steps to terminate this illegal walk-out before it becomes an illegal strike? Canadians are getting fed up with the fact that illegal strikes are being taken for granted by this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member when he says that meat inspectors do not have the right to strike and that immediate action should be taken to make them understand the situation and penalize them if necessary. Some civil servants have the right to strike, but as regards those designated employees who must stay on the job to

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
protect public security, I believe it is most important that they obey a law voted by Parliament.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi) moved:: That this House regrets that the Government neglected to make all those who reached the age of 60, as well as their spouses although such spouses may not have reached pensionable age, eligible for the Old Age Pension.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I am moving in the name of my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada stems from the numerous letters and communications we receive from our constituents, claiming that pensionable age be possible at 60, with an appropriate pension, and that the spouse of a person eligible for old age pension be equally eligible for that pension, as I have been requesting in this House since 1966.
I can hardly believe, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are the only members receiving such requests from the voters we represent, and I am certain that other members receive the same. Yet, the government is in no hurry to answer the requests of these people. The leader of the liberal party of Canada did promise during the last election campaign that the wife whose husband has reached 65 would be entitled to the old age pension. But we are still far from allowing early retirement at a reasonable age in our modern times when the production of goods and services is increasingly easy.
As soon as the leader of the liberal party resumed his office of Prime Minister, he made a step backwards and we heard in the speech from the Throne that the wife or the spouse will have to wait until October of 1975 at least to see that promise carried out. And yet while he was in Trois-Rivieres, the leader of the liberal party promised that the 60 to 65 year-old wife would receive a pension as soon as the liberal party was reelected. At that time, there is no doubt that many women of that age believed that promise and decided to vote for the Liberals. I would not be surprised that many of them kissed him for that promise. However, they will have to wait for a year and a half after the federal election to see that promise fulfilled. That is the reason why we are blaming the government for not having taken at the beginning of this session the necessary action for the enacting of such legislation and for this government to acknowledge the services those people rendered their country.
With the developments in all types of industries, it seems to me that 42 years of assiduous work are enough to have done one's duty towards society.
The figures of Statistics Canada show that in 1972 the life expectancy was 69.3 years for men and 76.3 years for women. Under the present Old Age Security Act, this

means that a woman has a life expectancy of only 11 years when she reaches retirement age. As for men, they have a life expectancy of only four years when they reach retirement age.
After working hard for more than forty years, men and women should be able to do what they like in complete financial security.
Lowering the eligibility age to 60 for those who wish it would not mean that these people would have to remain inactive. They will be able to render many other services to their country and to their community without being forced to do so. They would be happier.
It is not the first time that we request this in the House. We have done so several times before, and I realize that we are getting more and more support, especially from this side of the House, and that a few government members agree with me but do not dare say so. They say that because of party policy, of government solidarity, the part does not want this change. We shall probably hear the same old objections: "It would cost too much money." Of course, if we think only in terms of dollars or of the taxation capacity, we may be reluctant to accept this proposal but we should see the facts as they really are.
If people aged 60 to 65 agreed to retire at 60, would this weaken the national production rate in Canada? Do we not have a whole army of young people with a college or university education who are waiting only for an employment offer to put their talents to use, to earn their living honourably and to give their services to their country to develop it and serve it? Did we not penalize farmers because they were producing too much?
There has been of late much publicity about the food destroyed. No way could be found sell them, let alone eat them. Industry is slowing down almost everywhere, if not at a standstill, so it is unthinkable not to allow people, men and women, to retire at age 60.
Only yesterday a 65-year-old man told me that because of ill health he had to cease working at 60. Great numbers of people are also worn out or ill well before the present retirement age.
I put this motion forward because I believe the Canadian government can lower retirement age to 60 without upsetting anything.
I am also seeking that old age security pension be paid to the pensioner's spouse as soon as the former reaches retirement age. This is also very important and should be considered now by the government.
Madam Speaker, I have been regularly putting forward a motion of this kind since 1966, the first member I believe to do so. Opposition members supported me, Liberal members spoke against it. But older people, and even the young I meet, all favour such an amendment to the Old Age Security Act. It is at their request that I have caused this motion to appear under my name on the order paper.
When only one of the spouses receives the old age security pension, the income of the couple becomes insufficient and the wife must, most of the times, resort to welfare. In Quebec, I assure you, Madam Speaker, that it is often disheartening for these people to appeal to officials for their living.
December 3, 1974


An hon. Member:: It is a disgrace!


Gérard Laprise: Those officials, on the orders of the provincial government dole out the allowances in driblets. We know that the federal government has geared old age security pensions to the cost of living. Now, I remember the case of a couple in my constituency; the husband is eligible for old age security pension. Recently, I have received a letter whose main point I would like to have entered into the record. It has been sent to me by a citizen of Taschereau, in my riding, and she acquaints me of the situation.
In October, she writes, my husband received $192.80 as an old age security allowance, plus $43.72 from the Quebec Pension Plan; I, his wife, have received $20 from the welfare, which makes a total amount of $256.52 for the month.
This month, that is in November, she says, in spite of their saying that my husband is going to receive much more, here are the facts: old age security pension, $199.10; QPP, $43.72; welfare, $13; that is to say 70c. less, because of the increase in the old age security allowance.
Then, on the whole, this couple has 70c. less than they received before the increase. Here is indeed a strange increase in income for the aged.
So for the months of October, November and December, this couple received a little less than before. To the government of Quebec, inflation is not a problem, but it is nevertheless true that this couple and many others in the same situation are hit very hard, even harder than those with higher incomes.
The National Council of Welfare, in its report on the situation of the low income consumer on the Canadian market, published in April 1974, explained how families with low incomes have to spend more for food, for example, than families with incomes superior to the average.
We are given the example of a family whose annual income is $3,000 or less and 27.9 per cent of this must be spent on food while a family whose income is $15,000 or more only spends 13.4 per cent. The same goes for housing, clothing and all of life's necessities.
Statistics Canada tell us that the price index went from 100 in 1961 to 188.4 in June 1974 for food; 165.5 for housing;
152.0	for clothing; 169.3 for personal care and hygiene; 151.2 for public transport and 156.9 for recreation, training and reading. That goes to show that the galloping inflation we have known especially from 1968 to 1973 has become dizzying in 1973 and 1974 and we are now being told it will be a knockout in 1975 and it is a cause of concern and hardship for the families and old people in the low income bracket.
That is why the government must come to an agreement with the provincial governments so that this law can be modified to reflect the motion I have moved.
There is also another point on which I want to bring the attention of the government and my colleagues in this House, even though the motion does not deal with it, and it is the guaranteed minimum income supplement that goes with the old age security pension. The pension should be paid in full without any means test because otherwise, as is the case now, those who have a job-however temporary-are being penalized. Those who have a few savings
Old Age Pensions
or who paid into a retirement annuity in a private business are being penalized. Since 1966, a legislation forces them to do without part of their salary which is paid into a federal or provincial pension plan, and when they reach the age of retirement, they lose part of the guaranteed income supplement. That is an injustice for those who worked, who paid taxes, who managed to make good use of their savings. Those who did not work half the time, who "invested" their money in taverns, are entitled to everything. A system like that does not make sense.
Let us do away with the tests, let us all recognize that Canadians are entitled to their pensions as soon as they reach 60, and that both husband and wife are entitled to it. That is what we are asking for on behalf of Canadians, and to refuse it to them is not to believe in the wealth of this country, nor in the capacity of our young people to produce goods and services in large quantity as we have already done.
Madam Speaker, I ask the government and government members to consider that motion and respond to it in an objective and above all affirmative way. As I said at the outset, this is not the first time we make that request. I know we must hit the nail several times to get it in but the government must understand that the head of the nail is now at ground level and it is time to get it over with. I am sure my colleagues will put forward other arguments in support of that motion, and I hope that before this day is over the government will show flexibility, and that it will introduce before Christmas the necessary bill to meet the wishes of the Canadian people.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, the motion before us is a very appealing one and I congratulate its mover. Indeed, I congratulate the members of his group generally. I have noted that time after time they have brought forward measures which they consider in the interests of that very important part of the national constituency, the aged and the needy. I think it behooves us as serious legislators-I have said this many times in my public career-to take the attitude at all times that the government must exhibit the greatest care toward those who most need care.
I am not an advocate of the fiscal theories of the Social Credit group, and even if I understood them I do not think I would be, but I nevertheless commend them for being interested in and articulating on behalf of the poor and the elderly people of this country. It is we in this House who must speak for these constituents. We must vote for measures to help them and use the state to help ameliorate the ravages of raging inflation. As I say, I commend the mover of this motion. I have very much sympathy for the thrust of the motion. I think the day will come-and it will not be too far removed from today-when we will be looking at the age of 60 as we now look at the age of 65, and as we once looked at the age of 70, as the time when we put into operation what we now call, and what may some day be changed, our old age security system. I am not terribly old, though I may look it, but I well remember occasions when people have said, "You can't lower the retirement age from
1894
December 3, 1974

Old Age Pensions
70 to 65 because you will ruin the whole country. You have no idea how much it will cost".
Yet we have survived this de-escalation. The country still exists. It is not as healthy as it would be if we were well governed. But society has not been blown asunder. However, we must never forget that there is far too much poverty in this land. Just because we hear this said day in and day out is no reason for resting content. We are told that one in four Canadians lives on or below the poverty line-and I can assure hon. members it is not gracious living. I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) was very callous and cool the other day when I referred to the message of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to the old age pensioners, namely, that they save money by eating stale bread, peanut butter and skim milk powder. The Minister of Justice commented that bread one day old was not stale. "Don't be too fussy with our old people". I presume was his thought.


Marc Lalonde: Some bread is old when you buy it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: little reckless. If in ten years time, when I would be 65, I were able to convince a 19-year old girl to run the risk of living with me, she would become an old age security recipient for goodness knows how long. She might earn her living if she were living with me. However, I think we must be realistic. My colleague wonders whether I am bragging or complaining, and I will not tell him which it is.
When my party was appealing for public support we said honestly and squarely what we would do. We gave the age of 55. I think the government's announced age-and I wish it would bring in the legislation-of 60 is less realistic than ours. Since the government took the idea from us, I think it should take over the age that we proposed and we would support it. But I cannot honestly go so far as saying that age is immaterial. I know that the motto amor vincit omnia really still prevails, but I do not think we could seriously legislate that age does not matter.
There are two other aspects of this matter with which I should like to deal before I sit down. I know the minister is aware of this as we on this side of the House are aware of it. When we look into the area of considering the spouse who is not of qualified age we immediately have many thoughtful Canadians who ask-and they are right-is it not more likely that the widowed person will be in far greater need than the one who still has a spouse? So when you take that first step-and it is a good one and I am with the members of the Social Credit Party although I think the age figure is too low-then you are open to even greater sensitivity about the people who have been widowed.
One woman wrote to me and said, "I am 63 and my husband is 69. When the government puts the bill through, if I lose my husband in a year's time, what happens? Am I taken off the rolls just when I need help more?" That is another thing we must look at. What do we do about the spouse under 65 who qualifies through marriage-marriage is a partnership and a lot of other things-and what happens when someone is widowed and is still too young to qualify for OAS? I find, as I am sure the minister and the mover of this motion find, that this general question opens many avenues down which we must move with great care.
I do not wish to take all the time available to me, but I reiterate my commendation of the mover of this motion. I express to him my general sympathy for it. However, I have tried to underline with a little realism some of the economic responsibilities this expression of compassion would entail. But I congratulate him for drawing our attention to just the kind of problem that serious legislators should never lose sight of.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I join the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in commending the hon. member for.Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) and his party on the subject they have placed before the House of Commons on this allotted day. Any motion dealing with pensioners and calling for an improvement in the position of pensioners has my immediate support, even though I might want to change some of the details in a motion such as the one placed before us. The hon. member for Abitibi was quite correct- I can certainly confirm it-that one of the ways to win
Old Age Pensions
improvements for old age pensioners is to keep at the issue day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out and decade in and decade out. The encouraging thing is that by keeping at it we do make considerable
progress.
I agree with the previous speaker that there are other issues that are of concern in the social security field. The hon. member mentioned several groups, such as the disabled and the blind. He mentioned persons on private pensions, and I would add those on government annuities, and so on. One must also think of those who are in that grey area where they are employed and therefore cannot qualify for social assistance but are not earning enough to have a decent standard of living. We sometimes refer to them as the working poor. It certainly is a fact that the area of social security is an important one in which, even with all that we have done, there is a great deal yet to do. Yet it seems to me it is no excuse for not doing something about old age pensions at age 60 to say that there are other things that should be done which the government is not doing anyway.
Therefore, I welcome this motion with its particular emphasis. I confess that in my view there is a bit of confusion in the motion and a bit of confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Abitibi as to whether what is being pressed is a program for pensions at 60 or a program under which the spouse will receive the pension no matter what the age of the spouse, provided the other spouse qualifies for the pension. In my view, the best way to deal with the matter of providing an income for the younger spouse of a pensioner is to lower the pension age.
As the hon. member for Hillsborough pointed out, if and when the government brings in its bill on pensions for spouses between the ages of 60 and 65, provided the other spouse is over 65, we will immediately be deluged with letters from widows, spinsters, widowers and bachelors in that same age bracket who will ask, "If it is possible to provide old age pensions to some people who are between 60 and 65, why not to the rest of us?" I urge that the way some of us have been proposing for a long time is really the way to cope with this problem. In fact, I have it on the order paper in my private member's motion No. 39 which calls for the eligible age under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to be lowered to 60, with the proviso that between 60 and 65 pensions under those two pieces of legislation should be paid only to those who are out of the labour market. That would include, in most cases, spouses who are younger than the person who is already on the pension and all wives between 60 and 65 who are not in the labour market. It seems to me that this is a better way to do it, because at the same time you are making it possible for widows, spinsters, widowers and bachelors in that age bracket to get the pension if, as I say, they are out of the labour market.
That is why I welcome the motion this afternoon. Its terms are broad enough to allow us to talk about any aspect of social security or pension policy. Indeed, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) can tell us about his orange paper and about the discussions he is having with the provinces. The field is as wide as you can possibly imagine. But no matter how wide the
2 8543-5 i'/z

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
field is, there are times when one should concentrate on a particular point or two. In my view, what is now urgent in the pension field is that we concentrate on two things: one is to get the voluntary pension age down to 60, and the other is to get the basic amount paid under the Old Age Security Act up to $200 a month without a means test of any kind.
With regard to the lowering of the pension age to 60, as I have already said, my view is that the time has not yet come to make it universal at 60 the way it is now at 65, but I insist that the time has come when the pension should be available at 60 to those who are off the labour market. That would include persons like wives, for example, who have not been in the labour market. It would also include those who are working but are prepared to retire.


Marc Lalonde: All wives?


Stanley Howard Knowles: All wives who are out of the labour market and all husbands out of the labour market, too. I was not indulging in any discrimination when I referred to wives rather than spouses in that context. I was talking about wives who are not in the labour market, and in my view they would be covered by the kind of definition that I suggest. I have no idea how many persons would drop out of the labour market in that age bracket, but I expect it would be several hundred thousand and that this would have an immediate effect on the unemployment situation by opening up a great many jobs for younger persons.
But I am concerned not only for the spouses, the persons who are at home and who are out of the labour market, but about a large number of individuals, working men and women. However, I refer more to working men, for a reason I shall give in a moment, who find the rat race of modern industrial activity a little hard to take over an extended period of time. We had a discussion a few days ago on a bill having to do with the fighting of elections and I had occasion to refer to my favourite method of campaigning at election time, which is to turn up early at shop gates and plant gates in the whole area of greater Winnipeg and to meet a great many working men and women as they are going into those plants.
In the last election, as in the previous ones, the question that was put to me most often, especially by the men who were going into the CPR shops, the CNR shops, Dominion Bridge, Manitoba Bridge, packing plants and so on, was, "When are you going to get the pension age down to 60?" Some of the men who put that question to me appeared, in the grey light of the early morning, older than I am-and around here I am supposed to look old. Some of these men who are asking me for the pensionable age to be lowered to 60 appeared to me to be 63 or 65 already, and in instance after instance I had these men say to me, "I am 57" or "I am 58." The fact is that the rat race of that kind of life is just too hard and I think that they have the right, having gone to work at the age of 25 or even younger or later than that, by the time they are 60, if they want to leave that kind of activity and enjoy the benefits of our social legislation, including in particular old age security and the Canada Pension Plan, to do so.
I know all the arguments that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has. If he has any new ones, I will be

delighted to hear them. But he talks about other needs that must be met and the things that he is working on under the aegis of his orange paper, which is a good paper that I like very much. He may even throw at me the question, "What about millionaires between the age of 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market?" There are so few of them that they do not worry me very much. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) could take care of them. I doubt that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will throw that argument at me today after what the Minister of Finance did in his budget. He did not show greater concern for pensioners who are at the lower end of the scale. He showed greater concern for the wealthy. He provided an improvement for the 30 per cent or 40 per cent of pensioners at the top, but he provided nothing for the 55 per cent, 60 per cent or 65 per cent of pensioners at the bottom of the pension income scale.
I say to the minister that it is time for him to get off this kick that there is something wrong with my head-on program for pensions at 60. He should become more aware of the experience in this modern industrial society and realize that this is one of the campaigns that he should be on as well. The campaign to get the pension age down to 60, not on a means test basis or welfare basis but on a voluntary basis. Let those who want to keep on working- some of us may want to go on for a long time-do so, but let those who feel they have had all they can take, or those who are in need, have the opportunity, without any means test, meeting only the test of being out of the labour market, to get their full Canada Pension Plan and their full old age security pension at the age of 60.
Because this motion today gives those of us who feel this way the opportunity to press this point, I am very grateful to my friends in the Social Credit Party for having made it the subject of this allotted opposition day. One of the arguments that we get is that it cannot be done, that it would upset our economy, it would cost a great many dollars and, where is the money coming from? Well, I have not been here through the whole history of pensions, but I was reading and following what was going on back in the middle 1920s and I have been here for most of the changes that have taken place. I simply have to say that that has been the argument every time. When J. S. Woodsworth stood in this House and called for a pension of $20 a month payable at age 70, he was told by the minister of finance of that day that the country could not afford it. When it got over to the other place, they used the argument that it would bankrupt the country to pay $20 pensions to our old people. They said it would not be good for older people to have this kind of hand-out from the state.
Mr. Speaker, we got the pension started in the middle twenties. In January, 1927, It became effective at $20 a month at age 70, with a severe means test. When I came here in the early forties it was still that pension. I can remember that when I was arguing that it should be raised from $20 to $30 and the age brought down to 65, with the means test removed, I was told by the older men of that day that I had some good ideas but it could not be done. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have succeeded in getting the pension raised from $20 a month to almost $120 as a basic
December 3, 1974

pension, without a test of any kind, and we have had the age reduced to 65. That is one of the most recent instances of something being done that they said could not be done. The day finally came when Mr. Pearson and his government realized they could reduce the age a year at a time from 70 to 65.
More recently we were told that we could not escalate the old age pension by more than 2 per cent per year. During the days of the minority government, however, we got that 2 per cent ceiling removed and pensions now escalate according to the statistical increase in the cost of living. I shall have something to say-time does not permit me to go into it now-about the way it is always calculated behind the time when it is needed, and so on. The point I am making is that all the things we are now doing in terms of pensions are things we were told earlier could not be done. Let us not have any more of the suggestion that pensions cannot be lowered to age 60. Let us put it down to 64 now, 63 next year, and so on. Other improvements have been won, and this improvement can also be won. In my view, it is a matter of great urgency.
In a moment I shall indicate one of the reasons I am glad my friends put this subject down today. I would rather we had debated my motion, which I think is more comprehensive, but the luck of the draw was against me. I drew position No. 39 with my private member's motion, so the chances of its being reached are not good. I am therefore glad to have this debate today because we are a few months ahead of the day when the Minister of National Health and Welfare will bring in his bill on pensions for spouses where those spouses are between 60 and 65 and where the other spouse is a pensioner. It has the proviso, however, that the younger person is to get a pension only on the basis of an income test. I hope the minister will give me credit for the struggle to say "income test". As far as I am concerned, it is still a "means" test, but I know he is sensitive about the word.
The reason I am glad to have this debate today is that it gives us a chance to plead with the minister to go further with that bill. During the election campaign, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the program of pensions for spouses he said it would create problems. He referred to spinsters, widows and other persons and said it had to be a tentative program. I say to him that the government will have a great deal of trouble over a program as limited as the one that is proposed, and they should think about it now. The bill that has been promised for pensions only for spouses between 60 and 65, on an income test, should be transformed into a program that meets the needs of today. That is, Mr. Speaker, a program of pensions at 60 for those not in the labour market. This should apply both to old age security and the Canada Pension Plan, and the time for this is now.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, today I speak on behalf of the government against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) who has advocated that the old age security pension be given to any person who has reached the age of 60, as well as to the spouse even if the spouse has not reached pensionable age. The question is not really as simple as the Credit Social would like it to appear and it
Old Age Pensions
must be looked at from an altoghether different aspect than just lowering the age to 60 in order to obtain the old age security. We must ask the question, "How well can all the other needs and the needs of people who are not old be given the attention they deserve?" This question becomes important if we allow spending to increase income maintenance for the elderly only.
I should like to remind hon. members that the elderly are being well taken care of by the government. I will leave it to other speakers on behalf of the government to speak of the benefits available to the elderly. However, I would point out that government programs are already available for any person who becomes sick and is not able to work prior to age 65. Such persons would draw benefits under the Canada Pension Plan already in existence, benefits under the assistance available to veterans, or from the Canada Assistance Plan.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is asking the government to set a new age for retirement. Such a measure would entail a great deal of expenditure by the government, expenditure which is needed in other areas.
The question arises: Are we certain that this area requires new action right now by the government? Is it really our most pressing social problem? Because if implemented, it probably would absorb for some time to come a lot of the additional tax resources available to the government. The cost of such a proposal has been estimated at almost $l2/3 billion of net additional expenditure. Again, Mr. Speaker, one must look at the needs of all the Canadian people and at the government's responsibility to fulfil those needs. It is proper for the government to think in terms of those who are retired, and they have put forth some fine plans to appeal to that age group, such as New Horizons, the Canada Pension Plan and its recent amendments which come into effect January 1, 1975, as well as senior citizens' housing and homes for persons unable to take care of themselves. As well, there is the increase every three months in the OAS and the GIS.
But there are in our society many other people with needs which are attended to by the government of Canada. They must also be looked at in the perspective of benefits provided by the government in terms of the elderly. What are these needs? There are problems other than social security, such as pollution abatement, energy resource development, transportation and problems in our north, to mention a few, which are applicable across Canada. There are social problems apart from income security. They are mainly health care, housing, native development and daycare. These are just some of the areas to which the government must direct its attention and try to meet the needs that exist.
Also, there are the investment programs designed to give Canadians income security from their own employment. Such programs consist of economic development, manpower training and regional expansion programs of all varieties. These programs cry for greater attention, and should have the attention of the government in order that their greater development may come about because they benefit so many Canadians. Apart from considering where government money should be spent, we must remember that many people who are not old rely on the government for income support. These people include the disabled, the

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
physically or mentally handicapped, mothers on their own caring for children, veterans, and foster parents caring for unwanted children. All these people must be encompassed in a program which considers their needs. The question is, how do their needs stand in relation to the need to retire people at age 60, because many people 60 years old can and do earn an income?
Finally, there are also those whose unemployment insurance benefits are inadequate to meet their needs, and there are people in Canada who must be given a supplement of some type in order that they may maintain a minimum standard of earnings. The government has directed itself to the problem of these people and of others as evidenced in the review made in the orange paper, the Working Paper on Social Security tabled in the House in 1973 by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).
There are a number of questions which should be asked about the desirability of implementing this proposed program as opposed to making improvements to other government programs, for it is impossible to move in all fields simultaneously without bankrupting the Canadian public. Again, one must balance the question of providing earlier pensions against providing more adequately for the needs of non-senior citizens who are unable to support themselves, such as the physically handicapped, the mentally retarded, and one-spouse families. To demonstrate the existing disparity between the income support available to senior citizens and that available to people who are unable to work, it should be noted that in all but one instance- that of the single person rate in Newfoundland-OAS and GIS guarantee levels for single persons and married couples above the rates paid by the provinces for single persons and couples on welfare. Taking the situation in July of this year, OAS and GIS provided $2,306 a year for a single person and $4,400 for a married couple. At the same time, Ontario, New Brunswick and British Columbia, to give just three examples, each had a maximum assistance rate which was below $2,000 a year for a single person. Some figures applying to a married couple are as follows: in British Columbia, $3,240; in Nova Scotia, $3,072.
What about the priority of rehabilitation programs whose aims are helping people who might otherwise rely on welfare to regain or retain their ability to support themselves and their families? These include activities aimed at the vocational rehabilitation of the disabled as well as many programs mounted by the Department of Manpower to assist people with employment difficulties. These programs involve training, mobility, job placement and job creation. They also include many measures aimed at stimulating economic expansion in less developed regions, including native communities. In general, then, the question is this: Given the tremendous amount of new spending which this measure proposed by the Social Credit Party would require, how will the other needs, particularly the individual needs of people not between 60 and 64 years of age, be met?
I remind hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that the federal and provincial ministers of welfare decided in April, 1973, to launch a comprehensive review of the entire Canadian social security system. The objective of the review was to

analyse the system as a whole, not just piece by piece on an ad hoc basis, in order to implement on an integrated basis major reforms urgently needed in all areas. The review was subsequently endorsed by the Canadian first minister's conference. Through this review, the needs of Canadians of all ages will be examined as a whole. The review will investigate the condition of single as well as married people-that is, of both men and women-workers, people who do not work, and people who could work but cannot secure a job, bread-winners and dependants, people who manage on their own and people who need institutional care. It will investigate the condition of people across Canada in cities, towns and rural areas.
Introducing ad hoc measures to help only one area of need on the basis of consideration of one group of our population only, and moving unilaterally on behalf of only one level of government would certainly run counter to the spirit of the review, of federal-provincial co-operation and of integrated action based on commonly perceived priorities. To stress again the central point, all such assessments will take place within a total analytical spectrum and future action will be aimed at ensuring maximum over-all efficiency, effectiveness and co-ordination of total government social security expenditure. It is felt that this method is superior to simply piling more patches on top of existing patches in a social security quilt that is already too short in some places and too threadbare in others.
We ought to look at costs. How much will such programs cost the Canadian people? Without going into too many details, I wish to consider economic costs, social costs and costs to the financial community in general. The economic costs must be considered and I stress the need for an in-depth analysis of this area. When considering economic costs, factors such as the loss of trained manpower must be considered, early retirement provisions may induce certain highly skilled and trained members of our work force to retire from active employment at an age below which less skilled workers might consider retiring.
We must consider, also, the ability of people to pay for early retirement. On the one hand, early retirement will reduce the working life of such people but will increase the cost of pensions, and on the other hand, such early retirement will reduce the ability of the economy to produce the level of real income that is needed to support a program of early retirement. We must also consider under economic costs the drop in income. Even generous pensions will provide less than can be realized by wages. In some cases the pension will not meet a person's needs and that person, after retiring, will be forced to seek social assistance.
We must also consider the social cost to the Canadian people. We must consider the problem of health. Studies show that the status of employment is a determining factor in the health of the elderly who are employed, however, this is not the only consideration to be borne in mind. Retirement from employment may have adverse effects on one's health, even if one's physical condition had remained constant prior to retirement. Also, will earlier retirement result in increased institutional care costs for senior citizens, as well as increased housing costs for senior citizens who cannot find suitable accommodation in
December 3, 1974

the private market, at a price they can afford once their income has been reduced?
Finally, one must consider the social consequences of early retirement or the negative public image of an elderly person. Will persons who retire early be willing to face the prevalent, negative image attached to elderly persons or to those who retire before retirement age?
As well, we must bear in mind the increased costs to be borne by the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan in cases of early retirement. Will early retirement bring about labour-management difficulties, or will such retirement in special areas bring about specific labour shortages? I stress these points as they must be considered. It is the Canadian public who will be asked to support such programs. Increased taxes may be necessary if we are to support people who retire at an earlier age.
In conclusion, I remind hon. members opposite that the aims of their motion are not feasible at this time due to the greater needs of the Canadian people which must be attended to by the Government of Canada in ensuring that all Canadians will benefit. To state without further ado that the age of retirement should be lowered to 60, when many feel that they should not retire even at 65, is to put forward a most uncompromising proposition to the people of Canada. The overriding principle is that we must do what we can for the Canadian people, but we must resist at this time, what is proposed in view of new legislation affecting the Canada Pension Plan and measures proposed in the budget.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this debate on the motion introduced by my colleagues of the Social Credit Party, and I would like to congratulate them for having introduced such a motion in this House. I would also like to urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to consider very carefully that need of those 60 years of age and over.
I would like to confess at once, Mr. Speaker, that I do not intend to take up the time allotted to me to indulge in negative criticism-quite the opposite. I would not want to be one of those who would simply say that the minister did not make any efforts. On the contrary, I know that the minister did make efforts to deal with the difficulties facing those people, proposed solutions and is now discussing with the provinces this guaranteed annual income which I think is an excellent thing.
The government is now considering with the provinces three plans of guaranteed minimum income. This is somewhat of an urgent necessity if we want to make our social security system more simple, more consistent and more effective, and especially if we want to put up a better fight against poverty.
The studies under way on income security and eventually a guaranteed minimum income are a central point in the debates and the needs of today. The present social programs and the old age security pension are currently under consideration for people of 65 years of age.
Following the many arguments that were put to me, and I think the same arguments were raised in other ridings, I
Old Age Pensions
personally conducted a survey in my riding. Out of 6,000 answers, 98 per cent were in favour of old age security at 60, but with the choice left to the individual so that he might either take a deserved retirement or continue to work when in very good health.
I would like to seize this opportunity to seek the minister's support so that the matter will receive particular attention and I invite him to consider the possibility.
I shall certainly be told that the government has already increased the old age security and welfare allowances. True, it has done so; we know perfectly well that it had to do it considering the cost of living. I have no intention whatsoever of repeating that the government has not considered the social security problem, but I believe there is urgency and personally I agree 100 per cent with the Social Credit motion before us today.
As for the comments I get in my riding, I have every reason to believe other members in other ridings are told the same things. How far should the government go in financing such a program? We might discuss the matter later on.
I think we should consider seriously the possibility of allowing people over 60 to take a well deserved rest. I believe that if we fail to consider that question today, when we are perfectly aware of the present situation, we may be facing old age security at 55 within 10 or 15 years. In my opinion, we would make a colossal mistake if we refused to give that matter every necessary consideration. I believe that is nearly seven years, since I represent my riding, I have never hesitated once nor have I missed once the opportunity to recommend that measure, and I think I was right.
We undoubtedly keep hearing of the expense and the possible cost of such a step. However, no one has ever been able to figure out the cost of maintaining 400,000 or 500,000 unemployed people. I believe manpower mobility would provide young men and women with job opportunities when they graduate from universities and often find with disgust that there are no jobs available for them. This would be a positive step for those young people, if we consider that 25 per cent of them are under 25 and claim unemployment insurance benefits.
There are apparently 786,000 people between the ages of 60 and 65. It might be possible to grant old age pensions as of 1975 for a period of five years to 64 year old people. According again to 1971 figures, there were at the time 145,000 people of 64 years of age.
I believe the implementation of such a measure, along with the implementation of the guaranteed annual income as mentioned by the Minister, might be extremely worthwhile. However, this is apparently not for the near future. Nevertheless the government is still thinking of that step which I think is very worthwhile, but if we consider the situation of people 65 years old especially in the light of technical changes in our industry, we know perfectly well that the same machine in any industry is running a lot faster than it was 15, 20 or even 30 years, ago. Therefore, these people who never had to rush during their working hours are quite unable to keep up with this modern technology, and if we really want to humanize the industrial

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
sector, we feel the need to apply this measure, and many of those would certainly be willing to retire at 60.
We must also consider the case of the wife who is not 65 yet. We could at least go even further than the proposal put forward by the government and take into consideration the fact that the wife under 65 who cannot receive a pension puts the couple in a very difficult position, something which is not provided for at the present time.
I would like to urge the minister to reconsider his position as concerns the granting of old age security at 60.
I said that in 1968 we had 175,000 unemployed, and I sincerely believe that we could have eliminated the problems caused by this unemployment rate. Apparently to fight inflation, the unemployment rate was increased starting in 1968, but we find ourselves, and I say this without malice, with 400,000 to 500,000 unemployed and we still have inflation to boot. If we look at the figures for 1971, we see that there were 800,000 people between 60 and 65. Had we granted old age security at 60 over five years, I believe that we would have solved the unemployment problem which worsened from year to year, while allowing those who wanted to do so to take a well-deserved rest.
In my constituency, for instance, there are approximately 3,000 people aged 60 to 65; there are not necessarily 3,000 unemployed. I believe that if we had lowered the retirement age to 64 in 1968, to 63 in 1969, and so on, we would have gone a long way towards solving the unemployment problem, which is extremely expensive.
Once again, I would urge the government or the minister responsible to consider this. We must admit that a government must be very serious and do some serious thinking before implementing a program which would apparently cost more than $1 billion. I believe we should also take into account the advantages of such legislation and the savings that it could bring about by reducing unemployment.
I wonder if, up to a point, it would involve anything more than the reallocation of certain funds, which would give a holiday to those who deserve it and benefit the young people who are still looking for jobs.
Those are the few comments I wanted to make on this motion, Mr. Speaker. But I was also thinking of the morale of the worker, for instance. We are well aware that several workers deplore the fact that social measures apply to some individuals who, without, work, often give the impression to the workers that they are more intelligent than they are.
As far as the worker is concerned, the tax levied on his wages is used once again to enable other people to remain unemployed.
I think that if such a measure were enforced, the worker would be willing and pleased to contribute to such a legislation, because at 60 years of age, he would take it seriously. Today his contributions would allow his parents to take a rest thanks to an adequate pension. I think that he would be pleased to do so. As a result, the worker would have a much greater motivation than he has today because of increased benefits which would be very costly to the government.
(Mr. La Salle.]
We are considering a specific motion which should ensure that such a measure would be to the advantage of the community. Consequently, I will not hesitate in due time, if we have to vote, to support such a motion, because it would give those people a chance to have a well deserved rest, and would also he highly beneficial both to our younger and older citizens and to all those who are looking for jobs. Given the context of a society undergoing tremendous changes, we owe it to ourselves to reconsider the legislation before us.
It is not enough, I think, to consider the possibility of having people retire at the age of 60. It is also our duty to consider the overall social aspect of the measure and the social context in which these people are living.
I think it is advisable and urgent, before undertaking any further studies, to have the basis of the old age security programs changed so that the qualifying age for pension be set between 60 and 65 in harmony with all the social programs which the Minister is now considering, and this in co-operation with the provinces. I think it would be appropriate to have this matter considered in relation with people who have reached age 60.
I also suggest that if we want to do something beneficial and humanitarian for those people, we should also consider whatever relates to this category of people such as transportation, for example. We know that this group of people often ask for certain privileges or certain benefits in connection with transportation, housing or lodging, medical prescriptions, home care and a whole list of services.
I would even go so far as to say that when the government implemented the New Horizons Program they deserved to be congratulated. They showed extraordinary initiative but it still seems that for these people the government is still short of funds. I think it is our responsibility to co-operate in promoting and organizing their leisure time and an interesting life from age 60 though the limit is now set at 65, but could be 60.
I think that a social policy for this category of people should take all those aspects into account and deal with them with all due attention. Adequate allowances are very important for them. It is important to consider the wife who unfortunately is not eligible because of her age. Whether we want it or not, we must absolutely do it. Secondly, all these factors which are part of the life of any individual at that age must be provided for in a general program which will definitely give these people a further lease on life, the benefits they are entitled to and the possibility of doing something by way of recreation.
So with these comments, Mr. Speaker, I am once again very objectively asking the minister to consider these possibilities and pass these measures as soon as possible. We know that in the primary industries there are workers aged 60 who are terribly eager to retire. And I think that such comments are received from all ridings and they are heard very often. I think that introducing this motion in the House was a good thing. As a member of this House I think it is fair to recommend this to the attention of the minister and I would be very happy to support the government if they presented us tomorrow with a similar proposal to fulfill the needs of thousands of individuals. I would be very happy to see that the government has at
December 3, 1974

last understood that it is important to implement such a legislation.


Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great compassion that I have given thought to the motion put forward today by the Social Crediters in order to reduce, to lower to 60 the pensionable age. Besides, I must admit that my compassion for senior citizens, not for the Social Crediters, suffers badly from the hidden elec-toralism which I have had to hear pouring forth for a while from opposition speakers.
For anyone engaged in an election campaign, especially in Quebec, may I suggest that a lot of that kind of propositions made by the candidates of the Social Credit Party might amount to gross electoralism. This is evidenced, for example, by this cute little green book whose printing, by the way, must have cost a fortune for a so-called needy and needy inclined party, and which has been distributed in my constituency and is entitled "Le Parti Credit Social propose". We find on page 9, and this is the startling example I use as an evidence, or at least as a rather obvious indication that the proposition, the motion now before us might not be inspired as they would like us to believe by such pure, candid and responsible motives.
Today, in a rather vague motion, we find a proposal to lower the eligibility age from 65 as it is now to 60. In a few minutes I will speak purposely on its cost, as I belong to a government party which is responsible for the costs involved in that.
During the election campaign, hardly four or five months ago, much more than that was promised, it was not difficult as they were not in power. They were far from Parliament and questions could not be put to them either. So here is what they promised: for any older citizen, not 65 but 60 or more, a supplement to the pension-now paid to people over 65-of $1,500 a year. And for any spouse under 60, the pension plus a supplement of $1,000 a year. We must remember that, if we put that in dollars and cents as we have to in the end, the taxpayers, the Canadian people as a whole are paying for the programs created afterwards by the federal government.
Here is what it means in figures: there are now about two million Canadians who receive either the basic monthly pension of $117 or also the guaranteed income supplement. To those two million people would be added- just like that, as if it were a drop in the bucket-all those between 60 and 65, another 1,150,000 persons, pardon me, more precisely 830,000 persons, plus the spouses under 60, that is each spouse of a person qualified for a pension, which means 320,000 persons. Therefore the two million recipients would grow to-


Marc Lalonde: Two billion.


Monique Bégin: -recipients, I am not talking about benefits.


Mr. Lefebvre:: They do not care.


Monique Bégin: The two million recipients would grow to 3,150,000 and, to top it off, just like that, a small $1,500 a year. Easier said than done when one is not on the govern-
Old Age Pensions
ment side and cannot possibly hope to be. I challenge the Social Credit leader, whom I can see seated at his desk and who has been applauding me for a while, I do not know for what reason, I challenge him to tell me at once how much that program would cost the federal government, namely the taxpayers. Does he have the slightest idea about it? I just took a piece of paper and a pencil-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I seek the privilege of answering my hon. colleague. Since Women's Year is coming, I would not dare take up a challenge by a woman.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member may request the right to reply, but he will do so at the right time, which is when he is recognized to make a contribution. This is a motion by the Creditiste party and there will be ample opportunity in the debate for members of that party to take the floor.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, my calculations amount to four billion dollars. Here, Mr. Minister, are the billions- four billion dollars, that is two thirds of the whole budget of the province of Quebec.
That is very easy. I noticed, for that matter, that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), goes hard at it when he says this, very piously, and he is not the only member of the opposition who talked very piously this afternoon-everybody here is particularly religious on that subject today, whereas I contend that it is a public lie to deceive the people into thinking that we can afford this immediately-he says he would with great pleasure vote with the Creditistes on this resolution if it were put, while knowing very well-for he has been in this House long enough-that this resolution does not call for a vote, since it expires automatically under Standing Order 58(11). I find it a little easy for one to advocate something one knows very well one will never be able to put into practice. That amounts to telling the people, who do not have the same reference documents as we do, things that they are not in a position to check for themselves.
Going rapidly over the present situation, we know that old age pension was granted in 1952. At that time there was no guaranteed income supplement, and the pension only consisted in a monthly $40. A more flexible system was implemented in 1967 to alleviate the situation of people who were really in need. The concept of a guaranteed income according to needs was introduced, and both amounts have of course gone up steadily. It may not be as high as we might hope, for we can never ask for too much on behalf of old people. And that very feeling of guilt that we all share in respect of retired people is currently being taken advantage of with all that fuss about the alleged emergency to lower immediatly the retirement age for everyone, and to multiply the amounts to be paid under that program.
I think people's emotions are being manipulated-at least they were considerably manipulated during the electoral campaign-for in our days when the bulk of population concentrates in towns where families do not have sufficient accommodation to keep their old parents, and when provincial governments, in many instances, have
1902

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
unfortunately not provided for the creation of a sufficient number of homes for the aged where required, it is unfortunately too easy to suggest that we have not done enough, and that the government is deliberately disregarding older people.
Let me add that I for one believe that pension age should not be lowered to 60, and that the time is not right. I think it should be received at 55, and this should have been done 30 years ago. I see the problem in a different light. Let me explain: 55-year-old people-and I am concerned with real problems, not with easy and reverent phrases-55-year-old people can easily and could, 20 or 30 years ago, be overly tired, for they generally worked in physically exhausting and often unacceptable social conditions.
Canadians have today the highest life expectancy in the world, namely 76 for women and between 72 and 74 for men. I no longer have the precise figures, but women do not die easily! Although I do not have the detailed statistics, I want to say that the higher our life expectancy, the more a lower pensionable age would be sought, without the least thought of facing the music and considering the problem, the possible consequences of employment interruption that would be forced upon a whole segment of the population.
I must say at this point that for every letter I received during the election campaign asking me to lower the pensionable age to 60, I got one asking me to retain the right to work for people in the same age group. Then the universality principle so dear to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who asserted it no later than a few days or a few weeks ago is then open to question and challenged.
I do not feel that this matter can be so easily solved. As I said, I am interested in real concrete problems and not so much in ideologies easy to convey, because quite emotional, but which are deceiving the man in the street.
We would have to dismiss suddenly and arbitrarily all labour force between 60 and 65 years of age if we wish to maintain universality. This could directly make some people ill due to the disruption of their way of living, because in the Canadian community, the social institutions are not organized to meet the new needs of the group between 60 and 65 years of age who would be more and more active as a result of the increased longevity of the Canadian people.
It is a problem which the Creditists have not yet solved. I repeat that I would have like to see that measure applied 30 years ago, but if it was not, I think that we can sincerely say that the economic possibilities of the federal budget, perhaps also the lack of general sensibility did not allow it, but there was probably no bad faith involved.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will point out three extremely urgent problems which should be solved when referring to the needs of senior citizens.
The hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned Several of those among which I would like to deal with one in particular. She mentions here social priorities in general, and not only those of people over 60 years old. Among

Canadian social priorities, I would like to deal with that of single parent families in need. I will add to this three concrete problems which, in my opinion, are especially related to the last part of the second half of life. First, the employment problem for all those who lose their job after 50. I am obviously talking about the problem in large cities, which is the one I know best. The unwritten but very real discrimination of employers against any unemployed individual who has to write down on his forms that he is 51, 52, 53 years old and even more, even if he is in perfect health, should be erased from our traditions as quickly as possible.
Second, there is the urgent social problem of older single people, very often women, who had to bring up their brothers and sisters or help their aged parents and who, because of the structure of our society, did not have any special professional or technical training and who, at 50 or 60, do not receive any assistance from other members of the family and find themselves alone after having lost the parents to whom they devoted their life.
Thirdly, I wish to mention the couples who will be covered by the government proposal which we hope will be implemented in January 1975, couples in which one of the spouses is not yet of retirement age, that is couples who must suddenly start living on the pension of a single person after living on a salary and who obviously cannot manage it.
Mr. Speaker, I would have many other things to say about this problem which is very important to Canadians. It is obvious that everyone would like the retirement age lowered, and indeed, not even to 60. Some people who are 30 years old would also like it to be lowered. A great many people would like to see the retirement age lowered as soon as possible. All members of this House certainly want everything possible to be done for senior citizens. This is a basis of common understanding about which there is a consensus.
However, Mr. Speaker, I shall never accept that they tell stories to lead our people to believe that a budget which represents over two third of that of the entire province of Quebec can be found like this, without even saying from where it would come.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to support the motion moved today in this House by my very good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), a motion which reads as follows:
This House regrets that the Government neglected to make all those who reached the age of 60, as well as their spouses although such spouses may not have reached pensionable age, eligible for the Old Age Pension.
I want more particularly to thank and congratulate my colleague for having moved such a motion in the House on a number of occasions. I feel that it will mark an era, because it repeats what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was saying during the last election campaign. It aims at bringing the case of senior citizens before the House, so that they may be allowed to retire at age 60 on an optional basis. I do not agree with the previous speaker that this motion provides for universal retirement at age 60. The purpose of our motion is to lower to 60 the retirement age, but on a voluntary basis, that is for those who
December 3, 1974

want it, in addition to enable the spouse of a retired person to automatically receive the old age security pension.
I consider that this is a major problem which is not easy to deal with but which requires a great deal of tact if one is to discuss it objectively. However, this problem is quite real and is becoming increasingly serious due to the ever rising cost of living. Faced with this situation, the government must take prompt action, and I feel the only position that the hon. members can take is to pursue a common goal without animosity or political partisanship, that is to find solutions as quickly as possible.
I intend, Madam Speaker, during the few minutes at my disposal, to look at what has been done up to now in various places, in order to put this debate in its true perspective. Afterwards, since this motion contains three aspects, I intend to talk first of all about the lowering of the retirement age to 60, then about the automatic eligibility to pension of the spouse and finally I will deal with the voluntary retirement for those who are between 60 and 65 years of age.
If we consider the historical background of this motion, and if we look at what is being done elsewhere, we first realize that opinions on the retirement age vary considerably according to economic requirements and special situations that occur during the life of a nation.
In times of unemployment, as is now the case in Canada, the public opinion requires that retiring age be lowered so that more older people may leave the labour market and give way to younger workers. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that the difficulty which older workers are facing to find a job also contributes to the need for lowering the retirement age. That is what happend in Denmark in 1932, when labour unions asked that retirement age be reduced from 65 to 60. The same reactions have led the British trade unions to advocate a lower retirement age and a higher limit for compulsory school attendance so as to make jobs available for young people and find them more work. It can then be said that it is the needs which guide the decisions of the countries in that connection.
One notices also that this problem is not a new one and that long before us other countries recognized the need to lower the pension age and passed legislation to that effect, an Act was even passed in New Zealand in 1898, to grant a pension to men and women of 60 or over. An amendment passed in 1911 in that same country lowered the pension age to 60 for men and to 55 for women, whenever the claimants had two or more dependent children of 15 or under.
Another amendment passed in 1913 granted superannuation pensions to all persons of 60 or over.
The act passed in Australia in 1908 granted superannuation pensions to men and women of 65 or over. That minimum age was lowered to 60 in 1910 and as far as I know, Australia did not go bankrupt as a result. The same amendment also provided that permanently handicapped men could retire at 60.
In Canada for instance, we had to wait until 1927 for a $20 monthly pension in the case of people of 70 or over.
Old Age Pensions
All that, madam Speaker, goes to show that the problem exists in all countries, at least in the industrialized ones, and that as far as Canada is concerned, it took perhaps a little more time to get worse on account of the favourable economic context of the twenties. But I believe that state of the economy which was considered favourable in 1920 has changed now and that time has come for us to consider lowering the pension age to 60, a year at a time if necessary.
I come now to the main point of this motion, namely the lowering, progressive or not, from 65 to 60, of the age of eligibility to the old age security pension. There exist, with regard to that age level, special and often trying problems that could be solved or at least reduced with the lowering of the pension age.
Madam Speaker, there are people between 60 and 65 who do not earn enough and who have to depend on parents or on welfare and must beg for this or that in order to provide for their essential needs.
There are also the sick people who in spite of their poor health do their utmost to go to work until they reach the pension age, namely the age of 65. I represent a riding where several big factories or industries, mines or paper-mills are located. I often receive comments from those workers, the great majority of which would like to have the alternative to retire at 60. Mrs. Speaker, I want that point to be understood clearly! They write that they would like to have that alternative.
Furthermore, in asbestos mills such as those in Asbestos and Thetford and in papermills such as those in Brompton and Windsor in my riding, additional problems have appeared those last few years, namely the outbreak of diseases called industrial diseases.
There is also the fact that faced with economic difficulties, industries and factories demand an ever increasing output from their employees, whatever be their age; this affects the elder in a particular way and often contributes directly to shorten their lives.
Moreover, the pension at 60 would enable several younger healthy people in the bloom of youth to replace the elder willing to retire.
Furthermore, such a measure would remove the difficulties for those between 60 and 65 who are laid off for lack of capacity and do not manage to get back on the labour market.
Madam Speaker, when the Western industrial giants like Chrysler Canada Ltd., Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited and the like lay off thousands of workers such as is presently the case due to the economic crisis, the same happens with smaller enterprises. That means more and more massive lay-offs and those less able to find a new job are still the oldest workers. Hence the urgent need for adequate solutions like the one we are proposing. There are several points in favour of lowering the age of retirement, but I referred to the most important ones.
Now I should like to talk a little about the second principle in the motion before us, namely to give automatically the pension to the wife of a pensioner.
In the present circumstances, it seems to me more and more necessary that the wife of a pensioner also receive a
28543-52%

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
pension simultaneously. My constituents strongly advocated this approach and the problems submitted to us are often very distressing. For example, we have the case of the husband who retires at 65, but who is the only one to get a pension because his wife is younger than he is; often, the wife will work if she can still do so; she will work hard sometimes. She will clean floors or do similar tasks, or she will ask her member of the legislative assembly to write to the welfare people to get her a pittance from the provincial government.
I think that in 1974, the situation has lasted long enough and that we should give a pension to the wife as soon as the husband gets his.
Turning to another aspect, Madam Speaker, we propose that those between 60 and 65 not be forced into retirement but rather that they may do so if they consider it suitable.
Major objections were in fact raised, and often rightly so, about the fact that compulsory retirement would sometimes create serious problems. That is not the case for the sick, the handicapped, the non-retrainable, or those for whom it is impossible to go back to work. On the other hand, such a compulsory measure could be prejudicial to those who have obligations up until the age of retirement or even are in good health and want to continue working until 65.
The best answer to all those problems is what we are now proposing, that the pension at age 60 be optional and up to the individual. Several difficulties would thus be avoided, and the freedom of the individual would be upheld.
Madam Speaker, I am under the impression that the government should now be in a position to accept our motion, at least follow it up very soon with very specific measures since several members on the government side including the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), as well as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stressed the soundness of such measures as well as their principles in that respect.
To illustrate that the attitude of this government is in line with our motion, I would simply like to refer to statements made during the last election campaign in the month of July 1974. There was talk about the subject-matter of our motion today in the context of the "integrated system of social security" as laid before the people of Canada by the Liberal party in power during the last general election. For example, in the newspaper Le Droit of June 21, 1974, quoting from an article by Fay Lariviere:
Sherbrooke-The Prime Minister restated Thursday his intention of providing Canada with a revised and integrated social security system in cooperation with the provinces in line with the guidelines set out in the working paper of April 1973 tabled in the Commons by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Marc Lalonde.
The first measure implemented will be to extend the benefits, subject to a means test, to the wife of an old age security pensioner if she is between 60 and 65.
However small, it would be at least be a first step, a gesture indicating an intention to improve the situation in this area. All the more as since then, the cost of living has kept increasing. The situation has become even more difficult for people of 60.
Recently, in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) announced some tax cuts for lower income

groups, thus showing his willingness to deal with the difficulties caused by our economic situation. It was all very well, but I feel it is time for us to do something about pensionable age.
Madam Speaker, every political party saw fit to raise the matter during the election campaign. The time has now come for the members to act. For all these reasons, I believe that now more than ever it is time to do something positive or at least to give the Canadian people an inkling about it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. 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 Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Air Transport-Canada-Cuba route-Possible completion of negotiations; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-Indian Affairs-Request for assurance James Bay settlement not used as guide in settling land claims of other native groups; the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston)-Business of the House-Date of introduction of legislation establishing independent accident investigation board.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Laprise:
That this House regrets that the Government neglected to make all those who reached the age of 60, as well as their spouses although such spouses may not have reached pensionable age, eligible for the Old Age
Pension.
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I have listened religiously to the previous speakers during this debate on the motion of the Social Credit Party. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin), and I think it would be rather expensive to implement such a program.
But before I expound my philosophy on this subject, I would point out to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that, in my opinion, the Progressive Conservative Party has a short memory. I must explain because the hon.
December 3, 1974

member for Joliette stated at great length during the election campaign what he has just said.
But I have here an official document on the elections of the last few years. I notice that under the Progressive Conservative government from 1957 to 1963 the pension plan was only increased by $10 in seven years, that is less than $1.50 a year. We can then appreciate the record of the Progressive Conservative party as regards the old age security pension.
As soon as the liberals were elected in 1963, the increase was by $10, and a comparison between both records will show that under the liberals, the pension was increased from $75 in 1963 to an amount of $117.02, in October 1974, with an escalation clause, which added to the guaranteed income supplement comes to $199.10 for single people and $189.91 for a married couple.


Marc Lalonde: This amount will be raised to $204 in January.


Marcel-Claude Roy: And the Minister just tells me that this amount will be increased to $204 in January.
Madam Speaker, such was the performance of the Progressive Conservative Party when it was in power regarding that policy, compared with the Liberal government's performance. I would raise the following question: it now seems much easier for the Conservatives to take a stand on social measures than on the oil problem. There is no unanimity in that area, because the problem seems complicated, but on social measures, they are asking for more and more and once again, we see nothing wrong with that.
Madam Speaker, when I was asked to speak today I sought inspiration in a document I have here and entitled "Je ne demande que de servir". We find in it the words of a man of extraordinary energy and courage. Here are the words of His Excellency Governor General Georges Vanier, and I quote:
Old age does not come from the number of years lived. I firmly believe we get old only when we relinquish our ideal. Indeed, the symptoms of old age are fear and discouragement, while youth is characterized by an attitude of health and confidence, especially toward young ones.
Nowadays, attraction is toward material things. We have a tendency to stress standard of living rather than the aim of life.
In passing judgment on a social policy, it is not enough to blame the government for not bringing pensionable age down to 60. We all strive for social betterment; but improvements in this area, or in the field of economic development, are not brought about by random attempts or by momentaneous pressures. They have to be planned, with the cooperation of all the people and every social agency, both at the preparation and implementation stage. According to Statistics Canada, the 65-year old and above will number 2.5 million in 1985, a 47 per cent increase over the last census. Extrapolation indicates for the year 2000 an extra 700,000, 88 per cent more than in the 1971 census. All this points to a well planned program. Social improvement is an essential factor in economic development, to the extent it helps improve human resources.
Old Age Pensions
Madam Speaker, I would like to deal in the next few minutes with another aspect of today's debate.
I do not pretend to be an expert on old age. I would like nonetheless to give my humble views, even if they are not shared by members opposite. The latter I would refer to as "today's spendthrifts". They propose the most simplistic, the most materialistic of solutions, namely reducing pensionable age to 60 without any other consideration.
Of course, I cannot take the time to elaborate on all the social measures proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), or to explain the general aims of the social programs that are being reviewed with the provinces, from the guaranteed income to the community employment policy, keeping in mind those who have special needs.
Having said this, I shall now restrict myself to the 1972 program which shows the importance given by the government to the plight of the older citizen in our society. This program called "New Horizons" clearly shows the willingness of this same government to explore new avenues and implement novel formulas when they appear likely to meet adequately the needs of those who have reached the third age.
What is the thrust of this program?
First of all, this program gives older people the opportunity to contribute to their own welfare as well as that of the community. Secondly, the program is designed to help the government to set up effective means of communication and liaison with the pensioners and the aged, in order to make them aware of their needs and to provide for the passage of the required measures. And thirdly, the program seeks to bring about a general awareness through which an attempt will be made to grasp the meaning of the word "aging" in the context of our modern life.
The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) stated a while ago that the 60-year old would like to retire as soon as possible. I think that it is less and less true on the contrary. Still again, I agree with the member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin). If we consider that there is less physical effort than 25 years ago, that the number of working days has decreased as well as the number of working hours, I think that the statement of the hon. member for Joliette to the effect that the people would like to retire at 60 years of age is not true. He is playing politics at the expense of those people.
I would like, Madam Speaker, to refer to my father as an example. When he learned that he was pensioned at 65 years of age, he could not accept it. Unfortunately he died a few months later, because he could not get used to the idea that he was retired. He felt that he still had some possibilities and a potential to work for the community. He did not want to be discarded.
The New Horizons Program was designed as an innovation program. This was a deliberate effort in order to try to establish the most flexible program possible whereby the government would be in a position to offer to groups of retired people the financial assistance necessary to implement projects of their choice and thus give free rein to their talent, their abilities, their ingeniousness and the full richness of their experience.

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
Society has often tended to adopt a paternalistic attitude with the programs intended for the aged. Society was inclined to dictate rather than suggest, to act without bothering to consult beforehand the very people on behalf of whom it was acting. That is what we have tried to avoid with the New Horizons Program which is essentially based on self-determination. In the light of our brief experience, we are already in a position to recognize all the resources of invention, energy and collective goodwill shown by the aged. As they are able to identify their own needs, develop projects which interest them and plan them in conjunction with their needs and as they have been faced with many obstacles and have learned to foresee them, they know now how to assess the kind of support they will have to ask for; briefly, senior and retired citizens are now in a position to call upon all their possibilities and their experience which otherwise could not be fully exploited. But there is more: there is the spirit of enthusiasm they generate the incredible vitality which emanates from their projects; both have repercussions on the whole of society and contribute, in a way, to erase the obsolete concepts about senior citizens and to replace them by an image more akin to reality.
Madam Speaker, I have here the list of the projects that were accepted since the beginning of this federal program. The number of projects by province is extraordinary and we can see how the projects submitted fill almost unbelievable needs. They are part of a most remarkable spirit of innovation and enthusiasm. To date, since the beginning of this program, 2,960 projects have been approved for a total of $21,393,143.
How many retired people benefit from or participate in the implementation of these projects? There are 635,128 retired people who are concerned with various New Horizons projects.
Since I cannot table the paper, if I may, Madam Speaker, I will indicate the number of projects by province, simply to demonstrate how that program was overwhelmingly popular throughout Canada.
In Newfoundland, 47 projects were approved, amounting to $294,173. In Prince Edward Island, 35 projects were approved, totalling $132,692. In Nova Scotia, 66 projects were approved for an amount of $732,905. In New Brunswick, 111 projects were approved for an amount of $661,254. In Quebec, 752 projects were approved, totalling $4,072,592. In Ontario, 976 projects were approved and the minister is telling me that they amounted to $5,469,653. The minister certainly is aware of the amounts of money granted by his department and he would like to see the figures quoted accurately by all members.
In Manitoba, 201 projects were approved to an amount of $932,800; in Saskatchewan, 232 projects totalling $931,342; in Alberta, 189 projects for $1,124,975; in British Columbia, 345 projects for $1,920,231. For the Northwest Territories, four projects were approved for a total of $24,921 and two projects in the Yukon, amounting to $9,037. As I mentioned earlier, the total amount is $21,393,143.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the sampling carried out throughout Canada for these projects proves how much

our senior citizens and our pensioners want to continue working for the development of Canada.
In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Minister and I thank him on behalf of all those people who, from October 1975, will receive a pension, as a temporary measure, which will provide assistance for a couple when one spouse retires at 65 and two people must live on a single pension. This agreement was discussed at length in the Liberal caucus and I was very glad when the minister confirmed it. It is not realistic to think that we shall solve all our social security problems by paying millions of dollars to all people between 60 and 65 who may not need it. It would be better to implement a program which guarantees the income with no age restriction for those who are unemployed, handicapped or do not have a sufficient salary.
Madam Speaker, I would like to close with this sentence of Felix Leclerc: The best way to make a man die is to stop him from working. I therefore prefer to keep in mind the positive aspect of our program rather than say that we shall provide money regardless of need.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity which enables me to take part in this afternoon's debate. Having listened to members' contributions, I detect a reasonable degree of unanimity in our approach to the problem we are considering.
The previous speaker, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), spoke of the bad old days and seemed to identify them exclusively with one party. I do not think he deliberately meant to leave the wrong impression this afternoon. If he casts his mind back to 1956, I think he will remember the attitude shown by the then Liberal government to old age pensioners. That attitude resulted in a popular slogan being adopted in the election of 1957. All hon. members will recall what happened in the 1957 election. We saw the day of deliverance when, at long last, there was a change of government. Because of the parsimonious attitude of the outgoing Liberal government and of the then minister of finance to the funding of pensions for senior citizens of Canada, members of that government became known across the country as "the six buck boys."
This afternoon we shall not talk about the bad old days, as it is clear that in the last 15 years or so, beginning with the change of government in 1957, we have seen a new, more positive and constructive approach to the problem of meeting the social needs of the people of Canada.
As I already indicated, I do not think there is much disagreement on the broad fundamentals in achieving the objective that we all want to attain, that is, an adequate level of income, not only for our elderly but for all groups who find themselves in a position where they are not able to earn sufficient income for a reasonable standard of living. Along with the elderly that could include those who have disabilities such as the blind, the severely disabled, and those who are handicapped mentally or in any other respect.
December 3, 1974

I congratulate the Social Credit group for having made this debate possible. While I might not agree specifically with their solution to the problem, I am sure the debate that has been precipitated as a result of their motion is going to add a lot of grist to the mill which is now grinding as a result of the presentation of the orange paper by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).
I shall deal with some aspects of the orange paper, but before I do I should put on the record the fact that the members of the official opposition have been in the vanguard of exploring new ways and means of dealing with the problem of income maintenance for those who are in a needy position. For example, as far back as 1972 the Conservative party came forward with specific recommendations. I shall deal with them briefly.
First, we recommended the establishment of a national income floor for individuals and families who have no earned income because of physical disability or other valid reasons. A second major point was to ensure that an individual or family capable of earning an income below the poverty line is entitled to retain a specific amount of this earned income without any reduction in the amount of public income supplement received. This has been described as the incentives income policy. The third point was to ensure that beyond this first specified amount an individual or family would be entitled to earn an additional amount of money which would be more than that by which the public income supplement would be reduced. That, I repeat, is the policy statement that emanated from members of the official opposition as far back as 1972.
As I read the orange paper recommendations put forward by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I can only conclude that he must have been looking over the shoulders of the policy formulators of the official opposition. I congratulate him on his wisdom in this regard.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I gave him a copy.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The principles that have been laid down in the current discussion that is going on with regard to social security parallel very closely those outlined by members of the Conservative party, and I shall quote them.
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.
I will read the second principle that has been laid down by the minister in his initial statement on the orange paper, because it is germane to our discussion today:
The second principle, the social security system, applicable to persons able to work include work incentives and emphasize the need for reinstatement of social welfare recipients into the labour force.
Those two principles, I submit, are an almost direct paraphrase of the principles laid down in the Conservative party manifesto. Again I congratulate the minister. Of course he at one time had very close identification with members of the official opposition. I am sure that sort of association has had a strong determining tendency on the attitudes of the minister, even though he has fallen amongst bad companions in recent years.
Old Age Pensions
Obviously there has to be action along the lines proposed by the motion because the government itself has now introduced a plan whereby its employees can retire at age 60. In parallel plans several provinces, including my own province of Manitoba, have now made similar retirement without loss of pension benefits available to their numerous employees at age 60.
We are all aware that more and more of the labour force are involved in government operations. One of the issues that emerged in the recent election campaign in my constituency-and we do not have a great number of civil servants at either the provincial or the federal level in the city of Brandon-was the question of when would the government bring its old age security program and Canada Pension Plan into line with its age 60 retirement plan? This is an indication that if we are going to rationalize our social security program we have to deal with inequities sooner or later. In light of the hodge-podge which is now an essential part of our social security system, I would say the sooner the better.
In his peregrinations during the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made this one of the major points in his promises, of which there were many. He wants to have the following integrated into the government's social security program for pensioners: the extension of the OAS/GIS on an income tested basis to spouses aged 60 to 64 of the present recipients of the OAS/GIS.
This was to be merely an interim step until such time as the comprehensive review that has been precipitated by the presentation of the orange paper has been completed. The official opposition presented a similar proposition, namely, that there be some consideration for the spouses of husbands or wives, as the case may be, who had reached the age of 65.
In the remaining few moments of the time allotted to me I wish to go into the broader concept of the need for providing income stability to groups other than the elderly. The elderly are in a special category by reason of age. However, there are those who are prematurely handicapped, as I have already indicated, by reason of blindness, physical disability, and handicaps of various other kinds. The strange and even tragic anomaly is that there is no special income allowance for people with handicaps of this kind. Since 1924 the blind people have been asking for a blindness allowance that would be paid regardless of the financial circumstances of the individual or the family concerned. They make this request on the simple basis that blindness is a severe handicap for which there is need for general community support.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) went back to 1927 in his presentation this afternoon. He referred to the great struggle for an adequate income security plan for the elderly. The blind of Canada and their associations have been campaigning for the same consideration for this group of disabled persons since 1924. The physically handicapped are in the same category. Perhaps I can deal with the two together to show how inadequate or even ridiculous the situation can be when governments, either federal or provincial, fail to consider the special needs of the handicapped.

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
In the case of the blind, if two blind persons marry and there is a certain amount of income the wife loses her disability allowance. It is not a generous sum in any case-about $75 a month. Recently I received a letter from two severely handicapped persons, both disabled by cerebral palsy, who married. Before their marriage the wife had been in receipt of a disability allowance of some $75. I have met these two individuals in person. The husband is less severely handicapped than the wife; she is in a wheelchair and is not really able to take care of herself at all.
The enterprising husband in this happy matrimonial situation has employment as a counsellor at the Chedoke Institute in Hamilton and now, because he has a certain income and because he has married a fellow sufferer from cerebral palsy his spouse immediately loses her social benefits. This is an urgent situation which must be dealt with, and I trust it will be attended to by the government when it brings down its more comprehensive recommendations arising from the current review of the orange paper.
Unfortunately, in recent years government involvement in these areas has been going backward rather than forward. After the war, led by the Department of Veterans Affairs, there was a great upsurge in interest in the needs of the disabled. More recently, even though our horizons have extended and we understand better the needs of the disabled with regard to education, vocational training, transportation, accommodation and so forth, there seems to have been fewer effective attempts to provide solutions.
In some parts of Canada, it is true, a beginning has been made, but we have yet to follow the example of some countries where, for instance, one finds a whole range of programs which make it possible for the severely disabled to lead a more or less normal existence notwithstanding their handicaps. Up to the present Canada's approach has left much to be desired.
I know the minister agrees with me because the orange paper suggests he is disillusioned about what has been going on in the past; emphasis has been placed upon trying to put new wine into old bottles, if I may use that figure of * speech-trying to express old policies in new forms and to carry on with the outdated welfare state concept where the outlook of the government is paternalistic.
The new approach is aimed at making it possible for the handicapped to meet their own needs with the help of volunteer groups. This is borne out by the fact that the administrator of research, planning and evolution for the Department of National Health and Welfare, Mr. John Osborne, back in 1973 during a discussion in Watrous, Saskatchewan, concerning the orange paper, asked the voluntary groups working in the area of assistance to the disabled-there are 26 such groups across Canada-to let the government know where it is on the track and where it may have been derailed. I believe the minister will agree that the Canadian approach to these matters has often been off the track-that it has consistently veered off course in recent years.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned cost as being one of the deterrents to moving quickly in this field. She added that there were other demands on public funds. That is true. One of the exorbitant demands on the welfare dollar has come through the Unemployment' Insurance 
Commission. In meeting unemployment insurance demands, overpayments of $2 billion have been made in recent years. There is no need, in a resource rich country like ours, to be faced with these huge demands on the treasury for unemployment. The great mistake is that we have tried to use the Unemployment Insurance Commission as a back door approach to the problems I have briefly outlined this afternoon.
Some of the present ad hoc programs which are geared to nothing specific have also constituted a major drain on the national treasury. I would strongly urge the minister to deal with the specific matters we have been discussing this afternoon. It will not bankrupt Canada. The way the government is spending, with an increase in the budget to $26 billion, it is evident that fiscal policy in Canada must have great flexibility. I urge the government to consider priorities and not expedience.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I expect all members of the House will readily agree that people who have worked and contributed to their community for some decades should be able to retire, (a) at an age when they are flexible enough to adapt to and enjoy their new lifestyle, and (b) with enough money to provide a decent standard of living. It will be very much harder to find agreement (a) on what is an appropriate retirement age, and (b) how much of a person's financial security in retirement should reasonably be provided by the state, how much by former employers and how much by the individual's own savings.
The motion before the House refers to state pensions being made available at age 60. The age of eligibility set for state pensions has a way of influencing the complusory retirement age. In fact it tends to become the compulsory retirement age. This certainly happened when the pension age was reduced from 70 to 65. The compulsory retirement of an unwilling employee, who is unprepared for retirement either economically or psychologically, can be a painful and unhappy business.
People who are now 60 generally entered the labour force during the depression years and often found it difficult to survive, far less think of saving for their old age, for the first 15 years of their employment. For some there was also war service, followed by resettlement problems afterwards, which further delayed the process of acquiring equity in a pension plan, even where a pension plan was available; and it must be remembered that 40 per cent of the work force is not covered by private group pension arrangements.
While the prevailing rates of old age security and guaranteed income supplement are higher than most provincial social assistance rates for single people and couples, they represent quite a drop in salary for the average Canadian worker. In the riding I represent, where many people do hard manual work, I find considerable interest on the part

December 3, 1974
of middle aged people in relocating to work which is less physically demanding, but very high resistance to the idea of final retirement.
This seems to be a fairly general trend. There is an early retirement option in the public service which provides quite generous superannuation benefits, yet less than 15 per cent of those eligible take up this option. In the blue collar area, the pioneering early retirement plan of the United Auto Workers is very well known, yet the latest take-up figures are less than 20 per cent of those eligible in Canadian plants, and only about 3 per cent of those eligible in the Detroit area, which includes some Canadian workers.
More people seem to be fighting decisions which would retire them early. There was a recent court case concerning the Canadian public service, and there are a number of cases, including many against private companies in the United States, where early retirement is more common. Even very good supplementary private pension rates for early retirees-around $625 a month after 30 years service with the UAW; 60 per cent or more of average earnings in the last five years under superannuation-do not attract large numbers of potential pensioners. So one has perhaps to look past the purely financial reasons at the drop in status which must be adjusted to by the retiring worker.
Desirable or not, our society is strongly work oriented. Individual evaluation, by oneself or by others, often flows from a person's job. In older age brackets this equation of work with social value is particularly strong. Early retirement, especially when involuntary, can drastically harm a retiree's self-image, pride and self-esteem.
Looking at it from another angle, will persons who retire early be willing to face the prevalent attitudes toward elder persons at a much earlier age? We are so concerned with meeting the needs of the aged today that we have given little thought to the future effects of policies on future generations of the aged. As we produce a healthier, better educated and more financially secure older generation, the trend toward earlier retirement may prove to be quite inappropriate.
The success of a retirement depends quite a bit on the amount of preparation for it, such as the development of outside interests and hobbies which can replace the work focus. It is a fallacy to think that just relaxing is something that will satisfy people who have been active all their lives. To be successful these hobbies and interests cannot simply be minor items but must be able to develop into full absorptions.
Pre-retirement training, even at age 65, is a very undeveloped field at the present time. Are we ready to meet the requirements of a whole new retired population? Leisure skills are becoming more and more expensive to acquire and practice. People who are not affluent probably have the least involvement in the hobbies and interests they need to enjoy themselves in the suddenly increased free time they will have.
There is also the whole question of social inter-action. The work place provides a daily set of human contacts, friendships and so on. Retirement removes this meeting place and can bring great loneliness. Low income earners
Old Age Pensions
are least likely to have a set of contacts of which they can make use when retired. Both their physical and social mobility is likely to be limited, and to grow more so as the period of retirement lengthens.
Loss of income, loss of status, loss of friends and the sense of "just hanging around" can be very destructive in respect of a person's self-esteem. Removing something that has been the focus of life for 40 years and replacing it with a void can be harmful. And dropping into retirement status people who are five years younger, more vigorous and more energetic may accentuate this sense of ennui, alienation and uselessness.
A lower pensionable age may be considerably less than a boon to older workers. It may indeed prove harmful to a number of them. People aged 60 who are not employed or are not employable because of illness or disability or, in the case of widows, because of lack of marketable skills, certainly need to have access to financial assistance. However, I do not think that should necessarily be through an early old age pension. Measures now in place include disability and survivors' benefits from the Canada and Quebec pension plans, workmen's compensation and provincial social assistance. I hope that the current social service review will result in a simplified income supplementation which is easier and less expensive to administer, and which is easier for people receiving it to understand and apply for, Mr. Speaker.
An aspect of aging which receives insufficient attention at present is that people are not only living longer, they are staying healthy, active and productive longer. Some people who take advantage of early retirement schemes use their pension to train for and undertake a second career. I do not think state pensions should be used for this purpose but I should like to see a greater interest on the part of industry in encouraging retraining of older workers. I also hope we may find a way to use some of the community employment programs to help older people retrain and relocate.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in congratulating the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), of the Social Credit party, for introducing this motion in the House today. May I also say I have no difficulty in supporting in principle or spirit any measure to assist our senior citizens with respect to their importance to our community and to our society.
I am one individual in this House who has had perhaps a unique experience with senior citizens. During my years of practice, particularly in my specialty, I have been fortunate to have been in daily contact with senior citizens in my community and in the surrounding area. I can assure you, Sir, I have developed and retain the deepest respect and admiration for this important segment of society.
Members of this House, and indeed all citizens who have not worked with senior citizens or who have not experienced a close personal contact with them, in my view have missed and are missing a rich and rewarding experience. Their philosophy of living is life itself. Their sense of independence, their humour, their faith, and

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
above all their devotion and loyalty to traditions and friends, could well be emulated by many in our present society. I have been privileged to share these experiences with many senior citizens, and have witnessed the important role they have played and continue to play in our society.
During the' debate this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Campbell) referred to the necessity of having a comprehensive social program over and above an adequate income support program. In effect the parliamentary secretary indicated the necessity of understanding the total needs of our senior citizens. I support that thesis. I also wish to underscore the necessity of looking at the whole person, the total person, the complete individual.
Perhaps I could best exemplify this by giving one of several examples I have had over the years. I recall that about seven years ago I had occasion to look after an elderly patient who had a heart problem. She had been removed from her own home to live with her family at a distant place. I can assure you that her surroundings were excellent and that the concern and care by her family were unexcelled. Yet despite this the patient continued to deteriorate.
In looking at the total patient I thought it was important to note that what had been overlooked was her sense of independence. The cure, of course, was to return her to her own home where she could live by herself in an environment with familiar people, family and friends she had known over the years. Now, at a young age in her late 80's, she continues to enjoy her surroundings. I think all of us at that time learned a great lesson about independence and the importance of looking at the total patient, the total senior citizen.
During the 1st of March, 1973, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) spoke on old age security. He stated:
... when coupled with the cumulative benefit increases that have been provided, it will be readily seen, Mr. Speaker, that this government has effectively banished poverty for persons over 65 years of age in the course of the last two years.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.' If the hon. member would check in Hansard, he would find that I never made such a statement. That was quoted by the former member for Ottawa West, I believe, at which point I raised a question of privilege, following which there was a correction, and an apology for misquoting me. So I suggest that the hon. member find the proper reference.


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the minister has returned and is listening. I shall certainly take heed of his comments and recheck the record.
I should like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister that my correspondence would not suggest that no senior citizens in our society feel that they have been complimented by the proposals presented by the government. Let me give you one illustration in a letter which I received this past week, part of which reads as follows:

I was wondering if Mr. Turner's budget is final and all the election promises to wives of pensioners have gone down the drain.
Gordon isn't able to do much, and I am trying to keep on selling Watkins to try to get enough to keep going. You know my health, nerves, diabetes, arthritis. It is far from easy to get out in the cold and try to sell to get the necessities that Gordon's pension will not stretch over. It is impossible to keep a home, pay insurances and buy food on one pension for two people. Where are all the promises that we would get my pension in January. I have no choice but try to carry on in the cold until Gordon can (hopefully) help me again.
I just wondered if you could try to stress this fact to a few people like our Prime Minister and Mr. Turner.
I respectfully submit that letter to the minister. As the letter suggests-and this was indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this afternoon-the recent budget of November 8 offers very little hope and no help to the majority of our senior citizens, and in particular to that great number who are on low and fixed incomes.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) by his own admission, when he presented the budget, gave a very pessimistic economic report for 1975 indicating that inflation would continue. Indeed, it has been estimated that it will continue in double figures during the year 1975. It seems to me that if the government were truly concerned about this important segment of our population, then surely the obvious answer would have been to introduce measures that are anti-inflationary. I recognize that the minister's explanation will be to index old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, but at the same time we must recognize that the problem for this group of citizens is compounded since the basic expenses for old age pensioners for food and housing in particular tend to rise at a much higher rate than the average consumer price index.
I am also concerned when I review the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, and more recently the supplementary estimates, which reveal substantial increases in operating costs. And when I recall the deficit in the unemployment insurance fund of approximately $1 billion I cannot help but question the government's lack of response to social needs in establishing priorities, in particular with respect to our senior citizens.
This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the motion before us was broad enough to include any aspect of the social security program. I simply want to make reference to two points, and perhaps the minister will comment on them later if he enters the debate. A major problem which frequently works to the disadvantage of our senior citizens is the complexity, the frequent duplication and the fragmentary approach of the social security system. I would like to take one case in point, and that is the guaranteed income supplement.
There are thousands of pensioners who are short of money because of the present system and the inability of the government to introduce alternative proposals which would guarantee the rights of these needy pensioners. This problem is compounded, certainly in my province, by the fact that to qualify for additional money or benefits, such as the 1974 elderly pensioners' tax assistance program for homeowners in Ontario, or for the recent Gains program and for drug assistance the pensioner must be on the guaranteed income supplement.
December 3, 1974

What are some of the questions that they ask? I think I can summarize these from all the correspondence I have. The questions are: Who should apply? What is yearly income? What are qualifying incomes? What yearly income qualifies a single pensioner? What yearly income qualifies a married couple where both are pensioners? What yearly income qualifies a married couple where only one is a pensioner? I suggest seriously to you, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of senior citizens do not have the information available or the answers to the questions, and I think that they are penalized because of it.
I find it inexcusable that many pensioners who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement have not applied because of the complexity of the system. Surely the government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare in particular, could find and provide alternative proposals to correct the situation and to help these needy pensioners. Perhaps the minister will comment on this problem before the termination of this debate.
The second point I want to make is with reference to the letter that I quoted earlier in which reference was made to the hardships experienced by senior citizens when both husband and wife must try to survive on a single pension. As has been pointed out by others during this debate, surely this matter deserves thoughtful consideration by the government.
As I indicated at the outset, I was impressed with the parliamentary secretary's observation that it is necessary to look at the total social program affecting our senior citizens. During her speech this afternoon she made reference to medical care. It is important for our elderly citizens, as part of a comprehensive program, to look after these individuals. While I support the principles that were enunciated by the parliamentary secretary, I cannot let the government's record go unchallenged, and indeed that record does not reveal the existence of a program dealing with the specific health problems of the aged.
Let me take a moment or two to try to place the problem in its proper perspective. This group of citizens aged 65 and over represents approximately 8 per cent of our total population, or about 1.7 million Canadians. Projections of populations indicate that by the mid 1980's this group will represent approximately 9 per cent of the total population, or about 2.3 million people.
During 1969, 39.9 million days were used by Canadians in hospital treatment in all age groups, and of this total, 13.3 million days of hospital care were used by the 65 and over age group alone. In effect, 33 per cent of hospital days were used by only 8 per cent of the population. Significantly, in this older age group accidents and muscolo-ske-letal disorders are vastly more important in women, while men suffer predominantly from cancer, respiratory and genito-urinary tract disorders.
The average length of stay in hospital for all ages is 12.6 days for men and 11.4 for women. By the age of 75 and over, the length of stay increased to 27.2 for men and 35.2 for women. Clearly, these chronic and disabling diseases are of major significance. Once again it must be stated that our priorities for research, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation are obvious to all those who look at the statistics. However, these disturbing facts do not represent the total picture of disability and despair that is frequent-
Old Age Pensions
ly suffered by our senior citizens. Far too often our aging population is isolated, alone and needlessly rejected in the every day life of modern society. Too often capable expertise is retired only to be forgotten or otherwise ignored. I believe this attitude must, and can be changed.
All of us in this House recognize the importance of young energetic workers, but it is essential that senior citizens continue to be productive to society and to themselves. There is no doubt that the mental health of our senior citizens can be enhanced through continuing productive participation. There are many sectors of our everyday economy which continue to require the parttime assistance, consultation and advice which are available from senior citizens.
I would suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), should look carefully at the possibility of developing an inventory of senior citizens across Canada who would be readily available to provide their services when required.
We must also realize that the aging process is frequently related to many simple discomforts of life that can be resolved with prompt intervention and a little expense. For example, nutritional disorders can be linked to buying power or to the lack of properly fitting dentures. The lack of glasses and hearing aids is a major disadvantage. I believe that these problems can be resolved easily through co-ordinated action by the provincial and federal governments, and I hope that the minister will initiate discussions with the provinces to accomplish this.
Again, chronic disorders contribute a great deal to the personal discomfort of far too many aging Canadians. Our preoccupation has been with the provision of treatment facilities, often at the sacrifice or lack of provision of rehabilitation facilities, particularly as they affect these older aged groups. I would encourage the minister to concentrate on this problem and take it up with his provincial counterparts as a priority item in future federal-provincial conferences.
Many additional hardships are experienced by our senior citizens, Mr. Speaker, such as drug costs, high cost of housing, and the inaccessibility of New Horizons programs particularly in rural communities. I would simply conclude by restating that any social program for senior citizens must include adequate income support and a complete understanding of and sympathetic response to the entire individual.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, without ado, I want to say I am extremely pleased to make my most sincere contribution on that important question of old age security and the Canada Pension Plan.
To repeat what has been said earlier by some of my colleagues, this government did promise to the Canadian people that effective October 1975, allowances would be paid to spouses of old age security beneficiaries aged between 60 and 65 and provision would be made to also remove some of the requirements concerning Canadians

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
who have lived outside of Canada for a limited period of time.
The motion reads as follows:
This House regrets that the Government neglected to make all those who reached the age of 60. as well as their spouses although such spouses may not have reached pensionable age, eligible for the old age pension.
For many years, the Creditistes have been advocating that pensions provided under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan should be paid to any individual having reached age 60 and increased to $200 a month for single persons as well as married men and to $150 a month for the spouse whatever may be her age.
Mr. Speaker, as time passes, we realize that the cost of living steadily continues to increase, that people on low income such as older people and others, that the retired do not have adequate incomes to live decently, and sometimes they must even do without the basic necessities and even the indispensable. Furthermore, since there are a lot of married women who have not yet reached the age of 60 and have no source of income they often find themselves in awkward situations.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that each time I meet these people I take the trouble of listening to them since they express to me their problems, their concerns and their needs, and ask me to try and do something for them.
I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the method set up by the government and which consists in increasing pensions according to the cost of living index with adjustments every three months, is not an adequate solution to stop inflation since that will not cure the economic discomforts from which everyone is suffering. All other sectors will eventually face increases, the cost of living will continue to rise, the economy will suffer more and more, and consequently there will be poverty within abundance.
Everyone knows that our governments promoted poverty, unemployment and inflation through legislative methods. So it is through opposite legislative methods that our governments will restore the national economic balance for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the national economic imbalance of inflation, unemployment and poverty affecting our classes of society is not accidental but indeed the result of the legislative action taken by both our Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments. Mr. Speaker, only Parliament has the right to vote legislation on the distribution of incomes and taxes among individuals, families, and corporations.
It is not the millionaire, multimillionaire, national or multinational companies or even our neighbours who have the right to vote in this Canadian Parliament but we alone, the members elected by the Canadian people. That means that we alone have the power to maintain and reestablish the national economic balance between the elements constituting our country. It is not enough to checkmate inflation, unemployment and poverty, we must above all correct this distressing situation and see to the definitive reestablishment of the national economic balance between individuals and families. In any event, the final goal of the economy can be simply reduced to the satisfaction of the population's needs. We must therefore 
work out new remedies and stimulants for our economy so as to achieve the happiness of all Canadians.
The smallest bit of our national economy must be provided with its fair share so that our quest for economic balance can be reflected in the whole of the national economy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that it is important to consider the present facts of our national economy as they stand because each year the difficulties of inflation, unemployment and poverty are considerably amplified despite increasing productivity and notwithstanding the clearer and clearer disorder of more and more senseless distribution.
In this very alarming situation, Mr. Speaker, we must try to identify abuses and make them disappear if we really want to solve the problems and reestablish the stability of our economy.
We of the Social Credit Party of Canada do not have a monopoly on folly. For years we have been suggesting very sensible solutions to the numerous problems of the whole world. Many members are patting their own backs and saying: "Another Social Credit illusion". But, Mr. Speaker, if we really take time out for a flashback, it is easy to see what seemed ridiculous yesterday is true today. Indeed, this government is timidly adopting measures advocated by the Social Credit Party of Canada such as increasing pensions at all levels and promising to establish a guaranteed annual income plan.
Mr. Speaker, I am fully convinced that governments will be compelled before long to apply the measures we advocate if they are really bent on taking steps to save Canada and the world from the disaster which hangs over mankind.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is the very high taxes and the exorbitant interest rates which are exploiting the greater part of the Canadian people and contributing to the rise in the cost of living. These exorbitant taxes and interest rates cripple the economy and create inflation, which really smother the Canadian economy and nullify the purchasing power of consumers.
We are aware that personal and corporate income taxes are under the strict jurisdiction of the elected members of Parliament whose responsibility is to meet the needs of the population as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, inflation, unemployment and poverty are the three main signs of the economic imbalance which is still hurting all economic and social levels of the Canadian people.
As I said earlier, the only way to get rid of poverty, unemployment and inflation is through restoring economic balance at the national level between individuals and families. The government of Canada alone has the power to restore quickly and thereafter maintain the kind of national balance that would eliminate inflation for the benefit of all Canadian citizens.
All this, Mr. Speaker, amply demonstrates that the time has come for a more thorough study, not only of the social security system as it applies to underprivileged citizens such as the elderly and others, but also as concerns families living on a single person's salary. I further urge the
December 3, 1974

government not to stop at this, but to undertake a study of all systems of revenues, of expenses, of hidden or secret reserves to which are entitled million- or billion-dollar companies, either national or multinational.
We suggested on various occasions that the old age security pension should be raised to $200 per month, both for single or married individuals, and to $150 in the case of the spouse of whatever age, as I indicated in my opening remarks. Mr. Speaker, like every other member, I receive on various occasions numerous requests from persons between 60 and 65. Most of the time, those people are unable to or unfit for work. I therefore urge the government once more to lower to 60 the pensionable age.
In view of the great number of people who are 60 or over, of widows and orphans without work, I most sincerely feel it is inhuman, shocking and abnormal that they be forced to live in reduced circumstances before reaching the current pensionable age of 65.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to lower the pensionable age to 60. I urge them to very seriously consider this move, I am confident it will meet with the approval of all Canadians.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly to this motion, particularly the aspect concerning housing for senior citizens, after which I shall make a few general remarks about the motion itself.
Four sections of the National Housing Act apply to senior citizen housing. Under section 15 of the act the federal government, between the time section 15 was promulgated and September, 1974, has been instrumental in the production of 12,148 units, these being mostly bachelor and one-bedroom type units, and accommodation for 1,653 hostel beds. Under subsection (1) of section 15 the government was instrumental in producing 18,475 units, and accommodation for 30,179 hostel beds. These units were built as a result of 100 per cent loans being granted on a unilateral basis. The federal government granted these to the sponsors of the schemes, which might be any non-profit organization, municipal or provincial, or any sponsor, private or voluntary. These loans were granted under subsection (1) of section 15, as I said.
Under section 40 of the act, provincial and federal governments for over 40 years have been responsible for assembling land for family housing and senior citizen housing. Some 7,366 senior citizen units have been built under that section, together with accommodation for 146 hostel beds. The province puts up 50 per cent of the necessary capital under this section of the act.
Under section 43 of the housing act federal and provincial governments are entitled to enter into agreements under which the federal government may lend money to provincial housing corporations. Ninety per cent of such money is in the form of loans granted by the government for capital costs connected with dwellings for senior citizens and low rental housing. Under this section 38,304 units of senior citizen housing have been produced and accommodation for 430 hostel beds.
Old Age Pensions
If we total all benefits accruing under the National Housing Act, we shall see that 76,293 units have been built, involving accommodation for 32,408 beds, for a total investment of just under $1 billion-for $972 million, to be
exact.
Under sections 40 and 43 of the act the annual subsidy, approved on a 50-50 basis to the provinces, amounts to $25 million per year. That is the figure applying as of 1974.
Certain sections of the act and certain agreements which may be entered into under those sections are matters I do not entirely support. For instance, under sections 40 and 43 only 28 units have been built in Newfoundland, whereas in Ontario the number of units built is 32,800, in Nova Scotia, 2,772, and in Prince Edward Island, 206. Who is to blame for this situation in Newfoundland if not the provincial government which is supposed, under the housing act, to enter into agreements with the federal government?
The foregoing figures show, Sir, that for a total federal investment of slightly less than $1 billion, the federal government has provided many units of senior citizen housing. Clearly, the federal government has not been negligent in providing housing for senior citizens.
I wish to make reference to the motion. It reads:
That this House regrets that the Government neglected to make all those who reached the age of 60, as well as their spouses although such spouses may not have reached pensionable age, eligible for the Old Age Pension.
The government will undoubtedly act on some form of guaranteed annual income. It will undoubtedly act on an income stabilization program for fishermen and farmers, and on providing a supplementary allowance for spouses between the ages of 60 and 65 where the income of the old age recipient is inadequate.
In bringing forward this motion I recognize the hon. member's concern for the poor. I understand his concern for those people between the ages of 60 and 65 who cannot find jobs. When we look at the actual distribution of money to people within provinces, we see the great inequity between someone living in the province of Newfoundland and someone living in the province of Alberta. We see that the Newfoundland provincial government, which has to supply 50 per cent of the total cost of welfare, certainly cannot meet the same standards as those in Alberta.
I can understand the hon. member's concern for people who, in certain instances, are almost unemployable. However, we have to consider that his motion reads:
. . as well as their spouses although such spouses may not have reached pensionable age, eligible for the Old Age Pension.
If someone 20 years of age married someone 60 years of age, as I interpret the motion, he or she would receive the old age pension. This would take away the work incentive. About the only incentive this motion would give would be to marry someone 60 years of age if you are out of work.
In speaking against this motion, may I say I look forward to the day when there will be some form of guaranteed income, some form of income stabilization for fishermen and farmers, the vital primary producers of this country, as well as a supplement for spouses between the

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
ages of 60 and 65 where the family income is not adequate to meet the demands of the seventies.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I enter the debate on this Creditiste motion which reads:
That this House regrets that the Government neglected to make all those who reached the age of 60, as well as their spouses although such spouses may not have reached pensionable age, eligible for the Old Age Pension.
I compliment the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) on bringing forward this important subject for debate today. The section in this motion which bothers me the most concerns allowing spouses to receive the pensions, even though they may not be 60. In some cases this is justified, but what happens in the case of a man who is considerably older than his wife, say for example, 20 or 30 years her senior? At the age of 60 he naturally qualifies for the old age pension under the proposed motion, and so does his wife.
How could this parliament justify a woman in her thirties or early forties receiving a pension, simply because her husband turned 60? This holds true if a woman is older than her spouse. The motion is too broad. In order to make it fair, we have an obligation to set up age guidelines in the case of the spouses becoming eligible for the pension when their partners turn 60.
The lowering of the age of eligibility for the old age security to 60 is a step in the right direction. It has to be done sooner or later. The increase in pressures in today's society has created a lot of premature ill-health for Canadians in the 50 to 60 age group, the very group that we are discussing. Many in this age group can no longer work, while others in the same age group cannot find work because of their age.
Whatever the situation, the present high rate of unemployment makes it virtually impossible for one spouse to find employment to compensate for whatever the other spouse would receive in old age benefits once that spouse has turned 60. For those who cannot go out and work because of illness or who cannot find employment because of their age, this adds to their hardship if their only source of income is one spouse's old age benefits.
This proposed motion would assist Canadians in those unfortunate circumstances, but nevertheless I still feel that we must place age guidelines on the spouses who are not 60, but who would automatically become eligible once their partners turned 60.
Here we have a segment of our population who, by virtue of the fact that they are classified as old age pensioners, are receiving just barely enough on which to live. We turn the coin around and see virtually millions and millions of dollars being thrown away, for example in Unemployment Insurance Commission payments and LIP grants, by which we encourage Canadians not to work. How can we justify this sort of treatment to our old age pensioners? They have been the backbone of our Canadian society for years, and now that they have reached their old age, the government of the day, in gratitude, provides them with just enough to exist on, until they are no longer a burden to the government.

Those who are new on the Canadian scene are being pampered and babied with hand-outs left and right, while those Canadians who contributed a lot of sweat, toil and tears for their country are shoved out of sight in disgrace, and are left with just enough to survive.
Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the government does not seem to realize that it is laying down a poor foundation for the very people it is babying, and creating future problems for future governments through not having enough foresight in presenting enlightened legislation which would provide adequate assitance for Canada's old age pensioners, now and in the future.
Several years ago the government had a slogan "the Just Society", and a just society it certainly created, a society more of injustice than of justice. The old age benefits fall in the area of injustices. But another area of the unjust society covers armed forces personnel living on pensions.
The government recently announced that there would be increases for those who came under the magic 85 plan in order that forces pensioners might combat inflation. Those who did not come under the magic 85 plan but who are receiving a pension were not eligible for the cost of living increases. The present set-up governing the magic 85 plan stipulates that a member of the armed forces or of the R.C.M.P. must, for example, have 30 years of service and be 55 years of age before being eligible for the special benefits under the 85 plan.
The constant reduction in the strength of the armed forces means that a lot of men in their late forties or early fifties will be pensioned off, and in many cases these men will not have enough years of service to qualify under the magic 85 plan. This certainly puts a lot of hardship on those who find obtaining employment difficult and still have a family to raise.
It seems to me that too many discriminatory policies are practised by the government. The government penalizes people because they are old or because they are in the armed forces. The policy of magic 85 is an example of discrimination. With the present cutback in the strength of the armed forces a lot of men in their late forties and early fifties will be forced out into a labour scene which cannot supply employment for them. Their pensions will be insufficient to support them and their families, and with the way the cost of living is continually rising I cannot see how they are going to make ends meet.
The government must reduce this magic 85 requirement and provide adequate increases to all armed forces personnel across the board. There is no excuse for a requirement that a man must have X number of years of service and be X number of years of age in order to qualify. This requirement does not exist in the civil service pension plans, so why should it exist for armed forces personnel? It is archaic, something out of the dark ages, and the sooner it is abolished the better for all concerned.
The most outrageous form of discrimination I have come across concerns a Mr. Builder, one of my constituents. The present Old Age Security Act does not recognize a Canadian veteran's overseas service whether or not he has resided in Canada full time after discharge. This overseas veteran was informed by the regional director of old age
December 3, 1974

security services in Victoria, "For our purposes we cannot consider you as physically present in Canada when we have confirmed that you were overseas with the Canadian Armed Forces from June 8, 1940, to March, 1946, and in addition left Canada again in November, 1946. The Old Age Security Act does not permit us to consider the overseas service as physically present in Canada for old age security."
If this is not discrimination then I must have a different interpretation of the word than the one on which the government relies. How can the government discriminate against the proud veterans who served overseas? Why should there be a difference in ruling as between one like myself, for example, who never went overseas, and one who did? If, after the war, I had gone out of the country in similar circumstances, then presumably when I came back in similar circumstances, I would qualify. Surely this is discrimination against veterans who served overseas.
Many veterans, like my constituent, did not choose to be sent overseas. If this veteran had been stationed in Canada, as I was, there would be no trouble, but he went where his country sent him, and because of this the government is penalizing him. This line of reasoning is unjust and discriminatory. There is no way in which it can be justified. Here is a case where a man's courageous war service in defence of his country is being used against him. It seems to be the policy of the government that those who have contributed nothing to the country are rewarded, while those who have contributed much to the defence and development of this great nation are penalized.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the motion introduced by the Social Credit Party of Canada. The motion is aimed at reducing the pensionable age to 60 and also making the spouse eligible for a pension.
I must say that it is rather easy for an opposition party, especially one which is quite sure that it will never be called upon to form the government to introduce that kind of motion. Indeed, I would say that for the Social Credit Party of Canada it is a quite reasonable motion in comparison with some other motions introduced and discussed in the House. I recall more particularly a motion introduced last year on the annual guaranteed income which had given me the opportunity to assess the cost of the scheme then suggested by the Social Credit Party of Canada. I had made an assessment that amounted to about $26 or $27 billion and I had not yet taken into account all the factors of the guaranteed income scheme proposed by the Social Credit. I remember that some members from that party had questioned my figures, and I discussed them with a member of that party who, unfortunately or fortunately, is no longer sitting in this House, and to whom I had asked at that time what was according to his own figures, the total amount of the guaranteed income scheme proposed by the Social Credit. He told me I was mistaken in quoting $26 billion, that from the Creditistes calculation, their project would cost only $21 billion and therefore, I was greatly mistaken.
Indeed, I believe that there rests the beautiful freedom of a member of the Opposition and, in particular, of a
Old Age Pensions
small party in the Opposition; that enables one to make such promises. And as the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) said this afternoon, it enables one to fool the electorate on a number of issues.
I must point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in the course of today's debate, has once again made a strong presentation of his point of view and, consistent with his own tradition, has not taken into account the cost of such a project. I am not at all surprised for he is concerned primarily with increasing the benefits.
But I have been surprised to find how conservative the hon. member's attitude has turned out to be today. He has indeed put forward a universal amount of $200, but if my memory is correct, his own party had proposed, not so long ago, $250 a month and this universally. I do not understand why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is now willing to accept this cheap program. And I would even say that this is a very conservative figure for the hon. member, since he himself proposed a universal pension of $200, when as early as next January the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement will mean $204.27 to everyone who will pass the income test. If I understand correctly the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he would even be willing to take $4.27 off the benefits which would be payable in January.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, surely, the minister would like the laughter in which he is indulging to go on the record as well? He knows that I proposed that the basic pension, which next month will be $120 a month, is the pension which should be raised to $200.


Marc Lalonde: I am glad to have it on record finally that the hon. member is not talking any more about universality in connection with this question of old age pensions. It now comes out that he wants to have a supplement as well, yet all our disagreement in the past has been on the basis that he does not want any tests-he wants everything universal. However, if he accepts the idea of something additional there will have to be tests. I am glad to have it finally on record that the hon. member still favours some kind of income supplement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is willing to add it to my half hour I will be glad to entertain a question; I would rather take it at the end of my speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question is very simple. Since the minister has only 30 minutes, why is he wasting it?

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions


Marc Lalonde: I cannot imagine that I am wasting my time trying to elicit new information from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He has been in this House a long time and everything he says to me is very significant and important.

Many hon. members have taken part in today's debate which, I think, was a very good one and several have emphasized the importance of dealing with this problem as a whole. Speakers on the government side have pointed out this element and I noticed also that many hon. members from the official opposition insisted on mentioning a certain number of priorities. I note in particular the contributions made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and also the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes).
I would also like to thank all the Liberal members who in this debate have endeavoured most successfully to bring to our attention programs implemented over the years by the Liberal government.
With regard to the motion of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I would have appreciated it if its spokesmen had gone to more pains in order to further clarify their thoughts.	'
They talk, for instance, of optional retirement, Madam Speaker. I would like them to specify what they mean by this and how they are going to define this optional retirement. Do they include those self-employed, the farmer, the fisherman, the small businessman, the shopkeeper. How are we going to determine whether everyone has retired or not? Do my colleagues include all the wives who stay at home? Will they be considered as having voluntarily retired or not? And if they are not included, I would like the hon. members to put it on record instead of talking in quite general terms which seem very generous but are rather vague.
As to the situation that developed with respect to retirement, it is obvious that there was a tendency in the last decades to reduce the age of retirement. Even now we have pension plans in the private sector providing for retirement before the age of 65. On the other hand, one realizes that there are more people wondering about that approach. I refer particularly to the debate now taking palce in the United Stated concerning compulsory retirement at the age of 65.
More and more people in the United States are now raising the problems posed by compulsory retirement. A strong debate now going on tends to suggest that it might be preferable to reintroduce a system of optional retirement in view of the extended lifespan and productive capacity of a great many people over 65.
That debate is far from being, settled, it will be with us for a good while but, to my mind, this indicates that the situation is not irreversible, as some would like us to think.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take the few minutes remaining to me to talk about the resolution from two points of view. First, the cost aspect and, second, the priority aspect. As to the cost aspect, it will not take much time. If the proposal under consideration were simply to
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).)
extend to people between the ages of 60 and 65 the benefits now available to those over 65, that would represent an amount ranging anywhere from $1.2 to $1.6 or $1.7 billions. That is new and additional money.
This is a considerable amount, although not unthinkable. I want to stress that it still represents half of all we spend at present on old age pensions and guaranteed supplements for those over 65. In fact, that amount represents roughly double the current contribution of the federal government to social assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Therefore, this amount is not to be ignored and if it is provided for this purpose, it will no longer be available for other purposes. That leads me directly to the second matter I wanted to raise, that of priorities. There is no doubt that if the state were a limitless reservoir of funds, we would immediately make people at age 60 eligible for pension, and probably people at age 40, but the state is not an inexhaustible source of funds and priorities must be determined. The responsibility, the privilege, indeed the burden of government includes defining such priorities, and that applies not only to the federal government but to provincial governments as well.
So we have to make choices and make them taking into account all the requirements that now exist, all essential or useful programs in the field of social security. As an example, I will indicate some of those priorities, Madam Speaker. There is, first of all, the need to protect the income of old age pensioners facing the rise in costs. We have already escalated old age pensions with quarterly increments and I am pleased to note that as early as January 1975, these pensions will be raised again.
The basic pension to which will be added the guaranteed income supplement will be brought from $199.10 to $204.27 and, for a couple, to $389.70. The basic pension itself will be increased to $120.06 in January. With the pensions paid under the Canada Pension Plan, the maximum benefit under this plan will be raised from $109.60 to $121 per month. So a person who is now retired will receive a maximum of $241.06 under the Canada Pension Plan, including the basic pension. Those are the amounts that will become available to elderly people as of January 1975.
Things are happening in that area, and one of the priorities is to guarantee the income of those who are already retired, who are already 65, in the face of rising prices. Another priority, Madam Speaker, is more services for older people about which many hon. members talked tonight. Some of them referred to the "New Horizons" program, others to housing programs, and still others to medical care programs. Those are so many services that, of course, we must improve for our senior citizens, essential services, and there again, the government has done a great deal in the past in that area. There is still much to do and we are committed to keep on improving these services.
Another priority which does not only concern senior citizens primarily but also citizens other than those who are retired is a better income security program intended for all those who are now unable to provide for their needs. This includes a great number of physically and mentally handicapped people as well as all one parent families, especially when they are the mother's responsibility.
December 3, 1974

A fourth priority which we must take into account is the need to supplement the income of the small wage earners, those who work for a minimum wage and who have a large family, or those who have a job at minimum wage level or casual work. We must implement a program which will encourage those people to stay in the labour force and enable them to provide for their own needs and those of their families.
A fifth priority we must face is that of strengthening the essential social services such as day nurseries and programs designed to help children in general as well as programs to help juvenile delinquents and people liable to imprisonment under Canadian laws.
Another priority which was mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues is the need to provide all our citizens with moderately priced housing and there again, the opposition frequently asks the government to implement additional measures in that area.
And finally, there is the whole extremely important area of improved manpower services such as manpower training, so that welfare recipients and unemployed may reenter the labour market more easily. The problem is trying to reconcile all these priorities; I have not listed them all, but this is a series of priorities, of constant demands made upon the government. To reconcile these priorities is not only the federal government's problem; it is also of very great concern to the provinces which also have extensive responsibilities in this area.
May I remind my hon. colleagues that a very serious dispute almost arose between the provinces and the federal government when soon after my appointment we increased old age security pensions from $85 to $100 per month. I am surprised that my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada who all come from Quebec have forgotten that period when the Quebec government in particular, and those of other provinces very firmly opposed unilateral action by the federal government in this field. They argued at the time that we were changing provincial priorities.
In order to achieve these goals, it is therefore essential that we maintain close co-operation with the provinces. This we endeavoured to do, Madam Speaker, as early as April 1973, and the process is now under way to review with the provinces the social security program.
This undertaking, to which we set a two-year time limit, is now nearing completion. For this reason, the federal government could not even envisage a new program or project, of the nature of that involved in the motion before us, without very seriously harming the review and being accused of bad faith by the provinces that co-operated with us in this review. May I repeat that in so doing, we would be implementing a specific provision certainly limited in nature, directed to a limited group. More importantly, it would do very little to counter poverty in this country. May I indicate once more that the intention here is to extend a universal program to a still limited group of citizens, namely the 60- to 65-year old.
What would that achieve in the fight against poverty in this country, the aim of any new undertaking in the field of social security? It would achieve very little, for the
Old Age Pensions
simple reason it would transfer funds to a great number of people who have no current need for it, because they have good jobs and they want to go on working in order to maintain their revenues.
Revenue distribution in the country according to five income groups indicates that over the last 20 years, in spite of all the social measures that were passed by governments over the last 20 years, there has been practically no change in the proportion of the income spread between the five groups in our society.
As a matter of fact, the only changes that came about affect the 40 per cent following the first 20 per cent at the top. This is the only group in which a favourable change took place. All those at the bottom level kept the same proportion they had previously and that, in spite of all the measures that were taken in the social field. It has been shown that without the present social measures, the situation of the poorest among us, namely those at the bottom level, would be twice as bad as it is now. Social measures thus help to improve their lot but in spite of that, the fact remains that income distribution in our society has practically remained the same over the last 20 years.
Now should we want a more equitable distribution of income, are we going to obtain it by extending to a limited group of citizens universal programs such as the one proposed in this motion? I do no think so. If we really want to tackle seriously this poverty problem in our society, we will have to take all available additional funds and allocate them, not in a universal way, but in a selective fashion, concentrating our attention on people who really need help. On this point, I agree with my hon. colleague from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), who spoke first on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and said we should use our funds to help those who need them the most.
And that is the general trend of the current review of social security and the fundamental priority that the government and myself have adopted.
So, what do we want to do? We want to achieve that not by considering a limited group of citizens, a single sector of the community, but by guaranteeing an income to those unable to work and earn their bread, whatever their age. We want to provide adequate help to the handicapped of 30 or 35, the chronically unemployed of 55, 56 or 57, who is unable to find work just as the chronically unemployed of 61 or 62.
And furthermore, as I was saying earlier, we want to apply available resources to supplement the income of the one who works but does not earn enough to maintain his family.
These are priorities which are not restricted to one age group, which are not restricted to a limited section of the population, to whom would be distributed universally or nearly universally funds which would benefit many people who do not need it.
These are the priorities of this government, Madam Speaker. While we have this major objective, I must once again remind hon. members that we have not ignored senior citizens.
Improvements which have been made to pensions these last few years, and especially during the last two years,

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions
are more important than any improvement made at any time before, and the government is rightly proud of this.
As was said earlier, we started by increasing the basic pension to $100 a month, then we geared it to the cost of living to account for inflation. These benefits were adjusted quarterly. Moreover, we made a series of very important improvements to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan.
There was a considerable increase in the level of incomes which are subject to Canada Pension Plan contributions. We eliminated the income test for all people aged 65 to 70 under the Canada Pension Plan so that whatever their income, these people will still continue to receive a pension under the Canada Pension Plan. Moreover, as I said earlier, we fully adjusted the benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
Madam Speaker, I hope we shall conclude our review of social security measures in the spring of 1975. At that time, I hope the provinces and the federal government will have come to an agreement about guidelines for reforming social security in Canada. As for guidelines for the future, I hope they will set priorities which will have been agreed to by the provincial and federal governments.
Again, to date, I believe we did not put aside the problems of the aged and the government does not intend to do so in the future.
Finally, we will fully discuss that question, and it is a question that I will certainly consider with my provincial counterparts. My colleagues in this House should also think about it. It is the matter I mentioned in the beginning, the possibility of optional retirement, selective retirement even at 65. I think that the debate will continue in the years ahead of us, and we will need the knowledge not only of my provincial counterparts but also of all members in this House.
Madam Speaker, once again I want to thank all members who have participated in that debate, particularly government members, for their contribution to the discussion which certainly interests all Canadian citizens. But I thought it was important to point out also to my Social Credit colleagues that we must take into account priorities when we discuss those matters and that we cannot propose such a project without referring to the whole set of other priorities which this country is now facing.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There must have been a breakdown in communications. There have been discussions with the occupants of the chair, perhaps with all of them except yourself. It was our understanding that since we have had only one speaker so far today, the speaker to follow the minister would be the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret this. I thought the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich was rising to ask a question. I will recognize next the hon.
(Mr. Lalonde.)
member for Sault Ste. Marie. Is the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich rising to ask a question?


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: No, Madam Speaker, but may I have the assurance of a place following the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) was to follow the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. Perhaps if there is enough time the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich could be recognized afterwards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Late show for the hon. member!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, thank you. I am glad that I am able to follow the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) because he has brought out all the old red herrings, such as that this measure would be too costly to implement, that the program to have voluntary retirement at the age of 60 would be too expensive, and so on. I hope in the course of my speech to use some of the figures that the minister used to disprove that it will be as costly as he claims. I think that the government can finance this measure.
The motion before us regrets that the government has not lowered the age of retirement to 60 so that those people can be eligible for old age security pensions. I would have used a stronger word than regret, nevertheless the NDP supports the idea of retirement at the age of 60, but we support it on a voluntary basis. We would also like to see the basic pension raised to $200 a month. I think the two are very complementary.
We have come a long way since 1926 when the House passed a measure giving the senior citizens of this country the magnificent sum of $20 at the age of 70. Hon. members reading their history will recall that this measure came into being mainly at the instigation and pressure of J. S. Woodsworth, the founder of the CCF. But it is also interesting to note that the Senate rejected that first pension plan passed in the House. Listening to the minister this evening, and to many other Liberal backbenchers, I found that they sounded very much like some of those Senators back in 1926 who said that the country could not afford an old age security pension plan. I would like to quote briefly two Senators who took part in that debate. First, Senator Donnelly, when the bill went to the upper house, said:
I feel that there is in this country many people who think they have the assurance that when they reach the age of 70, the government will provide for them, and who therefore will not make very much effort to provide for their old age. I think that in this way the Bill places a premium on extravagance and imposes a tax on thrift.
Another member, Senator Beaubien, said:
This, in my opinion, is an iniquitous measure. First of all, it is unhealthy in its basic moral principle ... If this bill passes, the obligation of the children to look after their father and mother and grandfather and grandmother goes by the board ... Is it judicious for us to impose upon our country such socialistic legislation as this-because it is nothing else-when there is no call for it?
That Senator said there was no call for pensions back in those days when workers were making 25 cents an hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He had one for
life, he was a Senator.
December 3, 1974


Reginald Cyril Symes: Finally by 1929 reason and humanity prevailed, and the first pension became law. Many years later, in 1972-73, when we had another minority parliament, we got a further increase in the basic pension mainly through the untiring efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, ever since coming to the House in 1942-that was one year before I was born- has been fighting for pensions for the senior citizens of this country.
In that last minority parliament, because of NDP pressure we got the basic pension up to $100 a month with a cost of living adjustment making it $117. It is now brought up to $199 with the supplement. But the situation today is not all that good because, when we look at inflation, we realize that since it is at a rate of 11 per cent pensioners still find themselves suffering hardship. Since 1961 the consumer price index has risen by 60 per cent, meaning that what $100 could buy in 1961 it now takes $160 to buy. I wonder what the minister and the government can say to the pensioner of today who, despite the increase in pensions, is falling behind because of the rapidly rising cost of living.
What does the government say about the pensioner who has eye cataracts and has to pay $107 or $110 for eye glasses? What does the government say about the pensioner who has to pay from $100 to $300 for dentures? What does the government say to pensioners who need hearing aids, which cost around $400, when we know that the cost of the components is only about $25? What does the government say to the pensioner who has seen his fuel bills increase by 31 per cent in a year? The minister says they are doing all right under the new pension increases.
What about the pensioner who has to pay outrageous prices for drugs, or the pensioner who is paying $150 or $170 a month rent or, if he owns his own home, is paying exorbitant property taxes? How do they cope? I wish the minister would follow a pensioner around the supermarket some time and see what food he buys. It is the cheapest meat, the stale food, and indeed we have heard of pensioners who have had to eat pet food. That is a disgrace in a country as wealthy as Canada, yet the minister says there is no money to increase pensions.
The fact is that 60 per cent of pensioners have an income low enough that they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. The fact is that most of them go without proper food, clothing and accommodation. A 1972 report by economists Ross and Crawley found that about 50 per cent of Canada's aged live in poverty. I say that demonstrated a need to get the basic pension up to $200 a month.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as far as I know the motion before the House is not to increase pensions but to lower the age to 60 for the same pension. I submit that the hon. member is out of order.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, I am arguing that the two go hand in hand. I should like to turn now to the actual business of retirement at age 60, and the minister's argument as to its cost. I think it is necessary first of all because many of our workers deserve it after having
Old Age Pensions
worked for 40 or 45 years. The life expectancy for a male in this country is 69 years, and for a female it is 76 years. That leaves the average male worker just four years to enjoy his retirement.
Lowering the retirement age to 60 would not only allow many workers to enjoy their retirement but would also allow many young people to enter the labour market, and thus help solve our unemployment problem. Many private businesses are retiring people at age 60.
The minister says that Canada has a great pension plan, but 12 other countries including France, Italy and Japan have already lowered the retirement age to 60. The minister objects to this proposed reduction. I think the ghosts of the senators are writing his speeches. For example, he is saying it is too costly, but he was saying that in 1972 when it was proposed to increase the basic pension from $82 to $100. The minority parliament changed that.
Can the government afford to reduce the pension age to 60? I think it can, for a number of reasons. The old age security income for 1972-73 was broken down as follows: personal income tax, $1,190 million, corporation tax $226 million, sales tax, $770 million. This is all applied toward pension payments. What then would it cost to reduce the pension age to 60?
The 1971 census shows 777,015 people between age 60 and 64. If we were to make retirement at age 60 voluntary I doubt whether 100 per cent of those people would elect to accept that. Studies have shown that the figure is more likely to be 30 per cent. The minister is therefore distorting things when he says it would cost between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion. That is only if everybody retired at age 60, but if only 30 per cent did, the cost would be somewhere between $400 million and $500 million per year.
The government says it cannot afford to bring the pensionable age down to 60. I would point out to the minister that corporations are contributing $226 million to OAS. If they paid their fair share of taxes the government could easily afford it. But the minister does not want to collect extra taxes from the corporations. As of 1974 corporations have been legally able to defer paying $5.9 billion in taxes to the federal government. If the government charged 10 per cent interest on deferred taxes, which to date are interest free, it would have $500 million to contribute to bringing the pension age down to 60. So, it is quite feasible to reduce the retirement age to 60. The revenue is there, but the government is unwilling to bring in the necessary reform of the pension laws.
Canada owes her senior citizens a better deal. They built the country and we have benefited from their labour and taxes. They should be able to retire early enough to enjoy their retirement years and have an adequate income to live in dignity and security. I am sure the Liberal majority government, like the Senators in 1926, is going to deny the wishes of Canadians that the pension age be brought down to 60 and that an adequate income be provided for retirement years.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question?


Reginald Cyril Symes: Yes, Madam Speaker.

December 3, 1974
Old Age Pensions


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member referred to a life expectancy of four years when a man reaches 65. Is he aware that although a life expectancy of 69 for males and 76 for females has been stated, once you reach 65, for the male the life expectancy is 14 years, and for the female 17 years? Is he aware of this?


Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, I got my figures from Statistics Canada. Perhaps the minister and I should compare our government sources.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Madam Speaker, I realize there is not much time left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I realize also that some government members do not like to hear about old age security, because they cheer when time is short.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: At any event, I listened very carefully to the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and I noted that he made some excellent comments. On the other hand, I was rather surprised to hear him mention the priorities that must come first, but it is quite normal. However, he seems to forget easily or he did not understand the stand taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not so long ago. I have here a speech which he delivered in Granby on June 25, 1974, and in which he said, and I quote:
What was announced and what we are legislating is a coordination of the two systems so that if we are elected there will be a guaranteed annual income for all those who cannot work, whatever their age, be it 65, 60, 50, or even 20.
That was during the election period.
Of course, they were in a much better mood than after the elections.
The newspaper Le Soleil reported this on June 21, 1974:
Yesterday, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau followed in the footsteps of Conservative Leader Robert Stanfield and announced that the old age security pension would be granted to the 60 year old spouse.
But that is what we are asking for. The text of the motion moved by my colleague for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) clearly summarizes the opinion often voiced by a great number of Canadians especially during the periods of unemployment we have known during the last years. Among the comments coming from the various speakers who took part in the discussion, it is easy to see that many understand the soundness of this motion and considering the present economic circumstances, the government should propose legislation in agreement with the request submitted.
In a brief submitted for the advancement of senior citizens in January 1965, that is almost 10 years ago, we find some interesting excerpts. After having asked for a lower eligibility age, it outlined what had happened during different periods in Canada and in many other countries of the world to legislation concerning senior citizens. I believe it would be fitting to quote certain extracts of this brief presented to the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the new pension plan. Once again, I am emphasizing that this brief
(Mr. Symes.]
was tabled in January 1965. Here is an extract, and I quote:
Early retirement will be compulsory in the near future thanks to automation.
Well, I can see two of them gnashing their teeth on the other side. I guess that those two are professionnal gnashers.


An hon. Member:: I guess they are paid for that.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I shall continue with my quotation:
The government already recognizes age requirements by providing pension benefits to people of 65 and over, which emphasizes the difficulties older people have to face when looking for a job.
The people of the world look more and more to their governments for universal measures providing for an adequate and secure retirement. Canada is no exception and must not be.
In the United States, women of 60 and men of 65 may receive up to $200, a month; mind you, that was in 1965. In England, the age is 60 and 65; in Switzerland, 62; in New Zealand, 60; in Denmark, 62 and 67; in Soviet Union, 55 and 65. Some countries use a means test. Even in China where a few years ago old people starved to death in the streets, pensions are now paid at 50 and 55. We should be ashamed. In this vital question of age, Canada cannot lag behind that vast and overpopulated country.
It is high time a bill were passed in Canada to lower to 60 the pensionable age.
For various reasons, economic security is one of the primary needs of the aged.
It is almost ten o'clock and I would have many things to say, many details to give, many allusions to make and facts to tell about the minister's visit to the riding of Kamouraska and to a home for the aged where he must have noted that most of the time the aged never get their increase. Federal-provincial relations should be greatly improved so that the increased granted to senior citizens are not retained by provincial governments under the pretense that maintenance costs increase with the cost of living.
A real pension plan should be designed to enable older people to use their maturity at this important stage of their life, which would allow them to put into practice a philosophy of life impossible to attain at an earlier age.
While their declining physical strength or the disappearance of friends may have closed some doors to them, their maturity opens others. The disappointments of life has often increased their wisdom so that they can avoid trouble. Whatever privileges the retired must give up he still has the right to usefulness and the right to dignity.
The Economic Council of Canada states that over 700,000 Canadians among elder people live below the poverty line. Keep on laughing you two sneerers from Sherbrooke! How does the Economic Council of Canada define poverty? That is not happening elsewhere, it is happening in Canada.
At page 104 of the Fifth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada released in September 1968, one reads, and I quote:
To feel poverty is, among other things, to feel oneself an unwilling outsider-a virtual nonparticipant in the society in which one lives.
December 3, 1974

The problem of poverty in developed industrial societies is increasingly viewed not as a sheer lack of essentials to sustain life, but as an insufficient access to certain goods, services, and conditions of life which are available to everyone else and have come to be accepted as basic to a decent, minimum standard of living.
Those are valid reasons that should prompt the government to pass legislation aimed at guaranteeing a minimum level of income and security for people of 60.
We should not wait for all sorts of manifestations to happen to pass legislation providing older people with a suitable pension at the age of 60.
Legislation should also be geared toward creating a climate of security for older people so they can have some compensation for the years of hardships and economic distress that too many poor, particularly in our stupid system of today, had to suffer in a country as rich as ours. Society is not fulfilling all its obligations if all it does is look after the material well-being of the retired, without considering their emotional and psychological needs. It is a mistake to think that we can somehow send older people to the pasture by providing them with food, clothing and shelter.
Canada must try to make full use of the huge tank of ideas, skills and competence represented by its million and a half inhabitants over the age of 60.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but-


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order for two reasons. First, the opposition day allotted to the Social Credit Party of Canada under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons for the business of supply was much shortened this afternoon by the many points of order which were raised. Second, my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), was interrupted several times by members opposite. I feel therefore that it would be only proper that the House allow him a few minutes more to complete his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member is certainly aware that the hon. member for Kamouraska may complete his remarks only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Make it quick!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I am very grateful to my colleagues for these few additional minutes and I want to assure them right away that I shall not try their patience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Perhaps hon. members opposite have thought that I was about to offer my congratulations to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) concerning the New Horizons Program. This program allowed many of our senior citizens groups
Adjournment Debate
to show that they could make themselves useful through practical work and by organizing healthy recreational activities adapted to their age. I do not hesitate to congratulate the promoters of this program when I see its advantageous results. I hope that the necessary credits will be provided so as to maintain what I would call a program for the flowering of humanity.
There is something we should not forget when we talk of our senior citizens: life does have its disadvantages and the longer it lasts, the shorter it grows. It would only be normal that the period of hesitation should not be unduly prolonged before a bill is submitted so that 60-year-old Canadians can enjoy an adequate revenue and be assured of a pension at the requested age of 60.
We could make amendments to the present law. We have only to stop believing that it is not possible and we shall succeed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being after ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Madam Speaker, on October 16 I raised with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) the question of completing negotiations for regular passenger service between Cuba and Canada. I was a little surprised at the minister's reply which seemed to indicate a lack of progress in this important matter. I had thought that after so long a period of discussion our two countries were closer to formal agreement.
As many in this House know, I have long been an advocate of closer trade and contact with the Caribbean area and in that area Cuba is an important, indeed very important, element. In 1971 it was my pleasure, along with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), to visit Cuba. I think we were the first group of Canadian parliamentarians to make an official visit to that island. There is a great potential for growth in that beautiful island, and their economic efforts merit great commendation. For those who denigrate the Castro regime, I suggest they recall or research the kind of Cuban society, the kind of Cuban government which preceded the present system of political organization.
One of the strong moves on the international scene by the government led by the right hon. gentleman from

December 3, 1974
Adjournment Debate
Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) dealt with Cuba. In 1962, when Washington inspired a hemispheric embargo of Cuba, the Canadian government decided to retain diplomatic and commercial ties with Havana. We kept the doors open, but for a long time I think we have not moved sufficiently through those open doors.
Of late, things have improved. There has been a welcome increase in trade between Cuba and Canada. Our foreign trade with Cuba, $58.8 million in 1971, was practically the same in 1972 but rose to $81.9 million for 1973 with excellent prospects for 1974. Looking at the import side we see that the balance is decidedly in Canada's favour.
One thing which impressed me when I was in Cuba was the large number of trade delegations seeking to make stronger commercial contacts with the republic. I saw many European businessmen there and many Japanese but few, too few, Canadians. The Cubans, with a pragmatism which characterizes their system, have a division of their Trade and Commerce designated as "Trade with Capitalist Countries".
The opportunities for increasing trade with Cuba are encouraging and I welcome signs of leadership from both the south and the north. A few months ago the Cubans bought a shipload of first class hogs from Prince Edward Island; we have also done much in contributing to the Cuban development of pure-bred cattle of exceptional quality. An enterprising young businessman from Charlottetown has sold several orders of equipment which has done much to improve the efficiency of Cuban fish processing plants.
The Atlantic provinces' chambers of commerce plan a visit to Cuba. This is a welcome and worthwhile move. In the development of closer ties between businessmen and people generally, the provision of comfortable, convenient, regular passenger air service is very much of the essence. I should like to see a direct Halifax-Havana service or a direct Charlottetown-Havana service, but would settle for Montreal or Toronto. There is need for an upgrading of priorities in connection with this matter.
The economic realities today dictate and underline the urgency of diversifying our trade patterns. New markets are essential. We must develop them. Trade and commerce on the Atlantic seaboard by sea and air should be encouraged. I renew my appeal for increased celerity and concern with regard to this important area of transportation improvement. If the parliamentary secretary, my fellow islander, can announce tonight that arrangements are moving very fast, if he can give a date for the inaugural flight and arrange for both of us to be on it, my cup of joy will be full indeed.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: As the President of Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), the House leader, pointed out at the time, Madam Speaker, the government is not at present engaged in any "air negotiations" with Cuba. However, recent development in Canada-Cuba relations may well lead to such negotiations in the foreseeable future.
It has been recognized for some time that there is need to provide direct air connections between the two countries. There have been serious delays in communication,
|Mr. Macquarrie.]
and in the handling of mail and freight to Cuba through the Mexican postal administration. It was proposed at one time that Cubana Airlines might operate charter flights to Montreal for the carriage of freight and mail only, at more or less regular intervals provided such traffic were shared by a Canadian carrier, but Cubana did not actively pursue this type of operation.
Canada's trade with Cuba has expanded considerably since 1970-71, as the hon. member has pointed out. While the volume of air passenger traffic between the two countries has not been particularly large, tourist traffic from Canada appears to be increasing. Air Canada has been associated with inclusive tour charters to Havana, but until recently had shown little interest in starting a regular service.
During 1973, 5,000 or more Canadians arrived in Cuba, on charter flights using Air Canada equipment. Cuban autorities, of course, along with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), would like to see that figure expanded. I think the hon. member will be interested to know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) will be recommending shortly to his cabinet colleagues that we enter into negotiations to work out a bilateral air agreement with Cuba.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE JAMES BAY SETTLEMENT NOT USED AS GUIDE IN SETTLING LAND CLAIMS OF OTHER NATIVE GROUPS
Walter (Wally) Firth: Madam Speaker, I wish to refer to a question I put to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) on November 18. The question related to a statement the minister had made on regarding the James Bay settlement as a precedent. I am happy to see the minister here tonight, since this is an important question and one in which many people across Canada are extremely interested.
I shall not take up much time, since the question itself is very basic-as a matter of fact it could be answered by a brief yes or no, although I hope the minister will be disposed to give the House a more elaborate reply.
I should like to ask the minister whether he can state that the government of Canada is prepared to negotiate native claims in the Northwest Territories in good faith, and without any preconceived limits or constraints arising from the James Bay settlement or other settlements? The reason I ask this question is that I am of the opinion that many people are afraid that that settlement will be used as a model, or formula. We agree that the settlement is good inasmuch as it was negotiated; and secondly the government of Canada admitted that the native peoples of this country do have aboriginal claims in certain areas. Basically that is the question I should like the minister to elaborate on at this time.


J. Judd Buchanan: Madam Speaker, since the agreement in principle on a land settlement between the province of Quebec and the James Bay Cree Indians and Inuit of northern Quebec was announced, concern has
December 3, 1974

been expressed by other native groups who are preparing their land claims that the Quebec agreement would form a rigid basis for all future land settlements. Recent comments in the press may have contributed to this concern.
It is my view as the minister most directly involved with native claims that the James Bay settlement is an immensely important historical event, not only for the native peoples of James Bay but for all native peoples of Canada, simply because the settlement resulted from a process of negotiations. This is the process established by the government's major policy statement of August 8, 1973, and I believe the settlement indicates clearly the success of this policy. As a process, the settlement will obviously have a bearing on native claims negotiated elsewhere in Canada.
However, again I wish to emphasize that each individual claim will be considered on its merits, and that the importance of regional differences as they appear in each claim will be recognized. It is not a rigid formula. For these reasons, a different pattern of settlement from that of James Bay will likely emerge after separate negotiations with the various native groups involved in each area. We are prepared to negotiate in good faith on this basis, realizing that there will be differing conditions and aspirations, as well as different requirements in each region of the country.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING INDEPENDENT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Madam Speaker, at the end of October an airplane owned by PanArctic Oils Limited of Calgary crashed through the sea ice in the far north. Thirty-two people died, and two survived the accident. I was interested in it, as I am sure many Canadians were, because of the very extensive loss of life, yet in these days what at one time would have held the attention of the world for a long period becomes the current day's interest, and seems to disappear without further mention in a very short space of time.
As I say, there were a couple of survivors from the accident and the airplane almost made it to its destination. Under those circumstances especially I think questions are raised as to whether every precaution was taken in terms of safety, and in terms of checks and inspections of the plane itself.
Subsequent to the crash I received a letter from a constituent in which several questions were raised as to the sort of safety inspection done on privately owned planes as well as that required for commercial flights. Any plane carrying as large a number of passengers and crew as this, bears with it on every trip people whose services would be of considerable value to a large section of the population who depend upon them.
I asked a question about bringing forward in the House the proposed independent accident investigation board that was promised in the Speech from the Throne. At that time I had two supplementary questions which were more
Adjournment Debate
specific that I wished to direct to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). At this time I should like to direct them to the parliamentary secretary.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mclsaac) give an indication concerning what investigative procedures are now underway in regard to this accident? Also can he say, when the promised independent accident investigation board is set up, whether this particular accident will be referred to it? I realize this would be somewhat retroactive. However, considering the very large loss of life I think this is the sort of accident which should be thoroughly investigated by as impartial as possible an investigative body. The families and friends of those killed and injured, as well as a great many other people involved in this sort of flight in the far north, will be very interested in the reply from the minister.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member may I say I shall have to answer the latter part of this question at a later time as I do not have the facts with me tonight to deal with it.
In respect of the question as first presented, in the Speech from the Throne, as the hon. member mentioned correctly, the government did state its intention that an independent transportation accident investigation body would be established by parliament. This proposal is based on a report made to the ministry of transport by General H. A. MacLean, who studied present Canadian federal organizations for the investigation of transportation accidents and the promotion of transportation safety.
The proposals for the new transportation accident investigation body would include the investigation of aircraft accidents, railway accidents and marine accidents. This would involve not only a new act of parliament to set up such a body; it would also involve amendments to the Aeronautics Act, the Railway Act, the Canada Shipping Act and other legislation dealing with these matters.
At the present time the proposals for the new independent transportation accident investigation body are being studied by senior officials of the ministry of transport. It is anticipated that recommendations in respect of specific legislation will be going forward through Cabinet, to the Department of Justice, to prepare all necessary legislation in consultation with officers of the ministry of transport in the very near future.
I am confident the hon. member will agree that in the meantime we must make sure that the means now at our disposal, which have served us well in the past to investigate accidents such as the one to which he referred, will continue to be as responsive as possible to the needs of the

December 3, 1974
Canadian public. With regard to when the hon. member can expect to see the new legislation, may I say I am not able to tell him specifically the date but certainly it will be
sometime during the current session after the Christmas recess.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Wednesday, December 4, 1974