1975-06-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 relating to a matter that some of us regard as very urgent and very serious. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House regrets the fact that yesterday, June 17, when the question of nuclear proliferation and Canada's role in the exportation of nuclear material and equipment was under debate, the Prime Minister not only failed to be present for any portion of that debate or to take part therein, but chose instead to make a speech outside of the House, in Ottawa, in which he completely ignored the views being expressed in parliament, and this House therefore expresses its resentment against this contempt of parliament by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and therefore requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be presented or debated. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and immediate necessity.
Considering that about sixty women from the Caugh-nawaga Indian Reserve are faced with expulsion next July 5 for having committed the "sin" of marrying a white man; considering the flagrant discrimination against women contained in the Indian Act which states that an Indian woman who marries a non-Indian loses her Indian status; considering also that the Indian Act is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has been
endorsed by Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House request the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) to take the necessary steps so that Section 12 of the Indian Act, which provides for the expulsion of Indian women married to white men, be amended as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent, so the motion cannot be submitted.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice relating to the widespread concern about the reported treatment of Dr. Morgentaler. Can the minister tell the House what steps he has taken that might put to rest these fears and provide assurances to everyone that this inmate is receiving proper and decent treatment in the Waterloo minimum security prison, which I appreciate is not a federal but a provincial institution. I am sure the minister will agree that this has nothing to do with whether one is pro or contra abortion.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition has, in effect, answered his question himself. The minister of justice of the province will, I am sure, have had these various matters brought to his attention as well, and he would be the appropriate responsible official.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Quebec minister of justice has not succeeded in allaying these concerns, is the Minister of Justice considering asking the Quebec minister of justice whether he will set up an inquiry conducted by an individual with the stature and respect necessary and with authority to report to the public?
29576-22(4

June 18, 1975
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: I think I would want to know more about what actually happened before making a decision on that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When I asked the Minister of Justice when he is going to learn more about it whether he would give the House some assurance that he is really interesting himself in this problem with a view to resolving it, I am sure he was aware and he will agree that while Dr. Mor-gentaler is in a provincial institution, he is serving a sentence under a statute passed by parliament. What assurance can the minister give us with regard to what he proposes to do?


Otto Emil Lang: The fact that parliament enacts the Criminal Code does not add to the responsibility of the federal government with regard to either prosecution or the maintenance of provincial jails. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make a representation to the Quebec minister of justice, he can do so directly. I will do so also if I have something about which to make representations to him.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT APPELLATE COURTS FROM OVER-RULING JURY VERDICTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton: In view of the concerns that have been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, by the public generally, and just lately by the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association, and in view of the fact that because of the methods that are being used to prosecute Dr. Morgentaler these concerns are likely to be around for some time, I wonder if the minister, in the course of the investigations that he might be making with respect to this case, will seriously consider an immediate review of the provisions of the criminal law relating to the powers of judges to over-rule the findings of the juries because there is likely to be, over a considerable period of time, a whole series of cases of this nature. I ask this question because of the insecurity that exists in the minds of the public with respect to the treatment of this particular accused as a result of the methods that are being used by the Quebec attorney general?
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no evidence that the Quebec attorney general is in any way misusing his powers. I do not think it would be proper for us to discuss the case which is before the court beyond that.


SUGGESTED REPRESENTATIONS TO QUEBEC MINISTER OF JUSTICE CONCERNING TREATMENT OF DR. MORGENTALER
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: In view of the answer of the minister, which indicates that he has not understood the basis of the questions that have been asked, namely, the fact that there is some difficulty in the minds of the public with respect to the position of Dr. Morgentaler, and as he is the Minister of Justice of Canada and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, this man was convicted under a Canada statute, would the minister undertake to at least make representations to the Quebec minister of justice, in view of the public concern all across Canada, and report his findings to the House if he does not see fit to set up an independent inquiry or

appoint an individual of the stature referred to by the Leader of the Opposition?


Otto Emil Lang: The responsibility of the House was exercised when it adopted the particular sections of the Criminal Code in 1969. If there is confusion in the minds of the public about whether the Minister of Justice standing here has any role in relation to the prosecution and in relation to a provincial institution, that confusion is being sown and continued by the questions of the opposition which are directed as though there was any responsibility here with regard to this. This is a matter completely within the purview and jurisdiction of the province.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the well known responsibility of the Canadian Minister of Justice to see that justice is administered in an even-handed way across the country-and that responsibility is exemplified when the present Minister of Justice calls judges together on the sentencing policy to ensure we have even-handed justice in Canada-and in view of the obviously exceptional circumstances in the Morgentaler case and the fact that there are 13 counts being dealt with one at a time against Dr. Morgentaler, will the minister advise the House, in these circumstances where the head of the criminal section of the Canadian Bar Association calls it persecution, why he has not interceded to see that justice is administered in an even-handed way in view of the body of evidence he has available to him?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to accept the proposition that my role as Minister of Justice sometimes goes beyond what is technically required of the office. However, I do not think the hon. member's example in regard to judges really carries his case very far. The bringing together of judges is designed to help them see what each understands about the exercise of discretion and is quite a different issue. The administration of justice, in relation to the laying of charges and in relation to the pursuing of those charges, is a matter in the hands of provincial attorneys general. The hon. member has not put before me any indication except a statement of his own about the conduct of a provincial attorney general, which would lead me to expect or calculate that the attorney general is in any way abusing his office. If that were true, even that might be a matter for another jurisdiction, but none of that has been put before me to indicate that this case is proceeding in a different way from normal.
It is, however, before the courts, and I urge hon. members to bear in mind the longstanding tradition and rule of this House about not discussing matters which are before the courts. If they do not care about what they do in relation to the court process, they might at least consider the position I am put in when I have to respond to questions about court cases.


POSSIBILITY OF CABINET ORDERING NEW TRIAL FOR DR. MORGENTALER
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The Minister of Justice calls provincial attorneys general together from time to time on this subject, and he has shown responsibil-
June 18, 1975

ity in some ways regarding the even-handedness of justice, but he is making this case ever more exceptional than it should be. Under section 617(a) of the Criminal Code provision is clearly made for the minister's responsibility to order a new trial. I realize that the question of pardon has been rejected by the cabinet. Has the cabinet, through the Minister of Justice, given consideration to a new trial on the first conviction in the Morgentaler case?


Otto Emil Lang: That has not been given cabinet consideration and has not been put before cabinet by me. The section referred to in relation to a new trial is ordinarily seen to apply in circumstances where new evidence or new facts come to light. It is a power which is very rarely used, and I think that is the way it ought to be.


PURPOSE OF FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES AT SUPREME COURT HEARING OF DR. MORGENTALER'S APPEAL
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has stated that he had no interest at all in the Morgentaler case-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


John George Diefenbaker: -in so far as the course taken by the Supreme Court of Canada is virtually emasculating the entire jury system. If he had no interest in this as Minister of Justice, is it not a fact that when arguments took place in the Supreme Court of Canada on the Morgentaler appeal his representatives were present, and what was the purpose of their being present?


Otto Emil Lang: There were certain constitutional questions raised in the arguments at the appeal, and it was our purpose to be there to present arguments on those constitutional issues or in relation to issues arising under the Bill of Rights. We argued those questions, and those questions were determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. We were there for that reason and that reason alone.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT APPELLATE COURT OVER-RULING VERDICTS OF JURIES
John George Diefenbaker: The
morning after the judgment was handed down, I said that this would put an end to the jury system, and the minister was reported as having bet, I think, $5 that there would not be another of these appeals by the Crown against acquittal by a jury, he was sure, for a period of five years. He lost his bet.
In view of the fact that an appeal against the acquittal of Dr. Morgentaler by the jury is taking place, is it not about time something was done toward bringing about a change in the Criminal Code to assure that from now on there will be no appeals by the Crown to set aside a jury verdict and substitute the views of the judges? If he believes in the jury system as he has averred, if I bring in a private bill to put an end once and for all to the right of an appellate court to set aside the verdict of the jury and
Oral Questions
substitute its own will, will he see to it that such a bill is brought before the House without delay to put an end to this farce of persecution which is making a fool of the criminal law of our country and putting an end to the jury system?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite applaud the right hon. gentleman, somehow relating the first part of the question in relation to the first case to any question of the subsequent case. There is no connection whatsoever. The right hon. gentleman should know that he is totally misstating the situation when he refers to any indication on my part that there would not be appeals from jury verdicts. These are not at all uncommon. They have occurred many times in the past, they will certainly occur again and should occur whenever the process of law is being defeated by a misdirection of a judge or other grounds in law that would allow an appeal. He knows that is true, and he knows that I would not have said anything to the contrary.


An hon. Member:: Subsequent to the verdict?


An hon. Member:: That is a question of law, not for the jury.


Otto Emil Lang: What I have sgid is that the one single instance of a court substituting its verdict-


John George Diefenbaker: The only case in history.


Otto Emil Lang: -for the verdict of a jury was not one that gave any reasonable thinking person who looked at the whole case any great apprehension that it would be likely to happen in other cases any more frequently than in the past. In my view, it was only possible if, as in the case in question, there was essentially no defence on the facts put before the court at all and therefore it was not the traditional job of the jury to be exercised in finding fact but only a question that was really a reliance on the technical question of law that was in issue. Without saying whether I, if I had been on the Supreme Court of Canada, would have held that way, I saw this as no great danger to the jury system. That has nothing to do with the fact that a subsequent or other case or other jury verdict is here or there being appealed. That has nothing to do with the issue at all. In the ordinary case a verdict would not be overturned.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend starts giving me advice on the powers of the court of appeal and so forth, all I can say to him is that on the basis of his own record, he never having lost a case and never having lost an appeal, the argument is fallacious. If I bring in a private bill I ask the minister if he will permit it to come before the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that I would not be so disposed. However, I should also like to assure the right hon. gentleman that if I ever did tender advice to him I certainly would not expect him to accept it.

June 18, 1975
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that statement is an example of the tyranny of the hon. gentleman.


MANPOWER
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
My question deals with the travelling expenses of tomato, cucumber and apple pickers. I have been told in my area that the office is no longer authorized to reimburse the travelling expenses of pickers of 16 to 18 years of age. Can the minister confirm what is being said at our local office?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice. I do not believe that is an accurate interpretation, if in fact it was given by manpower officials. I shall look into the matter and be in touch with the hon. gentleman.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the Olympic organizing committee has postponed the announcement of its deficit budget until early July and has experienced difficulty in obtaining actual construction costs in the city of Montreal which is handling some $500 million in its budget a great part of which is the result of federal financing, and does not intend to disclose any further construction costs until the books are closed, would the minister assure the House that he will obtain a full account of the moneys to be spent to finance the games, particularly as a result of federal financing, and table this account before the gold coin amendment is agreed to?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: In co-operation with COJO and the City of Montreal, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to make possible the self-financing of the Olympic Games. The House has been called upon to vote on a number of self-financing programs. But the very administration of the Olympic Games being the responsibility of COJO, I am not going to go and tell them how to manage their own affairs, for the government has decided not to assume any deficit at the end of the games. We are in fact helping COJO assure the selffinancing of the games, and the purpose of the program which would result from the new legislation which was

introduced yesterday is to provide them with a new means to achieve this end. As to the information the hon. member is seeking, I am sure the Mayor of Montreal would be eager to meet with hon. members and discuss this with them.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, we should like to meet the mayor of Montreal; but, really, the runaway deficits should be stopped rather than fed further fuel. They have already run out of control. My supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board is this: in view of reports that the Royal Mint is presently overloaded with work already undertaken, could the minister provide the House with a tentative schedule showing when and in what quantity gold coins will be minted, bearing in mind that the silver coin series has been greatly criticized for being implemented too late and that the many hold-ups in the program will make it difficult to attain the target originally intended.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the information received in this regard indicates that the Royal Mint is capable of minting the gold coins early enough for them to be distributed before the Olympic Games. We have been assured of it through the Minister of Supply and Services. So there is no problem in this connection, as far as I am concerned.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a short supplementary question. Can the minister assure the House that after Bill C-64 is passed no further aid for the games will be asked of this parliament?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Canadian government concerning this matter is quite clear. If there is a deficit, it will be absorbed jointly by the City of Montreal and the province of Quebec. The federal government has only assumed the responsibility for helping them help themselves in becoming self-supporting. This is just what we are doing by presenting a new bill to the House for its consideration.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? As the Minister of Justice said yesterday, when speaking to a group of 68 Indian chiefs and 120 native people, "there is no way we can ignore the strength of your feelings and views about the guidelines. ..", is it government policy now not to implement the guidelines by the July 1 deadline, in order to give the Indian people across the country a chance to make representations to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I direct this question to the Prime Minister, Sir, because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not in the House today.
June 18, 1975


Hon. Ron Basford (Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, may I take notice of the question. The minister met this morning with the Saskatchewan federation. I will see that the question is answered in detail tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the visit to Canada of the hon. Mr. Evensen, minister without portfolio in the government of Norway, special advisor to the Law of the Sea Conference and chairman of the prestigious Evensen group which has played an important part in the discussions at the Law of the Sea Conference. Can the minister tell the House if he has met Mr. Evensen and, if so, what was the nature of his discussions with him?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I met this morning with Mr. Evensen and we discussed the progress made so far at the Law of the Sea Conference and what further progress or steps might be taken to achieve the objectives both of Norway and of Canada, each country having worked so closely with the other at the conference itself.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us if the question of Norway's intention to take unilateral action to protect its marine resources was discussed, if the Norwegian minister requested Canada's support for Norway in the event that that country takes this action and if, in turn, that minister would commit the Norwegian government to supporting Canada if and when we see fit to take unilateral action?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no common search for steps in the way of hypothetical unilateral actions by either country. The discussion was broader than the question of unilateral action.


POSSIBILITY OF SOUTH KOREA AND ARGENTINA PROCURING
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? It has to do with reports to the effect that South Korea and Pakistan have been negotiating secretly with France for the purchase of plutonium separation plants, and even more serious reports saying that Argentina already has such a plant. In view of the fact that the only purpose of having a separation plant is to produce an explosive device, I want to ask the minister this question. Will he undertake to ascertain whether South Korea and Argentina have or are procuring plutonium separation plants? If their answer is in the affirmative, will he assure the House that Canadian nuclear reactors will not be sold to those two countries?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question in connection with France, we have no information respecting such transfers. However, the attitude of the French government has been frequently stated to the effect that all its transfer facilities will be properly safeguarded. On the second part of the question, I will have to make inquiries to see whether these reports have any basis in fact.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It is with regard to the speech he made yesterday to the Canadian Nuclear Association. I wish it had been the speech that was made by the Minister of the Environment. I want to ask the Prime Minister about his statement to the effect that Canada's safeguards are the toughest in the world. I therefore ask if he would be prepared to let the House and the country judge the accuracy of that statement by undertaking to table in the House a copy of the agreement, when it is completed and before Canada becomes a signatory to it.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not indicated to which agreement he is referring. However, on the matter of safeguards, the unilateral upgrading of them has been mentioned in the House on several occasions. I believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated in some detail what the new strengthened safeguards will be. The hon. member just has to compare them with safeguards of other countries and he will see that they are indeed stronger in Canada than elsewhere. He referred to the Minister of the Environment and expressed the hope that that minister had made a speech to the assembly along the lines, presumably, I did. I can assure him that the Minister of the Environment did make a speech yesterday, a very excellent speech.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that all we have had to date have been vague and conflicting statements from various ministers as to what is going to go into the bilateral agreement which Canada proposes to enter into with countries to which it sells the CANDU reactor, and since the House has no way of judging whether these safeguards are adequate, is the government prepared to let us see a copy of the agreement prior to it being signed? The Secretary of State for External Affairs said we can see it after it is signed. That is totally unacceptable when we are dealing with something as critical as nuclear power.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the argument made before that something was totally unacceptable, but that has been the procedure that previous governments and this government have generally followed, namely that the executive power is used in dealing with foreign governments. Of course, we are always subject to the judgment of the House that we have acted unwisely or differently. That is why the minister has my support in saying that after the agreement has been reached, we will gladly submit it to the opposition to see if it can be improved.

June 18, 1975
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED REFORM OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the unconceivable fate of Bill C-2 after 37 sessions in committee, to give just one example, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider an in-depth reform of the parliamentary procedure in order to modernize Parliament, make it more efficient and attuned to the Canadian reality and also revaluate the role of the representative, whatever his party?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member's point of view. I take the liberty of reminding him that in October, in a speech in the House, I indicated my own concern about the situation of parliamentary rules and the importance of modernizing them. Mr. Speaker, I cannot but support the hon. member when he addresses himself to members of all parties. The government, for its part, is very anxious to reform that institution so that it becomes modern and worthwhile, and we hope members of all parties will come to an agreement without partisan considerations to work towards this end.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO IMPROVE COMPETITIVE POSITION OF CANADIAN INDUSTRIES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Before asking it, I would like to say that I know the Prime Minister is very disappointed he could not be in the House yesterday to wish me a happy birthday. I would like to assure him on this important occasion that I feel very well and so strong that I am going to volunteer to be his coach and sparring partner as he trains for a very important wrestling match he will take part in next year when he takes part in the 1976 Olympics by wrestling inflation to the ground in front of the main grandstand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Not only do I think I can teach him some elusive moves that will enable him to win that match against this most wiley opponent, but he will simply electrify that large crowd as well. My question is this. As 75 per cent of Canadian production is sold in the Canadian market and as a steadily increasing proportion of that market is being lost each year to imports as Canadians in ever increasing numbers are switching to foreign products because of price, quality and design, is it the plan of the government in the near future to introduce incentives which will induce greater productivity, more research and development in this country so that our products may become more competitive and thereby stop the present recession from turning into a depression?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate coincidence that I happened to be speaking to senior citizens yesterday when I could have been here speaking to one of the more eminent members of that group.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: However, it is perhaps a happy coincidence that I was enjoining them to participate very actively in the life of the community in every way. I welcome the offer by the hon. member to give me some lessons in physical adroitness which he could very well do except, perhaps, in some areas like skiing where I-


George Harris Hees: We will have a race next winter. I will hold you to that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The concern which the hon. member expresses is one which is shared by this government, namely ensuring that our products are competitive, not only price-wise, but in terms of technology and excellence. I can assure the hon. member that his representations will be very well examined by this government as we examine all representations from senior citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is further to a matter raised by the hon. member for Fundy Royal on June 11 regarding Dr. Morgentaler. Could the Prime Minister say whether any further consideration has been given to the granting of parole by exception, as is provided for under the National Parole Act, to Dr. Morgentaler.


Mr. Speaker:: The question has already been answered.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: know the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is primed with facts about the report from Statistics Canada that gross benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act have increased by 20 per cent in one month, that is, from March to April of this year, and 69 per cent in one year, namely, from April last year to April this year, during a period when such payments usually decrease. I wonder whether the minister could give us the explanation which has been prepared for him to account for this massive upswing in unemployment insurance benefits.
June 18, 1975


Robert Knight Andras: I am surprised the hon. member does not know the answer to that already. I had not been informed that he proposed to ask the question. The increase stems from the regrettable fact that unemployment is higher this year. That is the specific change this year. In addition, the act itself calls for the escalation of benefits as wages increase based on the industrial composite wages index. I must say that these payments are relieving some of the hardship which is taking place due to unemployment and are contributing, under these tensions, to a redistribution of income which I do not think is necessarily a bad thing.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Well, since the length of time during which benefits are paid has increased by 51 per cent compared with last year, may I ask whether the minister has any explanation to offer, other than the poor economic record of the government, in explanation of this massive increase?


Robert Knight Andras: Last year, as I recall, the duration of benefit went down from some 17 weeks the year before to 15.7 weeks. I would have to examine the figures the hon. member is quoting now, because the period has not, as far as I know, increased to the 17 week level of 1973. But, in all candour, I must say that as unemployment increases the length of the benefit period is inclined to be longer.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: In view of the fact that the unemployment rate for those in the age bracket between 14 and 25 has reached serious proportions, particularly among students, will the minister take action in the immediate future to expand programs already in existence such as OFY and student summer employment arrangements?


Robert Knight Andras: A specific response in that sector is unlikely. As the hon. member will recall we considerably increased the allocation to the student summer employment program a few weeks ago. With that increase, additional programs for hiring students are now being approved under OFY and other pertinent schemes applicable to that policy.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the amiable Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that a paper circulated to our offices recently states there is room for considerable refinement in the strategy of spruce budworm control and
Oral Questions
considering that a "sex attractant" has potential for controlling the budworm population, would the hon. lady inform the House whether she has had an opportunity to reconsider my earlier proposition-


George Harris Hees: Explain!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eymard G. Corbin: -for the resumption of financial assistance to chemical spraying programs to protect the eastern Canadian fir-spruce forests?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: want to assure the hon. member that it is only coincidental that sex attractants are used to check the outbreak of spruce budworm. I want to tell the hon. member that I am not it. I do have a task force set up to study this serious problem. If the hon. member has read the reports already put out on this subject he would know that this is, really, a natural phenomenon. We find that spraying the trees, though it does diminish the infestation, does not really cure it. I have had a task force set up to try to find better ways of dealing with this question. Owing to budgetary restraints, however, we cannot increase the use of sprays this year.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Last February 14, the Textile and Clothing Board was asked by the Clothing Manufacturers Council to investigate the alleged dumping of suits, jackets, co-ordinates and men's and boys' slacks. Since the board's report was tabled on May 14, that it has serious consequences on manpower or employment, particularly in the Eastern Townships, can the minister say what action his department is taking to check the implementation of interim measures? In addition, did the minister, through preliminary consultation, get the assurance he would have the co-operation not only of manufacturers, but of unions also to protect jobs and increase them in the textile and clothing industry?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: There has already been consultation with the industry. I tabled in the House earlier this week the report of the Textile and Clothing Board with respect to suits, pants and another item-and some technical word that goes with them; I am not too sure what that technical word is.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Vests.


Alastair William Gillespie: I indicated then that we were putting these products on the import control list. We are also in the process of negotiating voluntary restraints with

June 18, 1975
Oral Questions
Korean suppliers. I myself will be visiting Korea next week, and I am hoping to deal with a number of textile matters at that time.



BAIL REFORM ACT


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice arising from the answer he gave yesterday with respect to the granting of bail to persons charged with, but not convicted of, attempted murder. Does he intend to introduce amendments to the Bail Reform Act which would restrict the power to grant bail in cases where violent crimes are involved, particularly in the light of figures presented in the press today to the effect that since the Bail Reform Act was proclaimed the percentage of those jumping bail has increased from 5 per cent to nearly 30 per cent at the present time, or is it intended simply to clarify the powers of the judiciary without restricting its latitude to grant bail?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, the actual clauses will be before the House soon, at which time they can be seen in their context. It is not simply a matter of clarification. It is a case of increasing the likelihood of bail being refused when the public interest seems to require this to happen. It will be proposed, in certain circumstances, to require the accused to show why he should be at large. However, this is meant to be consistent with the general proposition that if it is fairly clear that if no danger to the public is likely to exist, and little likelihood that the accused person will fail to return for his trial, he should have an opportunity to be out on bail.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have referred to Canada's strike record as being second only to that of Italy, and since the CLC has stated that Canada is only No. 7 among industrial countries in terms of time lost through strikes, can the hon. gentleman tell us which set of statistics his own department is using to measure the incidence of strikes in this country as against that in other countries?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I am not
aware of the press release or other information from the CLC to which the hon. member has just referred. I would have to look into it before I could properly answer his question.


John Allen Fraser: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour just what is our position in relation to other countries in reference to the last 12 or 18 months? Is it as bad as we have been led to believe, or is the problem much less than has been stated by other members of the government?



FINANCE


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, considering that the gold Olympic coins to be issued under the authority of Bill C-63 will be classified as legal tender, would the Minister of Finance tell the House whether he has changed his stated policy of demoneterizing gold, and has he spoken to the International Monetary Fund about this change in policy?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have checked to see whether the issuance of legal tender in gold would be contrary to our policy, and it is not.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated to the House of February 20, as recorded at page 3396 of Hansard, that a policy of selling gold at the market rather than the official prices would have a disastrous effect on Third World countries. Would the minister tell the House whether he still believes the sale of Olympic coins will hurt the Third World, and has he any plans to stop this harm from taking place?


John Napier Turner: The answer to that is no, Mr. Speaker, the Olympic coins will sell at face value, they will not sell against the price of gold.
REQUEST FOR REPORT ON REVIEW OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT in Canada


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to comment on some statements by the Minister of Finance with regard to foreign investment. The reply from the minister was that it would be better to ask the Minister of Finance directly. Now that he is back I should like to put that question to him. On May 15 the Minister of Finance stated that the government is reviewing all statutes and policies affecting foreign investments in Canada. Would the minister now inform the House whether, as press reports of his recent statements seem to indicate, such a review has taken place and, if so, what changes does the minister intend to make in foreign investment policies?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is too close to budget night to answer that question.
June 18, 1975



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board-

I will address it to my homonym in the person of the Minister of Labour.


An hon. Member:: That sounds like a dirty word.


Donald W. Munro: I was wondering whether the minister could tell us if he is aware of a threatened strike against-

I see that the President of the Treasury Board is back. Would he be prepared to report to us on the latest development in the negotiations which have been in process since last January between the government and the repair crews working in naval dockyards on both the east and west coasts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, according to the information I have, both parties are now meeting with an arbitration officer and I hope they will come to an agreement shortly.


Donald W. Munro: Is it true, as the newspapers have announced today, that some workers were arrested in Halifax, and if so, why were they?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall seek information about this and answer the hon. member as soon as possible. I have no details I can give at the moment.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Defence.



REFERENCE TO ORDER PAPER QUESTION CONCERNING RESEARCH ON CANCER AND HEART DISEASE

Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the number of deaths caused by cancer and heart disease in this nation, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare advise me when I will receive an answer to question 1455 placed on the order paper on February 3 of this year, over four months ago, in which I asked why the federal government's contribution toward research on cancer and heart disease-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have a very valid point of order at the appropriate time.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



EGGS-DATE OF SIGNING OF NATIONAL MARKETING AGREEMENT-MEASUREMENT STANDARDS FOR CONTROL OF PRODUCTION

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the new national agreement for egg marketing in this country has yet been agreed to and signed by the 10 provinces?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary agreement to the end of this year has been agreed to and signed by several of the co-signers, but not by all as yet.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that there appears to be two sets of measurement standards floating around in respect of the control of egg production namely, quotas and chick permits, which vary by about 20 per cent? Would the minister outline to the House what measure will be the basis of the new agreement?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the new agreement will be made public when we have it signed by all the co-signers. I still say it would take too long to outline the present agreement to the House at this time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked earlier, and, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I should like to direct it to the Minister of Justice. In view of the interest the Minister of Justice has shown in respect of charges by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians and Chiefs, will he assure the House that he will consult with his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to ensure that the department of Indian affairs will not implement the new departmental guidelines until adequate consultation has been had with native leaders across Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously I will be having discussions with my colleague, but the issue was raised by the delegation of Saskatchewan Indian chiefs with me as a person coming from Saskatchewan, and not in my ministerial capacity.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of the Environment whether her department is monitoring the application made by the Pittston Company in the State of Maine for

June 18, 1975
Oral Questions
the construction of a refinery at Eastport, and whether her officials feel that the new proposals that have now been approved by the State of Maine endanger Canadian fisheries and the environment as a result of the use of Canadian waters for the viability of that refinery? Just exactly where does her department stand in this regard?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, we have been opposed all along to the traffic of heavy oil tankers in the Head Harbour passage. The decision brought down by the Maine Environmental Board last week states very clearly that, although a permit can be given for tankers up to 150,000 tons to be used for that refinery, this is conditional on any permit or other kind of navigational aid which would be furnished by the Canadian government.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give an indication of what the Canadian government's attitude will be if an application were to be submitted in relation to such licensing?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, our position was and still is that we are opposed to heavy tanker traffic in these waters because we feel this would be damaging to the environment and the important fishery resources in that area.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's indication this afternoon that he is not prepared to submit agreements relating to the export of nuclear reactors to the House until after the completion of the deal, in spite of the previous experiences the government has had with India, for example, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with and complete the deal with Argentina, whether or not Argentina signs a nuclear non-proliferation agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, we have not laid down as a precondition to the sale of a CANDU reactor that the country has to be a member of the NPT. We have, however, insisted upon certain standards of bilateral safeguards which will apply to these materials, technology and equipment supplied by Canada. Presently we are negotiating these safeguards with the Argentinian authorities but we have not concluded these negotiations as at this point.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the position of the government of Canada is as stated by the Prime Minister, that it is prepared to deal with countries even though they have not signed a nuclear non-proliferation agreement, and the government is not prepared to submit

these contracts to the parliament of Canada in advance in spite of all the risks involved of mistakes being made?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, the policy with respect to the NPT was stated very clearly, and the hon. gentleman has repeated it with the exception that in all these transactions membership would be an important fact to be weighed. In the case of aid-financed reactors, the question of the NPT will be a precondition. On the second point, we are simply following the practice that the Prime Minister has outlined in putting before the House for approval actions for which the executive has taken responsibility and will appear before the House for that responsibility.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which is raised by the question asked by the hon. member for Drummond and the answer by the Prime Minister, a question and answer which constitute a very strong criticism of the procedure committee and, by implication the President of the Privy Council who is the chairman of that committee. I have to say that I understand that this bill and the various reincarnations of it spent far more time within the murky recesses of the cabinet than in the House of Commons. The rules under which the House operates, while not perfect, were rules that were imposed by the Prime Minister by a particularly brutal and shameful form of closure on the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the question that was put to me by the hon. member for Drummond was that he was appealing to all members of the House. I think the words he used in his question were "to try to get together to modernize parliament". I see nothing in that which is an affront to the committee to which the hon. member opposite refers. On the contrary, I would have thought that, rather than be his usual negative, nasty self, he would look upon that as a constructive approach to reform in parliament.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of a most serious nature involving an obvious and direct attempt by the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Laurent Picard, to interfere with the democratic political process in this country by influencing and intimidating me as a member of parliament in regard to what I should or should not say in this House.
In the past few days I have exercised my right to raise, as a result of information furnished to me from sources I consider beyond reproach, the matter of the government's
June 18, 1975

refusal to permit Soviet journalist Konstantin Geivandov to re-enter Canada, and associations with Mr. Geivandov on the part of CBC executive producer Mark Starowicz. In doing so, I have done no more than what is obviously one of my duties, rights and privileges as a member of parliament, namely, to bring to the attention of this House for consideration a serious matter involving possible serious improprieties in the field of national security.
Last night the CBC radio program "The World at Six", and later the CBC national TV news, carried a statement by CBC president Picard that demonstrated manipulation and misuse of CBC news facilities in what I believe can only be considered an attempt to interfere with my right to pursue this matter in the House of Commons. Mr. Picard, an appointed government official, used the full news facilities of all CBC radio and TV outlets to state that the raising of the Geivandov-Starowicz matter in the House by myself, a democratically elected member of parliament, constituted, and I quote the words attributed to him exactly, "hiding behind parliamentary immunity".
It is precisely because a member of this House is guaranteed parliamentary immunity by constitutional precedent that he is able to freely speak out on important issues- indeed, this is a privilege of a member of this House-and for the CBC president to misuse the facilities of the publicly-owned CBC to make it appear that by speaking out on a matter here I have committed a very serious offence is, I submit, gross interference with my privilege properly to perform my duties on the part of a senior, unelected public official.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Picard attempted to intimidate me in the performance of such duties by further using CBC facilities last night to throw threatening smears in my direction by stating that my action in pursuing the matter of Geivandov and Starowicz in this chamber, and I quote the exact words attributed to him, "smacks of McCarthy-ism and witch hunting of the worst kind".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It is also very significant that Mr. Picard received a complete monopoly on the CBC last night in regard to all aspects of this matter.
I believe it is now most pertinent to my question of privilege, as a result of Mr. Picard's actions, to state the nature and the details of a telephone call I received last week. It was from a person identifying himself as calling on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I was threatened and advised that if I pursued further in this House, and I quote the exact words used-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must surely realize that in going into a description of a telephone call of this nature there are severe dangers as to the authenticity of the source of the call. In addition, the hon. member is now alluding to an event which took place several days ago, and there is a very steadfast rule of the House that any matter constituting a question of privilege or any aspect thereof must be raised at the first available opportunity. If the hon. member wishes to deal with the question of privilege vis-a-vis the events of last night and
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
those he has described up to now, I submit, at least in terms of having the Chair consider whether there is a prima facie question of privilege, he is not in any difficulty. However, if the hon. member wishes to go back several days and deal with a telephone call which did not then constitute a question of privilege, this would give the Chair considerably more difficulty.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the Chair, may I explain. I am prepared to state clearly why this matter of the telephone call would not have been a question of privilege in itself last week, but becomes one very much so now in view of subsequent events that I was about to mention. I think it is very pertinent and I do hope I will have the privilege of making the connection so that Your Honour will be able to rule whether it is indeed pertinent.
The call was from a person who identified himself at the time as calling on behalf of the CBC. I should like to quote the words used. They were to this effect; "Would I pursue further the matter of the Pravda journalist cast in the House of Commons?" At the time I did not consider that this call came from the CBC, and I would now like to say that I hope indeed that it did not come from the CBC. But I was told that if I did pursue the case, the CBC would not hesitate to paint me-again I quote the exact words used- as a "McCarthyite" and "screwball". I was also advised that if I doubted the authenticity of the phone call, I would merely have to proceed to raise the matter in the House and I would quickly become aware of what the CBC would do to me.
At the time of this call I advised two members of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of having received it: I advised, last Thursday, CBC press gallery member John Drewery, for whom I have the greatest respect, and later CBC newsman Hal Jones. In other words, details of the telephone call were a matter of record with the CBC five days before Mr. Picard did precisely what the caller warned me would happen.
Last night, Mr. Picard's monopoly statement also interfered with my privileges in that the direct implication was that I was committing a serious offence by raising a matter here unless-and I quote his word-"illegal" acts are involved. Aside from the fact that it is the privilege of a member to raise any matter, within reason, in this House, I consider it my right and privilege to raise a matter that, while it may or may not have criminal or illegal implications, certainly does have moral and ethical implications. After all, this is a question that deals with national security, as proved by the government itself by the mere fact that it has denied Mr. Geivandov's re-entry into Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a senior public servant has misused government-owned news media in an attempt to intimidate me in exercising my rights and privileges as a member of the House. If you should consider this a legitimate question of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.

June 18, 1975
Committee Reports
May I conclude by saying that I suggest that tampering with the democratic process such as this fully warrants Mr. Picard's immediate dismissal from office.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other hon. members who wish to participate in the discussion, I might indicate to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) who had given the Chair notice of the problem which he has now exposed in more detail, that ordinarily it would be my intention to reserve judgment on the matter for some time. However, in fairness I must indicate that as a general proposition nothing that anyone says about the conduct or performance, the speech or contribution of any hon. member could in general terms be taken as an interference with his right to speak or to operate as a member of the House of Commons. Indeed, far from restricting what the hon. member has to say about the corporation, its president or its officers, the events have stimulated the hon. member to making further comments.
In other words, rather than reserving my ruling, my decision is that I do not see-nor, with respect, do I expect the hon. member sees-that his privileges as a member of the House of Commons, his right to appear here and to participate fully as an active member of the House, his right to speak and to express his opinions, have in any way been interfered with. Nor do I see that his rights would be interfered with by any commentary, editorial writer, speaker, television president or otherwise throughout the country. No member is subject to such intimidation, and certainly it does not seem to me that the hon. member has been intimidated in theory or in fact. Therefore, I do not consider that a question of privilege is involved.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in both official languages.-Mr. Isabelle.

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages.-Mr. Kaplan.

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, in both official languages.- Mr. Ethier.

(Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table two copies, in both official languages, of the press communique of the interim committee of the board of governors of the international monetary system, and the press communique of the joint ministerial committee of the boards of governors of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on the transfer of real resources to developing countries.


CRIMINAL CODE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-394, to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the bill in question has been on the order paper since June 10. It proposes an amendment to section 613 of the Criminal Code and would prevent the substitution by an appeal court of a conviction for a jury verdict of not guilty. The power to order a new trial where the Crown shows that a substantial error of law has occurred at a jury trial is a sufficient assurance that criminal justice will be administered according to law. The purpose of the bill is to prevent the administration of justice in Canada from coming into disrepute, and to protect the traditional democratic right to trial by jury of our peers which is a heritage of western society.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,590, 2,476, 2,590, 2,598 and 2,621.
June 18, 1975

Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,988, 2,196, 2,197 and 2,271 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	On what date was the Latin America Division of CIDA set up?
2.	On what date was it declared unilingual French?
3.	Who is the Director of this Division and what is his salary?
4.	How many employees of the Division are practicing or were former Roman Catholic priests and what are their qualifications for the job?
5.	How many employees are employed full- and part-time in the Division and what were their previous occupations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The creation of the Latin America Division was approved on September 22, 1972 with effect from July 1, 1972.
2.	It was never declared unilingual French. It was however declared a French-language unit in September, 1973. A French-language unit uses French as its main language of work within the Public Service. Service to the public, however, is always assured in both official languages.
3.	The Director of the division is Mr. Pierre Tanguay, his classification is SX-1 and his salary range is from $27,000 to $32,500.
4.	It is the policy of the Government that answers should not be given to questions that are obviously contrary to the spirit of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
5.	Forty-three employees are employed full-time. There are no part-time employees.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	What is the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces stationed outside Canada (a) in what countries are they stationed (b) what is the strength in each country?
2.	What is the strength of the Armed Forces stationed in Canada?
3.	What is the salary range for (a) officers (b) warrant officers (c) sergeants (d) other ranks?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The strength of the Canadian Armed Forces stationed outside Canada was 7,821 as of March 31, 1975. (a) and (b) see table following Part 3.
2.	70,311 as of March 31, 1975.
3.	(a), (b), (c), and (d)
Insert question No 2476
	Minimum	Maximum
General	*44,000	154,000Lieutenant General	33,000	42,000Major General	29,000	37,000Brigadier General	25,500	32,500Colonel	27,000	30,600Lieutenant Colonel	23,100	26,400Major	19,260	22,620('aptain	14,160	19,200
Order Paper Questions
Lieutenant (Commissioned from
the Ranks)	*11,340	*16,980Lieutenant	7,860	14,340Chief Warrant Officer	16,620	17,940Master Warrant Officer	14,844	16,560Warrant Officer	13,284	15,216Sergeant	11,640	13,896Master Corporal	10,524	12,732Corporal	10,224	12,432Private	4,800	9,000
In addition, there are two specialist trades with 847 members, representing 1.33 per cent of the total strength of the other ranks, who have higher maximum salaries:
('hief Warrant Officer	18,300
Master Warrant Officer	17,100
Warrant Officer	15,996
Sergeant	14,976
Master Corporal	13,812
Corporal	13,512
Total Strength Summary-	-Outside Canada
Country	Total
Australia	8
Austria	1
Belgium	88
Bermuda	95
Britain	188
China	4
Cyprus	797
Czechoslovakia	2
Egypt	877
F ranee	4
Germany	5,111
Ghana	2
India	2
Iran	2
Israel	23
Italy	5
Japan	2
Kenya	10
Korea	2
Lebanon	2
Netherlands	40
N igeria	1
Norway	9
Pakistan	19
Poland	2
Russia	7
Tanzania	2
Turkey	2
United States	512
Yugoslavia	2
Total	7,821


Mr. Cossitt: Did Victor-Levy Beaulieu or Nicole Brossard ever receive grants from the Canada Council or from any other source whatsoever in

June 18, 1975
Order Paper Questions
government and, if so (a) on what dates (b) for what amounts (c) for what purposes?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows: For Victor-Levy Beaulieu: Yes, as concerns the Canada Council. In 1970, a short term grant of $750, to write his fourth novel and to do research on Jack Kerouac; in 1971, an arts grant of $4,000 (of which only a first installment of $1,600, was accepted) to write a book on Jack Kerouac; in 1972, a short term grant of $2,250 to do research and write a book on the amateur writings found in the local libraries and archives of Quebec; in 1973, an arts grant of $4,000 to write a book on Herman Melville and a novel. For Nicole Brossard: Yes, as concerns the Canada Council. In 1969, an arts grant of $3,500 to publish a selection of poems; in 1970, an arts grant of $3,500 to write two books of poems; in 1973, a short term grant of $1,850 to write a novel; in 1975, an arts grant of $6,600 to produce a text on the female body.
Note: In 1975, these two writers were chosen by the Selection Committee for the Governor General's Literary Awards and each therefore received $2,500 from the Canada Council. To my knowledge, neither Victor-Levy Beaulieu nor Nicole Brossard received other grants.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the total amount paid to Canadair for the Argus long range patrol aircraft purchased by the RCAF?
2.	How many were purchased and what was the unit cost?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The total amount was $158,130,640.
2. The total number purchased was 33. The unit cost (flyaway cost) was $5,513,000.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What specific criteria were considered in the decision to appoint Mr. Michael Pitfield to the position of Clerk of the Privy Council?
2.	Were other persons considered and, if so (a) how many (b) were they career public servants (c) what particular characteristics did Mr. Pitfield possess which caused him to be selected?
3.	What functions now performed by the official holding the position of Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations were performed by the official holding the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, prior to the appointment of Mr. Pitfield and, in each case, for what reason was the function transferred?
4.	What officers or offices of the Privy Council Office which now report to the official occupying the position of Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations reported to the official holding the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet prior to the appointment of Mr. Pitfield and, in each case, for what reason was the change made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. See Part 3 of reply to Question 376 answered December 18, 1974, Hansard No. 56, page 2349.
2. See reply to Question 513 answered November 13, 1974, Hansard No. 31, page 1282.

3.	See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for Monday, May 12, 1975 (pages 33:14, 33:15 and Appendix "N").
4.	See answer to 3 above.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What are the distinctive conditions made in considering the sale of surplus public assets by CADC for amounts of (a) $10,000 (b) $500,000?
2.	For what reason are there no distinctive conditions outlined as a part of the Corporation's call to tender for amounts exceeding $500,000?
Return tabled.



RATIO OF NUMBER OF MAN-DAYS LOST AS A RESULT OF STRIKES

Mr. Stevens: For each year 1967 to 1974 inclusive, what was the ratio of the number of man-days lost due to all legal and illegal strikes and walkouts to the number of man-days worked within the public service, including departments, agencies and Crown corporations?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-MAN-DAYS LOST A9 A RESULT OF STRIKES

Mr. Stevens: For each year 1967 to 1974 inclusive, what was the number of man-days lost in the public service, including departments,- agencies and Crown corporations, due to (a) illegal walkouts (b) legal strikes, including other legal methods in which services are withdrawn as a tool of collective bargaining (c) all legal and illegal strikes and walkouts?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-EMPLOYMENT OF MR. A. E. GOTLIEB AND MR. RICHARD TAIT

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	(a) During what years did Mr. A. E. Gotlieb serve in the Department of External Affairs (b) on what date did he become Deputy Minister of Manpower and Immigration (c) what is his present salary range?
2.	(a) During what years did Mr. Richard Tait serve in the Department of External Affairs (b) on what date did he become Chairman of the Task Force "Immigration and Population Study", attached to the Department of Manpower and Immigration (c) what is his present salary range?
3.	What was the specific purpose of the trip to Mexico in the month of March 1975, by Mr. A. E. Gotlieb and Mr. Richard Tait and what was the total cost to the Crown of this trip?
4.	Did Mrs. Janis Tait enter into contractual agreements with the Department of the Environment and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were the total sums of money paid to her under such arrangements in each fiscal year 1973-74 and 1974-75 (c) what were her responsibilities during these years and what were her qualifications for each assignment?
5.	Since April 1, 1973, on what date or dates did Mrs. Sondra Gotlieb enter into a contractual arrangement with the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism or any other department, ministry or agency and, in
June 18, 1975

each case (a) what was the name of the department, ministry or agency (b) what was the purpose of the contractual arrangement (c) what was the amount of money involved (d) what steps were taken to ensure that any copyright would be in the name of the Crown?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 35 and 45?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.
COPIES OF PAPERS RELATING TO OPERATION OF ECONAIR Motion No. 35-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of papers, studies, reports and financial statements relating to the operation of Econair since its inception.
Motion No. 35.


John Mercer Reid: Papers, studies, reports and financial statements related to the operation of Econair, a division of Venturex Ltd., a subsidiary of Canadian National Realties Ltd., and associated with Air Canada, form part of the public inquiry being conducted by the hon. Mr. Justice W. Estey and therefore should not be produced.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in my view, that should in no way inhibit the tabling of these documents. Furthermore, let me point out that this question was placed on the order paper on March 7.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is transferred for debate.



COPY OF AGREEMENT RELATING TO NELSON RIVER POWER PROJECT, MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the 1962 agreement between the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada with respect to the Nelson River Power Project in the Province of Manitoba.
Motion No. 45.
John Mercer Reid: There is no 1962 agreement between the governments of Canada and Manitoba relating to the Nelson River power project in Manitoba. However, a 1963 agreement between the governments of Canada and Manitoba relating to surveys and studies of the Nelson River power potential was tabled on December
Grain Advance Payments
21, 1963, sessional paper No. 276. I would, therefore, respectfully request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might postpone that decision. The hon. member may be satisfied with one and the same document.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will be stood for consideration at a later date; is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-53, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, No. 2, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, very briefly, that this bill does two particular things which will be of advantage to prairie farmers taking cash advances on their grain. In the first place, it deals with the standby power which was previously bestowed on the governor in council to bring into play cash advances on unharvested grain when that grain remained under the snow in the western fields. We previously increased by a multiple of 21/2 the amounts of cash advances which were possible in relation to grain generally and the maximum cash advances which were possible. In this case, we are likewise multiplying by 2'A the amounts of advances and the maximum which would be available in the case of unharvested grain, should that section be brought into effect in any given year by the governor in council.
In addition, the other purpose of the bill, and one to which the Canadian Wheat Board attaches a good deal of importance, is to allow for the deduction of money in regard to cash advances when grain is delivered otherwise than to the Canadian Wheat Board, with the possibility now of farmers delivering either to the Canadian Wheat Board or to others. For purposes of the domestic market, it is important that the amount which has been advanced can be taken from the amount received for the grain in either case. With the higher limits of cash advances and the possibility of multiples of those limits in the case where there are more producers than one, the need to have a direct recovery when grain is delivered is very clear.
Therefore, the Canadian Wheat Board and also the various companies involved in administering the bill feel it very important that it be clear that the deduction can be taken. In fact, without this we have the rather strange situation where, should a farmer deliver his wheat, barley or oats to a buyer other than the board and then wish to

June 18, 1975
Grain Advance Payments
apply some of that money to the cash advance previously taken, previous action we have taken in regard to cash advances might have required him to pay interest on the advance he had taken. This, therefore, will avoid that problem as well.
I therefore commend these changes to hon. members. I understand that there is a general willingness to see this bill disposed of at all stages here; I am thinking of the proposition that the matter might be referred to a committee of the whole rather than to a standing committee. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is shaking his head. If that is not the general agreement, I will leave the matter there and simply commend the bill to the attention of hon. members.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak about this bill. In a general way we in our party agree to the amendments which have been brought forward. It is well-known political history that a bill such as this was originally brought forward when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker) formed the government. It has been one of the most useful pieces of legislation for the western farmer. It has sometimes been forgotten by many people how important it has been.
In a general way I welcome these amendments. Particularly valuable are those dealing with damp and tough grain. The situation becomes especially bad in a harvest year, and if quotas are such that grain cannot be delivered for drying, farmers are short of cash and they are faced with difficult decisions. If they do not thresh their grain, they run the risk of losing it completely when it becomes snow-covered while they wait for dry weather which may never arrive. If they proceed to harvest the grain when it is tough and damp, it is saved, but the farmers are faced with the problem of drying it and this becomes an expensive proposition. With the rapid rise in the price of propane which is used for drying, this is no small matter. At 10 cents a bushel, I doubt if it begins to cover the cost of drying damp grain. This might well be an area where the Department of Agriculture research group could investigate procedures which would reduce the cost of drying grain, such as the use of solar energy which has apparently achieved considerable success in the United States and has significantly reduced the cost.
I concur with the amendment dealing with raising the amount of money available when the producer cannot harvest due to inclement weather, that is, when the grain is under snow. On a substantial number of occasions grain must stay in the field over winter and farmers are hard pressed to meet their obligations when this occurs. I would like to ask the minister, when he comments finally on the bill on second reading, to give us an indication as to the date on which a farmer can apply for snow damage and over-wintering damage indemnity. It is important that this date be known. With regard to the collection of money from the cash advance through the change in selling grain for feed grains, on-board grains, I think this meets with general agreement. It follows that it is necessary under the present system of allowing the farmer to sell so-called off-board.
The philosophy of the bill is good. By and large, in contrast with many government actions, many govern-

ment boards, and so on, which are involved in agricultural marketing, this does not particularly upset the marketing of grain and does not increase the tendency for excess production when surplus grain stocks exist. It merely allows the farmer to procure cash when through no fault of his own the market as represented by the Canadian Wheat Board is not able to allow him to deliver his grain. This is indeed a necessity and corollary to the orderly marketing system which the institution of the Canadian Wheat Board has made necessary. The fact is that the grains not covered by the Canadian Wheat Board, rape-seed and flax, are sometimes unable to be shipped because of the necessity of control of the transportation of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board.
I would like to discuss the effect and the relationship this bill will have on the export of Canadian grain and our relationship with the rest of the world so far as food is concerned. Great and profound changes in our economy are taking place and it seems certain that the production of food and its export from Canada are in for some fundamental and radical changes. After a period of very high prices a year ago, farmers are noticing that the price of wheat has dropped below $3 in the futures market on the Chicago exchange, which is the bell-wether which largely sets the selling price of wheat around the world, including the selling price of the Canadian Wheat Board. This comes at a time of vastly increased costs in the production of grain. For example, nitrogen fertilizer now costs over $200 per ton. That cost has more than doubled in the last couple of years, and it is often in short supply.
In the world at large, the amount of food available has assumed new significance. The general feeling is that the world only nearly escaped serious food shortages following the disastrous crops in 1972 and only now are food stocks being replenished to some extent. This world shortage of food gives rise to suggestions that the western world, especially the United States, should use its vast food surplus as a means of diplomacy and that it should match the OPEC countries in their success in raising oil prices from $3 to $12 per barrel; and the OPEC countries hope to increase further the price this fall.
Many proponents of Canada's activity in the world consider food to be of importance. In a speech by Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie of CIDA, in Vancouver in 1974, he outlined the factors which govern fundamental food problems in the world, particularly grain problems. He pointed out that hunger is not a new visitation upon mankind, it has been around since the human race began, but in the last 50 years population growth has increased at a fantastic rate. He suggested, backed by statistics, that the world population increases by 80 million per year and in our more affluent society the amount of food needed or consumed also increases. He pointed out that in relative terms the proportion of hungry people in the world has remained stable at 10 per cent to 15 per cent, and this is due to the fact that in the past decade the world's food supply has increased by about 2.7 per cent.
Demographers and agronomists are asking themselves whether the world's food supply can be increased to take care of the expanding population. There are those who would suggest that Canada should make an all-out effort in the production of food for the developing world. Pre-
June 18, 1975

sumably, this bill in some small measure will assist our food production but I doubt if it will solve all the problems or if it will be our best contribution to the world. It has long been my opinion that the world can only feed itself on what it can produce in its worst crop year. Furthermore, if the situation continues as at present, there will almost certainly be severe crop shortages in various parts of the world and perhaps in the whole global village in certain years.
Much has been made of the possibility that food poduc-tion could be increased without end to feed the world's population. To me such a possibility seems very remote. We have heard from many people about the green revolution and about how new varieties, fertilizers and tillage methods would gradually increase world production, particularly of the stable grains that are dealt with in the amendment. But already there are serious doubts about many of these optimistic projections. Many of the new varieties of grain, drawn from their ancient ancestors on the banks of the Euphrates, have proved susceptible to the changed climatic conditions. Plant scientists are again warning us that many of the new varieties do not do well if climatic conditions are not right, and there is a tendency to return to the more hardy but lower yielding varieties.
Then, again, the proponents of the green revolution felt there was unlimited fertilizer available at low cost. But again this is proving doubtful. The rapid rise in oil prices has greatly increased the cost of nitrogen and, indeed, has made it unavailable in many parts of the world. Many people now doubt the value of synthetic fertilizers and some are advocating the return to natural farming. This means curtailing production to some extent.
These amendments would help to stabilize our grain production on the prairies, but in my opinion it would not be a good thing to use prairie grain as an international tool to be used politically by the government. We can only assume that the appointment of the deputy minister of agriculture, a person not versed in agriculture but who has had a long career with CIDA, was made with a view to using the export of food as a political tool. As the only food Canada exports is western grain, obviously that industry would be affected. Madam Speaker, I would caution against the use of food as a political tool.
Many people in Canada and in this House feel that the western grain industry can produce any amount of food to be used in a political way. We have read the grandiose ideas in the newspapers about producing food, but grain is the only large-scale food export of this country. The United States is adopting a governmental "hands off" approach to agriculture-and that is a country with an enormous capacity to produce everything from widgets and matches to aeroplanes-but it is still expecting to export $17 billion worth of food in the coming year. Food is one of its main foreign exchange earners.
On the other hand, Canada seems to be going the opposite route. The dairy industry is almost completely closed at the border, and the egg industry is fast approaching this situation; the institution of quotas on American eggs will have to be met by quotas on Canadian eggs at the United States border. The border is now closed to cattle and hogs.
Grain Advance Payments
This will have an effect on the administration of this bill. As it was to protect the Canadian producer, in the first place, that the ban on American imports was raised, it now seems that it would not be in the American interest to lift the ban on Canadian exports of cattle and hogs until the Canadian cattle population drops, perhaps in a couple of years.
Madam Speaker, in speaking on this bill I think we have to take care that the grain industry does not get into the position, in its export markets, where it becomes a political weapon, or that we do not have any grandiose ideas that Canada can somehow feed the world on a welfare basis. We should make sure that our grain exports get to our markets before embarking on any great CIDA programs. The concern of western grain growers cannot be any more highlighted than by statements from Mr. Ivan McMillan, president of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association, who has said that the 1974-75 export year has been a disaster and that growers have lost millions of dollars not only in terms of lost sales but in added storage, interest and demurrage charges and what may very well be permanently lost export markets.
In the Palliser submission to Chief Justice Bayda in April, 1975, it was estimated that we would have a carryover of 400 million bushels of wheat at the end of July, as opposed to the Wheat Board's estimate of 230 million bushels, and a shortfall in sales of 170 million bushels. Assuming that these 170 million bushels can be sold later-and this is not assured-the cost of carrying it has been worked out at $20 million, interest $54 million, and if there is a price drop of $1.50 or $2 all this would come to a total of $261 million. As it is unlikely that these 170 million bushels will be sold, we are looking at a loss of close to $1 billion. With the balance of payments deficit running at $5 billion or $6 billion, I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) would be glad of that extra $1 billion for his budget.
The grain trade is reliably estimating that because of our inability to deliver on this year's contracts we have lost 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the Japanese market, up to 50 per cent in the United Kingdom and substantial reductions in our China market. With the initial prospects not being very promising, initial prices are down at the old level of some years ago and the outlook for the grain producers is not all that rosy. Indeed, if prices on world markets do not improve for wheat, with the increase in the input costs of fertilizers, herbicides and all the rest, grain farmers will be back to the depression of 1968-70.
The Canadian export performance in the past year was very disappointing. The farmer did his part by producing the grain, even in the face of very difficult weather, but the handling system broke down. No small measure of this breakdown can be attributed to the inept handling by this government of the grain handling strikes. I am sure that the Minister of Finance would like to have had the $260 million worth of wheat that was not exported and which, if it had been paid for, would have brought us another $1 billion. It is time this government applied itself to the problems of our transportation system so that we can get the grain out on time and meet our commitments, because we are losing our reputation in the world as a reliable grain exporter.

June 18, 1975
Grain Advance Payments
In closing, Madam Speaker, I should like to say that this party supports the amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, in response to the smiles that I see on a few faces because I am taking the floor with respect to this bill, I should like to point out, as all hon. members are aware, that the Standing Committee on Agriculture is on one of its trips out west and our farm spokesmen are with it. That is the reason the minister responsible for the Wheat Board saw me shaking my head a few minutes ago when it was suggested that this bill might be put through all stages here on the floor of the House this afternoon. It is precisely because members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture are away today that I think it would be better for the normal routine to be followed and for this bill to be sent to the standing committee after second reading.
Generally speaking, we are prepared to support the bill. As its title makes clear, it is the second amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act which the government is proposing this year. The first one increased the maximum advance payment for grain delivered under a permit book from $6,000 to $15,000 in the case of an individual producer, to $30,000 in the case of a corporation, partnership or co-operative with two members, and to $45,000 in the case of a multi-farm unit of three or more. As hon. members are aware, we supported that legislation, Bill C-10, which was introduced earlier in the present session.
The bill before us, Bill C-53, does two things, as the minister said. It raises by 2lA times the maximum advance which a producer may obtain to finance the drying of damp or tough grain, or with respect to unthreshed grain. We agree that in present circumstances these higher limits are more realistic and we are prepared to support that part of the bill.
We shall also support the other part of the bill; but, Madam Speaker, it raises issues which we think ought to be discussed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. That other part is to be found in the clauses of the bill which authorize, in respect of off-board sales, the deduction and remittance to the Canadian Wheat Board of amounts which the board should be able to collect to cover outstanding cash advances made by the Canadian Wheat Board.
This is a straightforward and welcome proposal, but it has been made necessary because of the new policy for the marketing of domestic feed grains. This policy has been continuously in effect since 1974. Its effect has been to remove domestic feed grains from the exclusive control of the Canadian Wheat Board. In our view, this opens the way for exploitation by the private grain trade and the Winnipeg commodity exchange. This second part of the bill is thus consequential to that change in policy. We think that aspects of that policy and this bill's relationship to it should be discussed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. We are prepared this afternoon to agree to the second reading of Bill C-53, but we think it should follow the ordinary course and be sent to the standing committee.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the absence of our agriculture committee representative who is away on a trip, as just mentioned by the previous speaker, I wish to say a few words on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada concerning Bill C-53.
I feel that the bill is a follow-up of sorts on former Bill C-10 which considerably increased advance payments that were made effective at the beginning of 1957, 1958 and 1959. In my opinion, this afternoon's bill, in addition to increasing to $30,000 the advance payments of $6,500-$15,-000 for a farm operated by relatives, brothers and sisters, also deals with a new situation, that of a farmer who has damp or unthreshed grain. For such a situation, the bill makes the following provision:
This amendment would increase the maximum advance payment a producer may obtain to finance the drying of damp or though grain from the lesser of 10(p a bushel or $600 to the lesser of 25 cents a bushel or $1,500.
In my opinion, this represents a great improvement for western farmers, who will finally have substantial aid for drying their grain. The same applies in the bill in the case of unthreshed grain, as may be noted by the following provision:
This amendment would increase the maximum amount of advance payment under the Act that a producer may obtain on unthreshed grain from $3,000 to $7,500.
Madam Speaker, we are in favour of both amendments, and equally in favour of the third amendment which authorizes payment, to the board, of a portion of a producer's receipts for grain delivered to a licensed elevator. I think it is the first time I witness such an amendment being submitted, but on the other hand, I believe it is normal for the board to be able to get something from the producer who is protected by the board and has the advantage of delivering his grain other than through the board.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we are in favour of this bill and, I repeat, we are happy for western farmers and we hope that similar amendments will be submitted for eastern farmers with regard to their regular production.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker,
before the bill is sent to committee I should like to say a few words to indicate my support for it. It will help producers in areas affected by unfavourable weather conditions and thus unable to harvest their crops. To that extent, this legislation will be helpful. I hope farmers will not need to avail themselves of it, although considering the lateness of the season this year, some may.
We have not discussed a wheat bill for some time. Therefore, I hope the minister will extend the scope of this debate and tell the House the present state of the world grain industry. Can he say, from his vantage point, what the prospects are for the future, especially for Canadian producers? I ask this question because one hears differences of opinion expressed about the condition of the grain market. Some quarters report that demand is still fairly strong, or it was strong until fairly recently. We are told that sales have been fairly brisk. Yet it is apparent that there has been a decline both in demand and in price.
June 18, 1975

We hear the myth perpetuated that stocks are in short supply.
Can the minister explain, for example, why the price of wheat has been falling steadily since the beginning of 1975? Since the beginning of this year, the price of No. 1 Canadian western wheat has dropped by about $1.50 a bushel. Many grain producers cannot understand this. They have been led to believe that global supplies remain almost as tight as they were one year ago. Many export buyers are reportedly taking lower grades than they normally would buy, partly because of price but mainly because the grains they prefer are not available.
We read conflicting reports coming from the United States. The United States department of agriculture insists that that country's wheat supplies are 17 per cent higher than they were a year ago, although other grain stocks are down by 26 per cent. The commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board does not think that supplies are now as plentiful as United States authorities have indicated. It creates confusion in the minds of producers, making it very difficult for them to rationalize the decline in prices, when these reports are made. I had hoped the minister would have outlined to the House what the future holds with regard to grain marketing in this country and, indeed, in the world.
We have suffered severely as a result of inability to meet our grain commitments. Canada has lost its good reputation as a reliable exporter of grain. Naturally, the labour situation has had a great effect on this situation. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost by the producers because of our inability to deliver. Losses have occurred as a result of reduction in price and the accumulation of demurrage costs.
As the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) pointed out, the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association referred to the 1974-75 export year as a disaster for prairie grain growers. It is interesting to note, over the past three years, the dramatic decline in our export of all grains. In 1972 we exported 572 million bushels, which included 364 million bushels of wheat. In 1973 we exported 416 million bushels, of which 249 million were wheat. In 1974 we dropped to 384 million bushels, of which 230 million were wheat. Therefore, there has been a rather dramatic decline.
The only compensating factor is that the prices for 1974 were at a fairly high level. Of course, if we are on the decline in terms of our total market penetration, together with a decline in prices, it certainly spells havoc for the western producers in terms of gross income and net income. I quote from the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association Newsletter No. 40 of June, 1975:
It is reliably estimated that because of our inability to deliver on this year's contracts, we have permanently lost 20-25 per cent of the Japanese market; up to 50 per cent in the United Kingdom, and "substantial reductions" in purchases by China-three of Canada's biggest customers.
The prospects for 1975-76 are not promising. Price guarantees for the coming year are set at $2.25 for wheat and $1.65 for barley. Reduced sales at lower prices are forecast. When combined with predictions of high inflation rates, high wage demands and further work stoppages, it is not a rosy picture.
Grain Advance Payments
I hoped the minister in charge of the Wheat Board might have been able to offer some ray of hope to dispel that gloomy picture at this stage, because this will probably be the last grain bill we will deal with before this parliament recesses. It will certainly be the last grain bill before this crop year comes to an end. We should also look at the operations of Canada's domestic feed grain operations. It is reported as follows in the James Richardson and Son, Limited, Grain Letter No. 7 of May 8:
Canada's new domestic feed grain policy may be heading for some problems, unforeseen at the time of its inception last August. Because international feed gain prices have dropped rather abruptly in the past few months, bid prices for western grain have been inadequate to compete with the presently prevailing initial payments offered by the Canadian Wheat Board. As a result, there has been a decided swing to deliveries by producers to the board, which is likely to continue at least until July 31 when the new lower initial payments take effect, or unless market prices improve. In any case, there currently exists a rapid dwindling of available feed grains in the open market. To date the Wheat Board have chosen not to be participants in the market even though it is evident that there are higher prices prevailing domestically than for export.
That is a rather disconcerting anomaly in this country: we have a pricing situation where feed grain prices are higher domestically than for export. We sell our feed grains to Japan at less than the price we charge domestically. Therefore, we are not in a healthy situation. I hoped the minister would give us the benefit of his knowledge of the grain trade and his association with the Canadian Wheat Board to a very close degree, and would outline to the House and the country the prospects as we go into a new crop year.
All this means that we are looking at lower returns and increased input costs. The grain growers of this country are faced with a very serious cost-price squeeze. In every area in the production, marketing and movement of grains there is a very dramatic escalation of costs. For example, the cost of handling grain in this country in the past 12 months has risen from 3.8 cents a bushel to 16.75 cents-a tremendous increase. Fertilizer prices have increased by 53 per cent. In the past 12 months, weed killers and weed sprays have increased by 79 per cent. Twine has increased, from an already high level, by 30 per cent. There have also been increases in fuel costs, machinery costs, parts and labour. The agricultural specialist with the Bank of Montreal, Mr. Gibb, states that with a yield of 25 bushels per acre, a farmer will have to realize a minimum of $3 a bushel in order to break even. Of course, much of the utility grade that we are selling today is yielding that figure, if not less, so the prospects are not promising.
While we welcome this legislation, while it is needed and the concept of the advance is good, it does not serve as a logical substitute for an aggressive marketing policy. Nor does it serve as a substitute for getting our grain to the ports and loaded on the ships in time. It does not serve as a substitute for enhancing or improving Canada's reliability as a good supplier of export grains.
These are the issues to which this government should be addressing itself. I sincerely hope it will get on with the job of solving labour disruptions in this country. There are 30 or 35 unions which can disrupt the movement of grain at any given time. I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has announced that there are consultations going on at the present time to establish a means of overcoming

June 18, 1975
Grain Advance Payments
the constant disruptions in the movement of grain. I have never experienced such frustration and anger as that which prevailed among producers in this country this year because of inability to move our products to market. Ships tied up in the port of Vancouver caused huge demurrage costs. The price of grain declined day by day. This resulted in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Canadian producer.
So though we are supporting this legislation, let us serve a warning on the minister to get on with the job of improving the reliability of the grain handling and grain moving system. This is of the greatest importance, since we need export markets and the prompt movement of grain to pay off the cash advances which will be available to producers under the terms of the bill before us.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up much of the time of the House this afternoon. We on our side were willing to let the bill go through all stages today. However, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has taken a different position. I understand his point of view and do not dissent from it. I might point out, though, that clause 1 provides for a method of recovery of moneys advanced under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, which leads me to discuss a matter about which the minister and I have had correspondence in the past.
Up in the northern part of western Canada, particularly in the northern part of Alberta, there 'was a series of difficult harvests for a number of years due to adverse weather conditions. People I knew from personal observation to be good farmers found themselves in the position of having no cash flow at all; the weather during the seeding season had been bad and the fall was marked by heavy rain, snowfall and early frost. I recall during the election of 1972, I think it was, driving around my constituency and seeing farmers combining at midnight though they knew the grain recovered would be so damp as to be almost useless. But they were driven to extract whatever they could from their farming operations during the year.
I know that in the farming community there are some who deliberately default on their obligations, as there are in all quarters of society, but it has been my experience not only as a member of parliament but as a resident of the north who was a lawyer for a great many years that the percentage of farmers defaulting is very small indeed. To confirm this we need only look at the figures relating to the operation of this act generally, to the farm credit legislation and to other legislation under which the government guarantees loans which farmers take out through banks and other financial institutions.
Nevertheless, I find that over the years the Canadian Wheat Board has been engaged in what I can only describe as wholesale persecution. I do not mean this in the sense that they deliberately set out to persecute these farmers, but I do say the board failed to ascertain the reasons behind defaults in repayment when they occurred, made little or no attempt to inquire as to the character or record of the farmers concerned, and appeared unconcerned that these were individuals who paid their bills when they were able to do so. I found, to my dismay, that the court

authorities had issued a large number of writs. I found the bailiff going around serving these writs at considerable cost to the farmers concerned. Actions were embarked upon by the board at a time of year when it must have known that farmers, in these circumstances, would have no money with which to pay these accounts.
The issue of the writ was followed in due course by the issuance of a default demand. It would have been possible under the court procedures in my province for the farmer concerned to have filed a demand for information and a statement of defence and by these means to have stalled the proceedings for some time. But this would have meant the added cost of engaging a solicitor and would have substantially added to the amount the Wheat Board would have been able to claim against them. Naturally, they let these cases go by default. In many instances, in response to appeals I received I wrote letters to the minister. The minister had no recourse other than to refer these matters to the Wheat Board, and the answer from the Wheat Board was that there was nothing they could, or would, do.
Mr. Speaker, I consider that the actions of the board in these cases were severe, harsh and arbitrary. As such, they are deserving of a measure of censure. I recognize that the board has an obligation to administer the act, to see that payments are properly made and that people do not deliberately evade their responsibilities. But from personal experience and observation over a number of years I believe the actions of the Wheat Board with regard to the recovery of advances made under this legislation have been most unfair. I am not aware of instances where judgment was followed by execution or seizure, but I personally investigated very many cases; I admit that in one or two cases the board was justified in taking action, but in 90 per cent of the cases the action taken was very unfair and I believe the board should be censured for it.
I do not know whether the board was following instructions from the government or from the minister, or whether it had set out a policy with regard to these actions, but farmers have often said to me, "I wonder whether the federal government and its agencies are as zealous, harsh and arbitrary when collecting from some of their friends in industry and business." They compare their situation with that of certain people in the field of labour, to whom the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has referred, where workers involved in the loading and transportation of grain seem to get preferred treatment. I do not object to that, but I suggest that when you put one alongside the other you will see there are very marked differences. This is one of the reasons people in the agricultural community are suspicious and angered about the administration of this government in respect of agriculture.
I wonder what we would see in the future, if we could look into a crystal ball, regarding the prosecutions which are now being carried out in connection with harbour dredging. I should like to polish up my crystal ball and peer into the future to see how the federal government will treat its friends who are involved in this gouging of the public purse. I wonder if the government will take the action it will be entitled to take against these people if the evidence supports the allegations and there is proof that these individuals are guilty of the criminal offence of
June 18, 1975

extracting large sums of money from the Canadian public by improper methods. I will be watching with interest to discover what instructions will be given regarding the recovery of money in the cases at hand.
I will leave this issue with the minister, asking him to call my views to the attention of the Wheat Board. I do not ask the Wheat Board or those involved in the recovery of these advances to extend leniency to people who are able to pay and should pay. It is my experience-I end on the same note as I started-that people involved in 12 to 14-hour days as agriculturalists, producing and harvesting crops, basically pay their debts. I think it is very unfair, under these conditions, for the Canadian Wheat Board to go ahead with wholesale prosecutions and imposition of costs without making a careful investigation of each case.
I know the minister will tell me there were investigations, but I made it a point to find out the extent to which the Wheat Board went to scrutinize and examine each case to determine the facts. These are things that cannot be done by correspondence; it is necessary to make a very careful observation and I think this was not done in most cases. I know many of these farmers personally. Last year was the first time for many years there was not only a good crop but an opportunity to harvest the crop and obtain a fair cash flow. Many of these people were compelled to pay the original debt, a very large amount of interest and an excessive measure of cost. I think this is unfair, under the circumstances.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 11, consideration of Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and motion No. 4 (Mr. Towers for Mr. Horner).
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), I should like to speak briefly on this amendment which is:
That Bill C-50, an act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be amended by deleting subclause 5(2) between lines 10 to 18 on page 4.
The hon. member for Crowfoot was voicing the feeling that the board could in fact institute supply management, going beyond the powers set up in the act, to stabilize agricultural commodities. I think it is very important that this matter be at least discussed. I did not have the benefit
Agricultural Stabilization Act
of being on the committee to hear the discussion. When governments set up boards of this kind, they are given certain powers to be exercised in a certain way. This board is to exercise its powers to stabilize the price of agricultural commodities. Prices can be stabilized in various ways. The classic way in the past, which I think this measure pursues, is by payments to the producers when the price of a commodity falls below a certain level. The purpose of such payments is to prevent abnormal hardship. Supposedly, the price falls below the cost of production and this results in an oversupply; the government then intervenes to prevent the growers from a disastrous situation, thus reducing the hardship and perhaps even preventing many of the producers from going into bankruptcy.
There are other ways of stabilizing commodity prices. If a commodity is in oversupply it can be stabilized by reducing production or reducing the amount of the commodity reaching the market. If a sufficient quantity of the commodity is not allowed to reach the market; perhaps by means of a quota system, then the commodity price is indirectly stabilized. The price would then presumably rise and there would be no payout by the government. I think what the hon. member for Crowfoot had in mind was preventing the board from moving in this latter way instead of relying on price assistance to stabilize commodity prices. Perhaps he felt the board might somehow become involved in supply management which is something the legislation does not give it the power to do.
It is my understanding that there have been discussions in this regard. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) feels this bill does not give the board the powers which the hon. member fears and to which his amendment relates. I think this is a very real fear and it is important that the matter be clarified. If the hon. member's amendment were accepted, then certainly no government board or agency could enter into supply management unless and until additional legislation had been passed in this House. I ask hon. members to bear in mind the great struggle we had with Bill C-176, which would have imposed marketing boards at the will of the governor in council whenever the prime minister and his cabinet decided to name certain commodities.
I think it is extremely important that the minister clarify the powers of the bill as presently written, in order to make sure the fears of the hon. member for Crowfoot are not realized and an agricultural board, acting on its own, could not enter the supply management field in regard to a given commodity. I believe the House and the producers of this country do not want supply management marketing unless the farmers agree to it. This is the position taken not only by me but by the rest of my party.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this amendment. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) indicated in his speech here, as well as in committee, that we need have no fear that he would overextend his powers and become a dictator so far as Canadian agriculture is concerned. That may very well be. I think the Minister of Agriculture is an honourable man and an honourable Minister of Agriculture, but having said that it

June 18, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
is quite clear that the powers of the minister can be exercised if he sees fit. I remind the House that notwithstanding the popularity of the Minister of Agriculture at the present time and his strength in the Liberal Party, he will not be Minister of Agriculture forever and a day. Having said that, as a safeguard I think this particular provision of the bill should be eliminated. If the minister does not really intend to use these powers to their full extent, then surely there is not much point in their being in the bill.
I notice that the minister of agriculture of the province of Ontario also expressed some reservations about these tremendous powers given the minister and about the fact that there are no provisions eliminating toploading. While I am sure we appreciate the minister's sincerity and his approach to agriculture, I think this bill is vague in many respects. This particular provision provides far too much cabinet discretion. I think it gives the federal authorities the opportunity, indeed the mandate, to manipulate a commodity at will.
Certainly, I find no difficulty in supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), notwithstanding the assurances given by the Minister of Agriculture. As I say, if the minister is honest and sincere when he says these powers are not really needed, and that they will not be used in a dictatorial fashion-which is precisely what we on this side of the House are afraid of-then why not withdraw the powers? I think this piece of legislation could pass all stages quite easily today if the minister agreed to do that.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Eugene Whelan: that the bill as reported be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gerald William Baldwin: Next sitting of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the House.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there might be consent to take the report stage of Bill C-62 which was reported back today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid). Does the House consent to proceed to the consideration of Bill C-62 which was reported today?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we would have no objection. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary or the minister can advise whether amendments were made to the bill in committee. If not, there will be no need for a reprint. I see the minister shaking his head, so I assume there are no amendments.


John Mercer Reid: That is right.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then we will see the bill in its original, pristine, pure form.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-62, to amend the Old Age Security Act, to repeal the Old Age Assistance Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time. By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister is going to make a speech explaining some of the defects which those of us on this side of the House pointed out to him on second reading.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the House for having accepted to consider this bill today even if it was only reported this afternoon. The bill has been thoroughly and carefully discussed during two sittings of the committee. As stated by the member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), some comments have been made on the possibility of extending the scope of the bill.
As I said on second reading and also before the committee, the purpose of that bill is quite specific and is meant to cope with a rather difficult condition at the present time, that is-the case of spouses one of whom is pensioned and the other aged between 60 and 65 years of age is needy. Indeed, at the present time, under such circum-
June 18, 1975

stances, the spouse under 65 and who is needy must apply for social welfare administered by the provinces, while the other spouse over 65 years of age receives old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from the federal government.
As I said during consideration in committee, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that in the future, at least for individuals over 60, no couple will have to provide for their needs solely on one pension. From now on, the couple will be considered as eligible for the guaranteed income supplement and the old age security pension for the spouse over 65 while the other will receive what we have called the spouse's allowance which will be substantially equivalent to what that person would be entitled to if both were over 65.
As I said, we are therefore seeking to remedy the situation which is now causing great hardship to such couples. Second, we aim at rationalizing the social security administration in Canada today. This in fact is part of efforts we have been making for two years to improve the social security systems in Canada. Indeed, as I said earlier, we are now in a situation where one spouse is relying on the federal system while the other must depend on the provincial system, even if the federal government pays 50 per cent of the provincial expenditures. It is therefore the opinion of the government that it would be advantageous to rationalize our administration so that the couple in that situation could deal with only one administration; at the same time, in most cases, that couple should qualify for higher benefits than those to which it is now entitled, even when combining provincial and federal allowances.
Some members of the House, some members of the committee suggested a much greater extension of the provisions of the act. For instance, that all single persons as well as all widows and widowers in need should be included. In short, what those members were proposing was the extension of the old age security or at least the guaranteed income supplement to all Canadians 60 years of age and over. The government's answer to that question is clear. Once again, the purpose of the bill is to solve the problem of couples where one spouse is more than 65 years old and the other, between 60 and 64. The purpose of the bill is not to apply the guaranteed income supplement to all persons from 60 to 64 years of age.
The government's position is that a guaranteed income supplement system must be established. The government supports a form of guaranteed income which must not, however, apply only to a limited group, to an age group, but to all persons in need, whatever their age, the specific situation in which they are, which means in practice, the establishment of a guaranteed income system in two parts, one of which would provide for an income support system for all persons who are unable to work or secure employment for lack of a suitable job within a reasonable distance from their places of residence, and on the other hand, an income supplement scheme to help underprivileged workers continue to earn a living, while making sure that these workers are never in a situation where they would get more as income support or social welfare recipients than as regular workers.
This is the policy we have been discussing with the provinces for the past two years or so, and as I mentioned
Old Age Security Act
in committee, the government has proposed introducing as early as next year the income support scheme and, some time later, the income supplement plan. A number of provinces have asked for time to examine this issue further. There will be other meetings, but I want to assure the House and the opposition that the government is fully involved in streamlining social welfare programs, and setting up a universal guaranteed income plan for all Canadians, not simply for only a small group of them.
The purpose of this legislation therefore is neither to cover all persons 60 to 64 years of age, nor to set up a full guaranteed income plan; it is only to meet a problem situation which has been critical for a great many Canadians.
In committee, we studied in detail all the aspects of this bill. I want to thank all the members for the consideration they were kind enough to give the provisions of the bill. In addition, as we know, this bill will do away with the Old Age Security Fund, which has become an anachronism in view of the many fiscal changes made in the last few years. The bill also gives the minister the authority to deal with cases requiring special attention, where the state made overpayments as a result of honest errors, and where reimbursement of those amounts would inflict hardships upon the aged concerned, or else where the cost of retrieving the money would exceed the amounts involved.
Those are the main provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker. Once again, I want to thank the House for having kindly accepted to give consideration to this bill in so short a time.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the study of this bill, I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the House to express a few opinions. I listened to the minister very closely when he introduced the bill. I also had the pleasure of attending a committee meeting last night and hearing certain opinions and arguments.
I should like to say right off that, of course, our party agrees with the bill. 'There is no doubt about that. We feel that it is a step in the right direction when we speak of meeting the needs of a rather special group. We regret, however, that neither the widow nor the single person has been covered. The minister knows how we feel about that. Once again, of course, we have the minister's word for it, those categories will be helped out by the guaranteed annual income supplement.
I take this opportunity to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in seven years, I doubt that I have missed the opportunity of stressing the importance of the old age pension at 60. On the other hand, we are told that discussions with the provinces are under way and that eventually we can bank on a legislation that will cover almost all Canadians and guarantee everyone an adequate or a minimum revenue. But in the meantime, the fact is that in the existing social and economic context, some people wish to enjoy old age security at 60. Many factors prompt us to believe that it would be a quite interesting piece of legislation for today's society.
Since then, I think several representatives are increasingly aware of the policy designed to provide old age security at 60. The legislation before us is quite clear. The
6894

June 18, 1975
Old Age Security Act
minister reminded us earlier that it meets the needs of a pensioner whose spouse is under 65. We are totally in favour of this corrective action taken by the minister.
But I feel advisable to try to make the minister realize the importance of granting to all the security that is being given today to a certain category of people, which, to my point of view, would be equally justifiable for other persons of 60 who, under the present circumstances, as I said, are also in dire straits. Today, one need not be 50 to experience a lot of problems when looking for a job. People of 57 or 58 greatly hope that such security will be provided at 60.
For technical reasons, it is unthinkable to actually blame the companies that are somewhat reluctant to hire people of that age. As concerns technological changes, we are perfectly aware that, especially in industry, machines have greatly increased their performance and productivity, while man, from a physical point of view, of course, after 40 years of work, has slowed down. I remember the minister telling me yesterday that according to a survey, few people might be interested in retiring at age 60.
In my opinion, if quite a large number of people would take a well-earned rest, this would make some room in the labour force and, in view of the present situation, with the high rate of unemployment. I wonder if that would not be desirable. The minister believes that the effect of early retirement would be of small importance at this level. It is possible that some categories of people, such as the public servants and those who have an easier job, may not be interested in retiring at 60. I* wonder if we could not make this legislation optional or at least give those who want to take a well-deserved rest at 60 the possibility of doing so without necessarily forcing those who still,find their work easy and who are physically able to do it, to keep on working; but many people have told me what they think about this and have said that they hope to receive their old age security pension at 60 considering that they have worked hard for so many years.
I wanted to make these points during the debate on this bill in order to get the minister and the government to reflect seriously on the possibility of extending this legislation, which, in my opinion, would be well received by thousands of Canadians and would be quite justified. I also have in mind the additional costs. Today, the big question is inflation and we must keep this in mind whenever considerable expenses are involved. A while ago, I referred to the possibility of making such a legislation optional. For those who would like it, I think this would not represent the right amount that could be obtained by a universal and compulsory pension at age sixty. On the other hand, since discussions are being held with the provinces and since, for the past years, we have been talking about this guaranteed annual income without knowing the precise date it could become effective, I wonder if we could not seriously consider the possibility of offering the people who are sixty years of age this protection that we are giving them today through Bill C-62.
If we were to receive the assurance that as of January 1, 1976, we could grant this guaranteed annual income to all 
the people who are waiting for it, then maybe we would be very patient. I also know that if we insist without proving how serious the matter is, we will be accused of favouring additional expenses in an already difficult inflationary context.
I also feel that if one considers the billions of dollars involved in the budget, I am justified in requesting that the government give consideration to reducing certain expenses, in different departments, so as to fulfil the needs of our old age pensioners. We must not let these old age pensioners believe that we are putting the load of inflation on their backs, and we must at all costs avoid giving them evidence to that effect. I believe it would be possible to consider a reduction in government expenses or a better management of such expenses so as to make it possible to grant our old age pensioners the necessary monies without being automatically accused of favouring additional expenses in the present circumstances. We are thinking of the importance of this legislation, we are giving thought to improving the social climate of our country, and we believe that if we enable people sixty years of age to take a well deserved holiday, we are improving the social climate. We also feel that if these people have occasion to take holidays, we would possibly be giving job openings to some very discouraged young people who are waiting for their place in the labour force.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay passage of this bill. We believe it is a valid and necessary piece of legislation. I believe the time is well chosen to request that the government consider the arguments in favour of an old age security pension at age sixty, and I am more than willing to take into account the financial possibilities available to a government.
I think we have every reason to do it, given the favourable implications this could have for the class of people which needs it. We must also, I think, consider financial facilities, when we study the budget which will be introduced shortly. If this were to lead the government to cut its expenditures in some areas where the prime concern should be efficiency and the principle which urge us to aim at this end, which is the improvement of the social context and climate, I think this is worth considering. I dare also believe that the minister will take these arguments into account, which others will voice after me, but will always keep in mind the well-being of a class of people who are entitled to a very well deserved vacation, they have been looking forward to.
I shall finish here, Mr. Speaker. I shall of course be very glad to support such a move. I repeat that it is a step in the right direction. We hope that this legislation will be extended as soon as possible to all those who are 60. We also hope that the negotiations with the provinces will take a successful turn for the federal government and that this will bring satisfaction to those who are waiting for this old age security, this minimum income. Let us hope that this will be done as early as possible, for the benefit of those who have been waiting for it very long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated at each stage in the consideration of Bill C-62, we are supporting it and we will give it our vote at all times. However, that does not deny us the
June 18, 1975

right to point out emphatically the shortcomings which exist in the bill. Likewise, it does not deny us the right to complain about the way in which the minister so piously asserts that because this bill achieves the purpose he has in mind we should accept it without question and not press our points.
It is true that this bill has been considered in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, presided over by one of the most excellent chairmen we have, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), but I regret to say that the rules against amendments involving the expenditure of money prevented us from making any amendments to the bill when it was before that standing committee. As hon. members are aware, this bill will provide something for 80,000 or perhaps 85,000 persons between the ages of 60 and 65, but it will do nothing for some 685,000 persons in the same age bracket who do not fit the particular category spelled out in the bill.
What Bill C-62 proposes is that in the case of a married couple, if one partner is 65 or over and is already drawing old age security, the other partner, if that other partner is between 60 and 65, may also get the pension-provided, of course, that the whole proposition is subject to an income test with respect to the total income of both parties. It is the marriage test, the age test and the income test which result in only some 85,000 persons out of 750,000 in this bracket getting the benefit of this bill.
There is no question that any step in this direction deserves support. No one is going to vote against it or oppose it. But I argue very strongly that although it is a step in the right direction, it is far too timid a step for the government to be taking at this time. This measure does nothing for spinsters, widows, bachelors, widowers, divorced or separated persons between the ages of 60 and 65. The minister says that the purpose of the bill is to rescue a couple from having to get by on a pension for one. If a person living with the partner in marriage has the right to be rescued from poverty, I submit that the same right should be extended to a spinster, widow, bachelor, widower, separated or divorced person. The minister's reply when we were in committee was that if such persons are in need, they can fall back on social assistance-in other words, on welfare. We contended in committee-and I contend very strongly now-that even just in terms of the title of the legislation, old age security has been established in Canada as not only something that people get as a right but something that has honour attached to it. More of us are joining the club every day, Mr. Speaker.
On the other hand, social assistance or welfare still has a certain stigma attached to it. In pursuing this line of argument today, the minister said that he did not like the situation in the case of a married couple when one of them had to go on welfare, so he wants to correct that situation. In effect, he was saying that the 62-year old wife of the 67-year old husband should not have to go on welfare. I agree with him. But what about the 62-year old widow, the 62-year old spinster, the 62-year old bachelor or the 62-year old widower? If the principle the minister is enunciating is a desire to save persons from having to go on welfare, surely that principle applies across the board and not just to a limited few.
Old Age Security Act
Just the other day one of my colleagues asked if we should not condemn this legislation out of hand because it is discriminatory. I told him I like using strong language about bills that are deficient, but I think that the trouble with this bill is, perhaps in more realistic terms, that it is just a beginning-a step: it meets the needs of a very limited number of people. The tragedy is that it takes so much pushing, prodding, cajoling and pouncing to get this government to move at all.
I suppose the feature of this bill that to the greatest extent brings out its unfairness, its discriminatory aspect and the fact that it does not go far enough is the one that was discussed most in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. This point was made in the House on second reading and has been mentioned by some of us for many months since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in the midst of the election campaign, announced this legislation. The fears which were expressed during the past several months and on second reading were confirmed by the minister in the standing committee. The situation is this, Mr. Speaker. Here is a wife who is 62 and whose husband is 66. He is on pension, so she gets it. Next year, the 66-year old husband turns 67 and dies. The woman is now 63 and a widow. The pension she has been enjoying for a year, out of the goodness of the heart of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is withdrawn. So from age 63 to 65 she has to go on welfare. Today the minister said that is something one member of a marriage partnership should not have to do. What does the minister think he can get away with?


Mrs. Holt:: You have said that three times.


An hon. Member:: Simmer down, Simma!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear my hon. friend complaining about something over there, Mr. Speaker. No doubt she will make her contribution. She says I have said this three times. I tell her that I have said it at least 33 times, and I will keep on saying it. I have been saying these things in this place since 1942, and I believe things are a bit better now because some of us have been doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Last June, the Prime Minister said this bill would create as many problems as it would solve, so I think it shows lack of foresight on the part of this minister to bring it in in this form. Or perhaps he is being hamstrung by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who will not give him the few more million dollars that it will take to provide to persons aged 60 or 65 a pension that is fair. What is fair, Mr. Speaker? When the minister is faced with this question he sometimes talks about what it would cost to pay old age security universally at age 60 the way it is now at age 65. None of us have been asking for that at this time. What we have been asking for is that the old age security be paid to persons between ages 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market. That would cover all spouses, male and female, who are in that area and also spinsters, widows, bachelors and widowers who are not working, as well as many of those who are now working but would dearly like to get out of the rat race of modern industry.
29576-23'/2

June 18, 1975
Old Age Security Act
Most of the discussion on this matter on second reading in this House, and in committee, for understandable reasons, related to widows. The reason that has been the main subject is the complete unfairness, the complete inhumanity of this bill in that it would take away a pension in about 375 cases a month. A married partner who is getting his pension will lose it because that married partner is still below 65 and the one who was over 65 has died. That is the category about which most of the discussion has taken place.
There is also the sort of picture that I have seen so often, particularly during election campaigns, I must admit. I am thinking of men and women going into factories, into the work places in my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, into the rolling mills, railway shops and meat packing plants. The question that is put to me most often in the mornings during election campaigns by employees who are 58, 59, 60, 61, and so on, is, "When are you going to get the pension age down to 60?" They ask this question because the rat race is becoming so hard for them. Therefore, I plead with this House to be concerned not only about widows, as we are, who are to get the "Lalonde treatment" under this bill, but to be concerned about workers in industry who find today's rat race so hard until 60 that it is very difficult for them to hold on. The day will come-it must-when pensions will be available at 60.1 do not see the logic of the minister trying to tell us that he is not for that.


An hon. Member:: Read what he said in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend can make her own speech. The minister said last night in the committee that as long as he is Minister of National Health and Welfare there will be no extension of universal programs. That is what disturbed me most. Those words were uttered by a Liberal minister, by a member of the party with whom we have been fighting for universality for 30 or 40 years-a party which we thought we had educated. Now it wants to backtrack on that principle.


An hon. Member:: Read the transcript.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Again, my hon. friend can make her speech later. I shall be glad to hear what she says about persons getting the pension at age 60. That social reform has to come. If the minister and the government felt they could not go all the way to pensions at age 60 for those who are out of the labour market, they could at least have found an in-between course, a course between the "spouses only" position and the position I have suggested. The government could have shown evidence of its intention to move in that direction-but the minister says the opposite: he says, "Don't count on me for any more universal programs. Look to me for some kind of guaranteed annual income program with an income test attached to it." Even today he stood in this House and proudly said he is rescuing spouses from having to go on welfare. At the same time, he is prepared to let spinsters, widows, bachelors and widowers in the same age bracket go on welfare, or social assistance as he prefers to call it.

We went over this argument decades ago, Mr. Speaker, when I first came here and spoke from the back-row seats. When the pension was $20 a month at age 70, with a means test, some of us tried to get rid of the means test. We argued against it but were told it could not be removed. Actually, in 1950 the whole question of what to do about old age pensions was referred to a special joint committee because it was becoming too hot an issue on the floor. The prime minister of that day, in the debate on the motion to refer the subject to the committee, expressed his opposition to the idea of paying pensions to everyone, but that committee was one of the best I have known because it was not given a cut-and-dried bill to which it had to say yes or no. It was given a subject to study and was told to come back with its recommendations.
That committee, to the surprise of the government, came back with the recommendation for old age security, for a universal pension at age 70 and the beginning of a pension at age 65, on a means test. I give the Liberal government of that day full credit for accepting that recommendation, particularly as the prime minister in the setting up of the committee did not like the idea of universality. Mr. Speaker, that remains the point in the history of social legislation of this country at which Canada took its best step forward. This country must now build on that initiative and move in the direction of the universal right to retire at age 60. I deplore as strongly as I can the fact that this bill moves so timidly in that direction.


Walter David Baker: It is a baby step.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is just a baby step. It will cover, as I say, 80,000 or 85,000 out of the
750,000	Canadians who are in that age bracket between 60 and 65. Even so, I could have taken comfort from hoping that the situation will be better soon if it had not been for the minister's saying that he will not sponsor any more universal programs and that this bill, in his eyes, is not to be looked on as moving in the direction of providing pensions at age 60. Of course, if I were to believe what he said I would feel even more strongly than I do, but I do not happen to believe him. He may say that Bill C-62 is not moving in the direction of providing pensions at age 60, but I submit that it is. Just as surely as when we got old age assistance at age 65 with a means test between the ages of 65 and 70 it was only a matter of time until we would get a universal pension at age 65, so I believe this bill is the first break in the ice. This bill is the beginning. I predict that we will come to pensions across the board at age 60. Some day they will come across the board; certainly, they will come for those who are out of the labour market and, as I say, I strongly believe that that is what the government ought to be doing now.
I am saying two things, Mr. Speaker, and I say them with equal earnestness. Yes, we voted for this bill on second reading; we voted for its clauses in committee, and I am going to vote for it on third reading, because it is a start and because it will rescue between 80,000 and 85,000 persons from an intolerable situation. But my other reason for voting for this bill is this: it means that, at last, we shall begin to pay pensions under the Old Age Security Act to those below the age of 65. And, once these things start, even the Liberal government, even as stubborn a
June 18, 1975

person as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will not be able to hold it back.


An hon. Member:: Next year we shall be asked to provide pensions at age 45.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend wants to bring the pension age down to 45.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: And I suppose some people will want the four-day weekend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have heard it suggested that the age for the family allowance could be brought up and the age for old age security brought down, until they meet.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And then we shall be a nation of drones.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I remember one Liberal member on the special committee of 1950 suggesting, when we were talking about contributions to a fund, that if we could get enough money into that fund the interest on it would pay for the pension and we would not need to levy any more taxes-and he was not a Social Crediter; he was a Liberal! Some interesting ideas have been thrown around.
We are not talking fancifully. I have lived through this experience. If I was not here, I heard about it and knew about it in the beginning. I recall the days when Mr. Dunning said to J. S. Woodsworth that we could not afford pensions for older people. I remember the days when the Senate said, when the House passed the first old age pension bill, that it would drive people to the dogs. But the Liberal government passed that bill. Then we got the $20 pension at age 70, with a means test. So the story continues. The pension was increased gradually and, finally, we made the particular gain of 1950-51, which began in 1952. I believe that as surely as we made those elements of progress in the past, we shall make further progress as time goes on.
I am sorry that this minister seems to feel that it is good enough to do so little. He has stood up and said in the House and the committee that the purpose of this bill is merely to rescue a certain number of people, and that is supposed to be the end of the story. He may think that is the purpose of the bill, but the people of this country are calling for a much broader pension base. I do not know what his mail is like, but I know what I see in my mail. I know what has been written in the last couple of weeks by people who are aware of this bill; most of them, or a good many of them, are widows aged 62, 63, and so on, whose husbands in many cases were on the old age security pension up to one or two years ago. These people realize they are not going to get a pension. When these people, 375 of them a month, get that nice letter from the Department of National Health and Welfare saying, "Sorry, you lost your marriage partner, and there goes your pension", the minister is going to find that he is in a lot more trouble than he realizes at this moment.
I submit, and this is not so much a prophecy as a guess, that what I have been saying will be mild compared with what Liberal members will say in their own caucus. They
Old Age Security Act
will not say it here, but they will say it in their own caucus when they get letters, particularly from persons who got the pension for a few months or a year and then lost it because the married partner died just when they needed the money, needed the respect of being on the old age pension instead of on welfare or social assistance.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I express my keen disappointment. I was delighted with the progressive steps that this Minister of National Health and Welfare seemed prepared to take in the twenty-ninth parliament. We got a decent family allowance arrangement instead of the FISP that had been put before us in the twenty-eighth parliament. We got an increase in the basic amount of the old age security, and some real improvements in the Canada Pension Plan. Why the minister is now crawling into this reactionary shell and talking in terms of a form of relief, when the country calls for a good social security program to be extended, is more than I can understand.
Although in part this speech may not sound like it, Mr. Speaker, we will vote for third reading of this bill because it is a start; it will help some 80,000 or 85,000 of our people. However, the time for moving seriously and effectively in the direction of pensions at age 60, certainly for all persons out of the labour market, is now.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, last night at the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, we completed the detailed consideration of this bill in the presence of the minister as a witness accompanied by several assistant deputy ministers or officials. The minister then gave some explanations and information on the bill which, according to him, is part of the social policy of the Liberal government.
In the speech which he delivered in the House on second reading of the bill last Friday, June 6, the minister was specially eloquent. He said among other things, and I quote:
Such a step is in the tradition which the Liberal governments . ..
This is why he is motivated. He added afterwards, quote;
... the Liberal Party committed itself to easing the burden on such couples by instituting this income-tested allowance for spouses in order to provide for those who most need it in our society a monthly income which would allow them to live in the dignity which they deserve.
But he cannot refrain from mentioning the word "Liberal".
And yet, Mr. Speaker, what exactly is that bill of the Liberal government? In my constituency and throughout the province of Quebec, the Liberals were quite vocal when they claimed that if they had a majority government-the prerequisite-a strong government, as they said, they would grant the old age pension on a universal basis at 60 years of age They would not be trying to deceive people or save their face, but they would grant it on a universal basis.


An hon. Member:: We never said that.

June 18, 1975
Old Age Security Act


André-Gilles Fortin: It was stated, Mr. Speaker, throughout my constituency by the Liberal candidate, the present special assistant to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand).
Mr. Speaker, the minister said in his speech of June 6, and again I quote:
This-
This bill-
-will ensure that payments go to those who most need them, and are not granted on a universal basis.
So, Mr. Speaker, now the cat is out of the bag. What does the bill say? Let's sum it up. Before we go over the bill, let's remember. That I am saying again and can prove any time beyond any possible doubt, it has been promised over and over again across the Eastern Townships constituencies that if the Liberals were elected, if they formed a majority government they would enact the old age pension during the very first session, and a universal pension at that. We have heard it mentioned in speeches, we saw it on television, we read it on pamphlets delivered from door to door. You may ask any one in my riding they all will say they have seen it advertised.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we go over the bill, we read this in clause 1, under the definition of "spouse"-it is easy to revel in words. Let's try to understand what the minister intends to do after making the promise, during his electoral campaign that he would grant the old age pension at 60, after giving people that hope: this is what he says about a pensioner's spouse in clause 1.1 quote from the bill:
"spouse" in relation to a pensioner includes a person of the opposite sex who has lived with the pensioner for three or more years where there is a bar to their marriage or at least one year where there is no such bar and the pensioner and that person have publicly represented themselves as man and wife;
Clause 1, that is the cornerstone of this bill, means that when a spouse or a single person, a widow or a widower aged 60 to 65 decides to live with a person over 65 like man and wife during at least one year with promise of marriage later, if they have publicly represented themselves as man and wife or if they can marry later, that is when there is no more bar because of a previous marriage, or if they live together for three years as man and wife when there is a bar to their marriage due to the non-dissolution of the former marriage of one of the spouses, because that person between 60 and 64 is living as man and wife with a person over 65, he or she will be admissible to the Old Age Security at 60, as says the Minister. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, we legalize such an irregular matrimonial situation, that is living as man and wife for a person 60 to 65.
Then, this is the first of the generous gifts from this government which was elected on its promises of universality.
Second, a widower, a widow or a single person is not entitled to Old age security at 60 under this Liberal government. This is what is provided in Clause 1 of this bill. The person must be married or living with another person as man and wife and if single, or if the spouse dies, he or she is completely ignored by the Liberal government and loses all rights to pension. The Minister said it very eloquently, they just have to take advantage of the generous Social Welfare programs to which this government, liberal

of course, contributes 50 per cent. And yet, the Minister is a Quebecer, and if he has a little bit of honesty, he will recognize that in Quebec, social welfare is subject to patronage and intrigue and that the pensioners are the victims of obvious injustices after endless inquiries invading their privacy to such a point that those people live on a public pittance as if they were granted a favour.
We just have to work in our office every day in our constituencies, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Saturdays and Sundays, to open our door and our ears, to see and hear welfare recipients come in and tell us: We cannot make ends meet with $120 a month, with $97 a month. Every time there is a 50 cent- or one-dollar rent hike, they have to report for readjustment. Then payments are suspended, and they sometimes have to wait up to two months to get their cheques.
The minister stated yesterday to the committee that in such cases welfare benefits can be paid quite promptly. Maybe he was talking of the other provinces' experience, but he was surely not referring to the situation in Quebec.
I could mention hundreds of cases where people apply for welfare because they are no longer entitled to unemployment insurance or they are disabled and cannot work. They do not receive their first cheque before the end of the second month. This I can substantiate with names, social security numbers and addresses of people that have to deal with the Quebec government red tape. The minister, however, stated that this bill will help them and that in cases where they are not eligible, they only need contact social welfare, financed half way by the federal government, in order to get prompt service.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot have any partisan feeling when talking about people who come to my office and tell me the same thing every Monday, every Saturday. East Saturday still, in Sainte-Croix, I was doing office work. Forty-eight persons came to see me, 13 of which were welfare cases. Each of those 13 persons was waiting for the first cheque and was requesting immediate help. That is the situation in Quebec. I will even go further and ask the minister to hear our views. In cases where a married or unmarried couple qualifies, especially those persons between 60 and 65 who can hope to get the old age security pension because of their spouses, in cases where the spouse over 65 dies, I feel in the name of my colleagues and all those people that a right has been acquired-
I feel that by then the spouse between 60 and 65 does not have to lose the old age pension just because his or her spouse who was 65 died. I say by then that had become a vested right. A situation of fact had been recognized because she had lived in a common law, religious or civil marriage with a person over 65. That under the legislation now before us had qualified her on all counts of age, place of residence and matrimonial status to receive the said allowance for pensions at 60.
I say it is inhumane, discriminatory, and unfair to take away the pension given to the one who was between 60 and 65 because of the death of the spouse. Let us suppose such a case occurs after the person received the pension for four or five months, or a year, before that bounty from this government. By then, Mr. Speaker, that family was used to living on a certain income, it was used to planning its budget according to the income provided under this
June 18, 1975

bill. When one of the spouses dies, that is the one who is over 65, that is when the drama occurs, explodes in the family, as the widow or the widower within the 60 to 65 category loses overnight, in the same month as the death occurs, as the minister said yesterday, all of his or her rights vis-a-vis the federal government under Bill C-62. All those rights just disappear all of a sudden. There is no income left. The only thing left to live on is the pension of the previous month that is payable at the end of the month, as provided in a clause of this bill. So there is no more income.
Such is then the situation of that widow or widower. What is the next step? The minister said yesterday, again in his bounty, that they only have to go to the social welfare office. In my case, that would be the social welfare office in Victoriaville, and one has to have an appointment to go there, no less! Then an appointment is set: Come and see us in a week, three days or five days from now. Then a visit will be paid to you because an investigation has to be made in the spouse's house. Once the investigation is made in the spouse's house, a check must be made. Then, Mr. Speaker, bank accounts must be audited.
This is what is provided by the legislation on social assistance. If that person has more than, let us say $1,000 in the bank, she does not qualify for social assistance under the law. The social worker answers to her: Madam, live on your savings first and when you have only $200 left in the bank, you will come and see us; when you have nothing left, come and see us and we might then make an inquiry, review your case and help you. This is exactly the legal situation that widows and widowers will be in, particularly in Quebec, if the spouse of more than 65 years happens to die.
It means that, overnight, at a month's notice, a widow will have no more income until she has spent all the meagre savings she kept for her burial, because people of that age think of their burial and save consequently. But darn it, let us try to be clear-headed and let us understand that this is exactly the situation of our fellow citizens aged 60 and 65. For them, retirement becomes something real while for many of my colleagues here, retirement is far off.
But let us try to identify ourselves with these people of 60 or 65 for whom work has become a problem, whose physical capabilities are diminished in spite of a long and valuable experience and who are very often rejected by the labour force. What are we witnessing, Mr. Speaker? When someone retires nowadays and when the spouse is not 60 years old, all the members here are invited to parties, banquets, 50th anniversaries and so on in our ridings. We probably all go there.
At the end of the evening, once everybody has eaten his fill and danced, people leave, say goodbye, but when you stay behind a little and you look at the people around you, when you consider the human aspect of it, what sort of people stay in the room until dawn? The spouses of people who do not qualify for a pension because it was not given at 60; it is those people who wash the tables, do the dishes, put back chairs, tables in their place, and work until the wee hours of the morning in order to earn an income.
Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-62,-
Old Age Security Act


Mr. Bechard:: Their heart is in the right place.


André-Gilles Fortin: Stop interrupting, listen to me and hear me. You can have your turn later. That is what democracy is all about.
With Bill C-62, in the case where a man dies and he qualified his spouse, that woman, and this is dramatic, Mr. Speaker, will have no other income, all the more as the deceased quite possibly had a small life insurance policy. Consequently, this woman loses all her rights before the federal and provincial governments, and has no longer any income. With the old age pension, one is allowed a few thousand dollars in the bank, since it is not the amount of capital that matters but the income derived from this capital.
Mr. Speaker, with the old age pension, people between 60 and 65, which is the critical age in our industrialized, automated society, must be allowed a few savings, and we have no right as a society to grab those hard-earned meagre savings of people who have often been exploited as cheap labour during their long working life, to grab their savings on the pretence that old age security pensions are given on a selective basis, as the minister said.
Mr. Speaker, once again I ask the minister whether he considered that case. I urge him to be realistic with respect to the administration of social welfare, to tell us whether what I am saying is right: when married or unmarried persons have over a thousand dollars in the bank, they have no right to social welfare, they must first eat into their savings, find themselves completely destitute, and only then are they entitled to the public "Bourassa approved" pittance.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is discriminatory and unfair. I think old age security pensions should be universally available to all persons of 60. I feel that retirement at 60 should not be compulsory, people who want to work should be allowed to do so and, darn it, those who, either through disability, physical handicap, fatigue or exhaustion because of their age, should be taken care of and not penalized or thrown with impunity into the hands of a government of mishandlers in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I know myself of cases in Victoriaville and elsewhere where recipients are forced to do not quite decent or acceptable things to receive their meagre pittance of welfare benefits. I have on hand cases, social insurance numbers and addresses of people who were cut off after investigation because they had one thousand dollars in the bank. They were told, and I have letters supporting this, spend that money and when you run out of it, come and see us!
Mr. Speaker, the direct result of clause 1 of Bill C-62 is precisely not to help people of 60, but rather to give them some hope for a few months and as soon as death strikes, to get rid of them with impunity and to pass them on once again to the provincial government.
I say that if this government is generous and good enough to consider granting the pension at 60, it is a first step which should be made. Once the government has taken charge of the material condition of the Canadian citizens, it does not have the right to cast them aside

June 18, 1975
Old Age Security Act
afterwards, since it becomes a vested right and the government may not throw them back into the hands of the provincial government.
Mr. Speaker, one should recognize the fact that people aged 60 to 65 have the most conservative mentality from the moral as well as social standpoint. With such a system, they will be forced to live common-law in order to qualify. A widow, for instance, will be forced to live common-law in order to qualify. That is the situation as it is.
How many women and men I know from Victoriaville, from Sainte-Croix, and throughout my constituency for that matter, who are aged 60 to 65 and who, under the New Horizons program, gather around in halls two or three times a week, have fun together, dance together, plays cards together and have discussions. Now, Mr. Speaker, I can see what is going to happen. Thanks to the overwhelming generosity of this majority government, such people are going to speak to one another in terms such as the following: "Did you get your old age pension at 60? No. I'm a widow. Did you get your old age pension at 60? No. I'm single. Oh yes! But another one is getting it. Sure. But he's living common-law".
I can very well imagine, Mr. Speaker, the extraordinary reactions that we shall soon be having. I can already see the minister answering us, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I firmly intend as of now to submit such problems directly to the minister, he who knows so well how to get this Parliament to buy a pig in a poke, and I sincerely hope that he will discover that touch of magic that will enable him to have our widows, our widowers and our bachelors understand that even if they are 60 years old, they will not be entitled to the same pension as others, because they are not living common-law or because they are not married.
This minister is so broad-minded, Mr. Speaker, that he has even provided under clause 17(6) that, should one of the spouses be imprisoned-watch out, read the bill correctly-the other will lose his or her pension.
The minister has even considered this possibility. Mr. Speaker, this is the height of ridicule. If one of the spouses is imprisoned for over 90 days, for whatever reason, the other loses all his or her rights, thanks once again to the broad-mindedness and the promises of this strong, majority government.
Mr. Speaker, I am truly sorry I have to say this in the House, but I have been elected by my constituents to tell this House what they think, to repeat in this house what they want, and advise my colleagues of all parties of the problems some of them have to face in their daily lives. I am certainly not aware of all the problems which exist in all Canadian ridings, but I know that the problems my constituents of 60 to 65 must face are the same as those of your own constituents in the same age group.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to ask all members of the House to consider seriously that we are here to legislate, that we are under no obligation to accept this bill as is and without amendment. We are here to legislate, to plead in favour of our constituents, as the minister said, regardless of party allegiance. Darn it, it is about time to prove it. Let us amend clause 1 and redefine the word "spouse" so as to allow widows, widowers and single people to become eligible to a pension when they reach 60.

If we can help other countries and finance large industries, if we can claim to live in a progressive, huge and very rich country, if we can brag about being one of the most generous of the UN countries, let us first of all give help to our own people who need it most. There are a great many unemployed in Canada between 18 and 50 who can fend for themselves and may suffer a temporary setback because of unemployment or lack of income. But they can always look for a job, they are still strong and healthy. But for people in the 60-65 age group, the outlook is bleak. They no longer have the same ability.
Mr. Speaker, we are living in an automated and industrialized society where the machine is increasingly replacing man. We have to live, and this has been repeated in the House today during the question period, with the unemployment problem; we do not know what to do with our manpower, and this is what prompts us to set up community projects like Opportunities for Youth and the Local Initiatives Program. We do not know what to do with our manpower. The government is not necessarily to blame, but rather a rapidly changing society. It is up to us to adjust.
If this is true and if we all admit the difficulties of the work force for those who are still young, how does this apply to the people from 60 to 65 years old? How can we grant so complacently such a discriminatory pension? How can we, in the Canadian Parliament, the institution in which Canadians place their hopes, pass in all conscience a bill which, on one hand, will grant an old age pension for a certain time and which, on the other hand, will stop granting this pension at the death of one of the spouses? How can we arrive at such an illogical conclusion, such a dehumanizing concept? How can we do this? What are the interests of the minister? Why is the minister refusing, why does he got give his consent? He is in power, he has the majority, he has only to decide and Parliament would have to follow. At least, Mr. Speaker, this is the situation according to the speeches made in this House.
At the last election, the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democrats, the Social Crediters, everyone was trying to please the voters and everyone was saying in his own way: We favour old age security pensions at 60 for everyone. Give us a majority and you will have this pension.
All the parties were unanimous, and this may have been the only point on which everyone agreed in the last election. Mr. Speaker, in all conscience, as duly and democratically elected legislators, we do not have the right to come back on our word today. We are committed to keep this promise. It was repeated in the Speech from the Throne, and the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, did not say that pensions would be granted on a selective, discriminatory and inhuman basis. It said that Parliament would consider legislation granting old age pensions at 60. That is what was said. Let us stop burying our head in the sand or being dishonest.
When the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) for the first time in this House introduced a public bill providing for old age pensions at 60, the House thought he was not
June 18, 1975

serious. When the question was put it was turned down. How many times did hon. members from every party speak on hot lines or in public meetings to state that we recognize the needs and the merits of that demand.
All of us did that but, for God's sake, are we now whited sepulchres because we tend to forget our promises? What are you doing in your own offices, hon. colleagues? Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask them: When a person has been coming to see you for a year-if you are in your office, of course-and has been asking: Mr. Fortin, do you think we will get the old age security pension? We were told we would get it. Then I answered: We hope the minister will introduce his bill as soon as possible. Dear Madam, rest assured that we will support that legislation since it will meet your needs. It is evident that we must do something to help you.
The minister even stated, Madam, and then without partisan politics-I have many witnesses-I gave her the text where it is said that the legislation will be enacted by October 1. And she left happy.
Now we have the bill before us. It was not possible in committee to move any amendment because the minister argued it was a selective measure. Now we are at the report stage, another opportunity to amend the bill. Tomorrow we will be on third reading and we will have another opportunity to amend it.
Mr. Speaker, what are we waiting for? Why do we refuse? What did we tell those people in our offices during the last campaign, in public meetings or during radio or television programs?
Regardless of our political ties, we all said we would fight for the old age pension at 60, and not a pseudo-pension, not a pension to be given then withdrawn. That is what we plan to do, my friends. Mr. Speaker, let us act. Let us exert pressures on that minister who allows himself to be influenced by his officials, who gives with a dropper to the needy in our midst, but with million-dollar largesse to the big shots and the rich in our society. The time has come for justice.
Tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, or over the weekend, in our respective ridings, when we go back to them, how can we take pride in announcing that we have just made a humanitarian gesture in favour of those who have the least, those who need the most in our society? You will have to tell the truth. You will have to say that, as stipulated in clause 1 of this bill, the only way to get a pension at 60 is to have a spouse of more than 65, with whom you are married before the law or the church, or are living common law, or are cohabiting as a concubine with the possibility of marriage for at least a year, or without the possibility of marriage for three years. That is the situation.
A lady with three children, that is the case of my own mother-in-law, will not be entitled to it. For once, I would like to fight for her, Mr. Speaker. She will not be entitled to a pension, but if she lived as common law wife, or as a concubine, she would be entitled to it.
I conclude with those words, Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleagues for their patience with me. If and when the legislation is passed, schemes and strategies will be made up. The children having grown up and married, a person
Old Age Security Act
will decide to change his home into a rooming house or commune of a kind and then, I can imagine two, three men of 65 and over going to live there and convincing three women between 60 and 65 to move in.
I have much imagination, Madam Speaker, but I am in my riding a good deal and I listen to people, I travel to all parts of Quebec and I know what they think and they will decide to live in the same house. The right hon. Prime Minister once said when the omnibus Bill-150 was introduced that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. See how ridiculous we can be! Then, to prove the marital status, that is clause-I have much imagination, Madam Speaker, but I have read the bill and that is exactly what it says-there will have to be proof not only of age but also of residence and marital status. Yesterday, the minister was pleasantly saying that the marital status was his own problem. That is paragraph 1 of section 17.6. The minister has the authority to determine if you are married or shacked up: this is his authority. If you are dissatisfied with the minister's decision, because he empowered himself to do so-he is interested in people's affairs-there he says we will be entitled to an appeal. This is paragraph 1 of section 17.6.
The minister must dispute his own decision, this is again in the same bill. How intelligent it is, isn't it Madam Speaker. To establish the marital status, the minister said yesterday before the Committee that for proving the marital status, there was no need for an affidavit. All you need is an attested form or document certifying that you are shacked up. The important thing is to put both forms in the same envelope. That is what the officer said last night: putting both forms in the same envelope proves that you have been shacked up for one year. How intelligent it is. That is what has been said yesterday before the Committee.
Mr. Speaker, we pretend to live in a civilized and organized society, but this is where we stand: A man and a woman, of course it is important that they be of different sex, and this bill says it also, put forms in the same envelope, and send it to the Minister, with an affidavit certifying that they have been living like man and wife for one year and they are entitled to Old age security. If one of them dies the survivor is no longer qualified for pension. The woman finds another man within the same week and she gets her pension back. It is a good system. It is extraordinary. That kind of generous gift is very flexible, and this is one of the most flexible ministers we have had in the Department of National Health and Welfare and it will probable be the last one.
Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely unacceptable. This measure is not only discriminatory, but it is an incentive to disorganize and destroy the family unity. I can imagine the children of the widow who is 63 years old and has difficulties with social welfare and complains to her children on weekends that she cannot make both ends meet. The children do something to help their mother, but it is not enough. She needs drugs but to be entitled to them, she has to bribe the social welfare official, at least in the Province of Quebec. If you doubt this, just read the proceedings of the Cliche Commission or of the Inquiry Commission on Organized Crime to see that those officials are as rotten as those subject to these inquiries.
6902

June 18, 1975
Old Age Security Act
And, Mr. Speaker, the woman tries to say delicately to her children that she intends to marry again or live with a man. She is very sad to announce that to her children. They loved their first father so much. Mr. Speaker, with this bill I am all mixed up about the sexes.
At that time, the woman decides, for monetary reasons, to live with a man and that causes a family tragedy with her children. This is the generosity of this government. Who is responsible? This government which gives sparingly. Mr. Speaker, it is much easier to win elections with promises than to realize them. And my opinion is confirmed more and more by this situation. It does not matter whether one is on the government side or in the opposition, if one really reflects the views of one's fellow citizens in the House of Commons. How many times have I heard in my riding ministers and even the Prime Minister tell to the people: give us a government member it really works.
Elect a member on the strong side, on the power side, and then you will get something in your riding. Elect a member who is in power, and then you will be listened to by Parliament and I will listen to you!
Mr. Speaker, there they are the members in power! There are plenty of members who belong to the majority, who are going strong in the House. Yesterday, in committee, the Liberals were there, but not a word from them. Now they are here, in the House, but again not a word. But during the next campaign, just on the eve of the election, they will probably make that provision universal to get votes. Darn it! I call again upon the minister who is reading his newspaper, because he is not interested in looking into the problems of senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I urge him for the last time, on behalf of my colleagues and of my fellow citizens, not to legalize concubinage in Canada in the Liberal fashion, but to legalize, to allow for the right of senior citizens to live a decent life in our rich country, and give to those in need-those who are deprived or driven to the wall because of their age-the possibility of living a decent life.
The minister will retort that they will implement a guaranteed minimum income system. This minister, Mr. Speaker, is misleading us. In his speech, he was saying that this measure guarantees, and I will quote from the speech he made on June 6 in this House:
... 1 should like to assure hon. members that the others in the same age group, such as widowed, divorced or single people, are not forgotten in the light of measures outlined in the bill we are debating today.
So, Mr. Speaker, when introducing this bill he said, to save face that this bill contains provisions which help widowers, widows and single people. This was his introductory speech. He did say "in this bill". Nor, this bill only concerns those who have been living together in a common law relationship, no matter what their marital status.
Mr. Speaker, this minister plays politics, he makes fun of people, tomorrow he will say "thanks to the liberality of the Liberal party"; this minister should have thought perhaps a little more of the pensioners instead of thinking of his own party, instead of uttering again and again the word "liberal" in his speech. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will regain confidence in our democratic institution.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we are to pass this bill this afternoon, and I intend to split the short time remaining between myself and my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling).
I would like to sum up my thoughts on this bill. Let me say first, Mr. Speaker, that it is a puzzling bill. The main section appears on page 2 which defines "spouse" and clearly eliminates widows and spinsters from receiving benefits under the bill. One is forced to conjecture upon why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) would decide to do this. Only the most cynical among us would imagine that a better program will come later but that widows and spinsters must wait for the just society until just before or after the next election.
Last night, in committee, I suggested to the minister that he might consider making pensions payable at the age of 60 to all females. Apart from saying he was not able to do so, he said he feared the women's lib group, he pooh-poohed the idea and insinuated that other countries did not have such provisions. I mentioned some civilized countries that do. I took the trouble today to take out of the library a book entitled "Social Security Programs throughout the World, 1973". I would like to quote some parts of it. In Australia, men receive their pension at the age of 65; women at the age of 60. In Belgium, men receive their old age pension at the age of 65, and women receive it at the age of 55. Incidentally, let me point out that miners receive theirs at the age of 55. In France, everyone gets the pension at the age of 60. With regard to Federal Republic of Germany, it is stated in the book as follows:
Old age pension: Age 63 with 35 years of insurance, or 65 with 15 years; payable at age 60 if unemployed 1 year, or woman with 10 years of insurance in last 20. 180 months of contribution. Widow's pension: 100 per cent of insured's general invalidity pension payable to all widows for three months. Thereafter, 60 per cent of general invalidity pension if age 45-
These countries are much more generous than Canada. In Greece, old age pension starts at age 62 for men, and at the age of 57 for women. In Sweden, which the minister saw fit to point out, the old age pension starts at age 67. The minister boasted that we were ahead of them, but what he did not mention was that old age pensions in Sweden start at 63 to 66 with 0.6 per cent reduction per month. It is stated in this book:
Universal pension, no contribution or income test, but Swedish citizen (except where treaty). Earnings-related pension, three years' coverage (citizens and resident aliens). Retirement unnecessary for either pension.
Survivor pensions: universal pension, widow and orphan of specified age...
Universal widow's pension: 90 per cent of current base amount if has child under 16, or age 50 and married five years at husband's death. If age 36-49, no children, and married five years or more. Full pension reduced by one-fifteenth for each year under age 50.
So you can see that Sweden also pays some attention to the plight of widows and spinsters. In Japan, men receive their pension at age 60 and women at the age of 55.
I could go on at some length about this bill, but I am willing to vote for it because it helps people who are trying to get by on one income. However, the idea that the
June 18, 1975

minister advances, that he will give a means test to a married woman, then decide she does need the money, and when the husband dies he will suddenly decide she does not need the money, is unbelievable in my view. One can only worry about the methods which he will adopt, perhaps of watching the obituary columns, to see that no widow deprives the minister of money to which she is not entitled under this legislation.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, pretty well everything has been said that can be said on this bill, and certainly much more eloquently than I can say it. I was most interested in the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that expert-as I mentioned in the committee the other day- and great drum-beater for pensions for I do not know how many years. I want to commend him again for his remarks. As the hon. member said, a great many of us are aware of the need for this legislation and I commend the minister for bringing in the bill. I intend to vote for it because it is a step in the right direction. However, a good many of us are well aware of the fact that it does not go as far as it should. That fact has already been spelled out by various hon. members.
The one point I want to make is with regard to persons who qualify for the old age pension, the special old age pension between 60 and 65 and who qualify after October 1. I hope the minister will reconsider his decision with regard to these people and ensure that they are not cut off from receiving benefit when their partner dies, because this would be a tragedy. If this happens, these people who once received the pension cheque and had a feeling of independence will have to go back on relief. I think that would be unconscionable and I hope it will not be done. I am sure the minister will have a tremendous amount of pressure put upon him by his own members and I hope he will reconsider his decision in that respect. It takes a big man to change his mind, and I think he will do it.
I understand this bill will get third reading right now, and it is only proper that it should. This is senior citizens'
Old Age Security Act
week and I know that a great many people are looking forward to seeing the bill passed and become law; but a great many more want to see its provisions extended.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not yet six o'clock. If an hon. member wants to be recognized, he is entitled to it. [English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired:
Bill S-I9, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the Criminal Code;
Bill S-27, An Act to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 19, 1975