1975-06-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Manzankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 rise to propose a motion for immediate and serious consideration. In light of the Air Canada advertisements carried in major newspapers announcing the deliberate intention to keep one third of passenger seats unsold on DC-8 airliners with the addition of extraneous gratuities, and in view of the CTC decision denying charges of inefficient management giving rise to under utilization of fleet resulting in lost available revenues or avoidable increases in expenditures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to carry out a thorough and independent investigation of the evidence presented during the CTC public hearings before a final decision is given on the appeal of the CTC decision currently before cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED INQUIRY INTO SALE OF TAINTED MEAT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to submit a motion concerning an extremely current problem which is very important as a matter of interest and urgency.
Considering the sensational and sickening revelations made to the Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime sitting in Quebec that at least one other province is involved in the trade of tainted meat and the possibility that such traffic could extend to the whole country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House order the government to set up an interprovincial inquiry into the illicit trade of tainted meat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. It 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.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the government has now asserted in a public document that there was collusion in a venture to dredge the main ship channel of the St. Lawrence river and that the successful dredging company had prior knowledge of the estimate made for the contract by the Department of Transport, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Minister of Transport be ordered to conduct an immediate departmental inquiry into all dredging contracts let by that department since 1970.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 6, 1975
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell us whether in the decision making process with respect to selling a reactor to Korea the department made a special study of the current political situation in that country to help in coming to that decision?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at the time the matter was considered the department provided the government with all the information at its disposal with respect to the political situation.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will the minister table in this House that special report, that information, on the political stability of Korea which the government used in making this decision about the sale?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that advice to the cabinet is not normally tabled in the House of Commons.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF SAFEGUARD AGREEMENT
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary for the minister. Given the enormous significance and importance of this matter, and given the fact that there seems to be some feeling that the meetings in Europe on proliferation were not very successful, given the fact that we do not have any understanding now for an on site inspection by the government of Canada, will the minister table the specific terms of the bilateral agreement between Canada and Korea governing the inspection and controls that we are going to have if this sale does in fact go ahead?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I dispute one premise of the hon. member's statement, that is with respect to the inadequacy or lack of proposed safeguards and inspection system. When such bilateral agreement is completed and when negotiations have been completed on the safeguards aspect, then I will consider the possibility of tabling such an agreement in the House of Commons.


GENEVA CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister undertake to table in the House a report or make a statement on the Geneva confer-

ence which I understand issued a statement on the developments in the field of non-proliferation that is highly relevant to the question of the reactor in Korea mentioned by the hon. member for Don Valley?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows I did participate at the review conference in Geneva because of the importance that Canada attached to the success of that conference. I believe I was the only foreign minister of member countries who did participate in the debate. That was done deliberately to underline the importance that Canada attached to the outcome of the conference. The hon. member has made a very useful suggestion which I will follow up, either by tabling a report in the House on the conference or alternatively I will consider the possibility of making a statement.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-REASON FOR DECISION PRIOR TO CLARIFICATION OF INSPECTION ARRANGEMENTS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the minister does not appear to be clear on what the actual inspection arrangements for the nuclear site are or will be, will he please explain to the House why the government has seen fit to go ahead with the CANDU sale to South Korea?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are perfectly clear as to the nature of the safeguards we expect from those who purchase these materials or technology. The nature of the safeguards was fully explained by my colleague last December and these safeguards, of course, will be reflected in a bilateral agreement. No such bilateral agreement will be undertaken by Canada, however, unless these safeguards are adequately provided for. There is no uncertainty on the Canadian side as to the nature of the safeguards.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
The French company Le Roy-Sommer having decided to invest $10 million in Granby, the largest French investment ever in Canada, can the minister say how much his department awarded in subsidy to assist that project in Granby, the jewel of the Eastern Townships?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The amount of the grant was $1,987,000.
June 6, 1975


FINANCE
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance but in the minister's absence-and I do not blame him for being absent today in view of that damnable report that was tabled yesterday-I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. As, of the firms surveyed, only 26 per cent indicated that the tax measures would have any effect on employment, only 15 per cent indicated that they would have an important or very important effect on their ability to restrain prices, only 32 per cent indicated that there would be an effect on investment and almost half indicated that the tax measures would have any impact at all on any aspect of their company operations-this is a remarkably frank return from business, on which they are to be congratulated-is the Acting Prime Minister now prepared to acknowledge the abject failure of these measures to achieve the effects intended, and will the government be taking this failure into account when the budget is prepared?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am looking across the floor of the House and it seems to me that many opposition members accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to attend the picnic. Without accepting the premise of the hon. member's question, I am wondering if we read the same report. There is an excellent report on business in the Globe and Mail this morning which spells out the significant success of the tax measures introduced by this government. I wonder through what end of the telescope the hon. member is looking.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that telescopes are relevant to what we are talking about. The government side seems to be looking through special glasses which show everything as rosy when disaster is in sight. May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, because these tax measures have serious implications for the program for which he is responsible? As the report acknowledges that about $1.8 billion has been spent on the minister's program during the period the report covers, that amount of money having created some 73,000 jobs, at roughly $25,000 per job, mostly in central Canada where there is already heavy industrial activity, can the minister indicate how much it cost to create a job in the designated areas. Is this kind of program working to the detriment of his own program, and is it perhaps destructive to his own program?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in all that argument there was one specific question, how much did it cost to
Oral Questions
create a job under the Regional Development Incentives Plan. The cost, on that score, would average perhaps between $5,000 and $7,000 per job created; that is the actual grant; but one would also need to calculate the incentive in relation to the fixed capital cost of the project, and that could go as high as 25 per cent. I will be glad to make that calculation for the hon. member and provide it to him next week.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has probably given us the important information. Does he not consider that spending $25,000 per job created in central Canada, that being the cost in most cases, when he is spending only $5,000 to create a job in the depressed areas of Canada, is destructive of everything his department is trying to do?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think the hon. member misunderstood. I said that the job portion of the incentive grant would range from $5,000 to $7,000; but there is also, in addition to that, a grant which might go as high as 25 per cent of the fixed capital costs. Therefore, the cost of creating a job is not $5,000. I will have to calculate exactly what it is. I suspect, on balance, that it is not significantly different from the $25,000 the hon. member mentioned. I need to look at the figures, to see whether his calculation is correct and whether the deductions he has made from the report are correct.


CRIMINAL CODE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General. I read in the press a report of the minister's statement to the effect that he has come to the conclusion that the registration of firearms is not the solution to the problem we face in this nation. Every day, and yesterday was an example, a plethora of gun-toting criminals commit crimes in this country. While the government waits for the purpose of finally arriving at a consensus as to the nature of the legislation that should be brought in, registration or not, will the minister give immediate consideration to bringing in interim legislation, permanent of course in its nature. Anyone engaged in the commission of a crime, by participation or endeavouring in any way to have a firearm for any improper purpose, should be liable, in addition to every other penalty, to a minimum of five years imprisonment without that sentence running concurrently with other sentences and without the sentence being subject to parole. I suggest this to the minister in all seriousness because police officers across the country have given support to the private bill that I introduced some months ago, but which will not of course come up for a long time, a bill to amend the Criminal Code, C-329.
[DOT] (U20)


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the story in the press that I have rejected registration
6508

June 6, 1975
Oral Questions
as a means of gun control was incorrect. What I said was that we were looking at many alternatives for gun control and that, while we were still looking at registration as a means of gun control, we were looking at other means as well, means which might be more effective for gun control than registration. I might say we are also looking at the alternative of increasing the sentence, such as was suggested by the right hon. member. However, the work we are doing in our department is from an operational point of view. The responsibility for introducing any legislation, of course, will be with the Minister of Justice and we are working together on this. When we complete our work, our studies, we will hand the results on to the Department of Justice and legislation might or might not be introduced after that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I directed the question to the Solicitor General because the Minister of Justice has been engaged in some political gun shooting, unsuccessfully, in Saskatchewan in the past few days. I knew the Solicitor General would have the answer.


Mr. Lang:: I'm glad you came back.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the minister say? I would like to know.


Otto Emil Lang: I said I'm glad you came back.


John George Diefenbaker: I am here all the time. That interruption indicates that the minister has been away. I ask this in all seriousness. While the departments examine, consider, measure and weigh various alternatives, why not bring in immediate legislation effective at once so that those people who carry guns will find that it is a serious matter and one that means immediate imprisonment if found guilty, instead of playing around with this problem. While you play, Canadians are being murdered on every hand.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the only reform in gun control we have had in many, many years took place under the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice. There was none at all when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was Prime Minister. The first meeting of gun registrars ever held in this country was held last week under my authority. A lot of work is now being done to bring about better control of guns and reduce the amount of crime with guns. I expect a report from the working group under my authority during the summer. I hope we will have action during the fall session.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman mentions that such legislation was not brought in during my administration but it is under the present administration that there has been a multiplication of murders on every hand and, in particular, hold-ups.


TRANSPORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the government's counterclaim in the dredging affair against the three dredging companies carries with it very serious implications of impropriety within the public service, betrayal of public trust, and, indeed, suggestions of bribery, may I ask the minister whether, as a result of the laying of this counterclaim, he has caused an investigation to take place within his own department and whether he intends to take disciplinary action?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I am
sure that had we decided to make this just an in-House inquiry we would have been accused of hiding something. We decided that a real case should be made so that we might know what happened. What happened was this: there was an estimate made by the department. There were three tenders, one at $8 million, another at $30 million and a third at $20 million. The department's estimate was a little over $18 million-there was a 10 per cent difference between them. However, considering what is going on in this field we thought the matter was serious enough to have the whole thing looked into by the court. This is the best way of doing it and I think the hon. member should be satisfied that we acted in that way.


James Aloysius McGrath: Since the new question raised is completely different from the matter now before the courts in that it raises suggestions of grave improprieties within the minister's department, has the hon. gentleman taken any action whatsoever to ensure that the public interest will be protected by those responsible for supervising these contracts? If the minister has not done so, perhaps he can explain why.


Jean Marchand: I believe there are four branches within the government which are awarding contracts as a result of the bidding-the Ministry of Transport, the Seaway Authority, the National Harbours Board and the Department of Public Works. So we established a committee of the four to make rules in order to be sure that in the future there will not be this kind of confusion. So do not say we have taken no action. With regard to the case the hon. member mentioned, I believe it is one for the court to decide. I shall await the decision of the court and if it indicates there was any wrongdoing we intend to act, and act rapidly.


ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPRIETY IN PUBLIC SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH DREDGING CONTRACTS- RECOMMENDATION OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE
James Aloysius McGrath: My final supplementary is to the Minister of Justice. In preparing this counterclaim as Attorney General of Canada, did the Minister of Justice, especially since this matter concerned a particular contract exclusively under the jurisdiction of his colleague, the Minister of Transport, recommend to his
June 6, 1975

colleague that disciplinary or legal action be taken against those in his department who are responsible for these contracts bearing in mind that the question of collusion was raised by the Minister of Justice when preparing the counter suit?
\


Otto Emil Lang: In preparing any documents as legal adviser to the government my officials are, of course, in consultation with the department or departments involved. It would be quite improper for me to comment on a question such as the hon. member has raised, appearing to join the hon. member in any form of unsubstantiated innuendo. As far as the matter before the court is concerned, it would be equally improper for me to comment on that while the case is under consideration. We should simply await the outcome of those proceedings.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, on February 20 the Minister of Transport told reporters outside the House that he personally thought there would be further development after the first stage of the construction of Pickering Airport had been completed. Is the minister in a position today to say what he meant by that statement, and will he table the government's potential proposals regarding long-range plans for the Pickering airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I met with the premier of Ontario and the minister of roads either last week or ten days ago, and the premier asked us what exactly we intended to do in Pickering, since the province is affected, depending on the kind of airport that we build there. I am now preparing a letter to the premier telling him exactly what we want to do, and after that a decision will be made.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would advise the House and the country what he will be advising the Premier of Ontario. Would he also take us into his confidence at the same time as he advises the Premier of Ontario what the plans are for the potential development of that airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can do that next week.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


PEACEKEEPING FORCE IN MIDDLE EAST-STEPS TO IMPROVE SUPPLY PROCEDURE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. What steps has the minister been able to take to unravel the complicated supply procedures which are frustrating the Canadian peacekeeping force in the Middle East and which apparently originate in New York?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty supplying our own personnel because they are supplied directly from Canada. We do have some difficulty with the supply of troops of other countries because that supply procedure comes under the United Nations. In order to try to improve the supply, we have had a number of meetings. We have had experts from the Canadian forces travel to New York and talk with UN officials. We are making progress in improving the system, which is essentially one that is beyond our control because it is a United Nations procedure.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be an idea to make a better supply system a condition of Canadian participation? We had other conditions for participation which were very helpful and this might be an idea that the minister could consider.


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is what we are doing. We are trying to improve the system and are providing our expertise to the United Nations in order to achieve that purpose.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General of which I have given him notice. In view of allegations of political kickbacks in New Brunswick reported in a Financial Post article on November 9, 1974, and the request of the leader of the opposition in New Brunswick for a royal commission inquiry, would the Solicitor General inform the House whether RCMP investigations into the allegations are being actively pursued in New Brunswick at this time and, if so, were these investigations initiated by the RCMP at the Solicitor General's request or at the direct request of the minister of justice for New Brunswick?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that the RCMP have investigated those particular allegations which were set out or referred to in the Financial Post article some time ago. They did not undertake an investigation at my request. I am not too sure what led to the investigation but I could check that out.
With respect to the royal commission, I think it should be clear that the request for a royal commission was made
29561 - 6814

June 6, 1975
Oral Questions
to the government of New Brunswick, not to the government of Canada.


OIL-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION RESULTING FROM EXCISE TAX ON SMALL BOATS AND PRIVATE AIRCRAFT
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister advise whether his department has any figures to show what limitation on oil consumption has resulted from the special 10 per cent excise tax on small boats and privately owned aircraft?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check and see.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A week ago when this question was put to the Minister of Finance, he said he would have to consult with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Did such consultation take place, and did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources give any estimated or precise figures to the Minister of Finance?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to talk to my colleague about this. I would have to see whether at the departmental level there has been an exchange.


John Allen Fraser: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise whether the actual effect of this tax will be forwarded to the Minister of Finance before the budget is presented later this month?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if indeed at this point we have been able to develop any figures on this, I think they obviously should be before the minister. As I said in response to a rather more general question put by the hon. member for Don Valley, it is, of course, very difficult to get a very precise reading on the impact of conservation measures, particularly in light of the increase in the petroleum price that has occurred within the last year.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
I have examined a report by three academics on the redistribution of electoral boundaries and in that report there are weighty considerations which directly affect the area I represent. Can the minister tell the House whether hon. members will be consulted or see the preliminary

report made by the individuals responsible for drafting that redistribution of electoral boundaries before the matter is formally referred to the House?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain of the answer to that question. I do not think the act would require the commissioners to reveal that study, but of course they may do so in their own discretion. It is not a report that has been brought to my personal attention; however, I will make inquiries. I agree with the hon. gentleman that, so far as possible, members of parliament should have a say in decisions to rewrite the electoral map.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council.
Even though the law does not provide this obligation on the part of the commissioner, since we are after all living in a very democratic system, would it possible, without departing from the law, to allow consultation in order that hon. members who would want to see this preliminary project may make their recommendations on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that would lie within the discretion of the commissioners. I will draw this exchange to their attention.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the federal-provincial agreement covering the comprehensive development plan for Prince Edward Island specifically decrees, that "direct support is to be provided to voluntary organizations for the conduct of community services and developmental activities in local areas throughout the province" and "the organizational function will be carried out by the voluntary associations, especially the Rural Development Council", can the minister assure the House that a similar clause will be operative in the second phase of the development plan when it is agreed to?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance to the hon. member, for reasons that he will understand. The negotiations are presently underway, as I indicated in the House a few days ago. We would only put in a clause of that sort if it were in fact accepted by the province. I have no way of knowing at the moment whether or not that matter is part of the current negotiations, so I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to the hon. member. We will, of course, as I also mentioned in the House, continue to encourage participation of local groups in the implementation of the second phase of the plan.
June 6, 1975

Whether specific groups will be identified in the agreement or not is something that can only await the outcome of the negotiations.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister allegedly believes in participatory democracy, will he do his best to see that such a clause is included in the agreement; and, on the assumption that it is, what action does he propose to take to assure that such agreements are not abrogated unilaterally by the government of Prince Edward Island.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the legal grounds that might lead to a claim that there was an abrogation. However, I would think that the mere fact that this action took place only within the last few weeks, after the expiry of the first phase of the agreement, does not constitute an abrogation of the previous agreement.
[DOT] (U40)
On the first part of my hon. friend's question, since undoubtedly the negotiations presently underway will be based to some degree on the initial agreement to determine what changes will be necessary, this matter will come up for discussion and I undertake with my hon. friend that I will raise the matter with the premier when he returns and I have an opportunity to discuss it with him.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but in his absence I shall direct it to the acting minister. In view of the fact that Tran Van Quang was given clearance to enter Canada after a two-minute interview by a Canadian immigration official at Port Chaffey on May 14, and in view of the fact that on the same morning this immigration official processed Quang he also processed 200 other Vietnamese refugees, what measures has the government taken to vastly improve our whole immigration procedure with regard to admitting refugees into Canada? I should also like to know whether General Quang was given a $10 food voucher for his trip to Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to check the various allegations the hon. member has either made or indicated by way of his question. Of course, in processing application for entry to Canada a good deal of attention is paid to all the questions involving eligibility for entrance. In the case of refugees these issues are sometimes handled in a slightly different way in order to expedite entry, but matters such as health and security are always looked into. I shall be glad to report to the hon. member.
Oral Questions



REASON FOR HASTE IN PROCESSING VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, could the Acting Prime Minister inform the House, since these refugees were safe in the United States why there was so much haste in getting these 200 across our borders. General Quang had been there only 11 days. Why was there only one Canadian official at that port to process all those refugees?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will refer this question to the minister. I am sure he will provide all the necessary answers. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the government was under the very greatest pressure from time to time to admit refugees into this country from many countries including Viet Nam. I recall, since I was Acting Prime Minister at the time, the very serious criticism made of the Canadian government for not expediting these entries.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The throne speech indicated {hat the government was prepared to undertake a number of new initiatives immediately to improve transport services in Canada which would not in any way prejudice the review of basic transportation policy which is to come. One of these new measures was the introduction of legislation to provide for the most efficient port system for Canada compatible with local, regional and national interests. In light of recent statistics reporting lower tonnage for the first four months of 1975 and for the year earlier for the Port of Vancouver, may I ask the minister when this particular throne speech promise of legislation providing the most efficient port system will be introduced?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will make a list for the hon. gentleman of what we have done up to this point as soon as I can supply it to the House. I know we worked with the province of New Brunswick, for example, we run the terminal. We worked with the government of British Columbia and we worked with the government of Manitoba in respect of a certain aircraft, the name of which I do not recall. If the hon. member will give me a chance to compile a list I will supply it to him.



ALLEGATION STEVEDORES AT MONTREAL DAMAGED BAGS OF WHEAT DESTINED FOR ETHIOPIA AND SOMALIA-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, would the minister have an investigation initiated into the allegations by a spokesman of CIDA that stevedores at the Port of Montreal wilfully damaged bags of wheat destined for Ethiopia and Somalia?

June 6, 1975
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker; would the hon. member please repeat his question because I did not exactly understand it.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, will the minister have an investigation initiated into the allegations by a spokesman of CIDA that stevedores at the Port of Montreal wilfully damaged bags of wheat destined for Ethiopia and Somalia and will he tell us who will underwrite the cost?


Jean Marchand: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have heard about it. CIDA never got in touch with me about this. I will check into it and try to determine what it is all about.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and also in his capacity as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Canadian embassy in Paris has now entered into negotiations with the PRG in Viet Nam, can the minister advise whether any representations have been made on behalf of missionaries held captive as prisoners of war including Canadians Norman and Joan Johnson? Can the minister report any progress in securing the release of those held captive contrary to all the previous promises and commitments of the communist forces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will pass on this inquiry to the minister and to the department. I know they have been following these cases very closely. As you know, we have not yet been able to re-establish diplomatic relations with the government of South Viet Nam although we have recognized that government.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that these missionaries have now been held for two and a half or almost three months, and in view of the fact that the minister replied in the House on May 7 that he could assure us that the government would do everything possible to secure their release, would the minister tell us what is "everything possible"?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is a very difficult term to define, Mr. Speaker. It is whatever is possible under the prevailing circumstances.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister consider allocating more of his funds under the Department of Agriculture to universities, and will he

study the matter of the duplication of facilities and grants under this program?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, our programs in respect of universities are as good as those of any developed country in the world and better than most. I think there are only two countries in the world which surpass us in so far as government research is concerned.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


An hon. Member:: You do not know what you are talking about. Give us some figures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.



PUBLISHING


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. What involvement if any is the minister aware of by Mr. John Nichol and Mr. Toerrance Wylie with respect to the purchase of Time Canada if the government's legislation concerning Time and Reader's Digest should become law, and when did he first become aware of this involvement if they, in fact, are involved?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any involvement at all.



HOUSING


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the urbane Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the minister has been unable to fulfill his past commitments to meet with the provincial ministers responsible for housing, does he have any plans to meet with these ministers in the near future, and if so, when?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that there will be continuing consultation. As I said at the Housing Ministers' Conference in January there will be meetings this year. We will be meeting on Tuesday. It will be an informal meeting of the other housing ministers.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, what moves has the government made to meet the informal request of the Ontario government to supply additional funding in order that the stagnating housing industry may be stimulated?
June 6, 1975


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, indications are that the stagnating housing industry has been stimulated and is moving along quite quickly. I hope to have new figures in the early part of next week which give every indication of being very encouraging.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board and the Postmaster General.
The President of the Treasury Board having stated last Friday that the government is considering requests from COJO for additional sources of revenues and the Postmaster General having said yesterday that a bill will soon be introduced regarding financing, can the President of the Treasury Board or the Postmaster General say what is the exact nature of the measure, whether it will help increase COJO revenues, which I think would be quite normal? I would like them to tell the House what is the exact nature of the bill to be introduced.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, obviously any legislation we would bring before the House would be to help COJO get more revenues. That is the very nature of the bill. However, we are not ready yet to introduce it and I hope, as my distinguished colleague the Postmaster General said, that we shall be able to do so in the next few days.
Oral Questions


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, I was also advised that some of the subcontractors on the projects have not been paid since the month of December. Have those subcontractors been paid so that they may proceed with the job?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. I do not know about all the subcontractors but my understanding is that some have not yet been paid.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my previous questions to the Minister of the Environment and ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister if the department has reconsidered its earlier decision not to participate in spruce budworm control programs which is related to other ecological and environmental considerations, especially in New Brunswick where millions of evergreens are being chewed up right now.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check with the department to see if in fact the program is being reconsidered. I know that so far as research in the control of budworm is concerned, the department is certainly participating, but I will be happy to make representations.


An hon. Member:: When the trees are gone, you will know how to control it.
* *
*
*
* *



HOUSING


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. A week ago I asked the minister to investigate the construction of a senior citizens project in the city of Halifax, funds for which have been advanced by CMHC, by the Centennial Properties, a firm of questionable reputation. The minister said he would look into it. Has he any report to make on his investigation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I have looked into it, Mr. Speaker. There have been some difficulties with labour relations and other problems of which the hon. member may be aware. I am advised by CMHC that the first property will be opened about the middle of this month and the second about the middle of July. I was in Halifax on Wednesday and discussed this with the local office and with the premier. I hope we can meet those deadlines. Frankly, I am not that confident at this moment, but I am working toward it.



ROCHDALE COLLEGE-REASON FOR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING PLANS FOR USE

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the government's takeover some time ago of the complex in Toronto referred to as Rochdale College and known in Toronto as the drug haven, and considering that these premises are now almost vacant and as such a burden to the taxpayer, can the minister explain his plans for this complex? Can he advise the House why it is taking so long to implement plans, particularly in light of the critical housing shortage and shortage of accommodation in metropolitan Toronto?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, today is D day at Rochdale when the trustees are supposed to give CMHC vacant possession. As the hon. member knows, CMHC simply held the mortgage and until this time they did not have ownership of the building. Ownership should become effective today. The plan is to make arrangements with other levels of government or with private groups with whom we are in

June 6, 1975
Oral Questions
consultation to make certain the building is put to the best social use. I am biased towards making it into a senior citizens home because the building lends itself to it. But a considerable amount of repairs will have to be carried out to put the building into shape. We want to make the maximum social use of it as early as possible.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The Voodoo CF-101, described yesterday by a Liberal backbencher with some accuracy as being outdated and worn out, has not been operational in the U.S. regular air force for years and has not been used by the U.S. national guard for years, except as a rescue plane. Does the minister still claim that it is good enough for another five years as a first-line fighter aircraft in the Canadian armed forces?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Voodoo 101 is still a very capable intercepter aircraft. We intend to continue its use in the Canadian armed forces.


An hon. Member:: It is great for aerial acrobatics.



WESTERN CANADIAN AIR DEFENCE CONTROL CENTRE-DATE WHEN OPERATIONAL

Allan Bruce McKinnon: As a balance to the disastrous Voodoo story, the minister boasted that Canada is taking over control of our air defence in western Canada. I think the time frame is important in this regard. Can the minister inform the House when the Western Canadian Control Centre will be in full operation? Would four or five years from now be a likely date?


James Armstrong Richardson: The construction of the Western Canadian Control Centre is scheduled to start next year, and the acquisition of the equipment with which it will be equipped will also be started next year. I do not think a date for its completion has as yet been established.



FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR ATHLETES PARTICIPATING IN OLYMPICS

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the report that our Olympic athletes are broke and embittered, can the minister say if the additional financial assistance which he announced last week is considered adequate to meet the needs that have been illustrated, and, if not, whether other speedy remedial action is contemplated to assist those of our Canadian Olympic athletes

who find themselves in financial difficulties resulting from their devotion to rigorous training schedules?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have read with some interest a series of articles in a daily newspaper this week which did not seem to have been aware of the press release issued last week by my department announcing substantial increases in the funding for Canadian athletes who are of international standards. I will have copies of that press release sent to the particular newspaper to make sure that they are made aware of the situation, since they do not seem to read those papers in which these things are reported.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, the Canadian Olympic Association has announced it would take the responsibility for the non-students among our Olympic athletes. I expect them to be in a position to make an announcement very shortly on this subject; there is every indication that they will be in a position to meet the needs that have been expressed in this area. So far as my own area of responsibility is concerned which we have divided with the Canadian Olympic Association, as I indicated previously in the House, we have made an individual review of all the cases of apparent hardship, and special steps have been taken to take care of those particular cases.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it follows on the grievance expressed last night at the conclusion of the debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Has the minister replied as yet to the representations made from Radium and Invermere concerning problems following the imposition of a complex and increased fee schedule for Canada's national parks, both with regard to confusion at the gates and to the sharply reduced revenue reported by businesses operating within the parks?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, I have not received representations from Radium. But generally, the system we are using, particularly in the western parks, regarding the fee schedule has not been changed for many years. There has only been a change in the amount of fees. So far as visitation to the parks is concerned, the number of visitors was down in April but it was up substantially in March, which we think is a reflection of the fact that Easter was in March this year rather than in April. Figures show an increase of 12.24 per cent for Revelstoke and slightly over 4 per cent growth for Banff during the month of May. So we do not think this reflects a diminution in visitation.


Howard Earl Johnston: Has the honour system for the through traffic broken down?
June 6, 1975


J. Judd Buchanan: We hope not, but this is something that we may well encounter difficulties with because there are several other parks, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, where we will have to be relying on the honesty of the person passing through when he or she states that that is all they are doing. We are simply going to have to work with it.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I must take a moment to reply to the cheap political remark made by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), for which he has become well known recently in this House, when he called attention to some of the empty seats on the opposition benches. I simply want to advise him that the occupants of some of those seats have already left for what appears to be a very successful caucus in Halifax. That is where the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has gone. He left at about eleven o'clock, and I would also like to advise the hon. member that he travelled on Air Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if I offended the sensitivity of the hon. member, 1 am sorry. It is shameful that someone in this House should speak in a political way.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2) I would like to table two copies in both official languages of an exchange of correspondence between officials of the Government of Canada and the government of Manitoba relating to the Nelson River Transmission System.
I understand that a similar tabling will take place in the Manitoba Legislature today.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an astrisk.)
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,907, 2,253, 2,352, 2,361, 2,383, 2,415, 2,424 and 2,493.
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,283, 2,231 and 2,462 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,455?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Will the proposed changes to Section 19 of the Income Tax Act be applicable to the French language periodical Selection du Reader's Digest?
2.	Was the periodical published continously in Canada since 1947?
3.	Is the periodical published at a loss according to the statements of the publishers?
4.	Is the government concerned that the periodical Selection du Reader's Digest may cease publication in Canada?
5.	What measures are contemplated to assist the French language magazine industry in Canada?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	The government is not persuaded that its proposed amendment will result in such financial loss to the Reader's Digest Association (Canada) Ltd. that Selection du Reader's Digest would cease publication.
5.	The Canada Council operates a number of programmes of assistance to the periodical industry in Canada. Funds are made available to periodicals of a literary, artistic or cultural nature in order to defray operating costs. Further, $1.5 million has recently been made available to the council in order that it increase the level of support to the promotion and distribution of both books and magazines in Canada.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	(a) How many applications were submitted under VLA between April 1, 1974 and March 31, 1975 (b) how many were new applications (c) how much money was involved (d) what proportion of money was allocated at 31/2 per cent?
2.	Was the survey carried out by the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Command of the Canadian Legion completed and, if so, what arrangements were made to provide funding to carry-out the necessary repairs?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. (a) 6,510. (b) 4,234. (c) $65,366,020 was encumbered. (d) $24,856,243.
2. It is understood the survey undertaken by the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Command of the Royal Canadian Legion was completed recently but a copy of the final report has not been submitted for consideration.


[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	(a) What are the names of the individual members of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping and, in each case, what agency, department or organization does each represent (b) what are the dates and locations of each of the meetings of the Committee (c) how many new traps (i) have been tested (ii) are being tested (iii) are awaiting testing (d) what are the precise terms of reference of the Committee (e) who is the coordinator of the Committee and what are his specific functions (f) how many (i) mechanical laboratories (ii) biological laboratories does the Committee have at its disposal and where is each located?
2.	Is it the intention of the Committee to recommend more humane traps to the provinces and, if so, on what date?


Len Marchand: 1. (a) Mr. John Brubacher, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, (Chairman); Mr. Marcel Beaudet, Quebec Department of Tourism, Fish and Game; Mr. G. A. Kemp, Alberta Department of Lands and Forests; Mr. Russell Hall, Northwest Territories Game Management Division; Mr. David Gimmer, Federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, (b) Septem ber 23, 1973, Winnipeg; November 6 and 7, 1973, Ottawa; January 22, 1974, Ottawa; March 11, 12, 14, 15, 1974, Toronto; March 28, 29, 1974, Toronto; May 16, 1974, Toronto; October 16-17, 1974, Toronto; February 1-2, 1975, North Bay. (c) (i) 3; (ii) 3; (iii) 56 (as of May 1, 1975). (d) The Federal-Provincial Humane Trapping Committee, at its founding meeting in Winnipeg, September 24-25, 1973 was directed to: -establish its long and short term objectives; -prepare a budget; -obtain a co-ordinator for the program and proceed with the work of establishing engineering and biological criteria for humaneness in traps and trapping techniques; -prepare to have prototypes of new trapping devices made; -have traps tested and evaluated and report to provinces and territories on the results. Responsibility for arrangements for field testing of new or modified traps was also assigned to the committee. Communication and education were considered to be an essential part of the program. The committee's long term goal was expressed as follows: Within a maximum of five years, to recommend to provinces traps and trapping techniques for all fur-bearers which will, insofar as the state of science or the art will allow, provide the greatest humaneness in holding or killing fur-bearers; to maintain throughout the program communication with governments, interested persons or groups and news media. The shorter term objectives of the committee were expressed as follows: (i) to prepare and gain acceptance of budgets, (ii) to employ a co-ordinator, (iii) to assure that the functions such as co-ordination, liaison, trap development and testing, trapper education, public information and audit of performance of co-ordinator are all performed and that interim targets are met, (iv) to report to parent body-the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference, (v) to assure good communication with governments, interested groups, and news media, (vi) to assure that targets are met and that the goal is reached, (e) The co-ordinator is Mr. Peter Storms and his functions are; under the general direction of the committee chairman, the co-ordinator is responsible for: -gathering and collating information on traps, and trapping and circulating all public information to interested groups and individuals; -co-ordinating activities in the field of trap design by working with

governments, manufacturers and consultants to achieve acceptable specifications; -arranging for the manufacture of prototypes and for their field research and testing; - co-ordinating the final stage of development by recommending and implementing an appropriate manufacturing arrangement and investigating the legal implications related to patents, rights, and manufacturing; -compiling all the resulting information from this project in terms of design, efficacy, humaneness, specifications, manufacture and distribution in a published form for the guidance of provincial governments in enacting appropriate legislation. (f) (i) Mechanical testing is being carried out by Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, under contract with the Canadian Wildlife Service, (ii) Biological testing is being carried out by the Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, Ontario, under contract with the Canadian Wildlife Service.
2. Yes. The committee's objective is to provide reliable information to the provinces and territories in 5 years or less.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Since the Official Languages Act came into force on August 1, 1972, by province, how many (a) Anglophones have been hired by CBC and, how many (i) underwent immediate French-language training (ii) completed French-language training (iii) passed French-language training (b) Francophones have been hired by CBC and, how many (i) underwent immediate English-language training (ii) completed English-language training (iii) passed English-language training?
2.	How many employees of CBC (a) are fully bilingual (b) have undergone language testing?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) and (b). In order to answer these questions, CBC would have to examine the employment records of every employee hired since August 1, 1972. This would involve an inordinate amount of time, work and expense.
2. (a) See reply to part 1. (b) Testing is carried out only if an employee is to be given language training. Seven hundred and sixty seven employees have undergone such training since 1969.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	How many dairy cattle have been destroyed by the Department of Agriculture for brucellosis or bang's disease in each of the past five years?
2.	What was the average reimbursement paid per cow in each of the past five years?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Departmental records are not maintained in such a manner as to distinguish between dairy and beef cattle ordered destroyed. However, the total number of cattle destroyed are as follows:
Fiscal Year	No. of Animals
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972	- 73
1973	- 74
1974	- 75
3,884 3,800 4,100 8,849 14,022
June 6, 1975

2. The following are the average amounts of compensation paid for dairy and beef cattle of all ages.
Order Paper Questions
be taken as read and it could appear in Hansard as if it had been read?
1970-	71
1971-	72 1972 - 73
1973-	74
1974-	75
Average
('ompensat ion Paid


[Stage Direction]
*108.07
Mr. Cossitt: Since becoming Minister of Agriculture, how many of his speeches has the present Minister had printed at public expense and distributed to various persons (a) to how many persons was each distributed (b) what was the approximate cost of each distribution (c) what is the total estimated cost to date of all distributions that have taken place?


Eugene Whelan: 179. (a) The distribution averages 2,250 copies, (b) $347. (c) $62,113.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many CBC personnel from the English language radio and television networks were assigned to cover the visit to the Northwest Territories of Prince Charles and what are their names and job functions?
2.	How many CBC personnel from the French language radio and television networks were assigned to cover the visit to the Northwest Territories of Prince Charles and what are their names and job functions?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. For the CBC English radio network-one person covered the visit to the Northwest Territories. Three persons were assigned by the CBC English television network. As for their names and functions it has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration.
2. The CBC French radio and television networks made use of news agency stories of the visit to the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Diefenbaker: What was the total amount of the money supply in Canada on the 1st day of January in each of the years 1970 to 1975, inclusive?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, this question was placed by the Right Hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the answer is somewhat lengthy. I have given him a written copy. In light of that I wonder if the answer could


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answer should be tabled and printed in Hansard as if read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer to the above question is as follows:]
Data on the money supply in Canada are not available as at January 1, unless that date falls on a Wednesday as happened in 1975. The following table therefore shows information as at the last Wednesday of each year from 1969 to 1973.
The total money supply is usually defined to include currency outside banks and Canadian dollar chartered bank deposits, net of estimated Canadian dollar items in transit. Two other frequently used definitions of the money supply are shown below for comparative purposes: Currency and privately-held Canadian dollar deposits, defined as currency outside banks plus total Canadian dollar chartered bank deposits less Government of Canada deposits. Currency and demand deposits-currency outside banks plus chartered bank demand deposits. This narrow definition concentrates on the forms of money that are most readily usable for making payments.
Currency and Canadian Dollar Chartered Bank Deposits (Outstanding; Amounts, Millions of Dollars)
Currency and
Currency and	Privately-Held	CurrencyTotal Canadian	Canadian Dollar	and DemanDollar Deposits	Deposits	DepositsDecember 31, 1969	29,214	27,906	9,342December 30, 1970	32,161	30,795	9,811December 29, 1971	38,296	35,837	11,763December 27, 1972	43,564	41,024	13,142December 26, 1973	51,227	48,859	14,843January 1, 1975	62,124	57,442	15,772


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the Department of the Secretary of State have a record of the official language spoken by immigrants at the time that Canadian citizenship is granted?
2.	In each of the past five years, what was the total (a) in the Province of Quebec (b) in the Constituency of Vaudreuil, of those immigrants who received their Canadian citizenship and were listed as (i) French language (ii) English language?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. No.
2. (a) No record; (b) No record.

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each department, agency and Crown corporation, does the government prepare lists of individuals that are obtainable by private organizations and can be used for direct mail campaigns?
2.	In each case (a) what information is contained in the list (b) how many names are contained (c) what is the cost of obtaining these names (d) how can they be obtained by private organizations (e) what conditions are attached by the government to the use of the list?
Return tabled.



COST OF SERVICES OF MR. GOULD AND MR. LANG TO DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Andre (Calgary Centre): 1.	How many competitions or positions are available in the Science and Technology Programme of the Public Service Commission under competition numbers (a) 75-STP-28(82) (b) 75-STP-06(82) (c) 75-STP-32P(82) (d) 75-STP-32B(82)?
2.	What is the specific salary range of each such position?
3.	In which department is each such position available and in what division or branch?
4.	Have any of the positions been filled and, if so, in each case (a) in which department is the position located (b) what is the salary of the person hired (c) was the winning competitor a public servant in the position that he or she held immediately prior to winning the competition (d) what was his or her salary?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: 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, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you will recall that a question was raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) about the adequacy of the

royal recommendation, and it was raised again by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I think I could have argued that the recommendation was adequate, particularly since in a case like this the executive is responsible both for the legislation and for the recommendation, which was meant to be a general description of what was included in the bill.
However, so that the passage of this bill, which I think will command general support, is not impeded I have arranged for a substitute recommendation which I gather, Mr. Speaker, is in your hands. I would ask leave to have this new recommendation printed and to have it taken as the effective recommendation.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the sanguine view of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) with respect to the original royal recommendation. I must say that I am rather happy this has happened. I do not want Your Honour or the President of the Privy Council to take that expression of mine as an indication that we are completely happy with the bill as it stands; it does have certain discriminatory aspects, which will be dealt with in detail by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). But we are anxious to get this bill on, and on that basis we are prepared to give our consent.
However, I think it is very important that in future the President of the Privy Council is rather careful about documents to which he puts his pen, because it could cause confusion and some difficulty later if legislation happened to slip through with that kind of inadequacy in it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, dealing with a technicality and not with the substance of the bill. We have no objection to a substitute royal recommendation which would more directly reflect what is in the bill. But I am concerned about the reference made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to the pen of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). If it is a new royal recommendation, I hope it is signed by the Governor General.


Mr. Speaker:: The fact of the matter is that it is signed by both of them, I am given to understand.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one point. I am not here to argue with the government House leader, but I just wonder whether he can assure us that the royal recommendation is now in conformity with the intent of the bill. I think this is extremely important. After all, he has had two kicks at the cat in this regard.
If I recall correctly, on June 2 the recommendation referred to married persons; there is no doubt about that. On June 3 it referred to married persons; there is no question about that. At that particular time the minister changed the ages from 59, I think, to another age, to 60 to 64.
But not having seen the recommendation and not being in a position to determine that the government is not still making boobs, particularly when we notice that the bill refers to spouses and there is no reference to marriage whatsoever-it is only by way of implication-I hope the minister has not made another mistake. I do not know
June 6, 1975

whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is reading the recommendation without seeing the bill, or reading the bill without seeing the recommendation. We are very concerned about the sloppiness which has occurred with respect to this particular bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How about reading it?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, that is my point. I think the substitute royal recommendation should be read either by Your Honour or by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) so that we will know to what we are agreeing.


Mr. Speaker:: For the benefit of hon. members, I have here a letter of transmission from the office of His Excellency and it makes reference to the following recommendation:
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to provide that payments of benefits under the act be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as a statutory appropriation; to authorize an agreement upon prescribed terms with a province where benefits payable in that province similar to or supplementary to those payable under this act may be combined with payments to recipients under this act and paid on behalf of that province; to define "spouse" in the manner prescribed; and in the manner prescribed, to provide after September, 1975, for the payment of spouse's allowances to persons 60 to 64 inclusive.
Is there unanimous consent to the filing of the amended recommendation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that the minister has not attempted to make a statement in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out to hon. members that at the moment I called for the adoption of the motion I noticed the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) rising on my left and the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) turning to his right. He was engaged in a conversation of some kind and I did not know whether he intended to rise and speak on the bill first. Is it agreed that the minister shall proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise immediately in my place because I thought the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) was rising once again on one of his numerous points of order, questions of privilege and the type of question that he raises on all matters. I felt that, with due deference, I would give him first chance to have a crack at whatever he wanted to say.
It gives me great pleasure to open debate today on Bill C-62 which would amend the Old Age Security Act and repeal the Old Age Assistance Act as well as amending all related acts. As hon. members are aware, the main feature of this bill is to provide income-tested allowances to spouses aged 60 to 64 of old age security recipients, to become effective October 1 of this year. This measure, which was announced in the Speech from the Throne of
Old Age Security Act
this thirtieth parliament, will permit the government to pay a monthly allowance to some 65,000 to 90,000 spouses of old age security pensioners who are in the most need of income.
Such a step, Madam Speaker, is in the tradition which Liberal governments have established in their treatment of our senior citizens and I should like to outline briefly the steps which have led to this latest measure. Since 1927, when parliament approved the old age pension act under which the federal government paid 50 per cent of the cost of a means-tested pension administered by the provinces, the improvements have been such that the federal government has assumed total responsibility for old age pensions. The means test gave way, on the recommendation of the 1950 joint parliamentary committee, to a universal flat-rate type of pension with eligibility based solely on age and residence. The same criteria remain in force today.
The next fundamental step was the establishment, in 1966, of the guaranteed income supplement, which was initially intended to be a transitional program for those who had little or no opportunity to participate in the Canada or Quebec pension plans established at the same time. In 1970, however, it was converted to a continuing program to guarantee a minimum level of income to Canada's pensioners. Such a move, Madam Speaker, is in keeping with a traditional value in our society which couples a benefit of right with a supplemental payment for those who most need it.
Two years later, in 1968, both the OAS and GIS payments were increased annually, with a 2 per cent ceiling accounting for rises in the consumer price index; the ceiling was removed in May, 1972, to allow for full escalation. As most members are aware, such escalation was changed to a quarterly base in October of 1973 to allow for even more rapid response to changes in the consumer price index on behalf of our senior citizens.
A short look back to 1967, when the GIS payments began, shows that the basic pension was then $75 per month, with a supplement of $30. The figures for July of this year stand at $125.76 for the basic pension, with a GIS of $88.21 for single pensioners giving a total per month of $213.97; and a GIS of $78.34 each at the married rate, giving a total income of $408 per month for a couple. It does not require much of a mathematician, Madam Speaker, to see that in those eight years the guaranteed minimum payment for Canada's pensioners has doubled and is now payable at age 65 rather than 68 as was the case in 1967.
The bill which is before us today represents one more fundamental step in improving the income security of Canada's old age security recipients. The plight of a couple, one of whom receives the old age pension and one who does not, is often brought to our attention. The spouse is, in most cases, not a member of the work force and highly unlikely to be employed in any case. Indeed, in these days of a call for earlier retirement, about which many serious reservations have been expressed, it can and does happen that employees are retired from work earlier than they would choose and when they could still have years of productive work ahead of them.
We tend to forget, Madam Speaker, that while the professional person-the doctor, dentist, lawyer, etc.-can choose his retirement age, those on salary or wages, usual-

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act
ly considerably less than those of the professional, are retired at an age to be specified by a union, employer or other outside and totally arbitrary force. Such cases can and do present hardships and it is for this reason that the Liberal Party, during the 1974 election campaign, 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.
I repeat, this measure is aimed at the couple which, at present, is expected to live on the pension of one. It does all that, but nothing more and in that sense is an interim measure. Indeed, I 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.
I have been engaged, since April of 1973, in a review of Canada's social security plans and programs with my provincial counterparts. Basic propositions of that review read as follows:
That a guaranteed income should be available to people whose incomes are insufficient because they are unable to or are not expected to work and that the incomes of those who are working but whose incomes are inadequate should be supplemented under a single, general income supplementation plan with built-in work incentives.
These were propositions Nos. 6 and 7 of the working document tabled in this House in April, 1973.

I alluded previously to the income support and supplement program. In February 1975, the federal and provincial ministers of welfare reached an agreement on a twofold program, that is income support and income supplement. Income support applies to all persons who are unable to work, who should not work, or who cannot find employment under provincial labour standards.
The income supplement would extend to persons who work but whose income is inadequate for a number of reasons. My officials are in the process of drawing up the mode of application of the income support and supplement programs. Those procedures will be studied at the next federal and provincial welfare ministers' conference. It is hoped that shortly thereafter, the federal and provincial governments can reach an agreement, and that an income support program can be implemented sometime next year.
I would point out that, in the meantime, the needy who are not eligible for the spouse's allowance can get financial assistance through provincial and municipal welfare programs. The federal government shares half the cost of those programs through the Canada Pension Plan. I wish to point out another important factor: the introduction of the spouse's allowance should result in the elimination of a number of welfare cases and thus enable the provinces to save money that can then be applied to other areas of welfare.
1 would like now to take a few moments of the time of the House to outline the provisions of this measure as well as to explain briefly the other provisions of Bill C-62. As I have already mentioned, the basic pension and the supple-

ment for the spouse aged 60 to 64 will all be subject to an income test, the same test as is now applied to the GIS portion of pensions now payable. This will ensure that payments go to those who most need them, and are not granted on a universal basis. We estimate that this plan will provide a further $100 million in benefits to older Canadians and I am sure that the Canadian people would not expect us to do less. The pensions will be paid individually to each recipient; that is, the spouse who is not a pensioner will receive a cheque each month in his or her own right. Proof of age and residence will be required from the spouse, just as in the case of persons aged 65 and over, and proof of marital status will also be required.
In order to ensure consistency in federal programs, the same criteria which now apply to common law couples under the old age security and Canada Pension Plan will be used in the case of the spouse's allowance. That is, couples who have been living together in a common law relationship and publicly representing themselves as man and wife will be accepted, though the relationship must have lasted for a minimum period of one year on the last day of the preceding fiscal year if neither partner has a legal spouse, or three years if either partner has a legal spouse. My department will be sending application forms for this spouse's allowance in time for the program to come into effect on October 1, and therefore the onus is not on the pensioner or spouse to seek out such forms.
Turning now to the other provisions of the bill, Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to be able to introduce at this time a bill which seeks to authorize the governor in council to make a regulation whereby certain periods of absence from Canada can be counted as presence in Canada in determining eligibility for old age security. As hon. members know, "residence" and "presence in Canada" are not identical in the regulations of the Old Age Security Act and because of this some people have been penalized because of absences from Canada while serving in the Canadian armed forces, while employed by the federal or provincial governments, or while engaged as a missionary, for example. Some such cases have been brought to my attention, and hon. members may remember that on January 10, 1974, I gave a commitment in this House that power to make such a regulation would be sought from the House. We agree that it is untenable that persons serving abroad for their country, either as armed forces personnel or as civilians, should be so penalized and I am particularly pleased to include this amendment with Bill C-62 today.
Another significant provision is the one which gives to the Minister of National Health and Welfare authority to declare overpayments uncollectable in order to ease financial hardships. We all know how easy it is to make minor mistakes in calculations-


Walter David Baker: We know how easy it is to make mistakes in the royal recommendation.


Marc Lalonde: -and it frequently happens that through oversight or misunderstanding a pensioner may understate "income" when applying for the guaranteed income supplement, and thereby receive an overpayment. Under the present law, this results in a reduction in the supplement, coupled with a further reduction to recover the
June 6, 1975

amount of overpayment, which frequently means financial hardship for the pensioner. I feel that if pensioners have so little income that they qualify for the GIS, they should not be penalized by having it reduced for honest and minor mathematical errors, and I am sure all hon. members will welcome this move to give the Minister of National Health and Welfare discretion to waive the collection of such overpayments.

Here are three other aspects of the bill: any provincial benefit payable under the provisions of the Old Age Security Act may be added to the OAS pension cheque, subject to an agreement between the province concerned and the federal administration. In such case, every three months the provincial government would reimburse to the federal government the costs arising out of that agreement. Such an agreement already exists with Prince Edward Island where family allowances are included every month in the federal government's allowance cheque.
The Old Age Security Fund will be eliminated and the benefits will be taken directly out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. At the present time, there is no money left in the Old Age Security Fund and the deficits have therefore been made up through temporary loans from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. With the implementation of fiscal reforms in 1971, the former tax rates relative to old age security, 4 per cent on personal income, 3 per cent on corporate income and 3 per cent on sales, were united within the regular tax structure and tied up at those levels. There now exists no means to increase those rates to replenish the Old Age Security Fund. The present act stipulates that the fund must reimburse loans made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, without however, providing any source of revenue to make such reimbursement. To remedy the situation, the OAS Fund will be eliminated and all benefits under the legislation will be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Finally, the Old Age Assistance Act will be repealed. The act provided for the payment of an allowance, subject to a means test, to persons 65 to 70 years old. The program was administered by the provinces and the federal government took part in its financing. The act has been inoperative since 1969 as a result of amendments to the OAS Act that reduced the age of eligibility for the pension from 70 to 65 between 1966 and 1970, which reduction gradually eliminated the Old Age Assistance Act.
Madam Speaker, I do not wish to delay any further the debate on Bill C-62. I am sure that all hon. members will be receptive to the improvements that we shall bring to old age security pensions in Canada, and I request their cooperation so that these amendments be made effective as soon as possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Madam Speaker, I would have thought the minister would have done this House and the country the courtesy of indicating that he misled us when he released the expensive-looking press release of June 3. I cannot understand what the government is doing. The minister's press release came after two royal recommendations had been brought before the House. The first recommendation used the word "married". The second recommendation also used the word
Old Age Security Act
"married" and attempted to correct the mistakes of the first recommendation. The age limitations in the first recommendation were wrong. The government said benefits would be paid to spouses between 60 and 64 years of age; however, when they thought they had everything fixed up, the minister then rushed to the media and indicated that this bill, C-62, would apply to persons aged 60 to 64 who are married to old age security pensioners. On the second or third page of his press release he became even more specific. I quote:
All persons applying for the GIS and the spouse's allowance for the first time will be required to submit a certificate of marriage.
All I am trying to put before this House is the fact that the minister and the government really do not know what they are doing. It has been a conglomeration of mix-up designed to confuse our senior citizens, let alone the opposition. We now have an entirely different principle. What bothers me is that I do not know what the ratio is all about. On page 1 of the minister's statement, he said:
The purpose of this amendment is to provide relief in situations where two persons would otherwise have to live on the pension of one. The income needs of the other groups such as singles, widows, etc., are being examined under the income support and supplementation proposals of the Federal-Provincial Social Security Review. It is hoped that agreement can be reached to implement the income support part of the system next year.
What sort of nonsense is this? There are many questions that have to be answered with respect to those who have been excluded. I will mention this in detail a little later because there are many questions that have to be answered in terms of this federal-provincial conference. I quote from an undated article in the Globe and Mail:
-what the cost of the new system is likely to be to each province; which level of government will administer the parts of the new welfare system; what will be defined as income for the purposes of deciding who is eligible for benefits; the period of time over which income will be counted; the rate at which people receiving benefits will be taxed for their earned income; who will be included in the family unit for purposes of determining the level of benefits and the level of income; what assets owned by a prospective client will be taken into account.
Until these practical questions are answered, the provincial ministers will not be asked to give their approval-
What disturbs me is that there is no time limit to look after those who the minister purposely left out. I will get to that shortly. The government has emphasized the inflation problem, the unemployment problem, the problem of immigration, of the economy, of the energy crisis. While these are understandably pressing problems, the result has been that the aged and disadvantaged have suffered at the hands of other government preoccupations. At the same time, the government has coveted, rationalized and justified extravagant and frivolous spending on items which there was no indication that the public needed or desired.
Since 1961, the total cost of operating the PCO and PMO has increased by 1,148 per cent. Government expenditures on professional and special services have increased by 509.1 per cent. This spending extravagance directed toward the executive's personal self-glorification goes on and on and need not be repeated here. The point is that now we are confronted with a half-baked, half-thought out, incremental attempt at bettering the lot of some of our senior citizens.

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act
The government has been gracious enough to index these allowances quarterly. This will be done, we presume, on the basis of the consumer price index. Yet we know that the aged and those in financial need spend an inordinate amount of their income on housing, food and health services, components of the CPI that are markedly higher than the aggregate index that will be used. Why has the government not implemented an old persons or disadvantaged index so that indexing can truly meet the needs of those it is meant to serve? In short, we have said that Canada's senior citizens have different needs and expenses than the average Canadian family of four and as a result new measures must be devised to meet these unique needs of the aged.
The minister has promised Canadians for some time that he will introduce legislation directed toward optimal change in the field of income maintenance and security. He has been meeting with provincial ministers and telling us that certain areas of his policy have been agreed upon. I have raised many questions to indicate that certain areas have not been agreed upon. Many questions have to be answered. In his infinite wisdom, the minister has not told us what problems the federal and provincial governments now face. He said they are studying them. His bill indicates that he hopes something will occur next year. While the reforms very reluctantly offered under Bill C-62, particularly with regard to two or three matters which I will point out later, are much needed, they are nonetheless stop-gap and fall far short of the needs of Canada's aged. Mr. Lalonde has indicated-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry; I mean the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). You can always tell when the NDP House leader is here: he will not allow me to make a mistake, whether it is with respect to grammar or mentioning a person's name. I appreciate the assistance he has been giving me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not like my hon. friend to make any boobs.


Marc Lalonde: We are used to your mistakes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister says they are used to my mistakes. If we took our job in the same way, in terms of seriousness, as the government does, Lord have mercy on this country!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: We are well protected by a practised opposition.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What concerns me is this government's showing no action to remedy the inflationary pressures that have so diminished the economic security of those Canadians who have given years of service to their country. Our senior citizens continually write to members of parliament regarding the problem of escalating rents. That is a very serious problem. However, there is no direction coming from this government with regard to this important matter in terms of some sort of consensus regarding

voluntary guidelines as to what can be done to relieve the suffering of these people.
There are not enough houses. I am sure members on all sides of the House receive letter after letter from senior citizens asking for help in finding accommodation. All the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) does is refer to AHOP. Surely there is a need that must be recognized immediately. The senior citizens' dollar is being eroded because of the archaic fiscal and monetary policies of this government and because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is in a quandary, not knowing what he is going to do.
We on this side of the House at least put before the Canadian people a policy, which we hoped would have been acceptable, in order to solve the longsuffering of millions of Canadians who have suffered at the hands of this government. I understand the government has now stolen that policy; they in fact have an incomes policy. It was not politically acceptable, but it is now intellectually acceptable. An incomes policy is now continuously being brought up to date.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Are you in agreement with your leader?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am always in agreement with my leader, unlike those on the treasury benches who are in continual disagreement with their leader.


Mr. Anderson:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To what leader is the hon. member referring?


Walter David Baker: Dry up!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I was about to say when I was rudely interrupted through ignorance, the government is fighting inflation on the backs of our senior citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government's aim is to see to it that our aging population continues to live in discomfort and without dignity; and now we see another callous and Draconian approach to the aged.
On the face of it, the bill looks as though we could jump for joy. But we want to say it is most unfortunate the minister did not mention the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) who has been attempting to see to it that authority is given under an order in council by virtue of which certain periods of absence from Canada could be counted as presence in Canada for purposes of determining eligibility for OAS. I should like the minister to know that the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary has been pursuing that matter and he should be given all the credit for it, not the Minister of National Health and Welfare who sits on his fanny and steals our policies.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Listen to them over there when we speak the truth. Of course, Madam Speaker, one would hardly complain of another admirable step which is contained in the bill. I quote from page 2 of the minister's
June 6, 1975

press release. I might add that this release is inaccurate when it comes to the most important parts. But according to this part on page 2, the minister would be given authority to write off small or uncollectable overpayments of benefit at his discretion, to ease financial hardship. What the minister did not say was that most of those overpayment were the result of a bureaucracy which was not working; it was because of bureaucratic inefficiency. I say this with a great deal of respect, that hundreds, if not thousands of senior citizens were forced to scratch and dig in order to make repayments.
When I talk about a callous and Draconian approach, we find that the bill is talking about spouses, which I cannot understand because the word "spouse" as defined includes incestuous relationships, illicit relationships and common law marriages. These are the people the minister is so concerned about. He is sitting over there, smiling, talking with the other one who is hanging on, who is the other bagman in the party in terms of the Treasury Board.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I'm the bagman of the country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You'd better believe it, the bagman of the country. You had better look after it because our job is not only to see that the government behaves-and it is getting almost impossible-but also to be the watchdog of the public purse. So be careful.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is what I am doing.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I like it when you get to the hearts of those two ministers. They know I am telling the truth, and they haven't heard half of it yet. Let me tell you what the minister is doing, Madam Speaker. He favours illicit relations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hon. members over there haven't read the bill yet. When they get to the definition of "spouse" they will see what I am talking about. All this is at the expense of-guess who, Madam Speaker. It is at the expense of our widows, our widowers, our spinsters, our bachelors, our divorced persons and even persons close to 59. All these persons have been completely ignored by the minister. I cannot understand his thinking. He says, "We are going to look after them shortly." But when, in heaven's name, is shortly? What we see here is a very unfair, illogical and blatantly discriminatory approach to a very serious subject. I say this with all due respect.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to vote against it?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One never votes against motherhood, my dear, dumb-dumb friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There can be no hesitation on our part in saying we shall vote for the bill; but we who sit on these benches have a responsibility to draw attention to the inadequacies of the measure before us, and that is what I am trying to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Old Age Security Act


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: So many backbenchers come in here for 15 minutes and all of a sudden, speaking from the back because they can't get to the front, they have all the words of wisdom. I say to them that now and again one has to sit back, listen, learn and be prepared to stand up and make a significant contribution to debate, rather than hide behind the curtain uttering foolish remarks from the back benches.
I find it extremely offensive to lump legitimately married people in with those I have just described. I wonder what the thinking of the government is. I cannot understand it. Getting into the bill a little more deeply, we find that "spouse" is defined as follows:
"Spouse" in relation to a pensioner includes a person of the opposite sex who has lived with the pensioner-
Thank God there has been forethought to think of those words, anyway
-for three or more years where there is a bar to their marriage-
I cannot understand that. To me, as a lawyer, a bar to a marriage means that you are perhaps living with your daughter, or your son, in a way which is not acceptable by society. Is this allowed? The minister does not explain it.
-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.
The minister does not even have the decency to say this includes those who are married according to the accepted form of our society. The bill does not even talk about marriage. This is the part that disturbs me, because the people I spoke about earlier, the widows, the single persons, the divorced are excluded in favour of this other gang.
I turn, now, to another provision in the bill, one that really disturbs me. I refer to section 17.3 which states:
(1) Where the beneficiary of a spouse's allowance has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding ninety days, payment of the spouse's allowance shall be suspended for any period the spouse continues to be imprisoned.
What are we being asked to do here? We are talking about people who are between 60 and 64 years of age. I want to know the statistics which give the minister cause for such concern that he is prepared to remove the bread and the milk from the tables of the aged. I do not know what is going on here that we should be asked to approve the suspension of allowances for those who are in the age bracket between 60 and 64.
What about this other provision in clause 17-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. At this point we are supposed to be discussing the general principle of the bill, not the details.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With respect, Madam Speaker, either I am a little confused-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -or there is some misunderstanding. I can refer to matters I dislike without referring to the bill. This is all within the general principle of the bill. This is the first time I have ever heard it said that on second

Old Age Security Act
reading a member has to refer to the bill. I have been here practically every day, but perhaps I have missed something. I am pointing out matters to which we take objection.
For example, I find out, Madam Speaker, that no payment will be made to the so-called spouse if the other dies or if the spouse ceases to be eligible. For example, if the husband dies and his widow is 62, she is cut off from any payment. I do not understand this. It is unfair. Words fail me in trying to determine the thinking of this government. Another point that also bothers me is that we have moved away from the principle of universality because we are now introducing a means test.


Marc Lalonde: No, an income test.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't mince words; it is the same thing. The minister can look in his black book and find out what is going on, so let him not play games. I want to make reference to an article in the Globe and Mail.


Marc Lalonde: Surely you have a better authority than that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is dealing with what it calls an unfair pension proposal. The minister did a flip-flop in talking one day about people who were married and then talking about spouses. If they also include married people-and I hope they do-then another editorial will have to come out shortly. I quote from the editorial in the Globe and Mail of May 26:
Wait just a minute. Health and welfare minister Marc Lalonde is being unassailably kind and sensitive in saying he will bring in legislation extending the old age pension (on a means test basis) to persons aged 60 to 65 who are married to pensioners. We know the hardship that exists for many of these couples, trying to scrape through on one pension and guaranteed income supplement. But how equitable is Mr. Lalonde being? He is in fact saying the old age pension is no longer universal at age 65-he is saying that one class of people, pensioners' spouses of a certain age, are to be singled out for special treatment.
I hope, Madam Speaker, that those who are supposed to tell us what is going on around here give the minister some big headlines as to what is going on, because the article goes on to ask this question:
How happy is that going to make spinsters or bachelors in that age group who must exist on welfare until they reach 65? Or widows and widowers under pensionable age (the old age pension that might have gone to their spouses has no survivor benefits)? Or the spouses of pensioners who are, say, 59? Do they not eat as much?
The last question in the editorial is:
Is Mr. Lalonde's tinkering really necessary-or fair?
When you introduce a means test, a program is no longer universal. I suggest to the minister that if he wants to do something significant he should gradually reduce the age from 65 to 60 a year at a time. This would make some sense out of the program. But no, the minister says he wants to give us old age security. I do not care whether he calls it a spouses' allowance or not, because the same amount of money is involved. The government is going to pay old age security plus GIS, but those entitled to it will be subjected to a means test if they are under 65. Those who are over 65 are not subjected to the means test. This is why I cannot understand the government's thinking. Either you give them the money because you are thinking of reducing the

age, without any encumbrance, or you are just playing footsy with this question of the tax that is involved. The minister has statistics showing how much money will be paid people between 60 and 64. Little special advantage is given this group that is not yet 65. In other words, what is put in one hand will likely be taken out of the other and go back into government coffers.
Others of my colleagues will be bringing to bear matters that we believe are extremely important in respect of this bill. Although I have additional points to make, I notice my time is running out, so in closing may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much longer. I think I have made my point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear hon. members over there shouting. All I can say to them at this point is that they are lucky I am not seeking the leadership of this party, because something tells me they would catch hell. In closing, I wish to state that here we have a nation faced with a gross national product of about $150 billion, while the government spent in the order of $150 million in 1973-74 on bilingualism and while we have the Petro-Can bill in respect of which we will spend some $500 million and there is the suggestion that it will amount to $1 billion.
At the same time, we have the CBC spending millions of dollars while the Canadian people take issue with its particular interest in sex, violence and vulgarity. In addition, we have many outside consultants in respect of whom the government spends something in the order of $750 million. We also have the OFY and the LIP programs which are supposed to look after our people, at the expense of our senior citizens. Last, but not least, there is the UIC in respect of which we are spending something like $3.5 billion. In the face of all this, the government has the unmitigated gall to come before this House-


Mr. Stollery:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to bring to the attention of the House that on such an important issue as this there are only four or five members of the opposition party present, and there is no one present in the press gallery.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I merely wish to bring to the attention of the hon. member that all that is required in this House is a quorum of 20 members. Those 20 members do not have to be on one side or the other. The Chair does not keep a record of who is or is not here. It is the duty of members to be here at all times, and we operate as if they were all here.
June 6, 1975


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been in attendance earlier, he would have heard one of his colleagues refer to the same matter. The reason many members of this party are not here is that our caucus is meeting in Halifax to determine policies as alternatives to the rotten policies this country faces under this government.
I understand that the minister wishes this bill to pass today. I have a piece of advice to give him. If he wants it to pass today, he should sit over there, read his mail and be quiet while I make my observations. I mentioned a little earlier the policy of this government in respect of hiring outside consultants and its other policies involving OFY, LIP, unemployment insurance, and so on. Yet it has the unmitigated gall to bring in a bill which excludes widows, widowers, spinsters, bachelors and divorced persons. It would certainly seem to me that this government is mixed up fn its priorities.
We will let this bill go through. We certainly shall not vote against it. But we would like to know what are the priorities of this government. We feel this bill is unjust, illogical and discriminatory. It shows that this government has callously forgotten the great contribution our senior citizens have made to the development of this country. The government has forgotten that the need of these people who have been excluded is just as important as the need of others, and should be recognized.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for about half my life-and I am afraid that is literally true-I have been in the position of having to deal with proposals regarding old age pensions which fail to go far enough but which are steps in the right direction. It has always been my practice to point out the shortcomings and deficiencies, but nevertheless to vote for and give my support to anything that represents progress. That, sir, will be my position again today. I shall in fact be pointing out some of the shortcomings and deficiencies of Bill C-62, but it is a step in the direction I want us to move and I intend to give it my support, and I hope that it will be possible for us to give this bill second reading this afternoon and to refer it to the standing committee where it can be studied carefully.
It was my intention to deal directly with the bill and some of the things that were said about it this morning by the minister. In other words, I did not intend to comment on any speeches that might be made between the time the minister had the floor and the time I got it. I must say, however, that some of the things that were said by my good friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) prompt me to give him two or three minutes.
I happen to agree with him strongly and forcefully that this bill is discriminatory in that it provides pensions for only a limited number of persons betwe _>n age 60 and age 65. It is discriminatory in that it forgets spinsters, widows, bachelors and widowers. I think anyone who has followed the old age pension debates will confirm that throughout the piece I have argued, not just for the payment of pensions to spouses but for lowering the eligibility age and for making the only test below age 65 whether or not one is in the labour market. I contend, therefore, that I have every right to stand today and complain about this bill.
Old Age Security Act
I find it difficult, however, to sit and listen to the complaints of my friend from Hamilton West in view of the fact that the bill follows exactly the principle his party advocated in the last election campaign.


An hon. Member:: Oh, Stanley!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is my name, yes.


Walter David Baker: We know your name.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have in my hand a copy of a Conservative Party commitment to old age pensioners that has on it the picture of Robert Stanfield-"the one who cares". This particular Conservative Party campaign leaflet from the last election is devoted entirely to what the Conservative Party would do for the pensioners. Listen to this sentence:
We will ensure that the wife or husband of a pensioner aged 65 or more becomes eligible for the old age security and guaranteed income benefits at 55, if he or she is not employed.
There are two differences between that sentence and the bill now before us. One is that the spouse's pension should begin at 55 instead of 60. The other difference is that the Progressive Conservatives made no reference to marital relations other than those that are strictly legal. But that sentence and the position of the Progressive Conservative Party throughout these discussions has been one that has ignored the spinsters, the widows, the bachelors and the widowers.
The Progressive Conservatives never argued for paying a pension to everyone in the lower age brackets. Their position was that they would pay it to the spouse of a pensioner; in other words, the spouse of one already 65 or over. I point out that earlier in this session, on one or more occasions, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) welcomed the proposal being advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and urged the minister to bring it in soon and make it effective earlier. There is such a thing as standing by what you have stood for. The Progressive Conservatives have asked, in principle, for the very thing the minister has brought in today. Why, then, does my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West, spend half of his speech condemning the very thing in this bill that the Progressive Conservatives have endorsed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Lest anyone think I did not take the precaution to look up our own election literature to see whether we had made that mistake-I was sure we had not, because I usually have something to say about our pension policy-this is what we said in our election literature for 1974:
We must... make old age security pensions and Canada Pension Plan benefits available to all who are voluntarily off the labour market after reaching the age of sixty.
We did not limit the pensions we should pay to those below the age of 65 who meet a marriage test. The Progressive Conservatives did, the Liberals do, so why do the two of them have to fight about it? I said I would give my hon.

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act
friend two or three minutes and now I think we had better get back to the bill.
I welcome any progress in the field of old age pensions. As I said earlier, I have been arguing for a long time- about half my life-for improvements of this kind, and I dearly want to see pensions paid to all those who are 60 and are out of the labour market. Therefore, when a bill comes in that pays it to some persons at the age of 60, I will support it. But it is discriminatory along the very lines that the hon. member for Hamilton West has pointed out.
The figures I have been able to collect-perhaps they are subject to correction, but I am sure they are not very far out-are that there are about 770,000 Canadians between the ages of 60 and 65. I understand that this bill will provide pensions to about 85,000 of those 770,000. That leaves 685,000 Canadians between the ages of 60 and 65 who will not qualify under this bill. That includes many single persons, be they spinsters, widows, bachelors, widowers or persons who are divorced, and there is no doubt in the world that many of those single persons, particularly single women, are in greater need than many of those who happen to have spouses. For the government at this time to say no to all of those others is, I think, most unfair.
I do not intend to spend any time on the points raised by my friends to my right about the provisions for spouses' pensions in the case of common law relationships. I am not shocked by this. This kind of provision is in a number of pieces of our legislation. But I do think it is a bit hard to take when a single woman between 60 and 65 cannot have a pension, whereas some other woman who is living common law can have the pension.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish the government would make up its mind what it wants to encourage in terms of marital relations. It goes both ways. Let us take the case where both man and wife are over 65: each of them would get more if they separated, because the total under OAS and GIS for a couple is less than twice that for a single person. So in that area the government is encouraging married couples over 65 to break up so that they get a little more. On the other hand, they are saying to single persons between 60 and 65, "If you want a pension, shack up with somebody over 65 who has a pension".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: Is it worth it? I don't think it would be worth it.


Walter David Baker: Such things from you, Stanley, on a Friday! You will have to move from our street.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The sense of shock being displayed around here is somewhat synthetic. My point is that this is an example of the unfairness of this piece of legislation. I urge very strongly that the government consider more seriously the position of those who are single, whether they be spinsters, widows, bachelors, widowers or divorced persons, and that they should

be covered by this legislation. Again I say that in so far as it goes, it is good. For the first time we will be paying pensions under the Old Age Security Act to some persons who are below 65 years of age.
I have been here long enough and I have seen enough progress in old age security legislation to know that it is only a matter of time until 60 will be the pensionable age under both old age security legislation and the Canada Pension Plan. But why do we have to wait for it so long? Why do we have to make so many speeches? Why do we have to have so many elections to get progress in a direction that is clearly one we all want to take? So in the name of the 685,000 Canadians between the ages of 60 and 65 who will not be covered by this bill, I plead that when we get into committee the minister will give serious consideration to improving the bill to cover them all.
I also welcome the references made this morning by my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West, to the further departure from universality that is involved in this bill. It is not the first departure, as I thought he was suggesting this morning, because the guaranteed income supplement is already a case of non-universality. In this bill we are moving, as I say, into the 60 to 65 area but we are applying, again, a means test-the government calls it an income test-which will mean that many of these people will not get the pension. Indeed, this is going to come as a shock to many couples. The minister can say it is the same income test that applies to two persons both of whom are over 65, but in my view he is wrong there as well. I listened with great interest to the minister's efforts this morning to tell us how great is the history of the Liberal Party in terms of pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have lived through most of that history. In fact, my colleagues and I have had a good deal to do with prompting or provoking Liberal governments to move in the direction of better pensions. I notice that the ministers moved rather quickly over the point at which the government, having finally accepted universality, when back to so-called selectivity.
That is another thing that I do not like about this bill; it is that it provides a further move away from the principle of universality. So I call, again, for pensions for all persons who are 60 years of age and not yet 65 who are out of the labour market. I believe in universality; therefore I do not like means tests or income tests, but I understand them. They have been applied to persons over 65. They are applied to persons under the War Veterans Allowance Act. They have been applied under other legislation in the past and they are part of our social fabric.
I understand work tests as well. We had one for a number of years under the Canada Pension Plan and I would be happy to have one that would apply between 60 and 65. But this marriage test is something new in social legislation. One receives the pension not because of age or need but because it can be shown that one is married to someone who is of pensionable age. It is a departure which I think is a mistake.
June 6, 1975

I know that many people in this House, including many Progressive Conservatives, have called for pensions for spouses for a long time. I think that we have been asking for the right thing in our insistence that it should be a pension based on age, and that in the case of those who are 60 but not yet 65 the only test should be whether they are in the labour market.
While I am on my feet, there are two or three other things I should like to call for with regard to pensions; then I would like to comment on some of the things in the bill other than its main provision for spouses' pensions. On a Friday morning two or three weeks ago I tried to present a motion under Standing Order 43. Oddly enough, it did not receive the necessary unanimous consent. However, I came right out and proposed that it was time to raise the basic old age security pension to $300 a month. I make this plea again this afternoon. Some may think it is a bit high, but I can remember when I was told I was asking too much when I asked for $30 per month.


James McPhail Gillies: That was in 1935.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I suggest that with inflation running as it is, with the principle of universality being still much better than the principle of selectivity, and with all the other increases this House has passed for those on high salaries, this is what we ought to be going for, a pension of $300 per month across the board. Let it take the place of the guaranteed income supplement, and let us achieve some of that equality the Minister of National Health and Welfare talks about in his speeches before various service clubs and some of that equality he talked about in this House when he was presenting Bill C-16.


Walter David Baker: Some of those $1,900 speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend is referring to the cost of having some of those speeches written. They would be worth that cost if they were implemented into legislation.


James McPhail Gillies: Little chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says, "Little chance." I sat in the back row some 30 years ago and called for the pension to be raised to $30 per month, for the means test to be removed and for a lower age, and there were Conservatives sitting behind the curtains saying, "Stanley, you have a good idea but it will never come about." Well, it has come about.


An hon. Member:: Who made it happen?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend would like to know who made it happen. He knows the answer. The answer is that our prodding and our provoking caused the Liberals to do it.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: It must have been you, Stanley, because there is nobody behind you today. Don't be so modest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) is saying some-
Old Age Security Act
thing very nice; but these things came about with the backing of my colleagues, my party and the people across the country who believe in this sort of thing.


An hon. Member:: Where are your colleagues?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is something else which is not in this bill and which ought to be there. I refer to the escalation formula. The minister hardly ever makes a speech in which he does not boast of the fact that old age security pensions and guaranteed income supplement payments are escalated according to the rise in the cost of living, and that they are now escalated quarterly instead of annually. As I have pointed out times without number, that is an escalation which is always several months behind, so that pensioners never receive the increase when they need it to meet the current increase in the cost of living. In this age of computers and that sort of thing, it would not be impossible to provide escalation on a current basis and I feel very strongly that that should be done.
Something else which is long overdue in the Old Age Security Act has to do with the position of people who come to this country, and Canadians who leave this country and go elsewhere. We have a rather strange rule about old age security. One either receives all of it or none of it. If one is here at age 55 and stays until age 65, one receives all of it; but one might live here from birth until age 55 or 56, go somewhere else and not receive the pension at all. There are problems with regard to people who move from one country to another. It is time there was some kind of formula which would involve reciprocity between this country and others so that wherever people move or live they will receive the best possible pension.
I am not asking for the rules to be changed so that individuals can receive two full pensions from two separate countries. That happens now in some cases. But as opposed to those who manage to obtain full old age security in Canada and full social security in the United States, there are others who get lost between two stools and do not receive either. I mention this because, as the minister knows, I asked him one day in the standing committee whether he would put his high-powered research people to work on this question, and he was happy to tell me that he had already done so and there was some hope that something in this line might be done in this session. He told us the last time this matter came up in committee that it would not be in Bill C-62. I regret that, but I push for proper provisions so that people do not lose their pensions entirely because they came here too late, or do not lose their Canadian pensions because for family, health or other reasons they go somewhere else to live.
I am proud of what we have done with old age security. We have made tremendous improvements. We have taken care of many of these details, but that is no reason for us to stop when, as we move along, we still further improvements we could make.
Mr. Speaker, I said that in addition to the things I wanted to call for today I would like to comment briefly on some of the other things this bill does I welcome the

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act
provision in the bill which will allow absence from Canada to be counted as presence here in the case of persons serving in the armed forces, or doing certain other things abroad, when it comes to making up for time they lost in trying to qualify for old age security. This is a matter which has been debated in the House several times, and a private member's resolution by one of the Progressive Conservatives on this matter was passed. It probably does not cover a great many people, but it is an unfairness which is being corrected by this bill and I am glad that is being done.
I am interested in the provision which will make it possible for provincial pension supplements to be included in the federal old age security cheque. In these days, when banks are increasing their charges and charging people every time they write a cheque, make a deposit or walk in or out of the bank, I think it is a good ideal to reduce the number of cheques old age pensioners have to handle, so long as there is no reduction in the total amount. I believe this is an appropriate change. I assume it is up to the provinces whether they include in their agreement with the federal government some arrangement under which the name of the province appears on the cheque as well. I can hardly imagine any province letting Ottawa write the cheque and claim it is a federal cheque without the name of the province appearing there with it. I think this is a commendable move.
It also sets out in this bill that the minister will have the authority to cancel uncollectable debts in those cases where hardship would ensue and where the mistake that was made, whether by the pensioner or the department, was clearly unintentional.
Then I come to what might seem just a clean-up matter in this bill, but it is one thing that I welcome as warmly as I can. It will make no monetary difference at the moment, but in principle it is terribly important. I refer to the fact that the old age security fund is being wiped out and any reference to any special tax, whether direct or by transfer from the Department of National Revenue to the old age security fund, is being done away with. The minister explained in his press release and again this morning that this change is being made because it has become mathematically or administratively impossible to keep up with the changes. In my view, it is more than that.
When we first considered the Old Age Security Act-a committee recommended it in 1950, the bill was brought in in 1951 and it became law on January 1, 1952-when we first brought it in, it was such a far reaching proposal, to pay pensions to everyone aged 70 and over, as was the case then, that in order to sell the idea we had to put on this special tax, and establish a special fund. We had a 2-2-2 tax in those days for the special fund and after a time this tax went up a bit.
What did it mean, Mr. Speaker? If the fund was short, the minister of finance, by law, had to lend money to it so that pensioners could be paid. If the fund was in surplus, we tried to argue that some of the surplus should be used for an increase in pensions but we were told it could not be done and we had to follow the act. It really had no meaning. Those taxes were a regressive form of taxation

which meant that the wealthy person paid the same amount as the person who did not earn very much.
We have done away with that and are finalizing it in this bill. We now say that old age pensions are paid in their entirety out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund; in other words, the total cost of old age pensions is coming out of the fund which gets its resources on the basis of ability to pay. This means that those with greater incomes pay more toward old age security than those with little or no income. Although this may seem like a technical or administrative change, it is an important one.
The other day I was reading a book on the history of pensions. I noticed that the author referred to this regressive type of taxation and expressed the hope that some day it would be done away with. It has been done away with in this bill. We are establishing the fact that old age pensions are a matter of right because people who reach pensionable age are part of our society and have played their part in building up the economy. No special tax is necessary, therefore, or no special fund is necessary to operate the whole proposition.
I point out also-and I want to come back and say something about both of these changes-that this bill abolishes the Old Age Assistance Act. It has been dead for a number of years, anyway. This act was introduced in 1951 to provide for pensions between ages 65 and 70 on a means test basis, paid partly by Ottawa and partly by the provinces. That has been replaced by old age security being paid at age 65, so there is no point in keeping that statute on the books any longer.
I hope you will pardon me for going back to what some of us have said in the past, Mr. Speaker, but in 1950 and 1951 we wanted the pension to be paid at age 65 on a universal basis, and we wanted it paid out of consolidated revenue and not on the basis of a special tax. We wanted it to be paid as a matter of right. It has taken us a long time to get that principle through but we are getting there by this bill. I think there is a moral to that. If one can be here for a few years and see that some of the things one has stood and fought for, because they are right, have been accepted, then one can hope that the same thing will happen again.
Just as we wrote our old age security fund into the act to sell the idea of getting it started, I hope that today, when we are putting in pensions at 60 on a limited basis only for spouses, it is just the beginning too. I hope it will not be very long until some of us can stand in this House and say we have won that point as well-that we have pensions across the board at age 60 for all those who are out of the labour market.
I welcome this opportunity to give my support to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I do so without question. I shall be voting for it and in committee I shall be supporting it. I hope we can get it through soon so that the 80,000-odd people who would benefit by it in October will have no doubt about it. However, I hope it has been evident that my greater concern at this time is to point out the things that are yet to be done.
We have come a long way since I stood in my place in the back row and pleaded for the pension to go up to $30 a month and for the means test to be removed. Today we are
June 6, 1975

paying $125 or so across the board to everyone aged 65 or over, we are paying over $200 a month to those individuals who get the full supplement, and we are paying over $400 a month to a couple, both of whom are on the supplement. In some of the provinces the pensions are even higher, but with inflation running as it is and with it being established that our people have not only the right to keep up with the cost of living but to share in the standard of living, and with the increased productivity of our country, I contend the time has come for us to talk in terms of pensions across the board of $300 a month.
To get back to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I also contend that the time has come to pay pensions, not just to spouses between ages 60 and 65 but to all people between ages 60 and 65 provided they meet just one test-that they are out of the labour market. That would cover all the people this bill covers, but it would also cover the spinsters, widows, bachelors and widowers, those who never married or are no longer married. I contend that the complaints that these people will be making in the months and years ahead-I hope it is only months, and not years-will be more than justified.
The hon. member of Hamilton West and one of my friends further down the aisle dealt with this matter in a question the other day and raised one point which I think really brings this bill to the test. Take the case of a woman aged 62 who is married to a man aged 65 or over. They have no income, so they qualify for the double pension. Next year he dies, when she is 63. What happens to the woman then? Is the Government of Canada going to be so inhuman as to take away the pension she was getting?


Walter David Baker: Under this bill it would.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend is correct; under this bill the government will have to take it away. I suppose it will say it will have to take it away because if it did not, one widow would be getting it while thousands of other widows would not. I submit that test by itself shows that the thinking about this bill has not been adequate and that we need to make real improvements when we get it into committee.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome any bill that moves in the right direction, and this one does. I also welcome the opportunity to argue for further improvements in our old age pension legislation so that we may soon reach the day when our senior citizens have the rights and security to which they are entitled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I want to take part in this debate on Bill C-62, a bill we had been awaiting impatiently because we had noted that the government-the Liberal party rather-had promised as early as during the last election campaign of 1974 that this legislation would be passed as soon as the Liberal party would be reelected. Well, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will be implemented only a year and a half after the Liberal party's reelection. So, the
Old Age Security Act
minister should not be surprised if during its consideration either in committee or on second reading amendments are introduced to implement that election promise made by the Liberal party in 1974.
There is another point that was just raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), namely the case of those people who would momentarily be covered by this bill, that is spouses between the ages of 60 and 65. In the event the older spouse should die-a question raised by my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) a few days ago-the younger spouse would automatically be disentitled to his or her pension. That is another subject on which we are considering moving an amendment to improve this bill.
Generally speaking, the principle of the bill is quite acceptable, and I am one of the first to welcome it since as early as 1966 I was I think the first member in the history of Canadian parliamentarism to place a motion on the order paper of this House asking precisely that the spouse receive the pension, no matter what the age.
In every ensuing session I tabled the same motion since I was not entitled to introduce a bill to that effect and I had the opportunity a few times to debate that motion during private members' hour. On every occasion, as strange as it seems, government members always opposed such a move saying that it was nonsense, that it was going to be extremely expensive, that the people of Canada could not afford such a luxury. And still, on the last occasion, March 24, 1975, there was a perceptible change in attitude since at that time the government had already made public its intention of implementing this bill.
Now that this bill is being introduced, Liberal members and the government all agree. And that measure no longer is nonsense, on the contrary it makes sense. Just have a look at the memo or release which was handed to us on June 3, which says that, for instance, this new bill might benefit from 65,000 to 90,000 spouses. You will admit it makes quite a difference whether it is 65,000 or 90,000 spouses. Apparently, the department officials were unable to come up with a more precise figure. And yet, when costs are mentioned, they are said to amount to $100 million. Therefore, whether the number of spouses who will qualify is 65,000 or 90,000, the overall cost will be $100 million.
So I do not quite understand the figures of the minister's officials which leave such a wide gap between the estimate of the number of spouses who might qualify under the new act and the estimate of the costs. I think this calls for some explanation.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party has long called for improvements to the Old Age Security Act. In his statement this morning, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) said that when only one of the spouses is in receipt of the Old Age Security Pension, they have financial problems, and his attention was drawn many times to that.
And indeed we drew his attention to that problem many times. On December 3, 1974,1 once again raised that matter in this House on the occasion of a debate on the business of supply, and I proposed:
That this House regrets that the government neglected to make all those who reached the age of 60, as well as their spouses although such

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act
spouses may not have reached pensionable age, eligible for the Old Age Pension.
Once again, the motion was negatived, and even a representative of the Liberal party, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, said:
Mr. Speaker, today I speak on behalf of the government against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) who has advocated that the old age security pension be given to any person who has reached the age of 60, as well as to the spouse even if the spouse has not reached pensionable age.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is it not a bit strange that hardly a few months ago they would have nothing to do with it, and today they are accepting that proposal. Of course we are extremely pleased that they do. But as I mentioned earlier, even if we have reasons to be satisfied with the principle of that bill, there nevertheless remains some obscure points which will have to be made clearer. The Social Credit Party has long claimed that the Old Age Pension should be granted anyone over 60. When I say anyone, I have reasons to say, as Social Credit and other hon. members in fact did, that the inquiries made with respect to applications of old people respecting their pension should be withheld. I believe that principle should apply to every field, whether social security or other fields of social welfare now available.
When the Guaranteed Income Supplement Act, added to the Old Age Security Act, was discussed in 1966, and I have here the Hansard for December 5, 1966, the then Minister of National Health and Welfare stated the following when introducing the bill, as reported on page 10711:
In some instances the pensioner may wish to revise his initial statement of income because of more detailed information obtained later. If this is done, an adjustment of the supplement will be made to take into account this change. Information supplied on income can be checked against income tax returns and third party information supplied to the Department of National Revenue on T-3, T-4, T-5 and other returns.
That, Mr. Speaker, is all the mystery behind the investigation system imposed upon older citizens applying for the guaranteed income supplement. We all know the difficulties experienced by the aged, especially during the spring when they must file the famous guaranteed income supplement application form. This was especially true last spring, with the total mess of the post office and letters accumulating at the Montreal postal centre. In my constituency, pensioners filled up to three forms that were left about on some counter. Without the competency and good will shown by the Quebec old age security office director, Mr. Turbide, a very understanding gentleman, I believe some of our older citizens would have lost their guaranteed income supplement.
I intervened each time and was so able to have the supplement reinstated at the right level, but at the cost of numerous complications and fears for those concerned, who do not know which way to turn when the time comes to have the supplement accepted.
We can also imagine the number of extra people needed to hold these investigations. If there were no means test, as we have been requesting, all that would be needed is a few people to prepare the application cards for the computer. When a pensioner died, all that would be needed is

to take the card away. But with the present system, everything has to be done anew each year, and even a number of times each year as is often the case, in order to check whether a pensioner's revenue status changed.
What is even worse, when a person applies in mid-year, a projected income statement is required. As it is rather difficult to project one's revenues, errors will happen. And the following year, when the exact details are known, errors have to be corrected. The OAS director advises the pensioner that due to his first declaration being inaccurate, an overpayment must be repaid.
To my great pleasure, the minister recognized the big difficulties that exist and will try to eliminate them in the future. I hope I did not mistakenly understand that the provision the minister dealt with will apply not only to the spouse not yet 65 years old, but to any old age security applicant.
Mr. Speaker, if we abolished the present test, we would at the same time free those who apply for the old age security from many worries and headaches.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: We would save $50 million.


Gérard Laprise: As my colleague from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) says, we could save several million dollars that could be paid to those people.
In the notes we received when the bill was introduced and which accompanied the minister's release, we find a table outlining what the pensioner's spouse would be entitled to. It is said that now, according to the provisions of the act regarding those aged 65, for each dollar, we deduct one dollar from the guaranteed income supplement. We deduct $1 for each $4 of family income, that is 25 per cent. In the case of the spouse of a pensioner aged 65, we shall deduct $3 out of every $4, which represents a 75 per cent reduction. I wonder why there is such a difference. Why should we not grant to the spouse whose age varies between 60 and 64 the same benefits and privileges we have already granted to all those who are 65 years of age and over?
Mr. Speaker, this is also a point about which we shall question the minister when the committee meets to consider this bill. I think this is a situation which is very important and which deserves being fully explored. I leave it to my hon. colleagues to look into the principle of this bill more attentively. There are a great many other issues which may be raised and which I feel the minister has not sufficiently taken in to account. However, it is a great step in the right direction to improve this social legislation.
The minister stated that he is having conversations with the provinces to find ways to help spinsters and bachelors, widows and widowers 60 to 65 years old, people who would not be covered by this legislation. Being aware of the position of a number of provinces, I am quite worried about the outcome. In my opinion, the minister should insist that this legislation universally apply to people who reach age 60, in order to prevent discrimination against those who were not legally married.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied with this bill, because it is a great improvement over the existing legislation. But because we want marked improvements to be made to this bill, we shall certainly propose
June 6, 1975

amendements likely to improve it, either at committee stage or on second reading.


Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in the discussion on this important subject. The hon. member has been talking about this subject for many more years than I care to remember, and in fact more than some of us will ever get the chance to remember.


Mr. Paproski:: Over 100 years!


Patrick Joseph Flynn: His having been able to contribute to this government for over 100 years has certainly enhanced the government's position. Perhaps it is his nurturing and feeding of information that has allowed this government to become far wiser and a far better listener.


Walter David Baker: Even if you do listen from a helicopter.


Patrick Joseph Flynn: With the big blades whirling around, it would be very comfortable. I want to direct some of my remarks to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I rather empathize with him. He touched on some points which have certainly caused a great deal of concern. It must be remembered that Bill C-62 is the result of an agreement at the federal-provincial level. Out of those meetings have come suggestions for better legislation, certainly for the aged.
The hon. member for Hamilton West said that most of the Conservatives were not here because they were attending caucus. I thought perhaps they were down in Halifax in caucus choosing a leader, and choosing one as capable as the man from Hamilton West could mean an addition to the strength of the party and a great contribution to this country.
The particular point the hon. member for Hamilton West brought out was the fact that this bill does suggest we are only paying attention to the spouses and, of necessity, unmarried spouses. But I do not think that is particularly true. I think we should not fall into that danger. We should remember compassion and the compassion this government has shown all along for those who are in need.
I think the Old Age Security Act, with this income test and allowance, is a guaranteed minimum for the level of income that we want to reach particularly in this group. I might remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that if these two people had nothing at all they would start out with $408, and that is considerable, considering that they now have nothing. I think that in this group, and in the group he particularly alluded to, the danger arises in the area of the spinster, the widower, the bachelor, the single person, the lonely person, the person who has nobody to lean on, no crutch, no assistance at all at this age level. The latter, particularly, might become a victim of early retirement, and I think we have to be very careful of the early retirement situation to which this could lead.
Early retirement has a ring to it for hard-working Canadians during moments of heavy job pressure, and it
Old Age Security Act
may sound like the promised land. But the visions of pleasant leisure have proven mirages to many people who have had to face the many problems that retirement brings.
One crucial factor which must be taken into account in deciding the lower age of eligibility for government pensions under Old Age Security or the Canada Pension Plan is the effect this may have on the mandatory retirement age in the general work force. Certainly the last lowering of the age from 70 to 65 drastically reduced labour force participation by people over 65 by one third.
When such earlier retirement is voluntary this is one matter, although as will be seen not all who voluntarily retire wish to remain in retirement, especially after a year or two. But when retirement is involuntary, when it becomes automatic at a certain age regardless of a worker's wishes to stay on, then the question becomes more complex. Is it desirable to move toward a lower eligibility age, which may drastically affect the normal retirement age throughout the economy, before the desire for and the capacity to live with early retirement are determined for the working population aged from 55 to 65?
I am reminded that this may come quickly. Today my secretary turned 50 and pretty soon she will be up to that 55 to 60 bracket, and while not being able to wish her a happy birthday from this seat we wish her well and know she will eventually, as the mother of eight, go into retirement, and to a good one. Happily she will know the government is looking after her retirement, and that people like her will be looked after the same way.
It is not inconceivable that employers could use the availability of government pensions to get rid of older workers they feel are redundant or less than fully productive; they could ensure that these people could qualify for the government pension by the simple expedient of removing them from the labour force or by firing them. Yet these men and women may have no wish to leave work at all. Many people do wish to continue working until they are 65, as can be seen in many instances. For example, despite the excellent pension plan available to qualified federal government employees who retire before the age of 65, only about 15 per cent of those eligible exercise their option to do so.
Aside from the effects of early retirement on the workers themselves, there is also the general economic impact to consider. Even if almost all retirements are voluntary, what would happen if due to the impact of lowering the old age security and the Canada Pension Plan eligibility age, a large number of highly skilled and highly productive workers decided to leave their jobs? We must not underestimate our older workers. Less and less work is manual where the premium is on youth and on strength. Speaking of youth, I know of somebody else who is going into retirement tomorrow. When the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemount (Mr. Lachance) goes up to the altar and takes unto himself a bride. I think he is to be congratulated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Joseph Flynn: More and more, long years of experience and technical training pay extra dividends which cannot easily be replaced. How much poorer the world would be if
6532

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act
people like George Bernard Shaw, Albert Einstein or Albert Schweitzer, to say nothing of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, were to have ceased their labours at 60. I do not think he has ceased. I don't know when he is ever going to cease. I think he's going to go on forever.


An hon. Member:: Just like Moses.


Patrick Joseph Flynn: That's right. I think he could be wound up by the hon. member for Edmonton who could keep him going just by pushing. He is like Moses, he keeps going and adds to our legislation.


An hon. Member:: Where was he when the lights went out?


Patrick Joseph Flynn: It cannot be determined by any reliable method that younger workers are more productive than older ones even in highly technological enterprises. Mr. Speaker, I think the biggest and most important thing to keep in mind is this Bill C-62 and many of the bills like it in the old age category.
We must be careful and think of the people who are, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, the spinsters, the widows, the widowers, the bachelors, those who are apparently unloved or untouched by the government. We are compassionate, and in the ruling as made by this bill to change the provision for spouses we show compassion in a big way. I hope the government goes on with its leadership for a long time and allows people to live a decent, honourable, and capable life within this community.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It is a pleasure to speak on this bill today, Mr. Speaker, and to do so with the understanding that the bill will receive fairly speedy second reading.
I listened to the remarks of the speakers who preceded me with interest. I must pay tribute to the honourable and venerable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his unremitting efforts on behalf of the pensioners of Canada. I have yet to hear a bill introduced into this House which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has spoken to without getting on to pensions ' sooner or later. It is a remarkable feat of parliamentary magic. No matter what the subject is, the hon. member can introduce the topic of pensions and speak of the plight of pensioners. To my unending surprise and pleasure he was able to speak on pensions during the debate on national defence.


An hon. Member:: When you have been here 80 years you will be able to do the same thing.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It is a remarkable attribute and I intend it as a compliment to him. I assure him, coming from the retirement centre of Canada as I do, that he is held in high regard among the pensioners of Canada as well as by myself. This does not prevent me from pointing out that the hon. member, in his remarks this afternoon, seemed to me to be a little unfair when he likened the position of the Conservative Party to the position of the Liberal Party.

We in the Conservative Party consider this a bit of an insult.
I bear in mind that there was a minority government situation in 1972. Having fought in that campaign, I heard a great deal about the position of the NDP on old age pensions. They campaigned on a basic pension of $150. This substantial raise would, they insisted, be one of the first terms for their support of the Liberal Party in a minority goverment position, yet they caved in far too easily when there was a relatively miserly raise of $12, bringing the pension up to $100.
I remember sitting in the House the night when the budget came in. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had been insisting on the $150 figure; I thought it would be about $130; and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) announced $100. I turned to my seatmate and said, "That's the end of this parliament; the NDP would never support such a miserly raise". But they swallowed their protestations and principles and voted with the Liberal Party on that occasion. I am only saying this because of what the hon. member said about the Liberals and the Conservatives.
I should like to take a look for a little while at the bill which is before us. I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is noted for having speechwriters, but I think he should let his speechwriters write the bills, and have the people who write the bills write his speeches, or at least try to do something different so that the two can agree.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A $300 speech of a $600 speech?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I thought that today's was a $700 or $800 speech. I thought it was one of the better ones his writers had provided him with, and I hope I do not create sfny dissension among his speechwriters if I suggest that he should go up to $700 or $800 for that one. This bill appears to me to be partly written by speechwriters. As for the other part, it looks as if he has given a different page to each section of his department and said, "Write the page and pay no attention to what the other pages say; we will put it together and throw it in front of parliament".
This bill is one of the most confusing and contradictory pieces of paper ever put in front of us, and perhaps I can point to some of the contradictions.
The definition of a spouse is the first thing that creates concern and puzzlement. The first page clearly defines the meaning of "spouse". It says:
"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;
That sounds quite simple, except for the fact that one of the minister's speechwriters put out a news release the same day saying that persons applying for the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance for the first time will be required to submit a certificate of marriage. There is no way on earth that you can have both of those things, and I say that a bill of parliament should take precedence over the minister's press release. So when we come to consider the meaning of "spouse" we will take it
June 6, 1975

that it means what the bill says it means, not what his hired speechwriters and pressmen say.
Page three of the bill talks of separation. This is part of my general complaint about the bill-it is such a mean bill. It is a mean, small-minded bill that goes out of its way to see where it can cut people out. Under the side-note "Eligible spouse of pensioner" the bill provides:
For the purposes of this Part, a spouse of a pensioner is an eligible spouse if the spouse
(a) is not separated from the pensioner;
What makes the minister think that a person will not need an allowance if they are separated from their partner? It is obvious that they will need money more than if they were both living together. Perhaps the minister is trying to keep families together and is saying they will suffer a financial loss if they separate. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was on the right wicket when he said that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Yet here is the minister insisting that in order to retain their allowance they must continue to live together even if there are several reasons why they should not.
Clause 5 has an explanatory note, and there we find a definition that is different from the definition of "spouse". This note reads:
The purpose of this amendment is to provide after September 1975 for the payment of spouse's allowances to persons 60 to 64 inclusive who are married to and living with pensioners.
The phrase used there is "married to", yet according to the definition of "spouse" they do not have to be married. In fact it is clearly spelt out how they are to be treated if they are not married.
On page four of the bill there is a residence requirement. While I am pleased about some of the things said about residence requirements in the speech of the minister, quite a bit of this is due to the prodding and the unbelievable success of the Conservative member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) in getting a resolution through this House providing that service in the armed forces of Canada overseas would be counted as residence in Canada. The bill provides that a person is eligible if he-
-has resided in Canada after attaining eighteen years of age and prior to the day on which the application is approved for an aggregate period of at least forty years.
In other words, a person who is 18 has to reside in Canada another 40 years, which takes him to the age of 58, allowing him only two years out of Canada. That is very little time, and I suggest many of us spend two years out of Canada on holidays during a lifetime.
The minister listed several exempted categories this morning, including servicemen and people in government service. But there was one category he missed, and I hope it is an omission that can be corrected in committee. I refer to students. Students often spend two years outside Canada. If they are 18 and they go to a post-graduate school in the United States or elswhere for three years, when they reach 60 they will discover they do not qualify because they will not have an aggregate period in Canada of 40 years. I think the minister should exempt students along with the others he mentioned.
Old Age Security Act
The bill also provides that there must be a joint application for a spouse's allowance. It is not every couple that will sign a joint application, and I fail to see why there must be a joint application. The assumption is that the couple are getting along well together and are not on opposite sides of the house refraining from co-habitation. It seems to me that this is an invitation to a pensioner to withhold the allowance from his spouse if he feels mean enough.
There is a provision on page 5 that hits widows above all others. I refer to the cessation of allowance provision. This applies to those who cease to be a spouse or an eligible spouse. Most speakers today have mentioned the case of the woman of 62 who has a husband who is 66, each of whom draws half of the pension. Then the husband dies, and suddenly all of the pension ceases and the widow is left destitute. This seems to me to be about as mean as you can get with government money, particularly when spent the way this government spends it.
Then on page six of the bill provision is made for a means test. Speaking for myself, I am one of those who have never believed that a means test is necessary. It is a disincentive to people to prepare for their old age. It is a disincentive to save. It is also a disincentive for those who are in a pension plan. I suggest it only exaggerates the current problem.
If a couple are in middle age, 45 and 40, and they look forward to the day when they will be 65 and 60, at the present time they will get $400 a month, or a little more, if they arrive at those ages penniless, having made no preparation for their retirement. If these people have prepared for their old age they will receive from the government $100 a month, or one-quarter of the money they would otherwise receive. They will be making a sacrifice if they prepare for old age to the extent of taking out a private pension plan, or buying into a deferred payment plan or a registered retirement saving's plan, or if they should belong to a union. They can look at the pension and say that the first $300 will be funny money and will not be of any use to them. They can say that if they did not have it they would receive it from the government.
The worker can say that the first $300 of a pension plan is not worth anything to him and that the plan should start above that point so that it would be a good pension. I think we will end up with more people taking the view that it would be stupid to arrive at retirement age with any income, because otherwise they would receive $400 a month. I think this is bad for the country especially at a time when it is hoped that we can buy back our own industry from a foreign country.
There is one final point I should like to make concerning the cancellation of the Old Age Assistance Act which is being repealed by this legislation. This concerns me. I am not a lawyer, but I notice that in the original Old Age Assistance Act it states that payments to a province pursuant to this section-referring to Section 3-shall be made only in respect of a recipient who fulfils certain conditions.
Section 3(2) (c) of the Old Age Assistance Act refers to an unmarried person whose income, inclusive of assist-
29561 - 69)4

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act
ance, is not more than $1,260 a year. If the Old Age Assistance Act is cancelled it seems to me this would mean we would be taking away the rights with regard to unmarried persons. Since this bill does not refer to unmarried persons it would seem that some people will lose out.
Section 7 of the Old Age Assistance Act states that in every agreement the province shall, subject to section 3, specify the minimum age of a recipient and any other conditions of eligibility set forth in the provincial law. I should like to give credit to the government of the province of British Columbia for its thinking in this regard. It has specified the minimum age of a recipient at below age 65. It would seem to me that by cancelling the Old Age Assistance Act we may be cancelling the provision which enables the provinces to pay pensions to people under age 65 and have the federal government share in this.
I hope that this matter will be discussed in the committee so that I may be reassured no harm will be done by the cancellation of the Old Age Assistance Act. I am more reassured when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tells me that it will not hurt anyone than I am by the press releases of the federal government at this time.
I shall not take any more of the time of the House because I realize other members wish to speak. I, like others who have spoken, will support this bill because it covers 80,000 people in need. I think the faults in the bill are obvious to all members. A re-writing of the bill would seem to be necessary. We will support the bill at this stage in the hope that it will come back from the committee in an improved state.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate. I share the sentiments expressed by my colleagues on this side of the House, with which I know the minister agrees, that this matter should proceed today to the appropriate standing committee so that it might be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
I listened with great interest, if I may say so, to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Quite frankly I felt a little badly that he, particularly in the context of this type of legislation, should have been pilloried for being the only member of his party present in the House. I thought that was most unfair, particularly by reason of the fact that most of the members who were doing the pilloring know that he is better than any five of them put together when it comes to the matter of pensions and in terms of his contribution to this House. This does not take away in any way from those who chose to castigate him and his party because he was the only person here; it is merely putting them in their proper place and order in the scheme of things.
I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a reputation in Canada for being one of the advocates of justice for senior citizens and for the disadvantaged. I think it is a reputation many members in this House would like to have at the end of their parliamentary career. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a recipient of old age security he is one of the more youthful members of this House, and is perhaps only half way through his parliamentary career.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am just getting started.


Walter David Baker: I am glad the hon. member said that because I wish to read a poem which I think might be of interest this afternoon, and which may apply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at some time, but certainly not today.
A man isn't old when his hair turns grey;
Nor yet is he old when his teeth decay;
But he's heading fast for his last long sleep.
When his mind makes appointments that his body can't keep.
I do not know in what category of that poem the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might fall, but he is a man who has brought great distinction to this House. I believe he has fought the case as hard as anyone in this country for senior citizens and pensioners of all kinds. I am glad he has had the advantage of reading the literature produced by the Progressive Conservative party during the last election, because there was in that literature a commitment to something that goes far beyond this particular legislation. I am glad he has said he supports advances in pension legislation.
I am sure we all agree that parliaments must deal with the pieces of legislation they have before them. This is an inadequate piece of legislation for many Canadians. It discriminates, as many members have said, against the large group of Canadians who perhaps finds themselves, in terms of their ability to make a place for themselves in the work force, in a worse position than others. However, that is the extent of the government's commitment with regard to old age security at this time. I do not know how else to measure the commitment of a government than by looking at the legislation that is bfought before us. If this is the extent, and I think it is at this time, of the government's commitment, then I think it is inadequate.
Although we intend to support the legislation on the same basis as does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is, on the basis that it is a small step forward, we cannot support it without bringing forth questions-it would be dishonest for us to merely say, yes, we support the bill-in terms of that group of people in Canada whom the bill does not affect, such as single women, widows, widowers, bachelors and divorced persons. I know there are federal-provincial problems. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said that applying the provisions of this legislation to the above mentioned group of people is a long way away, if it is to come at all.
The liberal government has the habit of trotting out some things on a four year basis in terms of advance notice. I do not know why they do that, and the beauty of this Friday afternoon does not allow me to be cynical, but the fact of the matter is that this legislation is only worthy of support to the extent that it goes. It should not be built into something that it is not, and I hope that if necessity speeded us into an election perhaps we could find ourselves dealing with those categories of people who have been left out from this legislation.
The other matter dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in terms of the literature to which
June 6, 1975

he referred for our edification, and I am glad he did, was that the Liberal party's commitment on July 8, 1974, only dealt with married people. That is quite so, it did. What concerns me about this legislation is not so much the relationships that it envisages-and I am sure the committee will unscramble anything that has to be unscrambled-as the fact that it is given predominance in the legislation ahead of a group of people who, in terms of our economic life today, need some protection within the context of this bill, however limited it may be. I am referring to married couples who depend upon this type of payment for their existence.
If a priority is established, then it should be in favour of married couples because it was in that sense that the piece of literature with which we dealt at some length was phrased. Married couples should receive first priority within the context of this legislation, and they should not be sacrificed for others who might be qualified on a different basis.
Now I want to deal with one matter which, I am happy to say, is dealt with in the bill. It has to do with financial errors. I have written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on many occasions regarding problems of overpayment of pensions. I must say to the minister that he has always been very prompt in dealing with the correspondence I have sent to him, and I am sure that is generally the way he has dealt with correspondence from all members of parliament. Perhaps some of his colleagues in cabinet could emulate this. There is an immediate acknowledgement from the minister of letters sent to him, and there is always a follow up. I do not want that practice to change because I mention this today, but he is the one minister for whom it is not necessary to mark one's files to remind the minister to answer. I do not want his head to blow up so much that he will have difficulty getting into the lobby, but that is a statement of fact.
The unfortunate thing about this particular error which this bill is meant to catch, that is, financial error and the necessity of paying back, is that the necessity in law is there. There is absolutely nothing the minister can do in terms of his discretion to assist old age pensioners who find themselves in that position. His answer has always had to be that he is sorry, it was an error, and he apologizes. He can make all the excuses and protestations he wants, but whatever is the computer they use that made the mistake, older people do not necessarily take advantage of that kind of error, and there is nothing the minister can do about it. I have had this experience many times, and I understand that that is the reason for this provision in the bill.
I think it is a very important clause because it allows, in case of senior citizens, that special group of people who in terms of opportunities for advancement might be called disadvantaged, for an exercise of discretion such as other ministers, notably the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), have exercised with respect to ministerial permits in proper cases, and there is a question as to how it operates. I am not suggesting that the minister should be forgiven for errors which cause inconvenience, but I am suggesting that this is a very good provision for which the minister should be commended.
Old Age Security Act
Our party's policy with regard to senior citizens is much more far reaching than is the government's, and it has been for some period of time. It is an expression of our concern for a group of Canadians who fall within a special category, not only because of the difficulties which they experience in the work force and in remaining in the work force in a society which puts increasing emphasis on youth, but because most senior citizens have made a significant contribution to the well-being of the community. They have laid the foundation upon which we advance. For that reason alone I think they are entitled to our consideration.
It is also important that we look at the needs and requirements of senior citizens from another point of view, the need which they have in their particular circumstances to care for themselves in terms of housing, food, and health services, all of which are very important components of the cost price index in this country. It is a fact which I do not think anyone will dispute, that senior citizens spend a larger proportion of their income on these necessities than do other citizens, and it is important therefore that we never lose sight of the necessity for constantly updating and reviewing the amounts of money we are prepared to pay as citizens in a progressive society toward their well-being.
It is important also that we take a look at the cost price index to see whether it is the proper index upon which to gauge their needs and requirements. Some people have spoken of an old persons' index or the index of the disadvantaged, in search of phrases that would be weighted in favour of senior citizens who might find themselves in need, because it is a fact that senior citizens have different needs and expenses than does the average Canadian family of four and, as a result, new measurements must be devised to meet these unique needs.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the other day called for a basic old age pension of $300, and he referred to it again today. I really do not know whether or not the country can afford that, but I believe that whether the figure is $300 or any other figure, a country with our riches in terms of our resources, our gross national product and the opportunities which we are able to give to our young people, and to other people who do not have the disadvantages of senior citizens, should not lose sight of what is in the spirit of the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I believe that senior citizens have to be treated as a special case. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made a life's work of treating senior citizens' pensions, superannuations and other pensions as special cases. I do not really believe we have tapped the possibilities with respect to aid, not only in terms of monthly cheques, but aid in terms of the provision of adequate housing, in terms of provision of adequate services for those who, perhaps through age, cannot get around as well as they might. There was an instance of this in Ottawa-Carleton not too long ago. I think these have to be considered in a special category.
When I think of the amounts of money the government has been prepared to spend in certain areas and when I

Old Age Security Act
think of the fact that since 1961 the total cost of operating the Privy Council office and the office of the Prime Minister has increased by 1,148 per cent for a total increase of $5,901,000, then I think the government must give more than lip service to the contention that it is its duty to protect the disavantaged in terms of present benefits.
When I hear that the government is prepared to spend $821 million on professional consultant services-that is over and above the very capable public service of this country-and those services have increased 509.1 per cent since 1961-when I hear of that kind of extravangance I am not one of those who believe that we are incapable of providing for our senior citizens a continually increasing adequate income. If we are not prepared to take the steps which are necessary to fight inflation, or in the alternative if we cannot, which seems to be the argument of the government, then the government must recognize its duty to protect these people.
When the present benefits are related to skyrocketing inflation in terms of necessities of life and how those necessities relate to senior citizens as a particular group, I think those figures themselves speak for the necessity, not just for this legislation, but for ending the discrimination which is apparent in the absence of those provisions for other single people-the single woman, the widow, the widower, the bachelor, or the divorced person.
This discrimination cries out for action, and it is in that sense that I think this legislation is inadequate. Let us make no mistake about it. Let us not beat our chests with pride over this legislation. Let us not have the minister put his elbow out of joint from patting himself on the back over this piece of legislation, because in terms of the problem we have really not yet begun, and I do not want to gainsay in any way the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been in the forefront of this fight. If the government has copied what he has proposed, then as a plagiarist I think it has done a reasonable job. I do want to gainsay that, but I am satisfied that all of the good will toward senior citizens does not rest in the bosom of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. There are many of us on all sides of the House who feel very strongly about this subject. Many of us today feel just a little twinge of guilt when we compare the magnitude of the problem with the relative poverty of the answer in terms of this legislation.
I understand that another hon. member wishes to speak, and I will relinquish the floor. Others have said that we in this party intend to support this legislation. We wish to see it go through today, but I will end by saying that in this particular area our work in this House has really only just begun.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to take part in this debate, which in my view must rather be a consensus, because there can be nothing but agreement on the objective. This bill is an invitation to make a concrete step to improve the situation of older citizens. It involves a positive gesture, keeping in mind

that there is no perfect solution. What is involved here is the meeting of real and effective needs, through a fair transfer.
We, on the government side, recognize and emphasize that this bill aims at a more adequate treatment, although not perfect. Mr. Speaker, we are much the more pleased that this concern, on the government's part, was one of the objectives set during the last election. We are happy that it can be achieved.
We share real concern on this matter. This is not only an abstract concern, but a deliberate attempt to achieve positive results. We wish to repeat that we are just as much pleased as opposition members with this concensus, if not on the wording or means, at least as a cooperative effort at achieving the aim within the overhall economic situation. In so doing we show consideration for our elders and their vital needs, not being content with what has been done but attempting to do more if a majority so decides.
This is no election time politicking, this is recognizing our obligation to give our older citizens a practical answer to their effective problems.
As a politician concerned with the welfare of all my constituents, I have had an interest in the aged since I headed a home for elder citizens. I also animated Golden Age Clubs. I recognize that elder citizens have special needs, and I cannot accept that they should not have their share. I am inclined to support the minister without reservation on this legislation, no doubt because it incorporates in law the principle of a pension for every person. This in my view is correcting a discrepancy concerning couples in need. In addition to support for the bill, I extend my appreciation to the minister and the government because I regard this as an invitation to make further steps, keeping in sight at all times a constant priority which we should try never to forget.
We must also consider the ability to pay, in other words to redistribute while taking into account the fact that this fight is not and will never be over and that we must have the courage and the ability to fight it when the time comes.
In answer to my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), I would say that I consider that government members are and have always been in favour of such a measure. However, we have had tp wait for the right moment to give priority to this concern, and that is a matter of choice and timing. However, we must be sufficiently realistic and honest to understand this and to act accordingly, and also to speak and to listen accordingly. To say this is to be realistic and to take into account the social and economic reality. This is also a challenge to our senior citizens, not to fight and to protest noisily, since there are always too many who do so, but to continue to tell us about their needs in a way that I wish to be energetic and effective, but without losing their serenity and sense of measure.
I would like to speak on behalf of our senior citizens living in sparsely populated areas, which are often forgotten in the total context of our economic reality. Indeed, legislation is too often based on a universal concept, but in the case of Bill C-62, real and special needs are considered, and we may start to hope that our needs will be taken into account.
June 6, 1975

Finally, Bill C-62 provides some authority for the minister. This gives me an opportunity as a new member of Parliament to invite the House to go further and have more confidence in the government. In my opinion, this would add to our seriousness and our effectiveness. I am astounded that some of us act as defenders of our institutions, of the authority of these institutions, and respect nothing when speaking. I am also surprised that the legislation must be such that the statesmen, the representatives of the people, have to sacrifice all their authority in favour of overly powerful public servants. Afterwards, this situation is deplored. We must wonder about this and confirm the credibility of statesmen, their ability to administer and take into account the real needs and the talents of the established authority, as well as their authority and ability to make decisions, and finally, we must confirm the initiative of able individuals, which is too often destroyed by bureaucracy.
And here, I wish to call on all members of the House to regain the required effectiveness of our problem-solving capacity. The question that I ask myself is this: Can we serve Canadians, are we representatives? If so, whom do we represent? Is it possible to represent them? Our people have needs and, because of Bill C-62,1 have the impression not only of being aware of the needs of a certain number of voters, but of giving them a completely practical answer. And I know that members on this side of the House share this feeling and wish to proceed by stages while taking into account the whole political, economic and social reality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Is the hon. minister rising on a point of order?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the various parties in the House. I should like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in particular for his kindness in agreeing to give up some of his time this afternoon so that we can conclude this debate today. If there is unanimous agreement among the parties I would certainly appreciate it if we could conclude debate today. Once more I should like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no doubt about our position. If it is necessary, we concur in that. I should like to know if it is agreed-and I address this question to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) through you, Mr. Speaker- that we should also proceed with that other piece of legislation, the Petroleum Administration Act, which is to come from the Senate. Is that part of the understanding?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has already been made clear that I am prepared to surrender the time that was to have been spent on my private member's bill, C-249, for the purpose of finishing Bill C-62.
With respect to the other question, the answer is a conditional kind of yes. I have sent a message to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and provided he gets here while the Senate amend-
Old Age Security Act
ments to Bill C-32 are under discussion, that will be satisfactory. It is not far from his office and I expect him momentarily. At any rate I am prepared to give whatever part of the private members' hour is necessary for either or both of these pieces of legislation to be passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the suggestion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, it is the second time such a situation occurs in the House on a Friday afternoon. In other circumstances, your humble servant was the one who agreed to yield his time on private members' business to allow the passing of important legislation.
I therefore congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having enabled the hon. member for Bellechasse to express a few ideas in the course of the consideration of that important bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are very kind.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you very much. I gave the minister my word I would be brief, however, I want to discuss seriously the principle of the bill which I consider as very important. In fact we know some aspects of the bill are excellent while others are not so good.
To follow on the remarks of the previous speaker, I would say, about the officials who draft bills, that they are extraordinarily talented. They manage to put in bills some very good provisions and slip among them not so good ones. So we find ourselves in a difficult situation. If we want to discard the not so good we must discard the good ones. If we accept the good ones we must take the others.
It is for that reason that I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to kindly agree to bring in amendments when this bill is considered in committee, particularly with respect to the term "spouse". What does that mean? I quote from the definition of 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-
-publicly, how many times, that we do not know-
-represented themselves as man and wife;
Mr. Speaker, I find it quite extraordinary that a serious legislation should sanction for all practical purposes the community life of a man and a woman and should determine that they become spouses without being married. I find that terrible. I think it is a very serious hitch when one considers what the family and family rights must be. I think it is a very bad example to give young people. We meet young people, I have lots of them, and I know what they talk about. When you listen to them, when you talk with them, when you touch on the question of family life, marriage, they are somewhat reluctant, and for all sorts of reasons. Yet, when they look at what we do, you cannot blame them because we are adults, responsible people, and

June 6, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
we are now by every kind of legislation, and this bill is one of them-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) rising on a point of order?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I regret to interrupt the hon. member's excellent speech but wish to announce, that there have been discussions about the disposition of two items, Bill C-62, which we are now debating on second reading, and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-32. I understand that there will be little debate, if any, on the motion to concur. I wonder if the hon. member would agree to postponing the rest of his speech until after we dispose of concurrence in the amendments to Bill C-32. I should explain to my hon. friend that some members of the party opposite want to be present when that item is disposed of, and they must leave soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The President of the Privy Council seeks agreement to postpone debate on Bill C-62 and to proceed with concurrence to amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-32. Does the House agree to this?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their courtesy in dealing with this matter. The House is considering concurrence in a number of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-32, and I am pleased to speak to that motion.
Nine amendments were made in the other place to the bill as passed by this House. Of these, seven were proposed by the government in committee and, of these seven, six were purely technical in nature, directed to the correction of inconsistencies between the English text of the bill and the French text. Since both texts are authoritative it is of course imperative that any discrepancies be removed.
The remaining government amendment, which introduced a new clause 95(2), was intended to remove a possible administrative difficulty. The substance of Part III of the bill depends on the prescription of prices by the governor in council pursuant to either clause 51(1) or

clause 52(1). Clause 51, as hon. members will recall, deals with the situation in which there has been agreement between a producer province and the minister, pursuant to which the governor in council may by regulation prescribe certain prices.
Clause 52(1), on the other hand, deals with the situation in which no such agreement has been entered into, or such an agreement has for one reason or another, as set out in section 52(1), become ineffective. In such circumstances the governor in council may unilaterally prescribe prices. Again, as hon. members will recall, an amendment was made to section 52 when the bill was before the House, as a result of which there will be an opportunity for debate in this House if the section is proclaimed.
Dependent on these two subclauses is a series of clauses, 53 to 65 inclusive, which are administrative in nature. The effect of the new clause 95(2) is to ensure that the administrative clauses do not come into effect immediately the bill becomes law, thus preceding the substantive implementation of clause 51(1) or clause 52(1). The wording of the new clause 95(2) states in effect that until the governor in council acquires power in section 51(1) or 52(1) to prescribe prices, sections 53 to 65 do not come into force.
Just prior to consideration of this bill in committee of the other place, one of the major natural gas companies, TransCanada Pipe Lines, made representations to the effect that they foresaw some difficulties with respect to clauses 53 and 64. These were reviewed in committee, referred for discussion between officials of the company and officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and re-submitted to committee after a text had been agreed and had received the drafting approval of the Department of Justice. The amendment to clause 53 relieves the natural gas companies of a possible conflict between certain commercial obligations on the one hand and compliance with the bill on the other hand.
Clauses 53(1) (a) and 53(1) (b) as the bill was passed by this House prohibited the movement and acquisition of gas from within a producer province for consumption outside that province unless the price paid for the gas is approved by the National Energy Board. There was no corresponding prohibition on the other side of the transaction, namely, the sale. The company therefore saw a risk that it might be contractually bound to buy gas at a price not approved by the board and yet be legally prohibited by the bill from moving it out of the province. The gist of their proposal, therefore, was that there be a prohibition on the sale of gas, except at a price approved by the National Energy Board. This would remove the possible conflict between their obligations under contract and under the bill. In this context I should perhaps remind hon. members that Part III deals only with gas in interprovincial and international trade and not transactions wholly within the province of production.
The amendment proposed by TransCanada Pipe Lines to clause 64 was to remove what it perceived as an uncertainty as to the determination of "cost of service" or "purchasers' cost" pursuant to clauses 64(1) or 64(2) respectively. The amendment provides that in determining cost of service for the purposes of clauses 64(1) or purchasers' cost for clause 64(2), the board will apply the same principles
June 6, 1975

as it would use under Part IV of the National Energy Board Act. The effect of this is to ensure that gas pipeline companies do not find themselves operating under rules which might be mutually inconsistent. All of the amendments were discussed in committee of the other place, and evidence was given, in answer to questioning, by officers of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and by senior officials of TransCanada Pipe Lines.
The amendments to which I have just referred in some detail are, it is self-evident, highly technical in nature but, as I have said, they have been closely examined by technical experts before being submitted formally to the committee of the other place. With this explanation, I hope that the House will give its concurrence to the amendments to the bill which were made in the other place.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken on the motion for concurrence for giving us all the information available to him. We concur in the amendments because they are, as he said, mostly technical.
I take this opportunity to say that we still think, and our agreement to concur in the amendments does not alter our position, that there are many better ways of resolving the difficulties of pricing in this country than those set out in this piece of legislation which may involve us in conflict of principle and constitutional difficulties. We, in my party, think that this matter could have been handled much more effectively if it had been done differently. We make no apology for the time and the energy that have been put into trying to improve the legislation. We are only sorry it could not have been improved more.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the House very long. I just want to add to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). I strongly agree with his views that we were acting most responsibly. Any extended time we took to analyse this bill was because of its possible repercussions.
It strikes me as passing strange and, indeed, a bit of an irony that after being accused by members opposite on a number of occasions, and having their minions placed in the press accusing the opposition of being irresponsible in delaying the passage of legislation through the House, the Petroleum Administration Act is proof positive that an overhaul of the rules is needed.
As a result of these nine amendments to the bill we may be open to the charge of irresponsibility, not irresponsibility for excessively close examination of the bill but for not examining it further. This demonstrates that far from taking too long to examine this bill at second reading in committee stage, we should have taken a longer time. We should have demanded of the minister that he assure us of the legality of each clause. I think it is a bit of an irony.
If there is sloppiness and tardiness, and if legislation that passes through this House is imperfect, I hope that those who are so quick to blame the opposition for everything that is wrong in the country might re-examine the procedures used by the government.
Oil and Petroleum


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party concur in the amendments which have been proposed by the other place.


James McPhail Gillies: Even Stanley?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These are mainly technical amendments which clear up a number of anomalies. They will help to improve the legislation.
I cannot agree with those who think there could have been some other way to deal with the problem which confronted the country. The New Democratic Party has taken the position from the beginning that unless some agreement could be reached with reference to pricing of oil and gas, the federal government must have the authority to safeguard the interests of the country and to do some economic planning with regard to the price of the very important energy resources dealt with in this legislation. That is not to say we are fully in accord with the treatment of the producing provinces.
We have been most critical, and continue to be critical of the fact that after the producing provinces had agreed to take lower prices, they were confronted with provisions in the budgets of May 6 and November 18 of last year which took away from the provinces some of the benefits they were to receive for agreeing to accept a lower price for their products. I think that has created a good deal of bad feeling.
I agree with the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) that the opposition parties were justified in taking adequate time to examine this legislation. While we in this party supported this legislation, we have not supported the way in which the government has treated the producing provinces. However, that is not covered by this bill. It does not come under the purview of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). It is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the government.
When I consider, for example, that provinces agreed to put extra revenue into a fund for the exploration of oil and gas on the understanding that this would not be taken into consideration when determining the amount they would receive from the tax-sharing program, and then found to their consternation that one third of the revenue was going to be taken into consideration when determining the payments under the tax-sharing program, I think that was a betrayal of a commitment. The provinces found to their consternation, and the oil and gas industry found to their dismay that the moneys paid to a provincial government by way of royalties were not to be allowed as deductible when paying their income tax. This has taken away much of the quid pro quo which the provinces thought they were getting when they agreed to a domestic price which was considerably lower than the international price.
There is not much value in going over this again. However, I think it is worthwhile for the government to remember that this legislation, which gives it very considerable power, ought to be used with discretion, keeping in mind that the provinces have co-operated, and co-operated very well. I hope when the government is preparing its budget for June 23, it will keep that in mind, and try to

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act
show the same consideration and extend the same good will to the provinces which the provinces have extended to it.
I am very glad to see this legislation now in its final stages. I hope that as a result we will be able to deal more adequately with the problems of oil and gas as they affect the people of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde 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, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, every day in the House should be a Friday. A lot of work would be done in much less time, and that would be very nice.
As I was saying quite seriously a while ago, young people look at what we do, observe us, remember what we say and act accordingly. One only has to listen to their arguments here and there after meeting or any occasion to be convinced that they have ideas fully in line with the legislation passed in the House of Commons or provincial legislatures about family privileges and rights. It is for that reason that they often say it is much more advantageous for them to live together without being married. It is not to the advantage of a society to have laws that promote such situations. I think that if we are not careful, if we do not take care right now to try and improve our way of thinking, our way of legislating, very difficult situations will result in our society because the family is the basis of society. The family is the measure of society.
If we want to have a sound society, a united society, a strong society, we must absolutely preserve those small societies-families

in strong and united circumstances. Why not, if we recognize as a spouse someone who lives with another person, even if the law says that it will be recognized after three years. God knows that in our society there will be hundreds of cases like that and it will be difficult to find ways of meeting the requirements of the act. I think this will again be an underjob and we will create situations as we find in social welfare.
I think all hon. members agree to remember that in certain cases some people reasoned this way: I am unemployed, my wife works, but the income is not adequate to meet the needs of the whole family. I am willing to work, but I can't find a job. I am 55, 60 or 58 years old. So they are told: "Go to the welfare office. There is a law specifi-

cally designed for you". But they answer: "Well, I saw the welfare people, but they said: We cannot help you, your wife is on the work force. We cannot help you unless you live away from home. Go and live elsewhere and we shall help you". I would hate to see such situations officially recognized under a federal legislation.
I think we should consider very closely the clause of the bill dealing with the spouse and try to improve it, so that it will give greater recognition to family rights and promote stronger family ties. If the pension and supplement are granted to people who live together without being married, why should it not be granted also to widows and widowers who have not remarried, or to bachelors who are not married either; they are entitled to live elsewhere, so why should they not qualify for it too?
So I think we should very seriously consider that whole matter so as to avoid possibly unfortunate arguments during Golden Age Club meetings. Imagine a Golden Age Club meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. There will be people 75, 80, 60 years old, some of them married and others single, widowers and spinsters, bachelors, all kinds of people. Among them are those who live together, and who will benefit from a federal legislation, and others who will be denied that benefit and are also there to socialize, as members of the club. In what spirit do you think they will discuss our statutes?
Secondly, I think if we took it for granted that we should legislate and amend Bill C-62 to allow anyone over 60 to benefit from that legislation, we would be taking a step towards national unity, because those funds, those revenues would all stem from the same source and would be intended for people aged 60 or over. Then, we might understand better what it is to live in a federal state, why we have a parliament, why we have population-oriented laws which are the same throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I would like to refer to a publication which has been distributed to us and is entitled: Le soutien et le supplement du revenu dated February 1975. It is a federal-provincial review of a working paper we already know about. In that booklet, on page 16, there is a table which I found very interesting. I would like to end my remarks by mentioning that, in that table, the costs of the programs for senior citizens: old age security pension, guaranteed income supplement and superannuation, amounted to $3,680,000,000 for the year 1974-75.
Secondly, for people aged less than 60, in all groups, there were the provincial social welfare programs, the general shared costs welfare programs under the Canada Assistance Plan: $1,220 million.
Various assistance programs under the Canada Assistance Plan, category c): $760 million; federal family allowances: $1,780 million; Quebec family allowances: $95 million; workmen's compensation:	$400 million;
unemployment insurance-we should say "work insurance", it would sound more modern: $2,250 million; disability allowances, dependant pensions under the Canada Assistance Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan: $300 million, which makes a total of $6,805 million. Then we have to add the other related programs: training allowances,
June 6, 1975

related programs: $240 million; veterans pensions and allowances: $470 million; student loans: $110 million; public housing: the amount is not mentioned; assistance to natives: $80 million, which makes a grand total of $11,395 million for all these programs which are scattered and administered at various levels of government, federal, provincial or municipal.
At the bottom, a note is added to show these are approximate figures, and that other programs may have been omitted from the table.
So, if it is desired to consider very seriously, in terms of figures, the possibility for Canada to introduce the groups of persons that are not included in the bill but that have needs, one could determine quite clearly that it might cost approximately $2 billion. This would bring the cost of these programs to $13,395 million.
But as the minister suggested this afternoon, a deduction should be made from that total of all amounts paid in social welfare and cost sharing programs. This would of course reduce the overall amounts.
Second, consideration should be given to the fact that OAS and welfare payments to various categories of people in Canadian society automatically come back to the Treasury as sales tax and also as income tax, on family allowances for instance. So, everything should be considered in that light, in order not to scare Canadians with astronomical figures and then saying this has no sense.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) told us quite seriously this afternoon that over a number of years old age pensions doubled. That may be so. But other things have doubled in the meantime. So finally, there is no gain there.
In 1974, the gross national product in Canada, in inflationary figures, is $140 billion, which, according to Statistics Canada, is equivalent to $79 billion in 1961 dollars. On the other hand, in another table, it is said that the Canadian dollar has lost some of its value. According to the table I have here, the 1974 dollar is worth 60 cents, or 60 per cent of its 1961 value. These are all figures on which we must rely to establish the potential of Canada to help people in need.
There is another possibility; we do not have to invent it. The thousands of young people that we have had educated, for whom we have paid a lot of money, have not become an asset because they are unemployed. We should make some effort to try to allow these young people to enter the labour market, to increase the gross national product, instead of having it reduced as will be the case in 1975. If we do not bother about those young people who have diplomas and try to get them interested, to make them work, to create products to meet the needs of Canadian society, others will do so in our place, and we shall witness other investigations like the one that was held under Mr. Justice Cliche in the area of crime. We should also look into other areas where we shy away from investigating because these areas are headed by big shots. We are not afraid to upset the small fry, but we are more careful when it comes to upsetting the big shots.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is a good idea to try immediately to ensure income security for the people that I have mentioned, to allow the young people to enter
Old Age Security Act
the labour market and contribute to the enrichment and development of our country. In this way, we shall not have to worry about paying higher pensions, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said this afternoon. He talked about $300. I remember that at one time, when we, of the Social Credit Party, were talking about $100, we were told that we were cranks, that it was utopian, that it made no sense. This afternoon, the minister told us that we have reached $208, and that it is beginning to make sense. But it would also make sense at a higher level, where more persons will benefit from it, provided everything is done to improve and develop our economy, to increase our production, so that our standard of living might also rise. This will enable our youth to stop being professional loafers and become workers, to be an asset to the country, and our senior citizens will be able to enjoy life with a well deserved income security.
The minister said to us that within the near future, he will submit other legislation on behalf of the category of people I have just mentioned. I very seriously invite the minister to make an effort with a view to accelerating the submission of such a bill, because it is an urgent matter. And he may rest assured that in the same way as he received the support of all members this afternoon, he will also receive their support and cooperation to apply a guaranteed income insurance program that will enable Canadians to live in decent conditions and make the greatest possible use of this country which is ours and which we want to preserve for the present and future generations with laws that will always be based, as I said initially, on the Canadian family. Let us try to work together to reinforce the bounds as much as possible, to respect the rights of the Canadian family, to give this taste of living together, to be really close together at the end of the day, to talk during the evening about national issues, events of the day, but with people who breathe the same air, who eat at the same table, and not, as is the case at this moment, when our children are deserting the home to go and eat here and there, because we have not created a good family climate.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the state has a very large responsibility. As for us, members of parliament, we have to choose the right words when we pass any bill and, in this case, I suggest it would be advisable to review very seriously the section defining the "spouse" and to whom the pension should be paid.
So I hope that during consideration in committee we will study the matter more thoroughly and that the minister is willing to accept our bona fide suggestions so that we will soon pass the bill which will be enforced. The sooner, the better.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. Before recognizing the minister, I remind the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate on this stage of the bill. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank most sincerely all members of this House whose co-operation throughout this day has made it possible to examine in a serious, yet expeditious way a bill which a great many Canadians must have felt was long in coming.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has gracefully surrendered the hour to which he was entitled under our regulations, both now and at the time reserved for the consideration of private bills. I wish to thank also the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for his remarks and the interest he shows in this whole question. As he indicated, this is another step in our way to treat and deal with our senior citizens. Surely the government would like to go still further and more quickly, and if its possibilities were similar to those of the opposition party, and particularly to those of the opposition parties which do not have any chance of ever forming the government in the near future, it would probably make similar propositions. However, as a government, we must consider the available resources in the country at any given moment. The record of the Liberal party, as I said at the outset of this debate, and the record of this government shows the concern, the importance we have attached to the aged in our overall social policy.
I recall that only two years ago, I think, the total amount earmarked for old age security reached slightly over $2 billion. Now, for the current financial year, the amount which will be set aside for this purpose will total $4 billion, which would mean that we will have practically doubled the old age security benefits in the very short time of barely two or three years.
The bill before us has a limited objective. That objective was stated very specifically when the right hon. Prime Minister announced the bill during the last electoral campaign. We committed ourselves to helping those couples who must live on one pension only, that is, that of the spouse who is retired. That is a real problem and many representations were made to the government in this regard at various times. We are not attempting to extend universal pension from the age of 60, or to lower the pensionable age. Instead, we are trying to solve a specific problem a real problem, that of the couple who must live on a single pension. That is the problem this bill is attempting to solve.
The other much broader matter which several hon. members brought up, and which concerns the status of single people and widows, is more closely related to the guaranteed income in Canada.

Indeed, it is not only a question of old age pension; it is a question of what kind of support is going to be provided the people of this country in need, whatever their age and condition.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) asked this morning what were the priorities of the government. It is too bad he has not read the working document that the government published over two years ago. Those priorities are spelled out in black and white. To make it
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]
even easier for members opposite, the priorities and the propositions of the government are spelled out in dark ink in the text. It should be easy to read. Those propositions are spelled out quite clearly.
Our priorities are spelled out in terms of establishing a guaranteed income program to provide an income support program for those who are unable to work or who are unable to find work, and to provide an income supplementation program for the working poor. These are the priorities. We have been working on these for two years with the provinces, and have started implementing a good part of these programs, especially with regard to income support by increasing old age security and improving the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan, by indexing benefits, and tripling family allowances. We have taken those steps.
Not only have we been holding discussions with the provinces over a period of two or three years but we have brought in reforms and have made progress in respect of social security.
Certainly there are improvements which could be made, but I might say to those who have asked today that we just lower the age to 60 tomorrow that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) filed an answer to a question in this House a few weeks ago in which he showed how much this would cost. It would cost about $3 billion, merely for the level of pensions we are talking about at the present time. I am not talking about the $300 or $350 mentioned by some hon. members but rather the guaranteed program. Since a good part of this money will be distributed on a universal basis the question that arises is whether this is the real priority we should have in looking after the needs of the people of this country. My answer is no, for a very good reason. If we were to buy this argument now we would be using several hundred millions of dollars, as a matter of fact several billion dollars, to put money in the hands of people who do not necessarily need it.
When we are asked what our priorities are, I say that they are not in terms of further universal programs but rather are in terms of selective programs. This is what the guaranteed income approach is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would answer a question. While he is speaking in these terms may I ask him what is the logic by which the government decides that a woman aged 62 who is married is to be covered under the old age security program whereas another woman who is 62 and a widow or a spinster must wait for the guaranteed annual income?


Marc Lalonde: I thought I had answered the hon. member's question earlier. The logic of it simply is that when you have a couple one member of which is forced to retire at age 65 it would be unfair to limit the benefits to one person.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the one person living alone on nothing?
June 6, 1975


Marc Lalonde: I accept that this is a problem which arises, but not only for people age 60 or 65. The same problem arises in respect of people age 55, 45, the handicapped, and those out of work. It arises in respect of single people, bachelors, and widows of whatever age if they cannot find employment.
The approach of the government is to establish a guaranteed income program which would take care of all these cases whatever the age, the condition, or whether those involved are married or single. As I have mentioned, we have taken an interim step to take care of an obvious unfairness and deficiency in our old age security system. This is one step, and there are more to come. I want to advise the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, however, that these will not be universal programs. They will be selective programs and will not be limited to persons of age 65. We want to have a social security system in this country to take care adequately of all people in need whatever their age or their condition. These are the objectives of the government.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) referred to this bill and made various comments about it. Comments were made concerning common law marriages. I must say that I take seriously some of the comments made. I would refer hon. members to the text of the bill and the definition of "spouse". They will find in effect that this provision is comparable to the provisions in other bills. I would remind hon. members that there is no intention on the part of the government or of parliament to pass a moral judgment about this or that particular situation in life.
I would remind hon. members that common law marriages have been accepted for quite a period in Canada both at the provincial and federal levels in respect of rights. This also applies to social security rights. So, we must look at this question in a rather less partisan and phony way than the way in which it has been argued here today. I am sure we will have an opportunity to discuss this matter further before the committee.
To return to the question raised by the hon. member for Victoria, may I say I can understand his argument but I cannot understand his conclusion when he referred to this bill as a mean bill. I think that is the expression he used. Well, this may be a mean bill, but it is a mean bill which is providing about $100 million in benefits to our senior citizens. If this is a mean bill, I would say that the opposition party when it was in office for six years did not introduce one single bill in the field of old age security that involved such an amount. I say that in the six years in which the Tories were in office the additions in respect of old age security did not come out to the total amount covered in benefits under this so-called small or mean bill.


Walter David Baker: But it was worth more at that time.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: What about inflation? I referred to this as a mean bill for the same reason the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) objected to it. It is mean because it does not cover widows and spinsters.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered the hon. member's argument. I have explained the rationale of
Old Age Security Act
this bill. I do not want to go into the details at this particular stage. The bill will be considered in committee.
I will conclude by thanking once more all hon. members who have participated in this debate today for their contributions. I think many points have been made on this subject with some vigour, but this is what we can expect in the House of Commons. If there were no vigour here, I do not know where else we could find it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. This week, I asked a very serious question to the parliamentary secretary. I will repeat it to the minister because Mr. Speaker had invited me to do so at this time.
There are some clarifications I would like to have. Suppose a spouse of 62 who benefits from the legislation because his or her spouse is 65 years old or more. Suppose the elder dies; what happens to the survivor, who is younger and is not yet 65 years old?


Marc Lalonde: I thought I answered this question this morning again, when I made my opening speech in the debate on second reading. I indicated then that the object of the bill being to cover only the couple forced to live on the pension of one person only, as the case you mentioned, if the widow or the widower does not qualify directly, it is obvious that the payment of the special allowance stops and, if the person is in dire circumstances, he or she comes under public welfare, to which the federal government contributes on a 50 per cent basis with the provinces.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the minister a question. What the last hon. member to speak raised is very interesting and it is a matter that has concerned me. Has the minister any figure he might be able to give us as to what it might cost the government to remedy what I think is a defect, the matter which has just been raised? I think it is a defect in practical terms. The legal argument that the minister has given I can understand, but in real, practical terms it could be a great difficulty for a family caught in that situation as described by the hon. member, when they are caught in the reversion as the result of the death of one spouse. Does the minister know what it would cost?


Marc Lalonde: I am in no position to give an answer at this time. Any answer would have to be very rough estimate. I can try to make a rough guess, and I will provide that information to the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: 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 Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank those who have waited to discuss my bill, Bill C-249,

June 6, 1975
Old Age Security Act but perhaps we can do that some other day. May we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!	The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is that agreed?	At 4.55 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME VI